Today's Date: Add To Favorites
U.S. Civilian Sentenced for Bribing U.S. & Iraqi Officials
Court Watch | 2007/02/05 10:54

WASHINGTON - A former U.S. army civilian translator was sentenced to three years in prison for attempting to bribe a senior Iraqi police official in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor of the District of Columbia announced today.

Faheem Mousa Salam, 29, of Livonia, Mich., a U.S. citizen, was sentenced today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon.

Salam was arrested on March 23, 2006 at the Dulles International Airport upon his return from Iraq, and pleaded guilty on August 4, 2006 to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Salam admitted that in January 2006, while working in Baghdad as a civilian translator for a U.S. army subcontractor, he offered a senior Iraqi police official $60,000 in exchange for the official's assistance in facilitating the purchase of 1,000 armored vests and a sophisticated map printer for a sale price of approximately $1 million. Salam requested the official use his position with the Iraqi police force to coordinate the sale of the material to the multinational Civilian Police Assistance Training Team (CPATT), an organization designed to train the Iraqi police and border guard in Iraq. Salam admitted that he later made final arrangements with an undercover agent of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction who was posing as a procurement officer for CPATT. Salam admitted that during the subsequent discussions with the undercover agent he offered a separate $28,000 to $35,000 to the agent to process the contracts.

At sentencing, the government argued that Salam was motivated by greed and the prospect of financial gain, rather than any desire to provide the Iraqi troops with equipment; in fact, Salam made no attempt to check the brand names, quality or source of the vests, demonstrating that his motives were anything but altruistic.

The case is being prosecuted jointly by the Criminal Division's Fraud Section Deputy Chief Mark F. Mendelsohn and Trial Attorney Stacey Luck and Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Bradley Weinsheimer. The case was investigated by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.



Court rules for man arrested for cursing
Court Watch | 2007/02/03 16:27

A federal appeals court has ruled that a police officer who arrested a Michigan man for using a curse word in a public meeting violated the man's right to free speech.

The ruling reverses a lower court's decision that the officer had probable cause to arrest Thomas Leonard, who cursed while addressing the Montrose Township board in 2002. At the time, his wife was suing the town over a towing contract.

A three-judge appeals panel ruled that the use of "mild profanity" while peacefully advocating a political position is not a criminal act.



Michigan appeals court rules against same-sex benefits
Court Watch | 2007/02/03 16:26

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman also prohibits Michigan public employers from offering benefits, such as health insurance, to same-sex partners of homosexual employees. The appeals court overturned a lower court decision finding no conflict between the 2004 amendment and providing the benefits.

In its ruling Thursday, the court wrote:

It is undisputed that under the marriage amendment, heterosexual couples that have not married also may not obtain employment benefits as a couple on the basis of an agreement "recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. . . ." The amendment is grounded in the longstanding and legitimate governmental interest in favoring the institution of marriage. . . . The amendment is narrowly tailored to further the legitimate governmental interest in protecting and strengthening the institution of marriage, and not to arbitrarily or invidiously exclude individuals from the protections of the laws of this state. . . .

Because the marriage amendment does not make arbitrary or invidious distinctions in furthering the legitimate governmental interests of the state, does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Michigan constitution. . . .

The marriage amendment's plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose.
In March 2005 Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued an opinion asserting that the amendment's language barred public employers from offering domestic partner benefits. After the lower court ruling, the Michigan Senate approved resolutions preventing taxpayer money from being spent on same-sex benefits until the state Supreme Court decides the issue. The ACLU of Michigan expressed disagreement with appeals court decision, claiming that the voters were told the amendment would not affect domestic partnership benefits, and said that an appeal to the state high court is planned.



White House tapes played in Libby trial
Court Watch | 2007/02/01 22:13

US Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald played portions of White House briefing room videos Thursday as the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby continued. Fitzgerald said the tapes show Libby's eagerness to publicly conceal conversations he had with reporters about CIA official Valerie Plame. US District Judge Reggie B. Walton allowed Fitzgerald to play portions of the videos that show former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan publicly clearing Libby's name and announcing that individuals responsible for the leak would be fired. Judge Walton did not allow Fitzgerald to show a heated question and answer session between McClellan and reporters.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation into the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Libby's defense team has indicated that they plan to call Libby's former boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, to testify and that Libby also plans to take the witness stand himself. Walton has denied a request from several news organizations seeking the daily release of audio recordings of arguments and testimony.



Former NYT reporter Miller testifies at Libby trial
Court Watch | 2007/01/31 19:47

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified on Tuesday in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby concerning conversations Libby had with Miller, during which he allegedly told her about his frustration with the CIA and revealed to her the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Wilson. On cross-examination, defense counsel wanted to ask Miller about other sources with whom she had discussed a separate intelligence leak, but the prosecution argued that she should not have to answer the questions, since they were not specifically relevant to Libby's case. Judge Reggie M. Walton will rule on whether he will admit the line of questioning on Wednesday.

If Miller is called to answer the questions and refuses, she could face charges of perjury, as she did in July of 2005 when she was jailed after refusing to reveal sources in conjunction with the federal criminal investigation into the leak of Plame's identity. Miller resigned her post at the Times after her release from the 85-day jail term.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the CIA leak investigation.



Macon law firm's dissolution has temporary fix
Court Watch | 2007/01/31 12:42

The Boston Passante law firm reached a temporary agreement in court today on its dissolution.

The agreement will allow the firm to pay debts and provide income to its partners for the next two months as both sides try to find a permanent solution.

Russell Boston, his wife, Wendy S. Boston, and other partners Lauren L. Benedict and David M. Cusson petitioned Bibb County Superior Court in December to dissolve the firm, and they cited problems with managing partner Brian Passante's completion of his duties.

Passante filed a countersuit earlier this week denying the allegations and blaming Russell Boston for the problems in the firm.



Appeals Court Renews Charge Against Padilla
Court Watch | 2007/01/31 07:40

An appeals court reinstated a charge of conspiracy to "murder, kidnap, and maim" against accused terrorist supporter Jose Padilla, the most serious count that he will face at a trial scheduled to begin in April.

The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta yesterday reversed a lower court ruling that threw out the charge, which carries a possible sentence of up to life in prison. District Judge Marcia Cooke in Miami had dismissed the count, ruling it duplicated other charges.

Mr. Padilla, 36, a former Chicago gang member and alleged Al Qaeda operative, is charged with being part of a terror cell that provided money, aid, and recruits to Islamic extremists. Those charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. His case is set for trial April 16 in Miami federal court.

"We are gratified by the 11th Circuit's swift decision and look forward to presenting the evidence at trial," said Alex Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, in a statement.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals heard arguments January 10 over Judge Cooke's decision that the charges violated Mr. Padilla's right against being charged twice for the same offense. Federal prosecutors argued the charge was dropped in error, saying Judge Cooke used flawed legal analysis. Mr. Padilla has 21 days to seek a rehearing before the appeals court, according to the Justice Department.

An America citizen, Mr. Padilla was arrested in Chicago in 2002. The government initially accused him of plotting to detonate in America a "dirty bomb," a conventional explosive device that includes radioactive material for dispersal in the blast. America later said Al Qaeda trained him to blow up American apartment buildings. In November 2005, Mr. Padilla was indicted on charges of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Prison officials are scheduled to report by February 9 on a mental competency exam of Mr. Padilla to determine whether he is fit to stand trial.

Mr. Padilla's lawyers said in court papers that he suffered mental damage because of abuse that they claim was inflicted by American authorities during the three years and five months he was held in a Navy prison in South Carolina.



[PREV] [1] ..[191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199].. [206] [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
Immigration lawyers accuse V..
No new trial for man convict..
College president pleads gui..
House will vote on an Iran w..
Supreme Court Blocks Califor..
US and Israeli attacks on Ir..
Trump administration's 'thir..
Court agrees to hear from oi..
Former South Korean presiden..
Suspect in mass shooting at ..
Trump administration reaches..
Trump is threatening to bloc..
Justice Department steps up ..
Amazon cuts about 16,000 cor..
Minneapolis shooting scrambl..


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 and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet.
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.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
Los Angeles Police Misconduct
Civil Rights Lawyers
www.mcmurrayhenriks.com
Rosemead, CA
Real Estate Litigation Lawyer
www.kigrosslaw.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