Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Three admit online terror charges at London court
International | 2007/07/04 01:29

Three men have admitted using the internet to urge Muslims to wage holy war on non-believers, police said, in what is believed to the first prosecution of its kind in Britain.

Tariq Al-Daour, Younes Tsouli and Waseem Mughal had close links with Al-Qaeda in Iraq and thought there was a 'global conspiracy' to wipe out Islam, London's Woolwich Crown Court was told.

UAE-born Al-Daour, 21, admitted a charge of 'inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the UK which would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute murder'.

Moroccan-born Tsouli, 23, and British-born Mughal, 24, admitted the same charge on Monday.

The guilty pleas came two months into their trial.

Al-Daour and Tsouli, who lived in west London, and Mughal, from Kent, in southeast England, also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud banks, credit card and charge card companies.

The trial was told the computer experts spent at least 12 months trying to encourage people to follow the extreme ideology of Osama bin Laden using email and radical websites.

Films of hostages and beheadings were found among their possessions, including footage of British contractor Ken Bigley, who was killed in Iraq in 2004; and US journalist Daniel Pearl, killed in Pakistan in 2002.

CDs containing instructions for making explosives and poisons were also found, with other documents giving advice on how to use a rocket-propelled grenade and how to make booby traps and a suicide vest.

Police also discovered online conversations in which Al-Dour talked of sponsoring terrorist attacks, becoming 'the new Osama' and justifying suicide bombings.



Parmalat must defend US investor class-action suit
Class Action | 2007/07/03 18:34

A Manhattan federal judge has rejected Parmalat SpA's (PLT.MI: Quote, Profile , Research) request to dismiss an investor class-action lawsuit stemming from the company's December 2003 collapse in an accounting scandal.

The ruling is a defeat for the Italian dairy company and Chief Executive Enrico Bondi. Both have been trying to distance themselves from prior management, and are seeking billions of dollars of damages from the company's former bankers.

Parmalat had filed Europe's largest bankruptcy under about 14 billion euros ($19.07 billion) of debt, after uncovering a 4 billion euro ($5.45 billion) hole in its accounts.


In a June 28 ruling, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan concluded that the reorganized Parmalat "expressly agreed" when it emerged from insolvency proceedings in 2005 to assume the old Parmalat's liabilities for fraud alleged by the investors.

"New Parmalat asserts that it did not assume the pre-insolvency acts," Kaplan wrote in a 30-page opinion. "But the issue is not the assumption of acts. It is the assumption of liability for those acts."

Kaplan also rejected Bondi's contention that the investors waited too long after learning of the alleged fraud to file claims, saying procedural developments in the case pushed back the filing deadline.

Stuart Grant, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a statement said Kaplan's decision paves the way for a "substantial recovery" against Parmalat. 



Bush spares Libby from prison sentence
Breaking Legal News | 2007/07/03 08:52
President Bush yesterday commuted the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, ensuring that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff will not have to serve any of a 30-month term for obstructing justice in the investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity. The move was applauded by Republican allies but blasted by Democrats who accused Bush of condoning the criminal act of a loyal White House insider. Bush acted shortly after a federal appeals court unanimously ruled yesterday that Libby must begin serving his sentence while the case is on appeal, a decision that would have put him behind bars within weeks. The president left in place a $250,000 fine against Libby and the two-year probation he must serve; the criminal conviction will also remain on Libby's record.

The commutation, which drastically reduced Libby's punishment, is just short of a presidential pardon, which would have exonerated Libby and wiped the conviction from his record.

The key adviser to Cheney and an architect of the Iraq war, Libby was convicted March 6 in federal court. A jury found him guilty of lying to prosecutors who were trying to determine if top Bush administration officials leaked the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson -- purported retaliation for her husband's contention that the Bush administration twisted intelligence facts to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement announcing his decision. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive."

While the president has the right to pardon convicted criminals and commute prison sentences, such actions are rare, and normally are taken after a thorough investigation by the Department of Justice. Bush, however, said in his statement that he made the decision personally.

The president noted that Libby's supporters believe the punishment does not fit the crime, while his critics point to the fact that he was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice in an open court. While both sides "have made important points, I have made my own evaluation," Bush said.

Democratic Party leaders, including several of the party's presidential candidates, were outraged, saying the commutation shows disrespect for the judicial system and smacks of a different legal standard for Bush's top aides.

In a statement issued last night, Senate majority leader Harry Reid called Bush's decision "disgraceful," adding that Libby's jury trial and conviction "was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."

But House Republican whip Roy Blunt applauded the decision, saying, "President Bush did the right thing today in commuting the prison term for Scooter Libby. The prison sentence was overly harsh and the punishment did not fit the crime. The sentence was based on charges that had nothing to do with the leak of the identity of a CIA operative."

Libby's lawyer, William Jeffress , said he was pleased by the president's decision. "The prison sentence was imminent, but obviously the conviction itself is a heavy blow to Scooter," he told the Associated Press.

The case against Libby, authorities say, stemmed from a White House decision to play hardball with critics who challenged their reasoning for the war. Cheney was particularly incensed at a New York Times opinion article by Joseph Wilson, Plame Wilson's husband, a retired ambassador who accused the administration of exaggerating the security threat in Iraq.

As the White House was preparing its case for war, the CIA asked Wilson, a retired ambassador who had served in Africa, in 2002 to check out reports that Niger had sent materials for a nuclear weapon to Iraq. Upon returning, Wilson told the CIA he found no evidence of such a transfer.

Nonetheless, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union speech that the British government "has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

In July 2003, Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times stating that the intelligence the president cited in his speech had been "twisted" to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and convince Congress and the nation that war was necessary. According to evidence introduced during the trial, Cheney clipped the article and jotted a note on it: "did his wife send him on a junket?"

Shortly afterward, Plame Wilson's name was leaked as a CIA operative, appearing first in a column written by Robert Novak. A federal investigation was launched, and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed many administration insiders, including Libby, as well as several influential Washington journalists. The investigation focused on whether Plame Wilson's name was leaked as retaliation for her husband's article and to undercut his credibility.

Reached by telephone yesterday, Wilson said he believes Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence raises further suspicion about what role the president, vice president, and other top aides may have had in revealing his wife's identity.

Fitzgerald maintained after Libby's verdict that his false testimony and obstruction may have prevented a case from being brought for the original act of leaking the identity of an undercover intelligence operative.

Bush "has effectively guaranteed that there is no incentive for Mr. Libby to tell the truth about what really happened," Wilson said, adding that his wife "is just as outraged as I am."

Bush's action came at a time when many Democrats and some Republicans have called for a continued investigation into how the president went to war. Some Democrats had hoped the investigation that led to Libby's conviction would unearth fresh information about how the administration manipulated journalists and the Congress with misleading information about the allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Analysts said Bush's decision demonstrated the continuing influence of Cheney, who issued a statement after the sentencing that he was "deeply saddened" by the 30-month term. "Speaking as friends, we hope that our system will return a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man," Cheney and his wife, Lynne, said at the time.

While there has been considerable speculation that Bush would commute Libby's sentence or pardon him, the swiftness of the decision surprised many political observers because it came before Libby exhausted his legal appeals.

"I'm surprised it was this quick. There were other appeals that could have been taken," said University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl Tobias. Tobias noted that the three-judge panel is composed of two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee, which indicates Libby might have had a tough time winning an appeal. "They were unanimous and these were not what anybody would consider left-wing judges," Tobias said.

During the sentencing hearing, Fitzgerald urged US District Judge Reggie Walton "to make clear and loud that truth matters and one's station in life does not." Walton, in announcing the sentence, said "it is important we expect and demand a lot from people who put themselves in those positions. Mr. Libby failed to meet the bar."



California IP law firm stakes claim in D.C.
Law Firm News | 2007/07/03 08:01

Intellectual property law firm Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP is opening a Washington practice and raiding local law offices to staff it. The San Francisco-based firm, with more than 200 attorneys and patent experts, is opening a temporary office at 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW while it negotiates a lease for permanent space on K Street. Firm spokesman Brian Colucci would not disclose the K Street location. It is Townsend's eighth office and its first on the East Coast. D.C. law firm Kenyon and Kenyon will lose three partners to Townsend. Gary Morris will serve as partner-in-charge of the new office. Neil McCarthy and John McGroarty, also Kenyon partners, will move to Townsend.

Richard Meyer, previously chair of the patent practice at McGuireWoods LLP, will join Townsend from McGuireWoods' Tysons Corner office, serving as head of East Coast litigation. Also joining Townsend from McGuireWoods is partner Jonathan Link, special counsel Andrew Pratt and associate Andrea Tiglio.

"For an IP firm, Washington, DC is a logical choice by virtue of its proximity to the Patent and Trademark Office, the International Trade Commission and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - all venues where we have been extremely active for years," said Townsend Chairman James Gilliland in a statement.

Townsend also recently opened practices in Seattle and San Diego. In addition to its home office in San Francisco, it also has practices in Palo Alto and Walnut Creek, Calif., Denver and Tokyo.

http://www.townsend.com




Court quashes Raiders' lawsuit against NFL
Court Watch | 2007/07/03 07:53

Raiders owner Al Davis on Monday lost his final effort to collect financial damages stemming from his return to Oakland 12 years ago, a move marked by dozens of television blackouts, thousands of empty seats and millions of dollars in lost revenue. A unanimous California Supreme Court refused to revive the Raiders' lawsuit against the NFL, in which Davis alleged the league forced his move back to Oakland by refusing to cooperate in his attempt to get a new stadium built at Hollywood Park outside Los Angeles.

A Los Angeles jury in 2001 had rejected Davis' claims, but the trial judge, Robert C. Hubbell, threw out the verdict and ordered a new trial after several jurors accused two members of the panel of misconduct. An appellate court in 2005 restored the jury verdict, saying conflicting accounts of what happened in the jury room did not merit a new trial. Restricting its review to a narrow legal issue - whether the appellate court was correct in reviewing the competing juror accounts in the absence of a rationale being provided by Hubbell for his own ruling - the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision.

"We are pleased this lengthy litigation is finally over," said NFL executive vice president Joe Browne.

Jeff Birren, the Raiders' general counsel, said, "The Supreme Court ruled that because the judge failed to insert a couple of extra words of explanation, the Raiders should be denied a new trial. The Supreme Court's ruling is incomprehensible."

Davis had claimed more than $1 billion worth of damages from the NFL, but jurors didn't believe his account that the league forced his decision to move back to Oakland by imposing onerous terms before it would help build a new Hollywood Park stadium. The jury sided with the NFL, which argued Davis took the deal in Oakland because he thought it would turn out best for the team.

After the verdict was reached, Davis personally interviewed jurors and found some who were willing to sign statements saying a member of the panel was prejudiced against the Raiders. That juror, Joseph Abiog, maintained he had no bias, saying he only had joked that "I hate the Raiders" because he once lost a bet on the team in Las Vegas.

The Oakland contract has been disastrous both for the Raiders and taxpayers in the city and in Alameda County, as Raiders fans refused to buy all the pricey personal seat licenses and club seats that the deal's proponents had projected. The Raiders have fallen to among the lowest revenue-producing teams in the league, while the city and county have paid $236 million to cover the deal costs to date, a number that will increase until bonds used to rebuild McAfee Coliseum are retired in 2025.



Doctor Pleads Guilty to Child Porn
Court Watch | 2007/07/03 06:57
A family physician in the rural northeast corner of California pleaded guilty Monday to one count of felony child pornography for secretly videotaping teenage girls during pelvic and breast exams. Owen Murphy Panner Jr., 60, used a miniature camera hidden in the breast pocket of his shirt to videotape the pelvic examination of a 15-year-old female patient, U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott said.

Panner also installed small cameras in air vents above an examination table to record a nurse practitioner performing breast and pelvic exams on a 16-year-old patient.

The recordings were made in 2001 at the Modoc Medical Clinic and were discovered three years later by hunters walking in a field, the U.S. attorney's office said. The tapes had been buried in a Tupperware-style container.

Scott said Panner admitted producing the tapes and acknowledged he kept them because he was a "pack rat." Calls to a residential number in Panner's name in Alturas went unanswered Monday.

According to state Medical Board records, Panner was a graduate of the University of California, Irvine, and had practiced medicine for 27 years. He surrendered his medical license in April 2006.

He faces up to five years in jail and a $250,000 fine when he is sentenced in September in U.S. District Court.



High court misfires on desegregation
Legal Business | 2007/07/03 06:55

After 53 years of standing against racially segregated public classrooms, the Supreme Court has signaled retreat. That it came in a case partially growing from Louisville's traumatic school desegregation in 1975 was poignantly ironic. Thirty-two years can erase many memories. They heal old wounds and allow communities ripped apart by bitterness to come together again. City-county conflicts that helped fuel the 1975 protests have faded with the adoption of a metropolitan Louisville-Jefferson County government.

Still, many veterans of those days must feel a sense of betrayal. Was what we stood up for as right - and this applies to those urging obedience to the law and those protesting in the streets - all wrong?

Members of the county school board must feel that the high court has turned its back to its efforts to make classrooms' racial makeup reflect the county's.

Lost among the arguments and counterarguments was the simple fact that the case didn't have to be. Louisville had won national attention in 1956 for voluntarily desegregating its public schools in compliance with Brown vs. Board of Education. It was a token action since housing patterns dictated that neighborhood schools would remain single-race.

By the 1970s, the city's demographics had changed. Housing patterns, in part spurred by urban renewal, had shifted. Louisville's West End, once dominated by ethnic, blue-collar families, became the home for blacks fleeing the inner city and, in many cases, urban renewal's relentless bulldozers. White families moved to the suburban developments springing up across Jefferson County.

A ring of small cities surrounding Louisville blocked the city from annexing the new communities. And the county's sleepy, essentially rural school system found itself scrambling to build schools fast enough to accommodate the influx.

By the early 1970s, it was apparent the Louisville school system was close to the tipping point where the city's remaining white families would flee. The county schools, by contrast, were almost all white. There were a few historically black neighborhoods scattered across the county, most of them in one school district. Both districts became the target of desegregation suits. The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights argued that the districts should be merged.

The city school board then complicated the cases. It bowed to the reality of a shrinking tax base and the threat of white flight and went out of business. The Legislature enacted merger legislation, and the systems, which had little respect for each other, began to try to reconcile their cultures and educational philosophies. U.S. District Judge James Gordon, who was hearing the desegregation suits, gave them breathing room by finding both systems legally desegregated.

But the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't convinced. Newburg School, serving a historically black community, went through the eighth grade. All other county elementary schools stopped at the sixth grade. It was a vestige of de jure segregation that Judge Gordon acknowledged having had difficulty "writing around" in finding the schools in compliance with Brown.

The case bounced back to Judge Gordon with an order to put a desegregation plan into effect. To help in drafting it, Judge Gordon turned to two young administrators in the city system. They developed a system of school clusters, pairing inner city predominantly black schools with suburban schools. Students were to be transported among the schools according to the first letter of their last name. To achieve racial balance, white students would be bused two years; black students, 10.

Implementation of the plan marred Louisville's image across the country. The ugly pictures from protest marches and rallies showed up on the 6 p.m. news nationwide. The Courier Journal and Louisville Times building at Sixth and Broadway became a favorite target because of our calls for obedience to the law. Reporters and photographers covering the marches and rallies took an undeserved share of the abuse.

To have it end up with the almost flip statement by Chief Justice John Roberts that the "way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" is dismissive of centuries of discrimination. It puts down the good-faith efforts by Louisville and thousands of other communities to overcome that past.

Americans of all races deserve better of their highest court.



[PREV] [1] ..[944][945][946][947][948][949][950][951][952].. [1185] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
Tight US House races in Cali..
North Carolina Attorney Gene..
Republicans take Senate majo..
What to know about the unpre..
A man who threatened to kill..
Ford cuts 2024 earnings guid..
Kenya’s deputy president pl..
South Korean court acquits f..
Supreme Court grapples with ..
Supreme Court leaves in plac..
Kentucky sheriff accused of ..
New rules regarding election..
North Carolina appeals court..
A court in Argentina orders ..
Mexican cartel leader’s son..


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.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design