|
|
|
State Court of Appeals to determine long-arm laws
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/16 11:31
|
The state's highest court must decide under what circumstances New York's "long-arm" law can be invoked to give the state personal jurisdiction over someone who is not physically within the state.
The Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday from Rachel Ehrenfeld, the author of a book about the funding of terrorism. The Manhattan author is seeking protection from British court judgments obtained by a Saudi billionaire who has successfully sued other authors in the United Kingdom.
Ehrenfeld, author of "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed _ and How to Stop It," published in 2003, filed a U.S. federal suit against Saudi businessman Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz, in response to a libel suit he filed against her in England.
"He single-handedly silenced the American media from writing about him and about other individual Saudis who are funding terrorism," Ehrenfeld said Thursday. "This is a deliberate thought ... and since my work is about exposing those who fund terrorism, I feel it is my duty to stop it."
Attorneys for Bin Mahfouz did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Although Ehrenfeld's lawsuit was filed in federal courts, much of it deals directly with New York state law, so the state court is charged with interpreting that law before the issue is returned to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
"The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state," the Second Circuit said.
Current law indicates that the state has jurisdiction over someone outside the state if he or she "in person or through an agent" transacts any business within the state _ as long as the legal action arose from those New York transactions.
The court must determine if existing laws provide the state jurisdiction over someone in another country who sues a New Yorker. The court will also have to determine if interactions with New York state stemming from a foreign lawsuit qualify as doing business in the state. Specifically, whether Mahfouz conducted business in New York in his legal interactions with Ehrenfeld.
According to court documents, Bin Mahfouz argues that his actions in New York are not equivalent to doing business there, so he is not subject to the long-arm statute.
Bin Mahfouz's suit accused Ehrenfeld of libel in the High Court of Justice in London. Ehrenfeld did not appear in the British court to defend herself, and in 2005 it issued a default judgment against her. That judgment would require her to declare her writings about Bin Mahfouz to be false, publish a correction and apology, and enjoined her from publishing or authorizing further publication of the disputed statements in Britain, among other things.
"My immediate response was that I'm not going to acknowledge the court in England," Ehrenfeld said. "I'm an American ... If he wants to sue me, he should come to sue me in America."
In the federal lawsuit, Ehrenfeld has asked the court to declare that Bin Mahfouz could not win a claim of libel against her under U.S. law, making the English decision unenforceable in this country. The suit claims that Bin Mahfouz chose to sue Ehrenfeld in England because its libel laws favor plaintiffs, and warns his actions could lead to "libel tourism."
Ehrenfeld has said that her book cited Bin Mahfouz after her research revealed substantial credible evidence of his role as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations.
He has sued or threatened to sue for defamation in the United Kingdom at least 29 times for statements concerning his role in the financing of terrorism, according to Ehrenfeld's lawsuit.
An undated statement issued on the Bin Mahfouz family Web site said: "The Bin Mahfouz family has suffered for over a year from unsubstantiated innuendo and inaccurate reporting (much of it corrected or withdrawn too late to be helpful). It is, naturally, distressed that it now faces many of the same untrue allegations in filed civil actions. The family repeats that it abhors and condemns all acts of terrorism and that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the actions and lengthy legal process involved. It will, of course, vigorously contest them." |
|
|
|
|
|
Ellison files brief in Supreme Court voter ID case
Legal Career News |
2007/11/16 11:25
|
Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in a voter ID case. The Minnesota Democrat is asking the court to strike down an Indiana law that requires people to have a photo ID to vote, arguing it disenfranchises black voters. This is Ellison's latest effort to make his mark on voting rights issues. Last month, the freshman congressman introduced legislation that would ban the ID requirement in federal elections. Ellison filed the brief with the support of all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois. In the brief, Ellison argues that the tax violates the 24th Amendment's ban on poll or other taxes to vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
UK Court OKs Extradition of Cleric
Legal World News |
2007/11/16 11:24
|
Radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri can be extradited to the United States to face trial on charges of supporting terrorism, a British court ruled Thursday. Al-Masri has been charged with trying to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon, conspiring to take hostages in Yemen and facilitating terrorist training in Afghanistan. He is already serving a seven-year sentence in Britain for fomenting racial hatred and urging his followers to kill non-Muslims. Senior District Judge Timothy Workman, presiding at City of Westminster Magistrates Court, said the case would now be referred to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for a final decision. Smith has two months to decide whether to surrender Al-Masri to the U.S. If she decides to hand the cleric over, he can then appeal to Britain's High Court, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights. Al-Masri, who lost both arms below the elbows and an eye fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, was arrested on a U.S. extradition warrant in May 2004, but the process was put on hold while he stood trial in Britain and then appealed his convictions. In January, the House of Lords denied al-Masri permission to make further appeals, clearing the way for extradition proceedings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court hears appeal over Michigan primary election
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/16 11:23
|
A three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals expressed skepticism about the legal standing of Michigan's imperiled Jan. 15 presidential primary at a hearing Thursday afternoon. But the judges also indicated they need more time to decide whether to overturn a lower court decision to block it. The judges closely questioned lawyers representing Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, the state's chief elections officer, about the justification for restricting access to voter lists generated by the election to the Democratic and Republican parties, a practice the Ingham County Circuit Court found to be unconstitutional.
Lawyers defending the primary law said the Legislature could restrict access if that was deemed necessary to make the election possible and secure the participation of several million voters who would not participate if the two parties used a caucus or convention nominating process. The appellate trio -- Chief Judge William Whitbeck and Judges Patrick Meter and Donald Owens -- also pressed state lawyers, who had requested a decision by today, for a few more days to consider the case. Elections officials said they need a decision as soon as possible so that absentee ballots can be ready for distribution 45 days before the election as required by law. The lawsuit was filed by East Lansing political consultant Mark Grebner and a group of citizens and activists that included former Free Press political columnist Hugh McDiarmid. After Thursday's hearing, Grebner said the plaintiffs have no objection to the primary, only to the method for handling the voter lists that was devised by party leadership and muscled through the Legislature. "If some method can be devised which allows the primary to proceed, while rejecting the idea of election records as property of the two major parties, the plaintiffs would be very happy," he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecutor Tries to Ban Kurdish Party
Legal World News |
2007/11/16 09:30
|
Turkish authorities on Friday took steps to ban the country's leading pro-Kurdish political party and expel several of its lawmakers from parliament on charges of separatism. The Democratic Society Party, which won 20 seats in parliament in July, last week called for autonomy for Kurds living in the country's southeast. The call came amid tension over how to deal with separatist Kurdish rebels, with the military preparing for a possible cross-border offensive against their bases in northern Iraq. Chief Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya said in a statement "that speeches and actions by party leaders have proved that the party has become a focal point of activities against the sovereignty of the state and indivisible unity of the country and the nation." He said a legal case was launched in an effort to shut down the party. The prosecutor's office will send an indictment to the country's Constitutional Court for a trial. Several predecessors of the pro-Kurdish party were banned by Turkey's Constitutional Court on similar grounds and for alleged ties to rebels. The party demanded more rights for the Kurdish minority and autonomy for Kurds living in the southeast during a party congress last week. "It is envisaged that each autonomous section is represented with its own colors and symbols and creates its own democratic administration, although the national flag and official language remain valid for the entire nation of Turkey," the party said in a statement last week. Selahatin Demirtas, a legislator from the pro-Kurdish party, said Friday that banning it would only aggravate the Kurdish problem, the Dogan news agency reported. Turkish leaders have accused the pro-Kurdish party of having ties to the rebel Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK. Turkish leaders insist the party should declare the PKK a terrorist organization to prove its allegiance to Turkey. Both the U.S. and the European Union have labeled the PKK a terrorist organization. DEHAP, the predecessor of the present party, dissolved itself in 2005 as prosecutors tried to close it. The constitutional court closed down four previous pro-Kurdish parties. Yalcinkaya accused leaders of the current party of dissolving DEHAP and establishing the new party under orders from imprisoned Kurdish rebel chief Abdullah Ocalan, who is serving life on a prison island near Istanbul. "By implementing orders they received from the leader of a terrorist organization in prison, (they) have openly shown their allegiance to the terrorist organization and its leader," Yalcinkaya said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Doc Once Banned From Executions Hired
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/15 15:33
|
A surgeon once barred from participating in state executions because of a federal judge's concerns about his dyslexia and lack of expertise has been hired for a federal government execution team, according to court records. The federal ruling keeping Dr. Alan Doerhoff from working on Missouri executions was eventually overturned, but state officials have said they would not use Doerhoff again. Doerhoff was the target of more than 20 malpractice lawsuits and was reprimanded by the state for not disclosing them. The federal government has hired Doerhoff as part of a team that executes condemned prisoners by injection at the federal prison at Terre Haute, Ind., according to a court pleading filed by six inmates sentenced to die there. The inmates challenged the government for relying on Doerhoff's help in performing execution duties. Calls to Doerhoff and the U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned. His hiring was first reported Thursday in the Los Angeles Times. A spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Prisons said the agency could not comment and would not identify anyone on its execution team. Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, called Doerhoff's federal role "surprising and disturbing" and proof that "people are in the dark about much of this." Last year, U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. called for reforms to Missouri executions and ruled that Doerhoff, 63, of Jefferson City, could not participate "in any manner, at any level" in the state's lethal injection process. The doctor said in a deposition hearing that he is dyslexic, transposes numbers, and mixed and administered lethal drugs without a written lethal injection protocol, despite his lack of training in anesthesiology. A federal appeals court overturned Gaitan's ruling. According to the newly revealed court records, Doerhoff was brought on at Terre Haute to develop execution procedures, place and monitor intravenous lines, assess a condemned inmate's level of consciousness after anesthesia is administered, and make a determination of death. It's the only federal prison where executions occur, though executions there are on hold because the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of lethal injection in a Kentucky case. It's not clear how long Doerhoff has been helping the federal government and whether he assisted in executions in the past, or in the planning for future ones. Some of the material in the court record was redacted, and attorney Paul Enzinna, who filed the inmates' pleading, declined to comment. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|