We offer Legal Aid Rates in all major cities such as London, Liverpool, Bath, Leicester, Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Bradford, Hull, Taunton, Newbury, Swansea, Reading, Huddersfield… and throughout the UK.

To guarantee a qualified and experienced interpreter for prison visits and client appointments contact us today. We can also provide you with a professional translator to accurately translation your legal statements, documents and court statements.

So contact us today on 01635 292 784 or email legal@prestigenetwork.com

The never-ending cycle of Upper Deck v Upper Deck continues!

On January 17, Nico Blauw joined the Upper Deck v. Upper Deck suit, namely to try to keep himself out of it. Mr. Blauw, the head of Upper Deck International (UDI), the company that first sued Upper Deck California. Blauw was personally countersued in that same suit by Upper Deck California’s business partner, Upper Deck Nevada (yes, this is still confusing even after four articles).

Mr. Blauw basically argues that because he lives in the Netherlands, works in the Netherlands, and because UDI is in the Netherlands (and the purchase agreement through which he bought UDI says that any lawsuit about the purchase of UDI should be brought in the Netherlands), that having him and a suit in California makes no sense.

Legal translation: Mr. Blauw has nothing to do with California, and UD Nevada’s counterclaims only have to do with the Netherlands. Because of this, the claims against Mr. Blauw (and UDI ) will likely be removed from the California action.

OK, now that we have the legalese and legal analysis out of the way, let’s get to the good stuff: the name-calling.

And Mr. Blauw’s attorneys comply.

UD Nevada is trying to keep Mr. Blauw in the lawsuit because of Mr. Blauw’s trips to California. Mr. Blauw argues this is an unfair argument because these trips were made at the request of UD California and Mr. McWilliam:

In fact, the FACC alleges that those trips were not made of Mr. Blauw’s own choosing but were allegedly thrust upon him because Mr. McWilliam, who was supposed to be running things, had allowed himself to fall into serious troubles with his drug addiction.  FACC 53 (“Mr. McWilliams did not have the capacity to manage requested Mr. Blauw [do so] in Carlsbad, California.”), 55, 65 (“Mr. Blauw was fully aware of Mr. McWilliam’s impaired state; in fact, it was the very reason why Mr. Blauw was even present in the United States at the time.  During this time, Mr. Blauw was again in California managing UDC and UDI remotely because Mr. McWilliam’s health issues prohibited him from running the businesses himself.”). It would be unpalatable indeed to say that Mr. Blauw had made his “home” in California for general jurisdiction purposes simply by making emergency trips to California at Mr. McWilliam’s urging.” (emphasis added).

Mr. Blauw also argues that “If there was any purposeful injection by Mr. Blauw into California, it was very limited and necessitated by Mr. McWilliam’s drug abuse, which forced Mr. Blauw to come to California to deal with Mr. McWilliam’s problems.”

Legal translation: Well, besides repeatedly calling Mr. McWilliam a drug addict, Mr. Blauw’s trips to California shouldn’t count against him because they were in response to UD California and Mr. McWilliam’s request. It would be unfair to now hold those trips against him.

UD Nevada’s defamation claim also gets trashed as “incoherent” (to be fair, the defamation claim does not identify the defamatory statements, so it is difficult to assess whether the defamatory claim is valid or not), and it is pointed out that although “McWilliam was somehow incapacitated when he entered into that agreement,” it should be noted that he “apparently just realized that now, a year later….”

Everything else in Mr. Blauw’s motion is overly technical and legal–and because of that boring. So, we won’t cover it here beyond saying Mr. Blauw’s motion will likely succeed. Should the litigation move to the Netherlands, he’ll likely win another lawsuit.

And really, given the Jerry Springer experience the rest of the lawsuit has been, simply calling someone a “drug addict” may seem tame. But fret not. UDI and Mr. Blauw’s attorneys also filed a motion to strike the defamation claim with better name-calling.

You can tell it’s going to be good when it starts off by pointing out, “This suit is a personal vendetta by McWilliam to attempt to slap Mr. Blauw for statements he allegedly made while CEO of UDI.”

Vendetta!

I love this motion because, while it tries to kick the defamation claim out of the lawsuit, it gives us a chance to re-hash what the potential defamatory statements might be. For example, “McWilliam seeks to punish UDI and Mr. Blauw for allegedly stating that McWilliam is dishonest and/or a bad or incompetent owner or business executive.” I’ve added the emphasis.

The “allegedly” language is great (one of my favorite words) because there is no admission that Mr. Blauw actually stated that McWilliam was “dishonest.”  But if he did, the motion provides support to back up the alleged statement like, “regarding McWilliam’s honesty, he is the leader and owner of an adjudicated counterfeiter…orchestrated the Yu-Gi-Oh! counterfeiting scheme…[a]nd McWilliam even signed…a declaration…in which McWilliam admitted he lied to Mr. Blauw about UDC’s central involvement in this counterfeiting scheme.”

Legal translation: I never called him a liar, but the shoe just might fit.

I also love this motion for more personal reasons: it cites Cardboard Connection articles about Upper Deck, including one of mine.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of an article entitled Upper Deck’s Legal Battle With Konami Heats Up, by Mike Smeth, dated January 12, 2010…

…

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of an article Upper Deck International Sues Upper Deck, by Paul Lesko, dated August 11, 2011…

Legal translation: Guess someone at one of the Upper Deck companies (or their attorneys) actually reads our stuff.

Wait a second.

Does that mean I’ve somehow been brought into the Jerry Springer experience that is the Upper Deck v. Upper Deck suit? I’ve finally arrived!

Beyond the name-calling, the motion to strike will likely work. The defamation claim is too vague to determine what it’s about. Plus, it was procedurally brought too late. There are a lot of facts provided that support any “alleged” statements about “dishonesty” or an “incompetent” business owner. If, of course, such “alleged” statements were actually made.

The best news out of all of this, there’s a hearing set on February 21 on these issues. Let’s hope there’s a publicly available transcript from these hearings so we can get more name-calling!

The information provided in Paul Lesko’s “Law of Cards” column is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered in the sports industry. This information is not intended to create any legal relationship between Paul Lesko, the Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides Barnerd LLC or any attorney and the user. Neither the transmission nor receipt of these website materials will create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the readers.

The views expressed in the “Law of Cards” column are solely those of the author and are not affiliated with the Simmons Law Firm. You should not act or rely on any information in the “Law of Cards” column without seeking the advice of an attorney. The determination of whether you need legal services and your choice of a lawyer are very important matters that should not be based on websites or advertisements.

2004-05 SP Signature TONY ALLEN Auto Jersey RC # 25
$64.95

1994 UPPER DECK ELECTRIC DIAMOND #24 ALEX “AROD” RODRIGUEZ
$12.99

SHAQUILLE ONEAL RARE 92 93 UPPER DECK UD ROOKIE RC CARD #1 CX682
$14.99

2005 Reflections Duel Signature AUTO Dan Orlovsky Andrew Walters 11 70
$25.00

2006 BRANDON WILLIAMS EXQUISITE ROOKIE SIGNATURE AUTO
$49.99

2010 UPPER DECK – - SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS Team Set ** Buster Posey RC **
$34.50

10-11 UD Ultimate Rookies Jamie McBain Very Nice 2 colour Auto Patch RC SP 35
$25.00

2006 BRANDON WILLIAMS EXQUISITE ROOKIE SIGNATURE AUTO
$49.99

08-09 Upper Deck EXCLUSIVE YG xx 100 Made! Patrick DAVIS #477
$10.00

09 10 UD Young Guns John Tavares card
$50.00

NFL 2006 30 CARD SET OF ROOKIES UPPER DECK – HAWK ,BUSH, HOLMES, JONES-DREW, ETC
$17.00

08-09 Upper Deck EXCLUSIVE YG xx 100 Made! Brett SKINNER #480
$10.00

Article source: http://www.cardboardconnection.com/law-cards-calling-in-upper-deck-v-upper-deck

You are here: Home » Hobby News » Law of Cards: Endurance Wants Its Money From Upper Deck

As discussed earlier, the Upper Deck v. Endurance case ended poorly for the trading card manufacturer and is now on appeal. In the meantime, Endurance registered the almost $1.2 million dollar verdict in its favor in a New York court.

Legal translation: Endurance is taking all the steps necessary to make sure that Upper Deck pays back the $1.2 million in legal fees that the California court ruled Endurance is owed.

Between getting hit for almost $4 million last year from Aniplex and paying for its attorneys to fight a few other lawsuits (Upper Deck v. Upper Deck, Upper Deck v. Blowout, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar v. Upper Deck, etc.), it would seem Upper Deck is spending a ton money in court that could be used producing trading cards. Hopefully, that’ll end soon.

The information provided in Paul Lesko’s “Law of Cards” column is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered in the sports industry. This information is not intended to create any legal relationship between Paul Lesko, the Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides Barnerd LLC or any attorney and the user. Neither the transmission nor receipt of these website materials will create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the readers.

The views expressed in the “Law of Cards” column are solely those of the author and are not affiliated with the Simmons Law Firm. You should not act or rely on any information in the “Law of Cards” column without seeking the advice of an attorney. The determination of whether you need legal services and your choice of a lawyer are very important matters that should not be based on websites or advertisements.

2006 upper deck nelson cruz auto rookie card future stars
$19.95

2003 UPPER DECK PLAYBALL HAWAII TRADE SHOW AUTO ICHIRO
$4,000.00

Dana Tyrell Tampa Bay Lightning Upper Deck The Cup signature Rookie auto 3clr
$33.33

2003 Upper Deck Signature Patch Collection Aaron Brooks Autograph #SP-AB
$11.47

2003 Upper Deck Game Jersey Clinton Portis 24 of 26 Auto – RARE!
$49.99

TONY ESPOSITO 1999 UPPER DECK RETRO AUTO AUTOGRAPH
$32.00

DAVE ” TIGER ” WILLIAMS 2004 UPPER DECK AUTO AUTOGRAPH
$22.00

ILYA KOVALCHUK 2003 UPPER DECK UPDATE AUTO AUTOGRAPH
$27.00

Stay up to date on all the latest sports card and memorabilia news, articles, and products by subscribing to our RSS Feed below:

Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Paul Lesko  |  E-Mail | Author’s Website
Paul Lesko is the head of the Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC’s Intellectual Property Department (http://www.simmonsfirm.com). Don’t hold the fact that Paul is a lawyer against him, he’s also a rabid baseball and college basketball fan, and an avid baseball card collector. Paul can be found on Twitter @Paul_Lesko and Google+.

Article source: http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-endurance-money-upper-deck

It’s an hour-long bus ride to College of the Sequoias from Pixley — and 57-year-old Ernie Esquivel has more than enough Spanish homework to pass the time.

He’s one of 297 older adult students at COS, part of a growing group of people in their 40s, 50s and even 60s who are fitting college classes into their busy schedules. And they’re not there for fun; most are there to either train for a new job or to get a promotion in their field.

Esquivel lost his job as a cashier at a Tipton gas station last year. After working graveyard shifts behind the counter for nine years, he’s looking forward to going to college and adding to his skills.

The certificate in legal translation caught his eye.

“Everywhere I go, people want someone to interpret for them,” he said. “It seemed like a good thing to go into.”

The percentage of older adults at College of the Sequoias is small — just 2 percent — but they can be more serious than many traditional students.

“Many of them are changing careers or going into business for themselves,” said Casandra Ledesma, veterans services coordinator at College of the Sequoias. “A lot of them are taking business or agribusiness courses.”

The transition isn’t always easy. Basic information — schedules, course descriptions and registration — is now all online. Courses generally assume a basic level of technical ability. There’s also a big transition for many older students when it comes to their free time.

“My weekends have been shot,” Esquivel said.

It’s a pattern familiar to Mary Rodarte, 50, who’s just a few months shy of a business degree from Fresno Pacific University.

“You give up a lot of time with your family,” she said. “You have to be very strict about your classes and your homework.”

Rodarte never misses a class -†even if it means she’ll be getting up before dawn the next day to travel for her job.

She’s been taking a class a semester since the early 1990s, working through her associate’s and now her bachelor’s degree. She’s even given up a promotion where she works as analyst at the Workforce Investment Board so she could leave work in time to attend class.

Catering to students like Rodarte by offering evening courses, specialized professional-development certificates and online formats is netting big returns at Fresno Pacific, where 11 percent of their undergraduates and 15 percent of their graduate students are older than 46.

“We know who our target students are,” said Diana Mock, Fresno Pacific’s executive director of communications

With an unemployment rate hovering around 16 percent in Tulare County, many are returning to take computer courses, gain medical skills or earn technical certificates to boost their résumés.

Adam Peck, director of the county’s Workforce Investment Board, said the courses are popular among students who have lost jobs in construction, retail or manufacturing because of the recession.

“Going back to school was something they may have avoided until now,” he said. “But now they’re looking to gain the skills they need to be competitive.”

Article source: http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20120127/NEWS01/201270306

Portland, OR, January 26, 2012 –(PR.com)– viaLanguage, a leading provider of multilingual communications solutions for global businesses, has hired former EIA Information Systems and Compli executive, Chris Grebisz to lead a new push to create more strategic technology and services offerings, the company said.

Grebisz joins viaLanguage after an accomplished career in localization, learning and technology. He was most recently EVP of EIA Information Systems, where he was tasked with implementing agile product strategy; release 2 new products in 6 months to open new channels. He also implemented quarterly performance management system, which led to the implementation of over eight internal projects that improved both customer and employee satisfaction.

Prior to EIA, Grebisz was a retained consultant focusing on global content for Google. At Google, he was hired to design and implement a “continuous localization operations model” and to implement “community” driven translations. He led the design and implementation of technologies used internally and externally to reduce total translation turnaround time by over 100%.

At Compli Grebisz implemented agile product strategy, released a major platform redesign that enabled vertical specific user experiences. Historically the company released products every 12 months or longer, but Grebisz transformed Compli’s development process to enabling quarterly releases. Finally, he reorganized the company to address financial challenges. In 3 months the company went from monthly net loss to 15% monthly EBITDA.

Lastly, from 2002-2009, Chris was the COO of Welocalize, helping to scale the company from $5-30MM in revenue across the US, China, Japan, Germany and Ireland.

“Chris will play a key role in developing a global product and technology strategy and driving new business opportunities to take advantage of viaLanguage’s growing number of global services offering,” says Chanin Ballance, CEO of viaLanguage. “We are thrilled he is here.”

“viaLanguage has an unparalleled footprint across translation and localization services that provide a unique experience to businesses around the world,” stated Grebisz. “I’m looking forward to joining the impressive leadership already in place and to building a new presence for viaLanguage.”

Grebisz received his BA in Sociology from Linfield College. Chris serves as the Board President of the Mt. Hood Ski Education Foundation. His favorite activities are are his kids, skiing, running, fly fishing and golf.

About viaLanguage
viaLanguage provides multilingual solutions for the global needs of businesses today. viaLanguage’s solutions include Product and Digital Marketing, viaLegal™(legal translation), Global eLearning and Healthcare and Life Sciences initiatives. Through the unique combination of its Online Language System (OLS), expert linguists around the globe and technology integration capabilities, viaLanguage offers organizations comprehensive, scalable, affordable solutions for meeting today’s increasing global language needs. Since 2000, the company has earned a reputation among its clients for reliability, quality and professionalism. Clients include: Wieden Kennedy, Wunderman, Cisco, Walmart, Blue Shield California, Regence, Disney, Nike, Citibank; as well as many hospitals, school districts and state governments. Corporate Headquarters are located at 700 SW Taylor Street, Suite 310 Portland, OR 97205-3016. For more information, visit www.vialanguage.com or call us at 503-243-2007.

###

Article source: http://www.pr.com/press-release/386070

As reported last December, Upper Deck lost their court battle with Endurance over insurance payouts. The trading card company is back for Round 2 after beginning the appeal process on January 17.

To get everybody up to speed, the Upper Deck v. Endurance suit came from Konami’s accusations that Upper Deck counterfeited some of the most rare and valuable Yu-Gi-Oh! cards. Eventually, Upper Deck admitted guilt and confidentially settled the case with Konami. I don’t need to use the phrase “allegedly counterfeited” here. Take Upper Deck’s own attorney’s admission during his opening statement at the Konami trial, “I’m here defending a counterfeiter and now I have to deal with that issue.”

From an outsider’s perspective, the Konami case was sexy. I mean, five Upper Deck management personnel asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and did not answer any questions during their depositions. It was a big-dollar case, too. Upper Deck’s insurance company, Endurance, paid out $1.2 million in attorneys’ fees before it stopped paying and before Upper Deck finally threw in the towel.

After settling with Konami, Upper Deck may have felt it had extra time on its hands. The company went on to sue Endurance for the remainder of what it believed the insurance company owed (more attorneys fees, perhaps lots of late-night trips to Starbucks during trial prep, maybe some of the costs of the settlement, etc.) under the insurance policy.

In a double whammy, Upper Deck lost the Endurance case, and, in spectacular fashion, summary judgment was granted against Upper Deck.

Legal translation: The court found there were insufficient facts to allow Upper Deck to even go to trial and the judge blew the case up.

Endurance basically won because the court ruled that Upper Deck needed to disclose its counterfeiting scheme to the insurance company while it was happening.

Prior to the appeal, Upper Deck argued that Endurance did not have the right to stop paying under the policy. My favorite point in this regard had to do with Upper Deck’s application for this insurance policy. Like all insurance policies, Upper Deck needed to fill one out. Some of those questions (16, 17 and 20 in particular) asked about any ongoing litigation or issues of concern that Upper Deck was already aware of or may already be involved in.

Legal translation: These questions are like the preexisting condition questions on a life insurance policy. They help the insurance company decide if granting the policy is worth the risk.

Now, Upper Deck argued that when it filled out this application, it did not conceal the Yu-Gi-Oh! scheme from Endurance because, “it drew a line through questions Nos. 16, 17, and 20 and left them unanswered.”

Seriously. Upper Deck just skipped the questions. That doesn’t work on the SAT so why would it work here?

Because we’re up on appeal now, it obviously didn’t work for the lower court either, which held: “[C]rossing out…the questions on the application for insurance does not somehow excuse Upper Deck’s concealment of its intentional counterfeiting activities nor does it impact Upper Deck’s duty to disclose material information relevant to the assessment of risk.”

Still, this is one of the arguments that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will need to deal with on appeal.

Now, maybe I’m being too hard on Upper Deck. Law school trains you to see both sides of an issue (okay, to try and see both sides of an issue). So, here’s the other side: Endurance, why the heck didn’t you send the application back to Upper Deck and have it fill in answers 16, 17 and 20? At least tell Upper Deck, “If you don’t answer, no insurance.”

Come on Endurance, did you even read Upper Deck’s application? You just issued the policy without looking it over, didn’t you?

And it’s because of that, there is wiggle room for Upper Deck. I don’t think Upper Deck has much chance of winning with this argument, but, it still has a chance.

To be fair, Upper Deck does have other claims it’s going to raise, but those are boring, so I won’t get into them–yet.  According to the court of appeal’s schedule we’ll see Upper Deck’s arguments on April 23. I have a feeling there’ll be something more exciting, or humorous, in those filings.

But I expect Upper Deck’s filing will make a big deal about skipping questions 16, 17 and 20.

And, actually, on the SAT, you don’t lose any points for not answering a multiple choice question, but you do lose points if you guess incorrectly. Maybe that was Upper Deck’s strategy all along. Perhaps, it didn’t want to put down the wrong answers that would count against it so better to skip the questions. I guess, then, Upper Deck’s strategy would work on the SAT.

The information provided in Paul Lesko’s “Law of Cards” column is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered in the sports industry. This information is not intended to create any legal relationship between Paul Lesko, the Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides Barnerd LLC or any attorney and the user. Neither the transmission nor receipt of these website materials will create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the readers.

The views expressed in the “Law of Cards” column are solely those of the author and are not affiliated with the Simmons Law Firm. You should not act or rely on any information in the “Law of Cards” column without seeking the advice of an attorney. The determination of whether you need legal services and your choice of a lawyer are very important matters that should not be based on websites or advertisements.

2010-11 UD The Cup Foundations SSP AUTO Quad Patch SIDNEY CROSBY # 5 PENGUINS!!!
$4,999.99

LAZAR HAYWARD ROOKIE AUTO PATCH 001 299 TIMBERWOLVES #1
$15.99

2011-12 Artifacts Fight Strap 5 Mike Ribeiro Kari Lehtonen Alex Goligoski Patch
$46.20

2007 PHILIP RIVERS MULTI-COLOR JERSEY PATCH CARD 01 35
$49.95

2009 UD SPX Winning Materials Craig Davis 3 Color Patch #21 99
$10.78

2009 UD SPX Winning Materials Santonio Holmes Patch Card #74 99
$11.78

08-09 UD Ultimate Debut Threads Rookie RC Patch NIKITA FILATOV 50
$39.59

08-09 UD Ultimate Debut Threads Rookie RC Patch NIKITA FILATOV 50
$39.59

Article source: http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/upper-deck-endurance-appeal

Just as predicted, the Topps vs. Leaf lawsuit settled this year. On January 12, Topps and Leaf jointly filed a document stipulating to the dismissal of the action. The entire text of the filing is below:

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), plaintiff/counterclaim-defendant, The Topps Company, Inc., and defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff, Leaf Trading Cards, LLC, by their undersigned counsel, stipulate that the above captioned action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either party.

Legal translation: Both sides dismissed the case “with prejudice.” So, it’s done. No chance of Topps or Leaf re-raising these issues, or re-filing this action, unless someone breaches the settlement agreement.

So, who won?

As with most settlements, we’ll likely never know. It appears that the settlement is confidential and there is no hint as to who won from the stipulation of dismissal.

While this is good for the hobby, I am disappointed. There was little chance this case would have run its course, but if it had, it could have given clarity to the issue of using a buybacks from other companies in competing product lines, as well as other questions that most in the industry think they know the answer to, but aren’t 100% sure.

Who do I think won? This’ll sound like I’m hedging, but I’m not. Both sides won. Why? I think Leaf won because its Best of Baseball product is still out there and the sell sheet that was the big issue of the case is still on its website (and from a quick review, the sell sheet looks to be un-modified with any disclaimers).

Also, since Leaf knows the boundaries of the settlement, it technically knows how far Topps is willing to go with its intellectual property and in future lawsuits. So, because of this lawsuit and the confidentiality of the settlement agreement, Leaf may now be the best-positioned competitor of Topps.

However, the murkiness around buybacks and whether Topps still owns valid intellectual property over its Mickey Mantle cards helps Topps because its competitors still aren’t sure what they can and can’t do. Just bringing the lawsuit sent a message to the industry: Topps will bring suit on its IP even if the claims look weak, so stay clear. In the big picture, Topps can claim it won too.

So, Leaf won. Topps won. And the consumers won.

And although Law of Cards loses a lawsuit to follow, I have a feeling the industry won’t let me down, and we’ll see more courtroom drama in the future.

The information provided in Paul Lesko’s “Law of Cards” column is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered in the sports industry. This information is not intended to create any legal relationship between Paul Lesko, the Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides Barnerd LLC or any attorney and the user. Neither the transmission nor receipt of these website materials will create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the readers.

The views expressed in the “Law of Cards” column are solely those of the author and are not affiliated with the Simmons Law Firm. You should not act or rely on any information in the “Law of Cards” column without seeking the advice of an attorney. The determination of whether you need legal services and your choice of a lawyer are very important matters that should not be based on websites or advertisements.

mickey mantle 1996 topps mantle finest refractor psa 9
$70.00

c. 1957 MICKEY MANTLE MM8 Rawlings glove Nice patina , no writing FREE SHIPPING
$85.07

93 Upper Deck Then Now Mickey Mantle New York Yankees
$11.99

1953 Topps Reprint Set 1991 Archives with Mickey Mantle Willie Mays Robinson
$13.49

06 TOPPS STERLING MICKEY MANTLE X4 BAT JSY 10 MM-HR79
$149.95

MICKEY MANTLE ROGER MARIS THE MM BOYS 30 Year Commemorative A MUST SEE SALE
$99.75

MICKEY MANTLE 2009 TOPPS TRIBUTE GAME JERSEY BAT NEW YORK YANKEES HOF 60 75 SP
$142.49

Yankees Mickey Mantle 1957 Topps # 95 Fair Poor
$89.95

Article source: http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/topps-leaf-settling-lawsuit-means-hobby

Article source: http://www.openpr.com/news/207781/Exotic-Language-Translations-Demand-Rising-Sharply.html

Denver, CO, January 21, 2012 –(PR.com)– Demand for translations of exotic and less common languages has been rising sharply in the last several years, according to language translations expert Nina Ivanichvili, CEO of the Colorado-based language translations company All Language Alliance, Inc. Ivanichvili and the firm’s management identified a unique new trend in the worldwide demand for medical interpreting, legal translations and business interpretations in languages that many people have never heard of before.

“Every day we field more and more phone calls and inquiries from clients who not only don’t know the language or anything about the culture of the people who speak it, but they generally can’t even pronounce the name of the language because they’re such uncommon tongues.”

However, these uncommon – and in some cases rare – languages are nothing new to Ivanichvili, who is widely considered one of the leading experts in language translations in the country. Having founded All Language Alliance, Inc. nearly two decades ago, there’s little doubt that the document translation specialist and her ever- growing multilingual team of translators and interpreters are capable of helping to bridge the gap between language groups. But Ivanichvili says there’s a lot more to this trend than it might seem.

“This consistent increase in the need for language translations in rare and uncommon languages and dialects means that the world is getting smaller. The divide between cultures is disappearing, and with it will come an increasing demand between different cultures and tongues for communication. Ultimately, that’s what this is all about – communication – the most vital resource we have as human beings.”

According to the language translations services website, some of the lesser known languages offered for medical interpretation, legal translation, deposition interpretation, and business translations services include languages such as Dari, Hmong, Laotian, Burmese, Igbo, Nepali, Twi, Marshallese, Pashto, Chuukese, Fulani, Ewe, Swahili, and Punjabi – among many others.

As the demand for these languages increases, so too will the demand for language translation services from companies like All Language Alliance, Inc. This is especially true considering that the 2000 US Census report states that only 9% of Americans speak a second language. And because a recent Texas Department of Education study indicates that fewer schools in the U.S. offer foreign language courses today than just ten years ago, it seems probable that the need for competent translators will continue to increase.

When asked if this trend indicates a possible new career path for American students to pursue, Ivanichvili responded affirmatively.

“There’s a great deal of opportunity in the field of language translations, and this opportunity is almost certainly going to continue to grow each year. In fact, we’ve hired new translators just to handle languages that were far less common than the mainstream foreign legal translations and on-site medical interpretations that we do.”

All Language Alliance, Inc. is a privately held company based in Denver, Colorado. To learn more about specialized language translation services, visit the firm’s website at http://www.languagealliance.com.

###

Article source: http://www.pr.com/press-release/385063

A sharp increase in the demand for language translations of less common, exotic and even rare dialects has been reported in the US.

Demand for translations of exotic and less common languages has been rising sharply in the last several years, according to language translations expert Nina Ivanichvili, CEO of the Colorado-based language translations company All Language Alliance, Inc. Ivanichvili and the firm’s management identified a unique new trend in the worldwide demand for medical interpreting, legal translations and business interpretations in languages that many people have never heard of before.
 
“Every day we field more and more phone calls and inquiries from clients who not only don’t know the language or anything about the culture of the people who speak it, but they generally can’t even pronounce the name of the language because they’re such uncommon tongues.”   
 
However, these uncommon – and in some cases rare – languages are nothing new to Ivanichvili, who is widely considered one of the leading experts in language translations in the country.  Having founded All Language Alliance, Inc. nearly two decades ago, there’s little doubt that the document translation specialist and her ever- growing multilingual team of translators and interpreters are capable of helping to bridge the gap between language groups.  But Ivanichvili says there’s a lot more to this trend than it might seem. 
 
“This consistent increase in the need for language translations in rare and uncommon languages and dialects means that the world is getting smaller.  The divide between cultures is disappearing, and with it will come an increasing demand between different cultures and tongues for communication.  Ultimately, that’s what this is all about – communication – the most vital resource we have as human beings.”

 According to the language translations services website, some of the lesser known languages offered for medical interpretation, legal translation, deposition interpretation, and business translations services include languages such as Dari, Hmong, Laotian, Burmese, Igbo, Nepali, Twi, Marshallese, Pashto, Chuukese, Fulani, Ewe, Swahili, and Punjabi – among many others.   

As the demand for these languages increases, so too will the demand for language translation services from companies like All Language Alliance, Inc.  This is especially true considering that the 2000 US Census report states that only 9% of Americans speak a second language.  And because a recent Texas Department of Education study indicates that fewer schools in the U.S. offer foreign language courses today than just ten years ago, it seems probable that the need for competent translators will continue to increase.
 
When asked if this trend indicates a possible new career path for American students to pursue, Ivanichvili responded affirmatively. 
 
“There’s a great deal of opportunity in the field of language translations, and this opportunity is almost certainly going to continue to grow each year.  In fact, we’ve hired new translators just to handle languages that were far less common than the mainstream foreign legal translations and on-site medical interpretations that we do.” 
 
All Language Alliance, Inc. is a privately held company based in Denver, Colorado.  To learn more about specialized language translation services, visit the firm’s website at http://www.languagealliance.com.

WebWireID151787

Tweet

  language translations business translations financial translations court interpretations Contact Information Nina Ivanichvili CEO All Language Alliance (1) 303.470.9555Contact via E-mail

This news content may be integrated into any legitimate news gathering and publishing effort. Linking is permitted.

News Release Distribution and Press Release Distribution Services Provided by WebWire.

Article source: http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=151787

Blog post at Letters Blogatory, entitled, “Dueling Translations,” expresses surprise/concern over how both parties in an ultra-high stakes international litigation matter “actually submitted dueling certified translations of the Ecuadoran appellate court’s decision (Chevron’s is here, the Lago Agrio plainitffs’ is here).” The post questions this as a waste of time/money:

Really? Dueling translations? I know that Randy Mastro and James Tyrrell are top lawyers at major law firms, and that this is extremely high-stakes litigation, but I would like humbly to suggest that the two of them sit down for a beer summit and see if they can find some way to reduce what has got to be the awe-inspiring litigation budget.

I disagree. He/she who controls the language can control the case. The following spring to mind:

1.  Whenever the other side in a case submits a translated document, I almost always move to strike it unless the translator has attached a declaration/affidavit regarding the translation. Even with that, I virtually always have someone on my side confirm that the translation is accurate. About 85% of the time the translation is “accurate” but about 99% of the time, it has been translated in a way that favors the side doing the translation. This needs to be pointed out to the court. Just by way of example, there are languages where the same word can be translated either as “shall” or as “should.” Those are two very different meanings.

2. Finding a good translator for depositions is very difficult. In Seattle, there is a Russian translator who everyone knows is fantastic and it is pretty common for both sides in a case to agree that she will be the only interpreter for the entire case. I know of no such translator in any other language here. I once had a case where the French translator was so bad that I was pretty much able to nullify anything at all harmful my Swiss client said at her deposition, simply by pointing out how bad this translator had done overall. It was not so much that the translator’s English was so bad (he was French) it was that it was his first job translating at a deposition and he simply did not know what his role was supposed to be. He did not realize that legal translation means translate, not help with the questions or the answers. 

3. I had another case which involved depositions of around 8-10 witnesses from the PRC. The other side was taking these depositions and they flew all of the witnesses to Hong Kong for deposition. The other side also flew in a court reporter all the way from New Zealand. But their big mistake was using a Hong Kong based interpreter whose first language is Cantonese, not Mandarin. She was terrible.

As I always do for depositions where the deponent speaks a language other than English, I brought along someone both completely fluent in the deponent’s language and someone I completely trust to watch over the translating. In this case, it was my co-blogger Steve Dickinson. The other side brought along a Chinese speaking attorney as well. What ended up happening is that both parties essentially reached an agreement that whenever either side had a dispute regarding the translator’s interpreting, they could object, at which point Steve and the Chinese lawyer would seek to reach an agreement. If an agreement could be reached, the correct/better translation would go on the record. if no agreement could be reached (which was surprisingly seldom) we would defer the argument for the court. All this meant that each deposition took probably twice as long as it would have taken had the other side brought in a decent interpreter.

I could go on and on, but you probably already have gotten my drift. Bottom line, the translation matters.

What do you think?

For more on the impact of the language/translation chosen, and for why we draft most of the contracts in Chinese for our American clients doing business in China, I urge you to read “China OEM Agreements. Why Ours Are In Chinese. Flat Out.” To grossly summarize that post, we figure that if you are going to end up before a Chinese judge you are going to want to give him or her a contract that he or she can understand. If your contract is in English, the Chinese court will use its own translator to translate it into Chinese. This means you are not going to have any influence on what it is going to say nor will you even know what it is going to say until you have sued.

Article source: http://www.chinalawblog.com/2012/01/dueling_translations_you_got_that_right.html