
It’s been a while since my last post. I try to post things that are both interesting and law-related. They don’t come around too often. Here’s something to hold you over.

It’s been a while since my last post. I try to post things that are both interesting and law-related. They don’t come around too often. Here’s something to hold you over.
This may be old news.

While you’re out not wrestling bears, please do not steal alligators.
La. R.S. 14:67.13. Theft of an alligator
A. Theft of an alligator is the misappropriation or taking of an alligator, an alligator’s skin, or a part of an alligator, whether dead or alive, belonging to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations. An intent to deprive the other permanently of the alligator, the alligator’s skin, or a part of an alligator is essential.
B.(1) Whoever commits the crime of theft of an alligator when the misappropration or taking amounts to a value of five hundred dollars or more shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years, or may be fined not more than three thousand dollars, or both.
(2) When the misappropriation or taking amounts to a value of three hundred dollars or more, but less than a value of five hundred dollars, the offender shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years or may be fined not more than two thousand dollars, or both.
(3) When the misappropriation or taking amounts to less than a value of three hundred dollars, the offender shall be imprisoned for not more than six months or may be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or both. If the offender in such cases has been convicted of theft of an alligator two or more times previously, upon any subsequent conviction he shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years or may be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or both.
Sorry about the crocodile pic on this alligator post.
From Jones Day:
The EFTA requires ATM operators to provide notice of any fees charged to consumers. An ATM operator that imposes a fee on the consumer must, at the time the service is provided, tell the consumer that a fee is imposed and the amount of the fee. 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(3)(A). EFTA also requires ATM operators to provide the fee notice on both the machine and the ATM screen. 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(3)(B). The requirements for the content of the notice differ for the two locations. The “on the machine” notice must “be posted in a prominent and conspicuous location on or at the automated teller machine…” and must state that a fee is charged for use of the ATM. 15 U.S.C. § 1693(3)(B)(i). The “on the screen” notice must notify the consumer that a fee is imposed and state the amount of the fee. 15 U.S.C. § 1693(3)(B)(ii). In addition, the “on the screen” notice must be given after the transaction is initiated but “before the consumer is irrevocably committed to completing the transaction….” Id.
Read more: Read more: http://www.jonesday.com/pubs/pubs_detail.aspx?pubID=S6518#_ftnref1

Louisiana Revised Statute Title 14 Section 102.10 states that:
A. Any person who intentionally commits any of the following shall be guilty of bear wrestling:
(1) Promotes, engages in, or is employed by anyone who conducts a bear wrestling match.
(2) Receives money for the admission of another person to a place kept for bear wrestling matches.
(3) Sells, purchases, possesses, or trains a bear for a bear wrestling match.
B. For the purposes of this Section, a “bear wrestling match” means a match or contest between one or more persons and a bear for the purpose of fighting or engaging in a physical altercation.
C. Whoever commits the crime of bear wrestling shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.*
Bottom line: it’s not worth it.
*This is not a joke. See http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78237.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits businesses from faxing “unsolicited advertisements.” The recipient of a junk fax has a right of action against the sender to: (1) enjoin future violations; and (2) recover actual monetary damages or $500. The TCPA further provides that if a court finds that a defendant wilfully or intentionally violated the TCPA, the recipient may recover treble damages.
The TCPA defines the term “unsolicited advertisement” as any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission.
Read more: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/unwantedfaxes.html
If you don’t change the default password on your voice mailbox, you, or your company, could be in for a big – and expensive – surprise. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has become aware of a form of fraud that allows hackers to use a consumer’s or business’s voice mail system and the default password to accept collect calls without the knowledge or permission of the consumer.
Read more: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voicemailfraud.html