|
|
|
China considering reforms to labor 're-education' law
International |
2007/03/01 13:55
|
The Chinese parliament will consider amending a law allowing the state to send criminal suspects to labor camps without a trial during the National People's Congress (NPC) scheduled for next week, the China Daily reported Thursday. The system, called "re-education through labor," or "laojiao", currently allows the police to send those suspected of committing petty crimes, such as theft, prostitution, and illegal drug use, to jail for up to four years. Judicial review is only granted after time has been served at the jail. The changes being considered next week would limit incarceration to less than 18 months and make judicial review more lenient. The camps would be called "correctional centers," instead of "re-education centers." Since its inception in 1957, laojiao has detained as many as 400,000 criminals. Critics say the government uses the system to detain political and religious activists. The reform being considered next week was initially added to the NPC agenda in 2005, but was postponed for two years due to disagreements about its terms. In 2005, Human Rights in China said the reform would be a major improvement but still called for the complete eradication of the entire system. Among 20 other items on next week's agenda are proposed amendments to laws involving education, corporate tax, and property rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme court to rule on aid for religious charities
Breaking Legal News |
2007/02/28 21:12
|
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 06-157, where the court must decide whether taxpayers have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge federal support for "faith-based" religious initiatives. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFR) sued US Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, complaining that government funds should not be used to promote President Bush’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. After the district court held that FFR did not have standing to sue and dismissed the case, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in January 2006 that taxpayers have standing to challenge a program created by a Presidential executive order, alleged to promote religion, and which is financed by a congressional appropriation.
On Wednesday, Justice Breyer questioned a White House lawyer on whether a taxpayer would be able to challenge a law in which Congress sets up a church at Plymouth Rock. Justice Scalia took the opposite stance and asked a lawyer for FFR whether taxpayers would be able to sue over the use of security money for a presidential trip in which religion was discussed. The outcome of the case may depend on a 1968 Supreme Court decision which created an exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer challenges to the government spending of tax revenue. In that case, Board of Education v. Allen, the Court allowed taxpayers to challenge congressional spending for private religious schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii lawmakers shelve civil union bill
Law Center |
2007/02/28 11:06
|
Hawaii legislators have shelved a proposal to create civil unions for same-sex couples, indicating that the state legislature did not have enough votes to pass the law.
The state House Judiciary Committee declined to vote on the proposal after hours of testimony Tuesday without explaining the reasons for deferring debate. Hawaii was one of the first states to consider same-sex marriage when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that same-sex couples cannot be denied marriage, but a 1998 constitutional amendment defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey each recognize civil unions for same-sex couples, while Massachusetts is the only US state to legally recognize same-sex marriage. Earlier this month, New Jersey became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage and civil unions from out of state jurisdictions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Disney sues city over development
Breaking Legal News |
2007/02/28 08:50
|
The Walt Disney World Co. filed today what is believed to be its first ever lawsuit against the city of Anaheim, claiming legal action is needed to protect the tourist area from inappropriate development.
The Orange County Superior Court suit came less than two weeks after Disney officials led business leaders in fighting a City Council proposal to allow homes on a plot in the Anaheim Resort. The plan was rejected in a 2-2 vote. Still, Disney officials said the lawsuit is necessary to ensure that this development and others go through required environmental studies, which they claim were skipped in this proposal. City staffers have said previous reviews were sufficient. "Our concern is, this could quickly unravel the Anaheim Resort area and the golden egg that it is for Anaheim," said Rob Doughty, a Disneyland Resort spokesman. Mayor Curt Pringle, who was against the residential plan, said he would leave it to the lawyers to consider the merits of the case. But he said the lawsuit was a dramatic step on the part of Disney, the city's largest employer that is the center of the resort where much of the local taxes are generated. "This is a very significant action. This is something that we should not take lightly," Pringle said. Some council members said they were taken aback by the lawsuit, while others saw it coming. "It's absolutely a surprise,'' said Councilman Harry Sidhu, who voted against the zoning change. "At the same time, they have a right to defend their position and we'll see what their demands are. I do not like to see any kind of lawsuit. I'm the type of person that wants a settlement, and I would like to give them a chance to present their case." The lawsuit stems from unusual actions taken by both the council and the Planning Commission. In August, four of five council members asked the staff for the zoning change to pave the way for SunCal to propose a 1,500-home development, including 200 affordable units. Affordable-housing advocates praised the plan as a way to build low-cost homes near resort jobs. But business leaders said the proposal went against the long-term vision to put hotels and tourist venues on the 26.7-acre plot. Last month, the commission went against the council's direction and rejected the residential zoning, agreeing with Disney that homes are incompatible with the resort area. At the same time, the commission backed the city's recommendation to approve environmental documents, which outline how much development the surrounding roads, sewers and other infrastructure can handle. City staff relied on previous studies, instead of conducting new ones. Because the council deadlocked on the plan, the commission's vote stands as the final decision. Disney disagrees with the commission's endorsement of the environmental studies and now is suing to force the city to conduct them. Frank Elfend, a consultant for SunCal, said he believes the lawsuit is unfounded. SunCal is requesting a council re-hearing on the zoning change. "We think that this is another intimidation action on Disney's part," Elfend said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law firm bills $55,000 to agency facing probe
Breaking Legal News |
2007/02/28 08:47
|
The private law firm hired to represent the state Office of Legislative Services amid a federal grand jury investigation has submitted a $55,000 bill for its first few weeks on the job. The law firm, Greenberg, Dauber, Epstein & Tucker, submitted an invoice Feb. 5 that totaled $55,032.25 for three lawyers' 189.7 billable hours, according to a redacted bill released by the OLS to Gannett New Jersey. Though the firm did not send the OLS a written contract until Jan. 18, billing began on Dec. 30. By the time it sent a letter to OLS stipulating its rate -- $275 per hour, or $300 per hour in court -- the firm's lawyers had racked up $17,600 in fees. Because the matter involves a federal grand jury looking at whether lawmakers personally profited from state budget decisions, little of the proceeding has been public. Senate President Richard J. Codey, D-West Orange, has said the legal fight for which the outside counsel was hired only involves former Senate budget committee chairman Wayne Bryant, D-Lawnside, invoking an attorney-client privilege with the OLS, but subsequent subpoenas issued to partisan legislative offices and key lawmakers have indicated a broader scope. OLS Executive Director Albert Porroni would neither confirm nor deny that the inquiry involves only Bryant. The legal invoice renewed Republican calls for a meeting of the Legislative Services Commission, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers that oversees the OLS. Republicans have been calling for a commission meeting since it was revealed the OLS hired Edward J. Dauber without briefing lawmakers. |
|
|
|
|
|
San Diego diocese files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
Breaking Legal News |
2007/02/28 08:37
|
The Catholic Diocese of San Diego filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Tuesday putting a stop to an upcoming sex abuse trial and becoming the largest US diocese to file for bankruptcy thus far. The diocese had been engaged in settlement talks with plaintiffs' attorneys in the lawsuits over clergy abuse, however, after those talks failed to come to any resolution, the diocese filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. As Bishop Robert Brom explained, the diocese "decided against litigating our cases because of the length of time the process could take and, more importantly, because early trial judgments in favor of some victims could so deplete diocesan and insurance resources that there would be nothing left for other victims." David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said that the filing is not due to concerns for the victims, but rather "its for their own self-preservation." The diocese told parishioners last week that it was considering declaring bankruptcy in light of the more than 140 pending lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by priests. In January 2007, the Catholic Diocese of Spokane agreed to settle molestation claims against priests for $48 million as part of its Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The Archdiocese of Portland filed for Chapter 11 in 2004, and the dioceses of Tuscon, Spokane, and Davenport soon followed suit in the wake of hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits against clergy. Last month, the Portland archdiocese filed a new bankruptcy plan including a $75 million settlement of the sexual abuse claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
DOJ sued for release of FISC wiretapping order
Court Watch |
2007/02/28 08:08
|
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a complaint Tuesday against the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking the release of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) order that authorized government surveillance of transmissions coming into or going outside of the country where one party was suspected of association with a terrorist organization.
The EFF filed their complaint under Section 552(a)(4)(B) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which grants the federal court "jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant." The EFF complaint alleges that the DOJ denied the EFF's January 23, 2007 FOIA request seeking:
copies of all Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court...orders referenced by the Attorney General in his letter to Sens. Leahy and Specter, and all FISC rules and guidelines associated with such orders and/or referenced by Mr. Snow in the January 17 press briefing. Gonzales revealed the existence of the FISC order in January through a letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which Gonzales announced that Bush administration will submit all domestic surveillance requests to the FISC for review and approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. While maintaining the legality of the NSA domestic surveillance program, Gonzales said in the letter that the President will not reauthorize the program when its current authorization expires, and will instead submit all surveillance requests through the FISC. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|