|
|
|
CA Sues to stop Bush's Butchering of Endagered Species Act
Environmental |
2009/01/02 09:16
|
California's Attorney General went into Federal Court Tuesday in an effort to stop a midnight regulation by the Bush Administration that would exempt federal agencies from a key requirement of the Endangered Species Act, saying the move in the waning days of Bush's presidency usurps the power of Congress and is the most significant change to the act in 20 years.
"The Bush Administration is unlawfully trying to make major substantive and procedural revisions to the statute through the regulatory process. This is not something executive agencies are authorized to do. Only Congress can amend the statute" says Abraham Arredondo, a lawyer for the California Attorney General's Office.
The ESA mandated that federal agencies seek independent reviews from scientists on projects that might negatively affect endangered or threatened species.
The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, however, proposed to eliminate this provision and on December 16th it was removed.
Federal agencies now decide for themselves whether mining, logging, and other projects will negatively affect threatened or endangered species. Attorney General Edmund Brown claims these agencies generally lack biological expertise and that they usually have incentive to conclude their projects won't hurt listed species.
Also, the Act no longer mandates that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on listed species be considered in federal projects. Federal agencies no longer need to consider potential negative affects on species like the polar bear when approving coal-burning power plants or projects which contribute to greenhouse gasses.
Of the 1,327 plant and animal species on the national endangered and threatened species list, 310 of them are in California. The federal government owns millions of acres of land in California in the form of military bases, public lands, and federal water projects, among other things.
California has its own list of endangered species and the federal government must still follow the California Endangered Species Act when operating on California land.
The lawsuit draws attention to the increasing stagnancy of the federal Endangered Species Act. Robert Wayne, a Biology professor at UCLA, explained that it is now very difficult to add species to the federal endangered species list, which results in many species becoming extinct while still being considered for listing.
In 2004, the Washington Post wrote an article detailing the influence of the Bush administration on the ESA. It reported that 9.5 species a year were added to the endangered list under President Bush, compared with 65 a year under President Bill Clinton and 59 a year under President George H.W. Bush. The Paper also reported that the administration recalculated the economic costs of protecting critical habitats and also noted increased difficulty in listing new species.
The Federal ESA understands endangered species to be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are animals and plants likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges.
Megan Acevedo is the Deputy Attorney General representing California. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lobbyist Sues NY Times for Defamation
Political and Legal |
2009/01/02 09:14
|
Washington lobbyist Vicki Iseman sued The New York Times on Tuesday, claiming the newspaper defamed her in an article "falsely communicating that Ms. Iseman and Sen. John McCain had an illicit 'romantic' and unethical relationship in breach of the public trust in 1999, while Sen. McCain was chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and while Ms. Iseman was representing clients as a lobbyist on matters relating to the business of the committee."
Iseman demands $27 million from the Times and its editors and reporters, insisting she "did not engage in any behavior toward (McCain) that was anything other than professional and appropriate."
The lawsuit refers to the Feb. 21 story, "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk." Iseman sued the four reporters whose bylines are on the story - James Rutenberg, Marilyn Thompson, Stephen Labaton and David Kirkpatrick - and editors Bill Keller and Dean Baquet.
The federal filing quotes more than 30 paragraphs from the Times story, which reported that two of McCain's "associates" were so concerned about his behavior with Iseman that, according to the article as cited in the lawsuit, "they joined in a serried of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Mr. (sic) Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
"Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator," the Times reported, according to the complaint.
Iseman claims the article is "reasonably susceptible of two levels of false and defamatory meanings, constitution 'defamation per se' under Virginia law. ... The first defamatory meaning was that MS Iseman exploited an alleged personal and social friendship with Sen. McCain to obtain favorable legislative outcomes for her clients, engaging in 'inappropriate' behavior that constituted a conflict of interest and a violation of professional and ethical norms in breach of the public trust. This meaning was communicated through the literal words of the article and also by implication, by what was intentionally suggested and implied 'between the lines.'
"The second defamatory meaning was that Ms. Iseman and Sen. McCain had engaged in an illicit and inappropriate romantic while Ms. Iseman was a lobbyist conducting business on behalf of clients before the committee chaired by Sen. McCain. This was also defamation per se under Virginia law. This meaning was also communicated through the literal words of the article and by implication, by what was suggested and implied 'between the lines.'"
The article then cites 1o major media outlets that followed up the Times story.
The Times broke the story of Iseman's lawsuit on its Web site Tuesday afternoon. The newspaper said it stands by its story.
Iseman's 36-page filing claims the Times story is false, that it damaged her reputation and her emotional and mental health, that it was "deliberately and recklessly misleading," and written with negligence and "actual malice."
Iseman claims she is a private figure and thus need prove only negligence to make the defamation claim stick. And she claims, on page 32 of the lawsuit, that the Times rushed the story into print to try to beat a story The New Republic was preparing "about The New York times failed and obsessive pursuit of the story, including its inability to 'nail down' the scandalous accusations," according to the complaint.
Iseman is represented by W. Coleman Allen Jr. of Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democrats' struggle over filling Obama seat
Politics |
2008/12/31 09:12
|
| Rep. Bobby Rush says he doesn't think any U.S. senator would be caught turning a black man away from serving alongside them. He thought wrong. No Senate Democrats responded to his racial challenge. And they got support from President-elect Barack Obama, who will be the first African-American in the White House. Rush, D-Ill., dared Senate Democrats Tuesday to block Roland Burris from becoming the Senate's only black member, urging them not to "hang and lynch" the former state attorney general for the alleged corruption by his patron, Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Obama was having none of it, siding with Senate Democrats who vowed to turn Burris away should he show up in Washington to be sworn in. "They cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat," Obama said in a statement. "I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it." Obama voiced disapproval for the spectacle unfolding in his home state. "I believe the best resolution would be for the governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place," Obama said. It was unclear what that process would be and who would choose Obama's successor. On Tuesday, Blagojevich declared himself the decider, defying the leaders of his party and naming Burris, 71, the next senator from Illinois. At a news conference in Chicago, he urged the Senate not to allow the charges that he tried to sell the same Senate seat to taint a well-respected man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada's No. 2 pleads not guilty to money charges
Political and Legal |
2008/12/31 09:11
|
| Nevada's lieutenant governor pleaded not guilty Tuesday to four felony charges accusing him of mishandling a multibillion-dollar state college savings program when he was state treasurer. Republican Brian Krolicki, who is considering a 2010 run against U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, appeared in Clark County District Court and spoke only to answer brief questions from a hearing master and to enter his plea. He has claimed that the charges are politically motviated, and outside of court he maintained his innocence. "I look forward to getting my story out soon, and we'll do that. The facts will absolutely vindicate me in this," he said. The court set a July 14 trial date. Krolicki, 47, was indicted by a Las Vegas grand jury this month, along with his chief of staff, Kathryn Besser, who also served as his chief of staff in the treasurer's office. Krolicki served two terms in that office before being elected lieutenant governor in 2006. He is charged with two counts of misappropriation and falsification of accounts by a public officer and two counts of misappropriation by a treasurer. The four felony counts each carry a possible sentence of up to four years in prison. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rape conviction upheld despite juror's sex crime
Law Center |
2008/12/31 09:11
|
| The Michigan Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand a rape conviction that was challenged because a juror didn't disclose that he had been convicted of a sex crime. Michigan law bars felons from serving on a jury. But the high court voted 5-2 to uphold the conviction, ruling there was no evidence the juror was biased in the trial of Michael Allen Miller in Ottawa County. Miller, now 31, was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in 2006 for forcing the 7-year-old daughter of his girlfriend at the time to perform a sex act on him. Before his sentencing, Miller learned that a juror had concealed that he was convicted of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in 1991 and 1999 for assaulting his sister and a child. Justice Stephen Markman wrote that defendants have a constitutional right to an impartial jury but don't have a constitutional right to be tried by a jury without felons. The ruling reversed a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which in January ordered a new trial. "There is simply no evidence that this juror improperly affected any other jurors," Markman said. Dissenting Justice Marilyn Kelly called the majority's opinion "unworkable" and "unjust," arguing that jurors' honesty is essential to picking a fair jury. Gary Kohut, Miller's court-appointed appellate attorney, said he doesn't know yet whether a federal appeal will be filed. "It's dangerous to say a fair and impartial jury can exist with a convicted felony on the jury," Kohut said. "It really is a fraud on the court for that (juror) to have done what he did." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. court: Nude people still have privacy rights
Court Watch |
2008/12/31 09:11
|
| A state appeals court ruled Tuesday that a person who is voluntarily nude in the presence of another still has privacy rights against being secretly videotaped, in a decision that bolsters Wisconsin's video voyeur law. The ruling upholds the felony guilty plea of Mark Jahnke, who videotaped his girlfriend while she was naked and while they were having sex. He argued in his appeal that because the woman agreed to be naked around him, she had no reasonable expectation of privacy. The state Department of Justice argued that shared intimacy does not give a person the right to film another unknowingly. Jahnke's attorney, Michael Herbert of Madison, argued that the court had found in a previous case that a reasonable expectation of privacy existed when a nude person reasonably believed he or she was "secluded from the presence of others." Prosecutors argued the video voyeur law would make no sense under that interpretation. The appeals court agreed, saying the definition in the previous case was not intended to cover all circumstances. Judge Charles Dykman, the dissenter in the 2-1 decision, said the 2001 law does not specifically prohibit what Jahnke did. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen praised the ruling. "Wisconsin's citizens enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy not to be secretly videotaped while in the nude, and Wisconsin's criminal law has been correctly interpreted to protect that expectation," he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mo. governor to join Massachusetts equity company
Political and Legal |
2008/12/31 03:12
|
| Missouri's outgoing governor has been hired by an equity firm led by a son of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Solamere Capital said Tuesday that Blunt will be a senior adviser at the Massachusetts firm, led by Tagg Romney. It cited his experience with Missouri's budget. Blunt was an early supporter of Mitt Romney's failed Republican presidential bid. He announced in January 2008 that he would not seek a second term as governor. He leaves office Jan. 12. His administration gained attention over accusations of violating an open records law. His office recently released e-mails to settle a lawsuit brought by media organizations. A spokesman says Blunt will continue to live with his family in Springfield, Mo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
