The auto product liability lawsuit, Levesque vs. Ford Motor Company, started today, December 3, 2007, in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, before the Honorable Ricardo Torres.

"Ford Motor Company's decision to place corporate profits over the safety of their SUV's occupants, demonstrates a callous disregard for the safety of the people who ride in Ford SUVs," says John Bisnar, partner and founder of the Bisnar Chase personal injury law firm. "It is shameful that an American auto maker would willingly ignore known catastrophic injury concerns just to improve their profits."

On the afternoon of July 25, 2003, the Ford Expedition's driver, swerved to avoid a collision while traveling southbound on Interstate 5 in Fresno County. The driver subsequently lost control of her vehicle which then rolled over several times. The defective roof collapsed causing severe head and spinal injuries to passenger Gloria Levesque.

The suit alleges Ford Motor Company intentionally engaged in conduct that exposed the plaintiff and other users of the Ford Expedition to potentially serious, life threatening danger for its financial interest and demonstrated a conscious disregard for consumers' safety. The plaintiff is seeking a judgment for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering.

"The defendants clearly put profit before people," says Brian Chase, partner and the firm's chief litigator. "This is another example of an automobile manufacturer profiting from the production of a vehicle known to have serious and life threatening defects. For only $30, Ford could have easily strengthened their SUV's roof structure to withstand these types of rollover roof failures. If Ford had chosen to do so, Gloria Levesque would be teaching at her Montessori school as she had for the past 25 years. Instead she is unemployed, permanently disabled, and catastrophically injured.

The lawsuit, originally filed on November 8, 2005, centers on the allegation that Ford manipulates the general public into believing that large SUVs like their Expedition model, are safer compared to other vehicles while knowing that their SUVs have one of the highest rates of rollover injuries and deaths of any vehicle on the road today.

Chase states, "Ford's SUVs are not built strong enough to protect the front seat occupants from being catastrophically injured during a rollover. They know this and have for years.

Unfortunately, Ford chose to ignore the inherent safety problems of the Expedition including the rollover propensity and insignificant roof strength."

About Bisnar Chase:

Bisnar Chase, LLP, is a California personal injury law firm that represents people who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the loss of a family member. They specialize in automobile defect cases against the world's largest automobile makers. Bisnar Chase is known for its multi-million settlements and judgments for its clients. For more information visit: www.auto-defect-attorneys.com and www.bisnar-chase.com

The lawsuit stems from an account set up with a $2 million deposit by Marcos in 1972 at Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. in New York. Merrill Lynch went to court in 2000 to determine who the money belonged to.

The Philippines government asserted sovereign immunity and said the case could not proceed in U.S. courts.

The willingness of lower U.S. courts to nonetheless get involved "raises significant concerns," the U.S. solicitor general said in a filing with the Supreme Court.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco prejudices cases in the Philippines on the same issue, the solicitor general said in court papers.

The court left in place a federal appeals court ruling that Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., should not have given reporters access to the tape-recorded telephone call of Republican leaders discussing the House ethics case against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga, in December 1996.

McDermott asked the justices to hear his appeal of the May ruling, which he said infringed on his free speech rights. The court did not comment on its action.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 5-4 decision, said McDermott's offense was especially egregious since he was a senior member of the House ethics committee at the time.

The ruling upheld a previous decision ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.

Boehner was among several GOP leaders heard on the December 1996 call, which involved ethics allegations against Gingrich. Then the House speaker, Gingrich was heard on the call telling Boehner and others how to react to allegations. He was later fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House.

McDermott, who was then serving on the ethics panel, leaked the tape to two newspapers, which published stories on the case in January 1997.

"It will be imperative that he speak in strong, unambiguous terms as to his support for this court and for this court's arrest warrants," Richard Dicker, director of the international justice program at Human Rights Watch, said Friday.

Without a tough message from Ban, the Sudanese government may get the idea they "can flout this court at will without facing repercussions from the leadership of the United Nations," Dicker said. "If that were to happen, it would make more difficult the prospect of justice for victims for absolutely horrific crimes."

The court came into being in July 2002, but Sudan is not among the 105 countries that have endorsed the 1998 Rome treaty that established it.

The Security Council referred the Darfur case — charging a cabinet minister and a janjaweed chief with crimes against humanity — to the court in 2005 in a resolution that required Sudan's government and all other parties in the conflict to cooperate. Sudan later agreed to set up its own investigation and a special court for Darfur.

In his speech Monday, Ban is expected to "urge all member states to do everything within their powers to assist the court in enforcing the outstanding warrants" in Darfur and to praise the court for becoming "a centerpiece of our system of international criminal justice," said associate U.N. spokesman Yves Sorokobi.

The conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region has claimed over 200,000 lives and uprooted 2.5 million people from their homes since violence erupted in early 2003 when rebels from the ethnic African majority took up arms against the Arab-dominated government. Critics accuse Sudan of retaliating by arming local Arab militias known as the janjaweed, and the government is blamed for widespread atrocities against civilians.

The court's meeting opened Friday with tough words from its president and its chief prosecutor on bringing charges against Ahmed Muhammed Harun, who was appointed Sudan's humanitarian affairs minister after his indictment was announced, and Ali Kushayb, a janjaweed leader.

"The arrest warrants and the obligation to enforce them will not go away," Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor, told the meeting.

Judge Philippe Kirsch, the court's president, noted the potential impact on the court's credibility because the warrants it issued in early May for the arrest and surrender of the two suspects have not yet been executed.

"Without arrests, there can be no trials. Without trials, victims will again be denied justice. The potential deterrent effect of the court will be reduced," Kirsch told the meeting.

Kirsch told the meeting that Ban's anticipated presence on Monday "reaffirms the importance of this special relationship" between the U.N. and the court, which is a tribunal of last resort for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

"The strength of support we receive during this meeting from the states and the United Nations, of course, strengthens the credibility of the court," Jurg Lauber, the court's chief of staff, told The Associated Press.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, told the AP on Friday that because Sudan is not a party to the court, its jurisdiction does not apply and its prosecutor was making "impossible demands, acting on behalf of the enemies of the peace and stability in the country."

Mohamad said Sudan also "should not be subject to the politicization of the Security Council."

Will Sudan turn over the two people indicted by the court?

"We will never turn over our citizens to be tried abroad," Mohamad said. "If there are accusations against any of our citizens, the judiciary in Sudan is more than capable."

The state said Mississippi courts examined Hodges' claims and determined they lacked merit.

"Miller's commitment papers...clearly show that this was his first commitment," state Attorney General Jim Hood told the court.

Under prior Supreme Court rulings, defendants have to show that their lawyer was deficient and that the outcome probably would have been different with competent representation.

The court's nine justices on Wednesday are to hear the appeal of Guantanamo prisoners who say a 2006 law unconstitutionally denies them a meaningful way to challenge in court their detention at the U.S. Naval Base on Cuba.

The case is being watched by governments and human rights activists around the world, who say President George W. Bush has overreached his powers and trampled on rights in the war on terrorism he launched after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

"The rule-of-law, humanitarian and human rights principles at stake in this case are the very principles which the coalition of liberal democracies together seek to uphold and defend in the 'war on terror,'" British and European parliament members said in one of the many outside briefs urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the detainees.

The Bush administration told the court the Guantanamo prisoners receive fair treatment and a chance to make their case before a military tribunal, with a limited appeals court review. But it said the Constitution's "habeas corpus" rights for prisoners to seek a court review of their detention do not apply to foreigners held outside the country.

"The detainees now enjoy greater procedural protections and statutory rights to challenge their wartime detentions than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of war. Yet they claim an entitlement to more," the Justice Department said in its brief on the case.