Today's Date: Add To Favorites
OC Bishop Faces Contempt of Court
Court Watch | 2007/10/10 08:10
The sexual abuse case was settled and Roman Catholic Bishop Tod Brown could have walked away without ever saying a thing about it in court. But an attempt to clear his name of allegations he helped a high-ranking church official avoid testifying has made Brown the first U.S. bishop who could face jail time in the church sex abuse scandal.

A judge began criminal contempt-of-court proceedings against Brown on Tuesday, just three days after he agreed to pay nearly $7 million to settle the lawsuits that led to contempt allegations surrounding Brown's decision to send the church official to Canada.

Before the hearing, plaintiffs' lawyers said they expected the judge to dismiss the contempt filing because the case had been settled. But Diocese of Orange attorney Peter Callahan insisted the proceedings go forward to clear the bishop's name, and Judge Gail Andler took him up on the offer.

Brown waived his arraignment, which lawyers said was the equivalent of a not guilty plea.

"This is one more example of the diocese stepping in their own mess," said John Manly, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case. "Now we can have our cake and eat it too."

Plaintiffs' attorneys had accused Brown of sending Msgr. John Urell to Ontario, Canada, for medical treatment before he could complete a deposition in one of four cases settled Friday. The monsignor was responsible for handling sexual abuse allegations against the diocese.

Brown testified in a pretrial deposition that he made the decision to send Urell to the Southdown Institute, although he knew Urell "had given a deposition and was going to be called back for further deposition."

He said Tuesday the facility is one of few that specializes in psychological care for clergy and because it could take him immediately.

Andler allowed attorneys to deliver their opening statements in the contempt case before postponing the rest of the hearing until Dec. 3. She said a subpoena for Urell's testimony would remain in effect until that date.

Callahan will argue at the hearing to dismiss the contempt matter.

Venus Soltan, a plaintiffs attorney, said Brown sent Urell away to suppress critical evidence about the diocese's handling of sexual abuse. Urell went away a week after he broke down during his deposition by plaintiffs' attorneys.

"When Msgr. Urell was there for half a day, he couldn't take it because he was too upset about having to testify about hiding all these allegations," she said in court. "This is plain and simply hiding the facts."

Callahan, however, said there was no evidence that a court order was in effect when Brown sent Urell away and asserted that a plaintiffs' attorney had verged on perjury in the court filings that precipitated the contempt hearing.

Urell knew nothing about the current case, which involved allegations that a lay assistant basketball coach molested a 16-year-old girl at Mater Dei High School, Callahan said.

"I was disappointed that the judge didn't rule. We were hoping that the bishop would have the opportunity to exonerate himself by telling the truth but he didn't get the opportunity," he said.

At a news conference outside court, two of the young women who were plaintiffs in the cases angrily asked Brown and his attorneys questions about how church officials handled their cases.

Brown did not respond to the questions directly, but apologized.

"To both of you, and to the other victims, all I can do is repeat once again, my sincerest and deepest and most compassionate apology on the part of the church for what happened to you, which was terrible and sinful and criminal and reprehensible," Brown said. "I'm just so very sorry it happened."

Three years ago, Brown agreed to pay $100 million to settle lawsuits from about 90 sexual abuse victims.



Sallie Mae $25 billion buyout ends up in court
Court Watch | 2007/10/10 05:10

The planned $25 billion buyout of U.S. student lender Sallie Mae has ended up where many said it would -- in court. Sallie Mae said late on Monday that it filed a lawsuit seeking a breakup fee of $900 million from the consortium led by J.C. Flowers & Co, which last week proposed to cut its bid price for the lender citing a recent credit market squeeze and legislation that slashes subsidies to student lenders.

Sallie Mae's lawsuit seeks a declaration that the buyer group has reneged on the merger agreement, that no "material adverse change" has occurred, and that Sallie Mae may terminate the takeover and collect the $900 million.

A material adverse change (MAC) is a condition that could cause a substantial reduction in earnings power and it can give buyers or lenders a "walk right" from their obligations.

The lawsuit is being seen by many as a hard-ball attempt by Sallie Mae to force the buyer group to stick to the original deal, in which the group offered $60 a share, or come up with something closer to it than its revised proposal of $50 a share, or $20.6 billion offer, plus extra payments depending on how the company performed.

"We are prepared to close under the contract the parties signed in April," said Sallie Mae chairman Albert Lord in a statement late on Monday. "Sallie Mae has honored its obligations under the merger agreement. We ask only that the buyer group do the same."  



Giuliani law firm sued by high profile Texan
Court Watch | 2007/10/09 02:18

A prominent Texas Republican has sued Rudy Giuliani’s law firm and a close friend and partner of Giuliani’s, Kenneth Caruso, alleging that Caruso, the firm and others "schemed and conspired to steal $10 million."

J. Virgil Waggoner, a Houston businessman and philanthropist, filed the in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan in July. He alleges that Caruso, his former lawyer, conspired with Waggoner’s investment adviser to cover up the disappearance of $10 million Waggoner invested through a Caribbean bank, the British Trade & Commerce Bank.

Waggoner claims Caruso "may have also been romantically involved"with the investment adviser.

The Caribbean bank was shut down after its handling of Waggoner’s investment came to light, and its president was later jailed for money laundering.

Caruso, Bracewell & Giuliani, and Caruso’s two former firms — all named as defendants — have filed motions to dismiss the complaint on largely procedural grounds, and Caruso’s personal defense lawyer, Fred Warder, called it "meritless."

"It’s a pretty familiar tale of a deal gone bad and the principal trying to scapegoat his lawyers,"Warder said. "We expect it will go away on motions."

The Waggoner lawsuit is the latest messy allegation to hit Giuliani’s private businesses, which include the law firm and his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, located five blocks from each other in Midtown Manhattan.

His former police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, left the consulting firm after his nomination to head the Department of Homeland Security collapsed amid questions about his personal ethics. Kerik was convicted and fined in 2006 for illegally accepting gifts and failing to report a personal loan while running the police department.

Giuliani and his firm have also faced protests for employing a Giuliani childhood friend and Catholic priest, Alan Placa, who was barred from priestly duties after being accused of molesting boys more than two decades ago. Placa has insisted the charges are false, and Giuliani has stoutly defended him.

Caruso, who joined Bracewell & Giuliani in 2005, was, like many of the former New York mayor’s tight inner circle, an assistant U.S. attorney when Giuliani was U.S. attorney for the Southern District in the Reagan administration.

Later, he worked on Giuliani’s mayoral campaigns. In Giuliani’s book, "Leadership," he describes Caruso as "a close friend"whose advice he sought when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2000.



Watada's second court-martial on hold
Court Watch | 2007/10/05 17:07

The Tuesday court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada at Fort Lewis has been put on hold by a U.S. District Court judge, who issued his ruling late today. This would have been the second trial for Watada, who faces up to six years in military prison for his refusal to deploy to Iraq, and separate charges of conduct unbecoming an officer.

Watada's first court-martial, which gained international attention, ended in a mistrial earlier this year. U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle wants time to consider whether a second trial would violate Watada's constitutional rights that protect him from "double jeopardy" that is a guarantee against being twice put to trial for the same offense.

"This Court has not been presented any evidence showing that Petitioner's double jeopardy claim lacks merit," Settle wrote. "On the contrary, the record indicates that Petitioner's double jeopardy claim is meritous."

For Settle, another key issue is whether a civilian court has the right to step in and block a military trial. Settle said that, as a general rule, civilian courts should not step in to rule on military trials. But in this case, all of the appeals to military courts had been exhausted, so a civilian judge could become involved.



E*TRADE hit with class action
Court Watch | 2007/10/05 03:02
Coughlin Stoia LLP yesterday filed a class-action suit against E*TRADE Financial Corp., accusing the company of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The firm is filing suit on behalf of E*TRADE’s investors who purchased common stock in the firm between Dec. 14, 2006 and Sept. 25, 2007. E*TRADE’s CEO Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, CFO and principal accounting officer, were also named as individual defendants in the suit.

In its complaint, San Diego-based Coughlin Stoia alleged that E*TRADE failed to disclose that it was experiencing high delinquency rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios.

Instead, the suit alleges that E*TRADE had an overvalued securities portfolio with mortgage-backed assets.

They also allege that the firm kept investors in the dark about the falling mortgage market, which made the value of E*TRADE’s shares plummet.

Furthermore, throughout August, while the credit markets crashed and E*TRADE’s stock price dropped, the company continued insisting that was financially sound and that concerns on its market capitalization were unfounded, the suit said.

The financial services company, which originated mortgages and subprime loans, pulled from its wholesale mortgage business on Sept. 17.

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP was founded by William S. Lerach, the famed class-action lawyer.

A spokeswoman from E*TRADE said that the company does not comment on pending litigation.



Brothers plead guilty to mortgage fraud
Court Watch | 2007/10/04 08:04
Two brothers whose convictions for running a mortgage scheme in suburban Rochester were recently overturned pleaded guilty Wednesday to mortgage fraud to avoid a new trial. Robert Amico, 45, and his 36-year-old brother, Richard Amico, were convicted in 2003 of defrauding mortgage lenders out of $58.5 million for homes built in Monroe, Ontario and Wayne counties from 1994 to 2000. Prosecutors called it the largest case of mortgage fraud ever prosecuted in western New York.

A federal appeals court in May overturned the Amicos' convictions, ruling that the judge who presided over their trial should have recused himself when a prosecution witness claimed he had once helped the judge fraudulently obtain a mortgage.

In exchange for their guilty pleas, the Amicos will avoid a new trial and receive lighter sentences than the ones they received after they were convicted.

Robert Amico, who originally was ordered to prison for 17 1/2 years, will be sentenced to at least 10 years under the plea agreement. He has served more than four years already.

Richard Amico, who received an original prison term of nine years, will get a maximum of five years. He has already served more than three years.

The brothers will receive credit for the time they've already served and remain free until they are sentenced in January.


Friedman appeals to reverse sex abuse guilty plea
Court Watch | 2007/10/04 06:03

Jesse Friedman's last chance to clear his name of child molestation charges now rests in the hands of a federal judge who heard evidence on his case at a hearing yesterday. Friedman, 38, is trying to reverse his 1988 guilty plea to sexually abusing children as a teenager with his father in Great Neck, a case that was notorious at the time and gained national attention again in 2003 with the Oscar-nominated documentary, "Capturing the Friedmans."

In court papers, Friedman's attorneys argue that Nassau prosecutors withheld evidence revealed later in the movie - a child who accused Friedman made statements to police after hypnosis.

Magistrate Judge Joanna Seybert heard evidence yesterday on a technical issue - whether Friedman filed his federal appeal in time to beat the statute of limitations. She did not say when she would rule.

Nassau County prosecutors and police have stood by Friedman's arrest and conviction. Joseph Onorato, a prosecutor on the 1988 case, refused to shake Friedman's extended hand yesterday outside the courtroom.

State courts have twice rejected Friedman's appeals in the past three years. If Seybert rejects his case, the plea stands.

With his wife, Elisabeth, 28, standing at his side, Friedman said he was "very optimistic."

"I'm not a child molester and I'm not ever going to rest until I prove to the courts and to the world that I'm not a child molester," said Friedman, who in 2001 was released from prison on parole.

In 1987, Friedman, then 18, and his father, Arnold, then 56, were charged with sodomizing 17 children who attended computer classes at their home. They both pleaded guilty, and the father was sentenced to 10 to 30 years; the son 6 to 18 years. Arnold Friedman committed suicide in 1995. The Friedmans proclaimed their innocence from prison but never appealed their guilty pleas.

At issue in yesterday's hearing was when Jesse Friedman learned of the victims' hypnosis and whether his federal case was filed in the next year, as the law requires.

Assistant District Attorney Judith Sternberg argued that Friedman learned of the hypnosis on Jan. 10, 2003, the night he first saw "Capturing the Friedmans." Because his state appeal was filed 362 days later on Jan. 7, 2004, and rejected on March 10, 2006, Sternberg said Friedman had to file his federal appeal within three days of the rejection. The federal case was filed June 23, 2006.

Friedman's attorney, Ron Kuby of Manhattan, contended that the statute of limitations did not begin until July 2003, when Friedman received access to transcripts of the documentary's interviews with anonymous accusers and confirmed their identity.

If Seybert rules in Friedman's favor, she will then hear evidence on whether the hypnotizing of the victim was proper and should have been revealed to Friedman's attorneys.



[PREV] [1] ..[159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167].. [205] [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
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..
PA high court orders countie..
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..


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