Washington, DC (PRWEB) March 4, 2009
On a daily basis, experienced professionals must employ the process of Electronic Discovery (EDD) to discover electronic data that may be utilized in civil or criminal proceedings. However, what happens when the utility programs used by professionals fail to locate data, has skips items, or does not recognize data. The results could be tremendous and cases could be lost based on electronic data that has not been discovered. Thus, discovering all electronic data is extremely crucial in the outcome of the proceedings.
Understanding how important the EDD process can be, one would be appalled to learn that not one utility program on the market can accurately process all electronic data…until now. Randall Consulting has created and launched a new reporting tool named Exactus.
Exactus was created with the goal to fill the urgent need of the EDD industry. This PST reporting tool program can read and report on unlimited nesting; unlimited container files, embedded emails, attachments and objects; and unlimited attachments and embedded items in PDF files, which no other program on the market can do. Exactus also supports a multitude of files include, but not limited to, Microsoft Office; PDF; external MSG; archive formats such as ZIP, RAR, and TAR; Microsoft Outlook formats and files such as EML, Notes, Calendar, and Journal; CSV and XML; compound documents; system files such as PST, DLL, EXE, OCX, BAT, COM, CMD, SYS, INI; and even password protected ZIP files.
Due to the endless level of reporting, Exactus is the most accurate utility program on the market to date. Every service provider, law firm, and corporation should have Exactus in its EDD Toolkit. Major benefits to utilizing Exactus is that one can quickly and efficiently tell a client what the total contents of a PST email store, confirm and safeguard that the processing report is accurate in comparison to other processing programs, use it as a data filtering tool, and use it as a test for new software applications to determine their accuracy.
During the trail version test of Exactus, one user had exclaimed “Finally, a tool comes on the market to test the accuracy of EDD processing programs.” Another user even noted “This is a great tool and much needed one. The reporting features that you have are incredible.”
Additional major features included in the detailed reporting options are search functionality, the ability to see parent child relationships of each email, saves all unique email addresses as a CSV file, and graphical representation of message size and type count. For future versions, upcoming features will include support for NSF files, ability to count duplicate PST files, support for loading multiple PST files at once, and increased speed and performance.
Randall Consulting is offering a special 15 day fully functional trial version of Exactus, while supplies last. Thereafter, a license will be required to be purchased for the low price of $ 199.00 USD. Download a trial version at http://store-.randallconsulting.net/ starting today March 3, 2009.
Get prepared for the next wave of technology with help from Randall Consulting.
Anaheim, CA and San Antonio, TX (PRWEB) November 10, 2009
more than 1 million students a year.
seven thousand students a day.
one child every 26 seconds.
Such grave statistics illustrate the dropout crisis that American educators grapple with today.
Recognizing the difference data can make in protecting students from this alarming trend, Anaheim Union High School implemented Prevent, an early warning dropout prevention software program from the education technology and services company Pearson, that aggregates the most relevant and predictive student information data to pinpoint which students are mostly likely to drop out of school.
During the 2008-2009 school year, Anaheim Union, a large, urban district in Southern California, sought an innovative approach to ensuring its graduation rates did not fall to drastically low levels. In response, Anaheim opted to pilot the data-driven Prevent for its entire 33,077 students, many of whom were already at-risk of dropping out of school.
Now, Anaheim is fully implementing Prevent as an integral piece of the district’s dropout prevention program that includes aggressive accountability measures, such as weekly check-ins with each of the district’s 22 schools.
Anaheim’s Assistant Superintendent Fredrick Navarro said that Prevent takes the guess work out of Anaheim’s dropout prevention efforts, “Student information is right there on my desktop, which gives me the opportunity to review a multi-faceted index and initiate a journey to understand exactly what’s wrong with a kid’s learning trajectory and why they’re suffering. The program provides us with an opportunity to collect our experience, our successes and our failures, know what works and what doesn’t work, even to the point where we can categorize interventions that work best for specific types of students.”
For more than a year, Anaheim’s educators have utilized Prevent’s browser-based, unique early warning system that emphasizes simple, “at-a-glance” reporting, helping all counselors and administrators more quickly identify at-risk students and take action.
Of Prevent’s impact, Navarro said, “Prevent helps schools address problems early; it helps us get to the root of the problem quickly, so we can roll up our sleeves and work with students and families right away. We know that we need to be intervening early and often with our students — with the right interventions — not just making students repeat grade levels, but really intervening and meeting their needs whether they be social, emotional or academic.”
Working with Anaheim, the Prevent team also provided training to help the on-the-ground educators better understand how data and trends can make a difference with students. “My counselors love that Prevent provides them with a quick, easy way to begin a conversation with a student. Sometimes, that first conversation is all we need to change the course of a student’s academic career,” Navarro said.
Successful interventions are growing in importance as nearly one in three ninth graders (26.8 percent) at U.S. public high schools are not graduating in four years, resulting in earnings of up to 80 percent less than their degree-earning peers.
Prevent founder and Director for Student Growth at Pearson, Gary Hensley has worked with Anaheim for three years and understands firsthand the difficult task Navarro and his team faced. “Prevent was born from my own experience as an administrator where I was faced with students’ problems every day and was always trying to get ahead of the curve. One day, I stepped back and analyzed how things could be different, realizing that my fellow educators and I already had all the data we needed. We had all the predictors — attendance, behavior, grades — readily available, but needed the data to be presented in an easily digestible way to pinpoint the students most at risk of failing out. Prevent is the solution to that predicament.”
Speaking to Anaheim’s commitment to dropout prevention, Hensely added, “As an early adopter of Prevent, Anaheim made a huge commitment to its students, promising to do the right thing to help those students be as successful as possible. The district’s focus on data as a solution says that this district is willing to address the dropout issue head on – making large-scale changes that break the mold, break the current way of thinking about how we stop this crisis.”
Moving forward, Navarro believes Prevent can help make a difference for all students. He said, “We know that every child is unique and requires a different path. Having the ability to not only intercede early, but to track the outcomes of the interventions is crucial in helping us to determine the path that we take with every child.”
For more information about Prevent, visit http://education.pearsonassessments.com/prevent or call 800.228.0752, option 5.
Pearson (NYSE:PSO), the global leader in education and education technology, reaches and engages today’s digital natives with effective and personalized learning, as well as dedicated professional development for their teachers. This commitment is demonstrated in the company’s investment in innovative print and digital education materials for preK through college, student information systems and learning management systems, teacher professional development, career certification programs, and testing and assessment products that set the standard for the industry. The company’s respected brands include Scott Foresman, Prentice Hall, Addison Wesley, Benjamin Cummings, PEMSolutions, Stanford 10, SuccessNet, MyLabs, PowerSchool, SuccessMaker, and many others. Pearson’s comprehensive offerings help inform targeted instruction and intervention so that success is within reach of every student at every level of education. Pearson’s commitment to education for all is supported by the global philanthropic initiatives of the Pearson Foundation. Pearson’s other primary businesses include the Financial Times Group and the Penguin Group. For more information, go to http://www.pearson.com.
New York, NY (PRWEB) July 12, 2010
New York City divorce, custody and appellate lawyer Lisa Beth Older, Esq. appeared on Fox Five News on July 9, 2010 to provide legal analysis for a television segment on the latest Court ruling on Gay Marriage, commenting on the Federal Ban against gay marriage and the Judge who called the ban unconstitutional.
On July 8, 2010 the United States District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, appointed to the Court by Richard Nixon, struck down DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act, as unconstitutional as applied to Massachusetts. ( Mass.v. US Dept of Health, et al., Civil Action No. 1:09-11156-JLT). DOMA was struck down because the law failed to provide equal protection of the law for gay and lesbian couples and because it impinged upon a States’ right to define marriage, stripped the States of the right to legislate under the 10th amendment to the constitution, and disallowed the State from equally distributing federal funds amongst its citizenship, thus invoking invidious discrimination against its citizens.
The Federal Ban against gay marriage codified as the “Defense of Marriage Act” or referred to as “DOMA”, was enacted by the Clinton Administration in 1996.
The act of the Federal District Court in striking down DOMA lends strong support to gay and lesbian couples in their legitimate quest to have equal rights, and to also have equal access to New York Courts for the purpose of seeking relief as to their children in disputes involving custody visitation, child support and divorce rights attendant to same sex marriages performed in alternate States.
“Under the current law known as DOMA, the federal government does not recognize same sex unions” says New York City divorce lawyer Lisa Beth Older, Esq. “DOMA narrowly defines marriage, and derivative parentage rights, as a union between a man and a woman.” DOMA states that parties to a same sex unions shall not be allowed to take advantage of federal benefits and protections given to and enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Examples of the kind of benefits prohibited to gay and lesbian couples are the benefits derived from any Federal program, such as being allowed to sign of joint tax returns, being allowed to receive health insurance benefits, having federal burial rights for surviving spouses of a deceased gay and lesbian service man or service woman, and other such federal benefits stemming from federal employment. While DOMA does not expressly preclude States from passing their own laws affirming gay and lesbian marriage, DOMA does expressly allow a State to not recognize a same sex marriages performed in alternate State that has in fact legalized gay and lesbian marriage. The legitimacy of DOMA affects all gay and lesbian couples in Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, along with the District of Columbia.
The lawsuit against the legitimacy of DOMA was filed by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defense group, and a second companion case was filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Federal District Court.
The Obama Administration is likely to appeal the law to the United States Circuit even though he campaigned for president in favor of repealing DOMA. Obama will need to make a tough decision soon.
Proponents of the law say that the Justice Department is bound to enforce and defend laws of the land.
Presently there are five States that recognize gay and lesbian marriage, those being New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa , as well as the District of Columbia. This ruling will likely have gay and lesbian couples rallying for similar law suits against DOMA in their respective States.
Thus, if Obama decides to appeal the ruling to the United States Circuit Court, and if the higher Court agrees with Judge Tauro’s ruling then, and if the Justice Department appeals that holding as well the case will likely go all the way to the United States Supreme Court. If DOMA is found unconstitutional. there, then DOMA will no longer be the law of the land. If the opposite result appertains, and DOMA withstands the legal challenge, then DOMA still prevails and the ban against gay and lesbian marriage will be stronger than ever. This is a frightening prospect for gay and lesbian couples across the board who deserve equal protection under the law.
Gay and lesbian Marriage has been recognized in Massachusetts since 2004. Now that a Federal Judge has struck down DOMA, gay and lesbian spouses or couples of same sex unions will now be allowed to apply for federal benefits, this only after the automatic fifteen (15) day automatic Stay lapses and absent any newer stays by the Circuit Court. This ruling will open the flood gates for legal action by gay and lesbian citizens of States that have legalized same sex marriage.
Lisa Beth Older, Esq. opines that the Federal ruling will also likely affect gay and lesbian custody rights. Where there is marriage, there is divorce. As such, it will be interesting to see what effect if any the ruling of the Federal Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act will have on New York Family Court cases.
The Federal Court ruling will have an impact on gay and lesbian disputes in New York. “The New York Court of Appeals is charged with dealing with problems of law stemming from paternity, child support, custody and divorce” says New York appellate and divorce lawyer Lisa Beth Older. At present, New York does not recognize gay and lesbian marriage and divorce and in many instances limits standing of gay couples to sue in family court. However, in a recent series of cases coming down from the New York Court of Appeal in May 2010 the New York’s highest Court has begun to seriously grabble with the problem of how to deal with children of gay and lesbian marriages or gay and lesbian unions in custody and support cases.
Prior to May 4, 2010, if a child of a New York same sex couple was conceived through artificial insemination, and if the subject child of that union was not adopted by both gay and lesbian parents in New York, then the non-adoptive, non- biological parent had no standing to sue for custody and visitation, and the biological parent had no responsibility to provide child support for the child. Now, the law as to child support and gay couples has changed dramatically. As of May 4, 2010 the Court of Appeals, in the Matter of H.M. v. E.T held that a same sex partner may sue a non-biological partner for child support, regardless of the lack of adoption or biological ties. This holding broke new ground for Gay and lesbian rights by expanding the notion of parentage beyond the borders of heterosexual couples with an emphasis on the child’s attachments and on the “best interest of the children.” There, the Court of Appeals recognized the right of a gay and lesbian woman to sue for child support in Family Court as against a same sex parent. This ruling has large consequences as it gives the State Courts power to define who is a parent for purposes of child support.
As to the rights of gay and lesbian couples to sue for custody, the New York Court of Appeals is not as liberal. The holding in the Matter of Alison D. v. Virginia M. (77 N.Y.2d 651, 1991) stated that New York parenthood requires that there be a biological or adoptive relationship between parent and child before custody may be asserted. However, the Court of Appeals in May 2010 diverted from this position, at least in part. While reviewing a New York lower court holding on a visitation case involving a same sex marriage of Vermont, the case of Debra H. v. Janice R (Court of Appeals May 4, 2010, NY slip opinion 0375), the Court held that New York must now recognize Debra H.’s parental status under the law of Vermont.
Lisa Beth Older states that “the case of Debra R. is just start. More must be done by the legislature and the Courts in interpreting these laws of access to Family Court through the prism of the United Stated Constitution.” Holding on to the last vestiges of Matter of Allison, supra, the Court held that while New York still does not recognize a gay and lesbian parent’s right to sue for custody of their child absent an adoptive or biological relationship to the child, if the child is born of a legally recognized same sex marriage in another State where same sex marriage is legal, that parent may indeed sue for custody. This may be a step in the right direction.
Accordingly Judge Taro’s federal ruling banning the Federal government from legislating unequally between gay and lesbian and heterosexual couples, by giving rights to heterosexuals without giving equal rights to gay and lesbian couples bears on New York State’s power to overrule and strike down any State law that unconstitutionally fails to provide equal access to the Courts, equality, due process of law, and justice to all of its citizens. The Federal holding will serve as a platform to empower New York State Courts to start providing all couples, gay and lesbian alike, equal access and standing to utilize the Courts for purposes of suing for custody, visitation and child support. This ruling would allow brave Courts throughout this country to challenge State laws that discriminate against one set of parents while allowing other parents to have access to the court system to secure their rights of access to gay and lesbian parents.
The Federal District Court holding, while only relevant to Massachusetts, supports the notion that State and Federal governments may not pass and enforcing laws that discriminate against some of its citizens, while providing government benefits to other groups of citizens. By way of deduction, this holding would support the fact that both Federal as well as State governments should not pass and enforce laws that deny equal access to the Courts. Under the Constitutional provisions of equal protection of the law, all citizens, whether they be gay, lesbian or heterosexual must be afforded equal and identical benefits of due process of law through access to our State Courts for the purpose of disputing custody and visitation claims. Derivatively all children would benefit from a proactive Court whose aim is to protect innocent children, whether they be the product of gay or heterosexual couples.