|
|
|
Amy Baker Expected in KY Courtroom Today
Court Feed News |
2007/06/25 18:22
|
Amy Baker, the woman who helped authorities solve the disappearance of foster child Marcus Fiesel, is expected inside a Kentucky courtroom today.
Baker is facing charges in Maysville, accused of helping dispose of Marcus' remains in the Ohio River.
The hearing today is a preliminary hearing for Amy Baker. A few things could happen during the hearing. She could accept a plea deal with prosecutors or go forward with a trial.
Baker is charged with tampering with evidence in the death of 3-year-old foster child Marcus Fiesel.
Ohio authorities gave Baker immunity for testifying against Liz and David Carroll, the couple convicted of killing Marcus.
Baker, 26, was the Carrolls' live-in girlfriend. Investigators said the Carrolls burned Marcus' remains and dumped them in the Ohio River after stuffing him inside a closet where he died last August.
Baker has reportedly said she would confess to the tampering with evidence charge and admit she helped dispose of the remains, if Mason County prosecutors would agree to no jail time.
Kentucky officials prosecuted the "star witness" in the Ohio case because the remains were dumped in the Ohio River, which is owned by the state of Kentucky.
Baker is no longer in the Mason County Jail. Her mother posted a $5,000 cash bond a few weeks ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Rules in "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/06/25 18:19
|
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case that schools do not violate a student’s First Amendment free-speech rights by punishing speech that appears to promote drugs at a school-sponsored event.
The Court reversed the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Morse v. Frederick by deciding that Joseph Frederick, a former student at Juneau-Douglas High School, was not protected by the First Amendment when he held up a banner with the words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” across the street from his school during a 2002 Olympic torch relay. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States, states the ruling was made in favor of Principal Deborah Morse and the school because the banner could be interpreted as a pro-illegal drug-use message at a school-sanctioned activity.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred with the Roberts opinion while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David Souter dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in part and gave a partial dissent to the opinion.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of Frederick, using the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, and finding that Morse’s actions are unconstitutional because the banner did not “materially or substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”
But the Supreme Court’s decision cites the Court’s 1986 Bethel School District v. Fraser decision — a case involving sexually suggestive speech delivered at a high school assembly — to justify its decision in Morse, stating that students in public schools do not have the same constitutional rights as adults and arguing that the standard set by Tinker is not absolute.
The Court agreed with Morse that the 14-foot banner could be read as a promotion of drug use, deciding that the “Bong Hits” message could be interpreted as either encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or celebrating of drug use. The Court also agreed that the speech took place at a school-sponsored event, although the banner was held up off campus on a public street.
“Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be reasonably regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick,” the decision reads.
Stevens, who wrote the dissents and was joined by Ginsburg and Souter, wrote that the First Amendment should not be curtailed by a “nonsense banner” containing “an oblique reference to drugs.”
“[I]t is one thing to restrict speech that advocates drug use,” Stevens wrote. “It is another thing entirely to prohibit an obscure message with a drug theme that a third party subjectively — and not very reasonably — thinks is tantamount to express advocacy.”
Breyer in his partial dissent stated that the Court should have only held that Frederick cannot seek monetary damages for being disciplined and that attempting to resolve the First Amendment question is “unwise and unnecessary.
Jason Brandeis, staff attorney for the Alaska ACLU and co-counsel for Frederick said he is concerned that the decision will set a dangerous precedent for censorship of speech that does not create a disruption of the educational environment.
“This decision seems to create a drug exception to First Amendment with respect to student speech without any real justification about why the student free speech can be censored,” he said.
Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said although he is disappointed in the decision, he sees it as a narrow ruling that only allows school officials to limit student speech that promotes illegal drug use and not speech relating to discussion of political and social issues.
“It’s disappointing that the Court once again felt the need to diminish student First Amendment protection at a time when teenagers’ understanding and appreciation for the First Amendment is so incredibly low,” he said. “The last thing the country needs is a court ruling that further diminishes its relevance to their lives.”
Frederick, then an 18-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, said he had his banner confiscated and was suspended 10 days — five days for displaying the banner and five days for refusing to divulge the names of the other participants and quoting Thomas Jefferson: “Speech limited is speech lost.”
Frederick, who later said he deliberately unfurled the banner to test “the limits” of his free speech, filed a lawsuit against Morse and the Juneau School Board in a federal district court after losing appeals to the superintendent and board. The court ruled in favor of the school, but Frederick took his case to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously reversed the lower court’s ruling by deciding that “[n]o educational function was disrupted” by the banner and that the school had violated the First Amendment.
The school board asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and the Court heard oral arguments March 19.
A number of diverse organizations, ranging from the traditionally conservative Alliance Defense Fund to the Drug Policy Alliance filed amicus briefs to the court in support of Frederick. Many groups, including the National School Boards Association and Drug Abuse Resistance Education, filed for Morse.
Frederick, who recently returned from studying in China, could not be reached for comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Battle Looms Over Tacoma Billboards
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/06/25 18:15
|
Ten years ago, the City of Tacoma adopted strict new rules limiting the size and placement of billboards. Nothing bigger than 300 square feet. Nothing closer than 250 feet to a residential area, church or school, historic district, playground or park.
More than two-thirds of the city’s billboards didn’t conform, but nothing happened right away. The billboard industry, which lobbied hard to block the limits, was given 10 years to bring the signs into compliance or remove them.
The deadline is Aug. 1.
But it doesn’t appear anything will happen then, either. Clear Channel Outdoor – the sole owner of billboards under the city’s jurisdiction – is gearing up for a legal battle similar to those waged by billboard owners throughout the country.
The first indication came this week when the city received a response to a letter sent to a Clear Channel representative in Seattle earlier this month reminding him of the approaching deadline, and asking for a schedule by Friday of how the company intended to comply with the city’s ordinance.
Chris Artman, president of Clear Channel Outdoor Northwest, told The News Tribune on Thursday that his company wants to meet with Tacoma officials to work out a solution. “This isn’t something that needs to end up in litigation,” Artman said.
The same day, the city received a letter from a Clear Channel attorney stating that the city’s ordinance was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Even if it was enforceable, the company would be owed $50 million or $60 million to remove the signs, wrote Seattle attorney Paul Taylor.
“Clear Channel’s billboards in Tacoma are worth millions of dollars,” Taylor said. “Absent an agreed resolution, Clear Channel has no choice but to vigorously protect its interest. There will be protracted, expensive multi-year litigation.”
Tacoma’s tightening of the rules came partly in response to the sprouting of billboards on tribal property along Interstate 5 – which the city could do nothing about – as well as a 600-square-foot billboard erected at South Union Avenue and Center Street. Then-Mayor Brian Ebersole referred to the city’s billboards as ugly and obnoxious, and wanted to ban them.
After facing intense lobbying from the billboard industry, the City Council approved the ordinance with a 10-year amortization period that officials said was intended to give billboard owners time to recoup their investments. The action, characterized at the time as the beginning of a slow death for billboards, was considered preferable to an outright ban, which a city planner said would require the city to compensate billboard owners and the land owners who lease to the billboard companies to the tune of $40 million to $60 million.
Since then, the City of Federal Way lost a court battle over its sign code when a business owner refused to comply at the end of an amortization period. Two lower courts sided with the business, saying that amortization period alone wasn’t sufficient compensation, and the city must either compensate the owner for the loss of his sign or allow it to remain. The city appealed to the state Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
In its letter to Clear Channel, Tacoma’s building official appears to concede that the city may need to compensate the company for the loss of some signs, namely those that fall under the state’s Scenic Vistas Act. City officials are still calculating how many they believe would fall under the law, but they think it’s in the neighborhood of 30 of the 193 nonconforming Clear Channel billboards.
Clear Channel’s attorney said the company has 83 billboards that are visible from a state highway and are subject to compensation under state law. He identified the highways as Interstate 5, and highways 16, 705, 7, 163 and 509.
The conservative value of those structures is between $12 million and $15 million, Taylor estimated. But the city would also have a constitutional obligation to compensate Clear Channel for the remainder of the company’s signs, which would bring the required payment up to the $50 million or $60 million range, he said.
In addition, the landlords who lease to Clear Channel would be entitled to compensation for lost rent, Taylor said, adding that he has reason to believe one or more landlords will be bringing a class action lawsuit against the city.
Billboard operators have become highly skilled at opposing regulations, often using the court system to delay enforcement of rules and drive up the cost to local governments, said Kevin Fry, president of Scenic America.
The Washington D.C.-based nonprofit organization opposes billboards and other so-called visual pollution. But Fry said Tacoma shouldn’t back down. Unless the city’s ordinance was badly written, the city will eventually prevail, he predicted.
William Brinton, a Jacksonville, Fla., attorney who serves on the board of directors of Scenic America, said billboard operators work from a predictable playbook.
“They have three tactics,” Brinton said. “One: Delay. Two: See the first tactic. Three: Delay.”
Local governments generally fare better when they take the fight to the industry, Brinton said. In some cases, it’s true that governments need to compensate billboard companies for taking down signs, Brinton said. But the amount of compensation isn’t specified, and local governments can try to reach a settlement that lets the billboard company keep the sign up for a period of time in lieu of cash.
“At the end of the day, it comes down to the spine of the elected officials and the skill of the lawyer,” Brinton said.
Councilman Tom Stenger signaled a willingness to take on the struggle by noting the city’s successful drive to ban minicasinos. “Why wouldn’t we beat the billboard industry?” he asked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Journalist's Battle Just Beginning in Australia
Legal World News |
2007/06/25 18:11
|
The real battle for legal protection for journalists and whistleblowers is just beginning, News Ltd chairman and chief executive John Hartigan said today.
Mr Hartigan was speaking after the conviction and fining of Melbourne-based Herald Sun journalists Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus for contempt of court.
The pair were fined $7000 each in the Victorian County Court for refusing to disclose the source of a story published in the Herald Sun in 2004 which revealed a secret plan by the Federal Government to cut benefits to war veterans.
Mr Hartigan said the conviction raised serious doubts about whether the public's right to know how it was governed could prevail in the face of growing censorship and government secrecy.
"It is ludicrous that these two exceptional journalists have been forced to endure a three year legal battle and now have criminal records because they were doing their job,'' Mr Hartigan said.
"We are pleased their ordeal is over, but the real battle for appropriate legal protection for journalists and whistleblowers is only just starting.''
He said it was essential that the federal attorney-general and his state counterparts agreed on shield laws as soon as possible.
"This will allow courts to make judgments that properly balance the public's right to know how it is governed and whether disclosure of that information is clearly in the public interest,'' Mr Hartigan said.
"Whistleblowers are being hunted down and prosecuted and journalists who refuse to name their sources in breach of their ethical responsibilities are being dragged to court with them.''
Mr Hartigan said the creation of shield laws to protect both journalists and whistleblowers were among the issues being studied as part of a national audit of free speech being conducted by the Australia's Right to Know coalition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ottowa Loses Yet Another Mad Cow Battle
Court Feed News |
2007/06/25 18:09
|
The federal government has lost yet another legal battle against a class-action lawsuit that accuses it of gross negligence in the mad cow crisis.
The statement of claim asserts, among other things, that Ottawa introduced a regulation in 1990 that specifically allowed the feeding of cattle parts to other cattle - the method through which bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, is transmitted.
It was only in 1997 that Canada banned the feeding of cattle to other cattle.
On Friday, the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to strike down two negligence claims brought against Ottawa by lead plaintiff Bill Sauer, a cattle producer near Niagara Falls, Ont.
The court upheld a lower court decision which found that more evidence was necessary before such a move could be justified.
The decision also dismissed Winnipeg-based cattle-feed company Ridley Canada’s attempt to have an allegation against it stricken from the suit, as well as an appeal from Sauer in which he attempted to have yet another allegation against Ridley reinstated.
The suit, launched in April 2005, represents cattle farmers from several provinces.
In May 2003, the discovery of an infected cow in Alberta prompted the United States to close its borders to Canadian cattle and precipitated the crisis.
It was estimated at the time that the industry suffered losses of some $7 billion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Filed Against Netlist, Inc.
Class Action News |
2007/06/25 17:32
|
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Netlist, Inc. ("Netlist" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NLST) in connection with its November 30, 2006 Initial Public Offering ("IPO") through April 16, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Netlist and certain of the Company's executive officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects caused Netlist's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Netlist is a designer and manufacturer of high-performance memory subsystems, which are sold to original equipment manufacturers in the server, high-performance computing, and communications markets. The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the Company was experiencing the effects of an over-supplied memory chip market, and demand for the Company's products had deteriorated substantially; (2) due to excessive inventory levels, the Company's two largest customers would be forced to slash their product orders to return to acceptable levels; (3) the Company's profit margins were quickly eroding in the memory chip market; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, among other things, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 16, 2007, Netlist shocked investors when it reported its first quarter 2007 preliminary financial results, which disclosed for the first time that its operating results would be dramatically lower than investors were led to believe, primarily due to an oversupplied dynamic random access memory market, which in turn affected the Company's product pricing and gross margins. Additionally, the Company revealed that it had experienced a lower than expected demand for high-end products from its largest customers, due to excess inventory which had also significantly reduced demand for the Company's products. As a result of this news, shares of the Company's stock declined more than 28 percent, or $1.68 per share, to close on April 17, 2007, at $4.29 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than July 27, 2007, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs can participate in important decisions which could affect the recovery for class members. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact us, toll free, at (888) 529-4787 or by email at info.newcases@kmslaw.com. Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has specialized in complex litigation, including securities class actions, for several decades. The firm has repeatedly demonstrated its expertise in this field, and has been recognized by various courts which have appointed the firm to major positions in consolidated and multi-district litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and the firm's achievements and quality of service have been chronicled in numerous published decisions. More information about the firm, class actions in general, or about the role of the lead plaintiffs in a securities class action can be obtained through Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP's website at http://www.kmslaw.com/. Website: http://www.kmslaw.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
