Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
Biden-appointed
Southern
District
of
New
York
judge
is
overseeing
the
corruption
case
against
New
York
City
Mayor

Eric
Adams?

Hint:
The
former
Director
of
the American
Civil
Liberties
Union Voting
Rights
Project
took
over
the
seat
left
by
Judge

Katherine
Forrest.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Fiscal
shortcomings
prompted
the
California
bar
to
abandon
the
NCBE

find
a
cheaper
alternative
to
minting
lawyers.
Unfortunately,
they
got
so
swept
up
in
their
innovation
that
they
forgot
the
order
of
things
—

the
State
Supreme
court
denied
the
Bar’s
petition
to
change
exam
methods.
After
heading
back
to
the
drawing
board,
the
Bar
is
readying
supplies
for
a
redo.

ABA
Journal
has
coverage:

California’s
Committee
of
Bar
Examiners
approved
launching
a
propriety
bar
exam
to
be
created
by
Kaplan
Exam
Services
for
the
February
administration
and
will
submit
updated
petitions
for
the
California
Supreme
Court
to
reconsider.

The
clock
is
ticking!
The
new
exam
is
scheduled
to
happen
in
February.
If
they’d
like
to
actually
administer
the
test
then,
they’ll
need
to
mind
their
Ps
and
Qs.
Trusting
the
process
means
actually

doing
the
process!

California
Plan
To
Move
Bar
Exam
To
Kaplan
Sent
Back
To
State
Supreme
Court
[ABA
Journal]

Earlier:

California
Needs
To
Focus
On
Procedurals
Before
Administering
Bar
Replacement

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

While
the
level
of
merger
activity
in
2024
is
likely
to
be
on
par
or
slightly
ahead
of
last
year,
the
pipeline
of
announced
mergers,
as
well
as
ongoing
merger
discussions,
indicates
a
higher
level
of
activity
for
2025.

—
An
excerpt
from
the
Fairfax
Associates

quarterly
merger
report,
which
noted
that
tie-ups
in
2024
are
currently
“on
pace
with
2023,
which
also
saw
41
mergers
through
the
first
three
quarters.”
The
stage
has
already
been
set
for
an
active
2025,
with
mergers
between

Troutman
Pepper
and
Locke
Lord;

Womble
Bond
Dickinson
and
Lewis
Roca;
and

Taft
Stettinius
&
Hollister
and
Sherman
&
Howard
set
to
go
live
once
the
new
year
begins.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Two
years
ago,
California
Congressman
Devin
Nunes
wandered
off
from
the
House
of
Representatives
to
run
Donald
Trump’s
media
company.
In
that
time
he’s
steered
it
to
massive
success
…

ish.
In
the
most
recent
quarter,
it
reported
losses
of
$16
million
on
$836,900
of
earnings,
and
the
stock
is
down
70
percent
in
the
past
six
months.

But
Nunes’s
true
gift
is
for
litigation.
Indeed,
when
it
comes
to
filing
garbage
defamation
suits,
the
man
is
second
to
none.
It
is
his
one,
true
calling.
He
sued

CNN.
He
sued

McClatchy.
He
sued

NBC.
He
sued
a

Twitter
cow.
He’s
even
getting
Trump
Media
into

the
action.
And
in
the
past
week
he
has
euthanized
one
suit
against
the
Washington
Post
and
attempted
to
resurrect
another
against
Esquire.

The

Post
suit
involved
a
November
2020

story
by
reporter
Ellen
Nakashima,
and
the
gravamen
of
his
complaint
can
be
inferred
from
the
correction
which
currently
accompanies
it:

Correction:
As
originally
published,
this
article
inaccurately
attributed
claims
that
the
Obama
administration
spied
on
Trump
Tower
to
Rep.
Devin
Nunes
(R-Calif.),
rather
than
to
President
Trump.
Nunes
has
stated
that
he
did
not
believe
there
had
been
any
wiretapping
of
Trump
Tower.
This
article
has
also
been
updated
to
note
that
Nunes
says
an
incident
known
as
the
“midnight
run”
took
place
during
daylight
hours.

He
bailed
out
of
that
Uber

during
the
day,
and
don’t
you
forget
it!

Judge
Carl
Nichols

dismissed
the
case
in
June,
writing
that
“a
reasonable
jury
could
not
conclude
that
the
correction
was
materially
false.
After
all,
as
Defendants
correctly
contend,
the
record
demonstrates
that
Nunes’s
public
statements
in
March
2017
after
the
White
House
visit
had
‘provided
some
credence
to
Trump’s
concerns.’”
After
which
Nunes
promptly

appealed to
the
DC
Circuit.

It’s
been
going
GREAT,
as
demonstrated
by
this

letter
from
the Post‘s
lawyer
to
the
clerk.

Yesterday
the
parties

stipulated
to
a
dismissal
in
that
case.
Presumably
this
resolves
the

unpleasantness
in
the
outstanding
sealed
motion.

But
when

God
Trump
closes
a
door,
he
opens
a
window
…
or
tries
to,
anyway.
And
so
Congressman
Cowpoke
hopes
to
get
the
Eighth
Circuit
to
revive
his
lawsuit
against
Hearst
for
a
story
published
in
Esquire
in
2018
by
reporter
Ryan
Lizza
entitled


Devin
Nunes’s
Family
Farm
Is
Hiding
a
Politically
Explosive
Secret.
The
piece
noted
that
Nunes’s
family
upped
sticks
and
left
California
years
ago
to
run
a
dairy
farm
in
Sibley,
Iowa,
where
Lizza
spent
a
pleasant
week
being
tailed
by
various
members
of
Nunes’s
immediate
family.
And
it
noted
that
the
dairy
industry
in
Iowa
relies
heavily
on
the
use
of
undocumented
immigrants.

Nunes
and
his
family
both
sued
for
defamation,
seemingly
unaware
that
filing
a
lawsuit
means
you
have
to

go
through
discovery.
And
discovery
proved
pretty
conclusively
that
the
Nunes
family
farm

did
employ
undocumented
immigrants,
which
is
why
Judge
C.J.
Williams,
a
Trump
appointee,

dismissed
the
complaint
in
April
of
2023.
Indeed
Nunes’s
lawyer
Jesse
Binnall
admitted
as
much
in
oral

argument
before
the
Eighth
Circuit
last
week.

Courthouse
News

reports:

On
Wednesday,
U.S.
Circuit
Judge
Bobby
Shepherd,
a
George
W.
Bush
appointee,
asked
Nunes’
attorney
Jesse
Binnall
of
the
Binnall
Law
Group
in
Alexandria,
Virginia,
to
confirm
a
statement
in
the
court
record:
“There
is
no
genuine
dispute
of
material
fact
that
it
is
substantially
true
that
NuStar
used
undocumented
labor.”

Binnall
acknowledged
the
statement,
but
he
added:
“The
phrase
at
issue
is
‘knowingly.’
And
why
that’s
so
important
is
because
there
are
federal
laws
that
govern
how
you
can
ask
somebody
about
their
status.
If
a
farm
would
have
simply
gone
to
people,
based
on
the
language
they
spoke,
the
color
of
their
skin,
anything
else
like
that
in
trying
to
get
more
specific
on
whether
or
not
they
had
legal
status
—
they
could
have
been
sued.
They
could
theoretically
have
been
prosecuted.
You
cannot
do
that.”

U.S.
Circuit
Chief
Judge
Steven
Colloton,
also
a
George
W.
Bush
appointee,
asked
Binnall
to
clarify
the
question
around
illegal
hiring.

“The
dispute,”
Binnall
replied,
“is
what
NuStar
knew
and
when
they
knew
it.”

Truly,
the
man’s
First
Amendment
jurisprudence
is
art.

Nunes
v.
WaPo
[Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Nunes
v.
WaPo
[District
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Nunes
v.
Lizza
[District
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Nunes
v.
Lizza
[Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Devin
Nunes
seeks
revival
of
defamation
case
over
Esquire
article
about
his
family
farm
[Courthouse
News]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Despite
being
a
very
high-profile
case,
the
prosecution
on
the
YSL
RICO
case
seems
to
consist
entirely
of
people
who
are
attending
their
very
first
rodeo.
Blessed
be
Al
Gore’s
internet
for
allowing
us
to
see
such
grandiose
screw-ups
in
procedure
and
credibility
in
real
time.
In
case
you
missed
a
few
days,
here
is
a
quick
highlight
reel:

Another
key
witness
attacking
his
own
credibility:

A
judge
storming
off
the
bench:

The
judge
decided
to
continue
with
the
trial.
Which
led
to
this
gem:

YOU
HAD
ONE
JOB!

We
all
have
rough
days
on
the
job
here
and
there,
but
at
least
you
(hopefully)
haven’t
been
so
consistently
bad
at
your
job
as
the
prosecution!
This
extended
series
of
broadcasted
blunders
will
follow
their
careers
for
a
very
long
time.
Looking
forward
to
their
next
big
fumble.
At
this
rate,
I’ll
give
it
two
days.

Update:
I
couldn’t
even
hit
enter
before
the
prosecution
messed
up

again:

I
should
have
known
two
days
was
way
too
generous.

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

One
of
the
basic
facts
about
the
legal
profession
is
that
clients
often
do
not
pay
their
lawyers
for
the
work
attorneys
perform.
Even
in
law
school,
professors
of
mine
who
had
experience
in
practice
would
tell
students
stories
about
how
clients
had
stiffed
them
over
the
years,
and
one
professor
said
the
most
important
thing
you
might
learn
in
law
school
from
that
professor
was
to
always
get
your
fee
up
front.
From
my
own
experience,
clients
are
most
likely
to
not
pay
their
last
invoices,
and
attorneys
can
take
a
few
steps
to
minimize
the
chance
that
their
last
invoice
or
two
will
be
left
unpaid.

Final
invoices
are
the
most
likely
to
remain
unpaid
for
a
few
reasons.
Clients
may
believe
that
they
do
not
need
a
lawyer
after
a
matter
resolves,
and
accordingly,
feel
empowered
to
forgo
paying
that
final
invoice
without
consequences.
Moreover,
clients
may
not
be
satisfied
with
how
a
matter
resolved,
and
this
may
convince
the
client
not
to
pay
remaining
balances
owed
to
lawyers.
Some
clients
need
to
make
payments
as
part
of
the
settlement
of
a
matter
and
might
not
have
too
much
money
left
over
afterward
to
pay
their
counsel.

The
biggest
way
lawyers
can
prevent
clients
from
stiffing
them
at
the
end
of
a
matter
is
to
stay
current
on
billing
throughout
a
representation.
Some
lawyers
do
not
bill
clients
as
regularly
as
they
should,
and
other
lawyers
do
not
insist
on
regular
payments
as
often
as
they
should.
As
a
result,
clients
may
rack
up
huge
balances
at
the
end
of
a
representation.
From
my
own
experience,
the
bigger
the
invoice,
the
less
likely
it
will
be
paid.

I
once
heard
about
a
lawyer
who
had
a
client
who
insisted
he
could
not
pay
his
bills
but
related
that
he
would
pay
the
bill
after
the
matter
settled
or
once
the
client
received
money
at
a
later
time.
The
client
racked
up
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars’
worth
of
legal
fees,
and
the
client
ended
up
losing
at
trial.
The
client
never
paid
his
attorney,
and
the
lawyer
was
left
in
the
lurch
with
outstanding
invoices
worth
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars.
If
the
lawyer
had
demanded
payment
earlier,
or
withdrew
from
the
representation,
it
is
likely
that
the
lawyer
would
have
taken
less
of
a
hit
from
the
client.

Another
way
lawyers
can
safeguard
themselves
from
being
stiffed
at
the
end
of
a
matter
is
by
asking
the
client
to
pay
them
out
of
settlement
funds.
Oftentimes,
settlements
require
one
party
to
make
payment
to
the
attorney
trust
account
of
another
party,
and
once
receipt
of
the
funds
is
confirmed,
the
litigation
is
discontinued.
For
the
sake
of
convenience,
settlement
agreements
can
be
written
such
that
the
lawyer
will
take
outstanding
legal
fees
from
this
settlement
amount
and
disburse
the
rest
to
the
client.
This
process
is
especially
favored
when
the
lawyer
needs
to
disburse
settlement
money
to
pay
off
liens
or
other
items
incidental
to
the
settlement
of
a
case.
Of
course,
lawyers
should
check
their
local
ethics
rules
about
this
approach.
However,
with
the
consent
of
all
parties
involved
in
the
settlement,
this
can
be
the
easiest
approach
to
ensure
that
a
lawyer
gets
paid.

Another
way
to
ensure
lawyers
are
paid
from
their
final
invoices
on
a
matter
is
to
maintain
a
connection
to
the
client
and
keep
performing
legal
work
for
the
client.
In
general,
clients
are
less
likely
to
stiff
lawyers
if
they
know
they
are
going
to
rely
on
the
lawyer
in
the
future
for
other
legal
matters.
Of
course,
this
approach
only
works
for
some
kinds
of
clients,
and
lawyers
may
want
to
dump
clients
after
a
legal
representation
concluded
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
However,
clients
are
far
less
likely
to
stiff
lawyers
they
have
a
deeper
connection
to
because
they
would
probably
feel
guilty
about
not
paying
invoices
to
people
they
know
on
a
more
meaningful
level
that
they
expect
to
rely
on
more
in
the
future.

In
the
end,
being
stiffed
by
clients
is
probably
unavoidable,
and
every
lawyer
has
horror
stories
about
their
invoices
remaining
unpaid.
However,
a
few
strategies
can
help
lawyers
get
paid
on
their
final
invoices.

---

Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of



The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of



Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at




[email protected].

Not
every
case
turns
on
some
damning,
against
interest
post
an
adversary
dropped
on
a
Reddit
board.
Or,
worse,
that
the
client’s
CEO
placed
there.
But
some
matters
will
and
it’s
increasingly
critical
to
have
a
comprehensive
plan
to
scour
web
footprints
of
key
individuals.

And
to
make
sure
that
data
is
retained.

While
there’s
undoubtedly
a
junior
attorney
or
paralegal
out
there
hunting
and
pecking
and
screenshotting
their
way
through
Facebook,
there
are
much
better
methods
to
gather
—
and
more
importantly,
authenticate
—
someone’s
web
data.

Page
Vault
provides
a
software
solution
designed
specifically
for
legal
professionals
to
collect
and
preserve
web
content
easily.

Page
Vault’s
primary
customers
are
law
firms,
with
around
125
of
the
Am
Law
200
firms
using
the
software
to
automate
the
collection
of
online
content.
There’s
no
need
to
manually
capture
full
social
media
profiles
or
scroll
through
websites
for
relevant
posts
or
comments.
Page
Vault
can
gather
a
complete
Facebook,
Instagram,
or
TikTok
profile
—
with
all
comments,
pictures,
and
videos
—
as
well
as
searching
full
websites
(up
to
thousands
of
URLs),
Wayback
Machine,
marketplace
activity,
and
video
platforms.
And
the
results
are
not
limited
to
basic
screenshots,
with
Page
Vault
offering
the
content
in
multiple
formats
such
as
PDFs
or
HTML.

Which
can
then
be
loaded
into
eDiscovery
platforms
for
further
analysis.

Each
collection
includes
crucial
metadata
—
capture
date,
URL,
post
timestamps,
etc.
—
and
a
SHA256
hash
value,
a
critical
feature
for
ensuring
that
the
data’s
integrity
remains
intact
for
legal
admissibility.
Page
Vault
also
boasts
built-in
compliance
with
Federal
Rules
of
Evidence
902(13),
allowing
Page
Vault
to
provide
a
certification
authenticating
the
captured
content.
By
taking
the
user
out
of
the
chain
of
custody,
Page
Vault
provides
a
valuable
tool
for
maintaining
the
integrity
of
this
collected
content.

The
legal
tech
world
may
be
saturated
with
generative
AI
conversations,
but
as
I
attend
these
conferences,
the
big
—
non-AI
—
issue
that
keeps
coming
up
is
developing
more
and
more
robust
and
efficient
methods
of
gathering
data.
Whether
it’s
phones
or
an
individual’s
web
footprint,
“getting
data”
is
a
problem
everyone
still
has
that
AI
isn’t
going
to
fix.

And,
sure,
you’re
going
to
lose
the
billable
hour
of
whichever
junior
you’d
sent
off
to
make
screenshots,
but
Page
Vault
seems
like
a
much
better
option
in
the
long
run.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Last
month,
veteran
actor
James
Earl
Jones
passed
away
at
93.
Along
with
his
many
acting
roles,
he
was
also
known
for
his
voice
roles,
notably
as
Mufasa
in
“The
Lion
King”
and
Darth
Vader
in
the
“Star
Wars”
franchise.

Typically
when
voice
actors
leave
their
roles,
they
are
replaced.
For
example,
in
the
original
1986
“The
Transformers:
The
Movie,”
the
new
Decepticon
leader
Galvatron
was
voiced
by
Leonard
Nimoy.
But
in
the
subsequent
cartoons,
Galvatron
was
voiced
by
Frank
Welker
as
Nimoy
had
died.
Other
times,
the
character
they
portrayed
is
written
out
of
the
show.

The
famous
Kermit
The
Frog
has
an
“official”
voice
actor.
Originally,
it
was
Muppets
creator
Jim
Henson
until
his
death
in
1990.
Afterward,
Steve
Whitmire
took
the
role
until
2016.
Matt
Vogel
replaced
Whitmire
in
2017
and
to
this
day
is
Kermit’s
official
voice.

But
in
rare
cases,
the
voice
actor
is
just
as
famous
as
the
character
they
portray.
In
the
case
of
Darth
Vader,
while
James
Earl
Jones
was
his
voice,
British
actor
David
Prowse
was
his
body.
Prowse
spoke
Vader’s
lines
during
filming
and
his
distinct
English
West
Country
accent
had
some
cast
members
calling
him
“Darth
Farmer.”

With
Jones’s
passing,
fans
may
or
may
not
accept
someone
else
playing
the
voice
of
Vader.
But
Lucasfilm
was
able
to
find
a
way
to
keep
the
feared
Sith
Lord’s
voice
alive.

According
to

Vanity
Fair,
in
2022,
Lucasfilm
and
Skywalker
Sound
hired
a
Ukrainian
startup
called
Respeech
to
recreate
Darth
Vader’s
voice
for
its
upcoming
mini-series

“Obi-Wan
Kenobi.”
At
the
time,
Jones
was
91
and
wanted
to
retire
the
Vader
role
as
his
voice
was
no
longer
the
same.
Through
artificial
intelligence
(AI),
Respeech
used
archived
Star
Wars
footage
to
recreate
Darth
Vader’s
voice
from
the
original
1980s
trilogy.

All
of
this
was
done
even
during
Russia’s
invasion
of
Ukraine
that
year.

When
Jones
was
presented
with
Respeech’s
work,
he
signed
off
on
using
his
archival
voice
recordings
to
keep
Vader
alive.

I
watched
“Obi-Wan
Kenobi”
when
it
premiered,
not
knowing
Darth
Vader’s
voice
was
AI
generated.
At
the
time,
I
thought
Jones’s
voice
was
just
as
strong
even
at
his
advanced
age.

But
now,
after
knowing
about
the
AI
involvement,
I
was
curious
about
the
legalities.

I
wondered
about
what
was
contained
in
the
contract
that
Jones
signed
off
on.
Who
did
Jones
contract
with?
Lucasfilm,
Respeech,
Skywalker
Sound,
or
all
of
the
above?
Did
he
only
sign
off
his
archival
voice
rights
just
for
“Obi-Wan
Kenobi”?
Or
did
he
relinquish
these
rights
in
perpetuity?
And
lastly,
was
there
even
a
need
for
this
contract?
In
other
words,
isn’t
Darth
Vader’s
voice
inherently
a
part
of
Star
Wars’
intellectual
property?

In
the
future,
AI
voice
replication
technology
will
improve,
allowing
iconic
actors
to
live
on
through
their
characters,
and
after
they
pass
away,
their
families
could
get
additional
residuals.
But
it
is
debatable
as
to
whether
AI
is
no
different
than
a
good
human
voice
impersonator.

And
this
means
one
(or
more)
actor
who
could
have
been
a
voice
replacement
could
be
out
of
a
job.
Indeed,
AI
was
a
major
point
of
contention
in
the
actors
and
writers
strike
in
2023
as
it
could
potentially
eliminate
the
need
for
human
actors
altogether.
Thankfully
this
does
not
appear
to
be
an
immediate
threat
since
current
AI
generated
movies
seem
to
be

incoherent
or
tend
to
look
like

nightmare
fuel.

Maybe
a
good
starting
point
is
to
require
studios
to
disclose
whether
movies
or
shows
are
using
AI
actors
and
writers.
And
I
am
not
talking
about
disclosing
it
in
a
fine
line
somewhere
in
the
middle
of
the
end
credits.
It
should
be
displayed
prominently
in
trailers
and
promotional
material.
Customers
should
know
in
advance
so
they
can
determine
whether
they
want
to
support
it.

Actors
and
their
agents
will
have
to
scrutinize
studio
contracts
to
ensure
that
their
likeness
(including
their
voices)
cannot
be
used
by
AI
(or
even
CGI)
without
their
permission
after
they
finish
a
project.

Jones
has
entered
the
cornfield
after
completing
the
circle
of
life.
But
Darth
Vader’s
voice
is
still
available
in
this
galaxy
thanks
to
AI.
But
since
AI
could
affect
the
livelihoods
of
many,
all
stakeholders
in
the
entertainment
industry
(and
possibly
even
lawmakers)
will
need
to
discuss
how
this
technology
could
be
used
in
a
way
that
doesn’t
screw
anybody
over.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at




[email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.