|
|
|
Candidates stop short on same-sex marriage
U.S. Legal News |
2007/08/10 16:19
|
Melissa Etheridge confronted Hillary Rodham Clinton about her husband's gay rights record, accusing Bill Clinton of throwing gay and lesbian supporters "under the bus" by pushing for the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and the Defense of Marriage Act. The Democrats' top three candidates, including Clinton, pledged support for gay rights at the first-ever nationally televised same-sex issues presidential forum - but they and other Democratic candidates attending refused to back gay and lesbian marriages. Facing successive 15-minute interviews by gay rights advocates in Los Angeles last night, Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all vowed to battle for gay, lesbian and transgender rights. But they stopped short of endorsing gay marriage - a hot-button culture-war issue that could alienate millions of independents and religious conservatives. Etheridge, who announced she was a lesbian shortly after Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, expressed bitterness at his inability to pass gay rights measures he promised during the campaign. "It was a very hopeful time," she said. "But in the years that followed, our hearts were broken, we were thrown under the bus, we were pushed aside. All of those great promises ... were broken." Clinton, who had been warmly received by the studio audience, seemed surprised by Etheridge's comments. "Obviously, Melissa, I didn't see it quite the way you describe it," she said. " ... We didn't get as much done as I would have liked, but I believe there was a lot of honest effort going on." The candidates appeared in the order they accepted the invitation from the LOGO cable network and Human Rights Campaign, with Obama first - and Clinton last. "This forum is a real measure of how far we've come as a community, but there are many of us in our community who'd like to see the candidates come farther on gay marriage," said Fred Hochberg, dean of the Milano urban policy institute at New School University, one of Clinton's highest-profile gay supporters. Suffolk Legis. Jon Cooper, a supporter of Obama who attended the forum, echoed those sentiments, saying, "Although I would love them to come out in support of same sex civil marriage, it's not going to happen right now ... " The forum underscored the gay paradox in the Democratic Party: The candidates support gay rights but are wary of alienating party conservatives and religious blacks in the South. Earlier this year, Clinton and Obama angered Human Rights Campaign leaders by refusing to immediately and forcefully rebuke a general's claim that homosexuality was "immoral." They later released statements indicating their disagreement. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel were the only Democrats who have expressed support for gay marriage. Sens. Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd, who oppose same-sex marriage, declined the invitation, as did all Republican candidates, including Rudy Giuliani, who supports some gay rights. All the Democrats in attendance pledged to back broad new anti-discrimination statutes, want to scrap Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the military, and believe in civil unions that allow same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. "I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black, I'm going to be more sympathetic because this is the cause of my life," Obama said. Panelist Jonathan Capehart challenged Obama on his opposition to gay marriage, saying his position was "old school." Obama used the remark to point out he'd been the first candidate to accept LOGO's invitation. "There's a reason why I was here first," he said. Etheridge challenged John Edwards on his recent comments suggesting he was opposed to same-sex marriage based on his religious convictions. "I have heard in the past that you felt uncomfortable among gay people," she said. Edwards denied her assertion but offered an apology for linking gay issues and Christianity. "I shouldn't have said that," he said. "I believe to my core in equality ... I will not impose my faith belief on the American people." Gay activists react "I was thinking 'When will they get it that equal means equal?' Senator Obama was talking about how he wanted to extend all rights of marriage to people through civil union. But laws are defined by marriage. Laws are not defined by civil union. We've learned that through New Jersey." - David Kilmnick, executive director of Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth "I appreciated John Edwards speaking about the homeless teenagers in the L.A. community center. That was something that people didn't talk about yet and it's very important - people getting thrown out of the house because they're gay." - Lauren Van Kirk, treasurer of the Stonewall Democrats of Suffolk County "My family comes from the South, so I understand where he's [Obama's] coming from. But between him and Edwards, both of them fall short. They still fall short of calling it marriage. ... Civil union: it's second-class citizenship." - Sheila Marino-Thomas, data entry worker for Marriage Equality New York, who has been with her partner for 14 years "It sounded like she [Clinton] was handing the responsibility for moving the ball forward - fighting - and she said 'well, you guys in the human rights campaign are doing the right thing,' as if to say we can't be doing that in the political realm. It's an easier thing to say, rather than saying I'm going to take up that struggle."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona's high court dismisses tuition suit
Court Feed News |
2007/08/10 15:22
|
Students at Arizona's three state universities who hoped a 2003 lawsuit would lower their tuition are out of luck. Saying the tuition increase is a political question and not a judicial one, the Arizona Supreme Court Thursday upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss the case. Four university students sued the Arizona Board of Regents after the board raised tuition 39 percent in a single year. Students said the increases violated the state Constitution's requirement that state universities be "as nearly as free as possible." Attorneys representing the students had hoped that if they won in court, tuition would be lowered to pre-2003 levels, when in-state tuition and fees for undergraduates averaged about $2,500 a year. Undergraduate in-state tuition and fees for the coming school year averages up to $4,949. advertisement Tucson attorney Paul Gattone, who represents the students, said he was disappointed in the ruling. He worries that students from middle-income families will be hurt the most by rising tuition because they aren't eligible for as much financial aid as students from lower-income families. "Certainly we can assume tuition rates are not going to go down any time soon, and they probably will continue to climb," he said. He has not decided whether he will ask the court to reconsider the decision. The state Board of Regents has contended Arizona's tuition is low in comparison to many state universities. The regents have kept tuition and fees in the lower one-third of a sample of 50 public U.S. universities. The average tuition and fees at those universities is $6,635 a year, according to a regents survey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law firm for paralyzed woman entitled to $500,000
Headline News |
2007/08/10 13:24
|
A law firm that represented a woman paralyzed in a botched operation should receive $500,000 more than the $1.07 million the state Legislature has already approved, a Broward judge ruled Thursday afternoon. Sheldon J. Schlesinger's Fort Lauderdale law firm was entitled to the money based on its contract with the parents of Minouche Noel, Broward Circuit Judge Leroy Moe ruled. The judge rejected Schlesinger's request to receive an additional $42,000 in legal costs. Bruce Johnson, the Noels' current attorney, told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that his clients were "very disappointed." "We were surprised by the ruling, and we believe it was incorrect," Johnson said to the newspaper. A telephone message left by The Associated Press at Schlesinger's office and with the attorney representing the firm, Bruce Rogow, was not immediately returned after hours Thursday. Noel was left paralyzed from the waist down at 6 months old following surgery at a state clinic in 1999. Now 19, she suffers from spina bifida, a congenital defect in which the spinal column fails to close properly. A Broward jury awarded $8.5 million to the Noels, but state law limits such payments to $200,000 without legislative approval. Lawmakers finally passed the claims bill this year after several failed attempts. Schlesinger filed a lien asking for more money than the legislation allocated to the firm. Last month, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink argued the Circuit Court in Fort Lauderdale lacks jurisdiction on the case. A telephone message and an e-mail left after hours by AP for Sink was not immediately returned. Noel and her family lived in Broward County when the surgery took place but have since moved to Brevard County, where she is attending college. |
|
|
|
|
|
Class action suit accuses law firm of swindling property owners
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/10 10:25
|
In the eyes of some home owners there seems to be a collection force worse than the IRS: lawyers hired by burdened cities to gather delinquent property taxes.
Representing Pete Gotcher, and all others similarly situated in the U.S., attorney Gilbert T. Adams filed a class-action lawsuit against the Linebarger, Goggan Blair & Sampson law firm, claiming the attorneys suspect collection methods violate the Texas Tax Code.
The suit was filed on Aug. 7 in the Jefferson County District Court.
For more than 30 years Linebarger Goggan has solely focused on collections.
"The early decision to concentrate our energy and resources on delinquent tax collections in Texas led to successes that have elevated Linebarger Goggan from a 'Texas firm' to the national stage," the firm's Web site said. "The firm is now a major player in the collection industry with over 2,800 clients, serving both the public and private sectors from offices in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia."
According to the plaintiffs' original petition, Linebarger Goggan has been charging and collecting fees from delinquent Texans that are not "expressly provided for in the state's Tax Code."
"Despite the explicit provisions of the Tax Code and defendant's own contracts which define the total compensation due, these defendants wrongfully and deceitfully demand and extract payments from taxpayers in amounts exceeding those permitted by law for abstract or title search fees," the suit said.
The suit says that in some instances the firm and its lawyers benefit directly as "undisclosed principals" while in all instances the "defendants benefit by passing on their overhead expenses to the taxpayers," and in no instances are the fees a "liability of or payable by the taxing entities."
This is not the first suit of its kind. On behalf of Camella O'Brien, plaintiffs' lawyer Adams first filed a lawsuit against Linebarger Goggan back in 2005.
O'Brien's suit also alleged the firm was "deceitfully scheming" money from taxpayers in "amounts exceeding those permitted by law."
In essence, Adams and his clients argue Linebarger Goggan operate an "illegal and deceptive practice," and maximize the firm's partners' profits by extracting money, "which is in addition to statutorily authorized fees to attorneys," from Texas property owners as "fees" not permitted by the Tax Code.
On the other hand, Linebarger Goggan says the firm places honesty and integrity at the center of its professional duty, the firm's Web site stated.
"The firm has made an uncompromising commitment to the highest ethical standards in the collection industry and the practice of law, reflected in the following actions: the retention of an outside ethics advisor who is a former president of the Texas State Bar; and the establishment of an in-house general counsel who developed, implemented and oversees compliance with the firm's current code of ethics."
The four-count suit faults the firm with fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.
"Linebarger Goggan has developed a scheme, plan or system for the extortion of these monies and concealed their misdeeds," the suit said.
The plaintiffs seek a return of the monies allegedly "illegally obtained," common law and statutory damages, exemplary damages, "and to achieve a formal declaration that such fees are not authorized," the suit said.
Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District, has been assigned to the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bush Against Raising Gas Tax
Law & Politics |
2007/08/09 15:53
|
President Bush dismissed Thursday raising the federal gasoline tax to repair the nation's bridges at least until Congress changes the way it spends highway money. "The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first," Bush said. "That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities." About $24 billion, or 8 percent of the last $286 billion highway bill, was devoted to highway and bridge projects singled out by lawmakers. The balance is sent in the form of grants to states, which then decide how it will be spent. Federal money accounts for about 45 percent of all infrastructure spending. The Democratic chairman of the House Transportation Committee proposed a 5-cent increase in the 18.3 cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax to establish a new trust fund for repairing or replacing structurally deficient highway bridges. On terrorism, Bush said he is confident in the ability of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to crack down on militants at the Afghan border and cooperate with the U.S. He said he expected Musharraf to take "swift action if there is actionable intelligence inside his country." Bush refused to address whether the U.S. troops would go into Pakistan without permission from leaders there. "We spend a lot of time with the leadership in Pakistan talking about what we will do with actionable intelligence," Bush said. "Am I confident they (terrorists) will be brought to justice? My answer is, `Yes I am.' " Musharraf, a key ally in Washington's fight against terrorism, is under growing U.S. pressure. But the Pakistani leader is under considerable pressure at home too. He has seen dwindling popular support amid a failed bid to oust the country's chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry _ an independent-minded judge likely to rule on expected legal challenges to Musharraf's bid for re-election to another five-year term. Musharraf also has been beset by rising violence in the country, particularly following an army raid to end the takeover of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, an operation that left more than 100 people dead. Speculation that an emergency could be imminent grew after Musharraf on Wednesday abruptly pulled out of a meeting in Kabul with more than 600 Pakistani and Afghan tribal leaders, phoning Afghan President Hamid Karzai to say he couldn't attend because of "engagements" in Islamabad. At home, Bush ruled out any bailout of homeowners hit with foreclosures in the form of direct assistance. But he said "enormous empathy" is in order for such people and indicated he was open to some federal help for people to refinance and keep their homes. "The word bailout _ I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you mean direct grants to homeowners, the answer would be no," the president said. The delinquency rate on home loans was almost 5 percent in the first three months of the year. On the controversy of former NFL player Pat Tillman's friendly fire death while serving in the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Bush said "the best way to honor that commitment of his is to find the truth." He said he expects the military "to get to the bottom" of why Tillman's death was initially explained as the result of enemy fire. The president described Iran as "a destabilizing influence in the Middle East." Noting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was in Iran Thursday, Bush said he hoped his message would be the same as the United States' _ that Tehran should halt the export of sophisticed explosive devices into Iraq or "there will be consequences." He did not say what those consequences would be. On the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the president pointed the finger at other nations. The U.S. cannot close the controversial facility until other countries agree to take the more than 350 people still there, he said. "A lot of people don't want killers in their midst," Bush said. The United States is determined to make sure the worst of them are tried for their alleged crimes, the president said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court leaves status of Miss. executions in limbo
Court Feed News |
2007/08/09 14:55
|
A federal appeals court has refused to consider whether Missouri’s lethal injection method of capital punishment is constitutional, leaving it unclear whether executions will resume in the state. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday denied a request by condemned inmate Michael Taylor to consider the question. The inmate’s attorney vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Taylor had appealed to the full appeals court after a three-judge panel ruled in June that Missouri’s execution procedure is not cruel and unusual punishment. That ruling had overturned another judge’s decision to ban executions until the lethal injection process was reformed. Taylor’s attorney said Wednesday that she will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. And while the high court accepts only a small percentage of the thousands of cases it is asked to review each year, “this has a better shot than most,” attorney Ginger Anders said. “It’s an extremely important issue, one that is going on in a lot of states.” A Kansas City federal judge’s order last year to suspend executions could be lifted within a week, freeing the Missouri Supreme Court to set execution dates. But if Taylor asks, and the appeals court agrees, the moratorium could continue while the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to consider his case. 'Step toward resolution'
Brian Hauswirth, a state Corrections Department spokesman, called the ruling “another step toward resolution of the legal challenges to lethal injection.” Taylor’s case had prompted a federal judge last year to place a moratorium on executions in Missouri. U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. said he wanted to be sure that the three-drug injection method did not cause risk of pain and suffering. Gaitan wanted the state to involve a doctor specializing in anesthesia, but the state has been unable to find such a doctor willing to participate in the executions. The three-judge appeals panel on June 4 reversed Gaitan’s ruling, saying the state’s execution protocol “is designed to ensure a quick, indeed a painless, death.” But Taylor argued the panel focused too narrowly on the protocol rather than how it is implemented, or any accidents or mistakes by staff that may result. Days after the June 4 ruling opened the way for restarting executions in Missouri, Attorney General Jay Nixon asked the state Supreme Court to set execution dates for 10 condemned inmates — more than one-fifth of the state’s 44 death row inmates. Drugs contested
The debate centers on the three drugs used in executions. The argument is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, a third drug that stops the heart can be excruciatingly painful. But the inmate would not be able to communicate the pain because of a second drug that paralyzes him. Missouri is among at least nine states that had put executions on hold as they consider whether lethal injection is inhumane. Taylor was convicted of killing a 15-year-old girl in Kansas City in 1989 after kidnapping her from a school bus stop. He was hours away from being executed in February 2006 when the procedure was halted. Missouri hasn’t executed an inmate since convicted killer Marlin Gray was put to death in October 2005. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|