|
|
|
Eugene Criminal Defense - MJM Law Office, P.C.
Court Watch |
2012/02/19 09:40
|
Eugene Criminal Defense Law Firm
MJM Law Office, P.C. defends clients throughout Southern Oregon and the Willamette Valley against criminal charges. Eugene criminal defense attorney Max Mizejewski provides an aggressive defense against state and federal prosecutors. Mr. Mizejewski believes everyone's rights should be protected, and everyone deserves the best possible defense. If you have been charged with a criminal offense, you need to know your rights. Serious offenses such as drunk driving should not be taken lightly and you want to have an experience Eugene DUI Lawyer. Their firm also covers the follow criminal defenses: criminal driving offenses, drug crimes, property crimes, assault and violent crimes, and stalking. If you have been accused of domestic violence or are facing charges for any crime against the person it is important consult an experienced lawyer to protect your rights.
MJM Law Office is an Oregon based firm that has experience and successful track records defending cases against criminal charges. Their principal attorney, Max J. Mizejewski believes in dedicating time to understand each clients' individual case and specific needs. He has had the background and training to represent clients in criminal prosecutions and administrative hearings, making him the right advocate to have on your side. Contact MJM Law Office, P.C. today to schedule a consultation and visit www.mjmlawoffice.com for more information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY appeals court orders NJ programmer's acquittal
Court Watch |
2012/02/17 10:59
|
A federal appeals court on Friday reversed the conviction of a former Goldman Sachs programmer on charges he stole computer code, ordering an acquittal in a case that tested the boundaries of what can be considered a crime as companies seek to protect their intellectual property from competitors.
The unusually speedy mandate from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan will result in freedom for Sergey Aleynikov, of North Caldwell, N.J. He has been in prison since he was sentenced in March to more than eight years in prison. He was convicted in December 2010 of stealing trade secrets and transporting stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce.
A three-judge appeals panel heard arguments on Thursday, but the judges gave no indication that they would reverse the lower court hours later with a terse, one-paragraph order. The 2nd Circuit said it would issue a written ruling "in due course" to explain its decision.
Aleynikov's attorney, Kevin Marino, said he spoke with his client Friday. He said Aleynikov reacted by concluding: "There is justice in the world."
"I could not be happier," Marino said. "It's justice because Sergey Aleynikov did not commit either of the crimes with which he was charged. The government's attempt to stretch this criminal federal statute beyond all recognition resulted in a grave injustice that put Sergey Aleynikov in prison for a year."
In arguments before the 2nd Circuit on Thursday, Marino called it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" that his client was facing eight years in prison because he was found to have information that was not a product that Goldman Sachs sold in interstate and foreign commerce. A prosecutor had asked the court to uphold the conviction, saying protection of trade secrets was the only way companies could retain their technological advantages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action
Class Action |
2012/02/16 09:55
|
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers the common stock of Collective Brands, Inc. between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 2011, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Scott J. Farrell, Esquire of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, New York 11530 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/collective-brands-inc-pss.
Collective Brands was formed in 2007 when Payless ShoeSource acquired the Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (formerly the Stride Rite Corporation) and Collective Licensing International. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Collective Brands and certain of the Company’s directors and/or officers made materially false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial results. Specifically, it is alleged that defendants concealed from the investing public problems concerning the Company’s inventory level for Payless; significantly lower sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and that the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s inventory at significant discounts, which negatively affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
On May 24, 2011, the Company disclosed its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. As alleged in the Complaint, the Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted EPS expected by analysts. The Company also reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless Domestic segment. As a result, the price of Collective Brands common stock dropped $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a decline of approximately 17% on heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 26, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
http://www.rigrodskylong.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US justice rejects death penalty law he wrote
Breaking Legal News |
2012/02/15 13:03
|
As a young state senator 30 years ago, Paul Pfeifer helped write Ohio's death penalty law. Today, as the senior member of the state Supreme Court, he's trying to eliminate it.
It's not uncommon for sitting judges to change their mind on the death penalty — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun famously said in 1994 he would no longer "tinker with the machinery of death" — but Pfeifer may be the only one to argue so ardently against a capital punishment law he himself created, and yet continue to rule on death penalty cases.
"I have concluded that the death sentence makes no sense to me at this point when you can have life without the possibility of parole," Pfeifer said in his most recent public comments, testifying in December in favor a bill to abolish Ohio's law. "I don't see what society gains from that.
After the U.S. Supreme Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972, states spent several years rewriting their laws. Ohio's first attempt, in 1974, was found unconstitutional, but the second try, when Pfeifer was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was enacted in 1981 and has never been successfully challenged. Lawmakers pledged at the time to draft a law reserved for the most heinous murders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US bishops fight birth control deal
Human Rights |
2012/02/14 09:44
|
The top U.S. Catholic bishop vowed legislative and court challenges Tuesday to a compromise by President Barack Obama to his healthcare mandate that now exempts religiously affiliated institutions from paying directly for birth control for their workers, instead making insurance companies responsible.
Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an interview with The Associated Press that he trusted Obama wasn't anti-religious and intended to make good on his pledge to work with religious groups to fine-tune the mandate.
"I want to take him at his word," Dolan said in Rome, where he will be made a cardinal Saturday. But he stressed: "I do have to say it's getting harder and harder," to believe Obama's claim to prioritize religious freedom issues given the latest controversy.
Obama sought to quell fierce election-year outrage on Friday by abandoning his stand that religiously affiliated institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities must pay for birth control. Instead, he said insurance would step in to provide the coverage.
The administration's initial position had outraged evangelicals and Catholic bishops and emboldened many Republicans who charged that it amounted to an assault on religion by forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception, sterilization and the morning-after pill against their consciences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student bra search case goes to NC Supreme Court
Court Watch |
2012/02/13 10:13
|
The North Carolina Supreme Court is hearing arguments over whether school officials should be allowed to search students' bras for drugs.
A student at an alternative school sued after students had to untuck their shirts and pull out their bras with their thumbs in front of two men in 2008. The searches were done after the principal at Brunswick County Academy received a tip that pills were being brought into the school.
An appeals court ruled last year the searches were "degrading, demeaning and highly intrusive."
The attorney general's office is representing the school. The office says no skin was shown during the search, and students who are assigned to an alternative school because of disciplinary problems have a lesser expectation of privacy than other students. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Shuman Law Firm Announces Class Action
Court Watch |
2012/02/13 10:12
|
The Shuman Law Firm today announced that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Molycorp, Inc. between March 9, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.
The complaint alleges that Molycorp and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a) Molycorp's development and expansion of the Mountain Pass mine was not progressing on schedule and would not allow the company to reach rare earth oxide production rates at the end of calendar 2012 and 2013; and (b) end users had been reducing demand for the company's products as prices for rare earth elements increased.
On November 10, 2011, the Company reported disappointing third quarter 2011 revenues and earnings results below analysts' estimates and announced a reduction in Mountain Pass production guidance for the fourth quarter of 2011 due to expected equipment downtime relating to Mountain Pass engineering and expansion issues. The Company's stock price fell from $38.70 per share on November 10, 2011 to $33.45 per share on November 11, 2011, or approximately 13.6%.
If you purchased Molycorp common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class no later than April 3, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in investor rights litigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
