|
|
|
Texas Man Pleads Guilty to Environmental Crimes
Court Watch |
2007/02/20 09:22
|
Dennis Rodriguez of El Paso, Texas, pleaded guilty today to criminal environmental crimes related to the operation of his company, North American Waste Assistance, LLC (NAWA), also located in El Paso. Under the plea agreement, entered in federal district court for the Western District of Texas, Rodriguez admitted to making a material false statement or representations in a manifest used to transport hazardous waste and to two counts of transporting hazardous waste to a facility that did not have a permit issued pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Both Rodriguez and his company were indicted in November 2005 for violations related to the handling and transportation of hazardous waste. According to the indictment, Rodriguez and NAWA were hired to dispose of over of 155 gallon drums of construction-related waste. Approximately 75 of the drums contained expired petroleum-based concrete curing compound, which is an ignitable hazardous waste when disposal becomes necessary. The indictment alleged that on or about March 27, 2002, Rodriguez and NAWA transported the drums using several Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests that stated that the drums contained “Non-RCRA, Non-Regulated” waste. Rodriguez then made arrangements to transport the drums, for disposal, to landfills in Avalon, Texas, and Walterboro, S.C. that were not permitted under RCRA to accept hazardous waste. The drums of hazardous waster were then disposed of at unauthorized facilities. Rodriguez faces a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison and a total maximum fine of $250,000 per count. This case was investigated by Special Agents of the EPA, with the assistance of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and is being prosecuted by the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas. |
|
|
|
|
|
CA court halts plan to transfer prisoners out-of-state
Breaking Legal News |
2007/02/20 09:20
|
The Sacramento County Superior Court Tuesday struck down a plan by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to transfer prisoners to private out-of-state facilities in order to reduce prison overcrowding. The ruling by Judge Gail Ohanesian held that an emergency declaration issued by Schwarzenegger in October violated the California Emergency Services Act and the state constitution, which prohibits contracting with private companies to perform jobs usually held by state workers. Schwarzenegger announced his intent to appeal what he called the "disappointing ruling," warning that it could cause some prisoners to be released prematurely. California has an estimated 174,000 prisoners held in facilities designed for 100,000. Last year, a federal judge ordered California to solve the crowding problem, vowing to release prisoners early if an adequate solution was not reached. Schwarzenegger issued the emergency proclamation in response. The California Department of Corrections began out-of-state transfers in November. |
|
|
|
|
|
Post-9/11 anti-terror case data inaccurate: DOJ audit
Legal Business |
2007/02/20 09:17
|
Federal investigators and prosecutors fudged data on the number of anti-terrorism investigations and cases for the four years after 9/11, according to an audit by US Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine released Tuesday.
In a report on terrorism-related incidents and case-loads, the inspector general found that "some of these statistics were significantly overstated or understated." According to the audit, DOJ officials used non-terror-related immigration violations and drug trafficking to inflate the number of anti-terror cases reported. The data was collected from multiple DOJ divisions, including the FBI, the Executive Office of US Attorneys, the Criminal Division, and the US Attorney's Office , and is used to monitor the DOJ's efficiency in fighting terrorism. |
|
|
|
|
|
Final arguments heard in Libby trial
Law Center |
2007/02/20 09:15
|
Lawyers made their final arguments in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Tuesday, with the defense arguing that Libby was a scapegoat for presidential aide Karl Rove's disclosures. In its final remarks, the prosecution argued that Libby was merely trying to a cover up a potentially illegal intelligence leak. In response, the defense said the government's witnesses were not credible and to accept the testimony of Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert as truth "would just be fundamentally unfair." Libby's defense team rested last week, one week after the prosecution finished presenting its evidence against Libby. Also last week, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak testified that Libby did not leak Plame's identity to him. It was Novak's July 2003 column that publicly outed Plame, thus igniting the CIA leak scandal. Libby is not charged with leaking Plame's identity, but instead faces perjury and obstruction of justice charges in connection with the investigation into the leak. |
|
|
|
|
|
High Court Overturns $79 Million Tobacco Verdict
Breaking Legal News |
2007/02/20 09:11
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a $79.5 million verdict against the Philip Morris tobacco company ruling that an Oregon court had acted improperly when it allowed jurors to use the award to punish the cigarette maker for jeopardizing the lives and health of smokers. In a 5-to-4 decision that marked the first major business ruling for the Court since the appointment of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the justices ruled that the Oregon court violated the Constitution's due process clause by awarding damages for general harm in a case brought by a single plaintiff. Roberts joined the majority opinion. In the Oregon case, Mayola Williams, widow of Jesse Williams, a Portland janitor who died of lung cancer in 1996, sued Philip Morris, maker of Marlboros, the brand of cigarette her husband had smoked for 45 years. The jury awarded Williams $821,000, then added a $79.5 million punitive award. Philip Morris, which is now owned by Altria Group, had denied that its cigarettes were addictive, and lawyers for Williams' estate had told jurors to consider the damage done to other smokers in Oregon in their verdict. In Tuesday's ruling, the justices countered that the Oregon court should not have allowed consideration of any harm done to smokers, except Williams. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said the Constitution bars courts from using punitive awards to penalize companies for injuries they inflict upon others who are "essentially, strangers to the litigation." Robert S. Peck, the Washington lawyer who represented Mayola Williams, told the Washington Post that the Supreme Court decision "slays a dragon that didn't exist," and predicted that further litigation in Oregon would "reaffirm" the jury's punitive verdict. Peck noted that contrary to the justices finding, the jury had based the award on Philip Morris' profitability and not on the number of victims harmed by smoking. Exactly how the jury reached the award amount remains unclear and that uncertainty was a key factor in the decision of the high court to overturn the punitive award and send the case back to Oregon for further litigation. Despite the court's refusal to use the case to set a firm limit on how much can be awarded in punitive damages, as some in the business community had hoped, Tuesdays ruling is being viewed as not only a victory for Philip Morris, but for corporations weary of what they view as run-away punitive awards in state courts. The New York Times reports that in a note to investors, Christopher R. Growe, an analyst at A. G. Edwards and Sons hailed the ruling as "a positive," that "effectively limits the size of punitive damages in future cases." Roberts and Bryan were joined in the majority opinion by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Samuel A. Alito. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Writing for the minority, Stevens said he had no doubt that earlier Supreme Court decisions limiting punitive awards were correct, but said the Oregon case was different because that state's supreme court had "faithfully applied the reasoning in those opinions to the egregious facts disclosed by this record...no procedural error even arguably justifying reversal occurred at the trial in this case." |
|
|
|
|
|
Federal appeals court upholds MCA habeas-stripping provisions
Court Watch |
2007/02/20 05:19
|
The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled Tuesday that provisions in the Military Commissions Act stripping foreign nationals held as "enemy combatants" of the right to file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions do not violate the Suspension Clause of the US Constitution. The ruling came in the consolidated cases of hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The court also held that Congress was clear in its intent to strip federal courts of habeas jurisdiction even in pending challenges. The DC Circuit vacated the lower court decisions in the cases and dismissed the detainees' petitions for lack of jurisdiction. President Bush signed the MCA into law last October and shortly thereafter the the US Justice Department sent letters to the DC district and appeals courts, notifying the lower court that it no longer had jurisdiction over some 200 pending cases filed by Guantanamo detainees, and urging the appeals court to reach the merits in the present cases. Tuesday's appeals court ruling is expected to be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Department to Monitor Election in New York
Legal Business |
2007/02/20 02:25
|
The Justice Department today announced that on Feb. 20, 2007, it will monitor the special election in Richmond County (Staten Island), N.Y., to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The Department monitors will watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations in the county. A Civil Rights Division attorney will coordinate the federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials. Each year, the Justice Department deploys hundreds of federal observers from the Office of Personnel Management, as well as departmental staff, to monitor elections across the country. During calendar year 2004, a record number of 1,463 federal observers and 533 Department personnel were sent to monitor 163 elections in 105 jurisdictions in 29 states. This compares to the 640 federal observers and 103 Department personnel deployed during the entire 2000 presidential calendar year. In 2006, another record was set for the mid-term elections with more than 800 federal observers and Department personnel sent to monitor polling places in 69 jurisdictions in 22 states on Election Day. The Department’s election monitoring program also has been very active in non-federal election years. In calendar year 2005, for example, 640 federal observers and 191 Department personnel were sent to monitor 47 elections in 36 jurisdictions in 14 states.
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|