|
|
|
Texas Judge Issues Injunction Against Tribe
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/19 17:40
|
A Texas judge grants a permanent injunction against the Wichita-based Kaweah Indian Nation and its self-proclaimed chief, Malcomb Webber.
The unrecognized tribe is accused of defrauding illegal immigrants by falsely claiming they could get Social Security numbers if they bought tribal memberships.
The Texas attorney general's office had filed a lawsuit accusing Webber and his group of violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The lawsuit is still pending against two other defendants. And a spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office said a ruling on any penalties and restitution will be made after the entire case is settled.
A court-appointed attorney for Webber has said Webber was a victim of renegade underlings. |
|
|
|
|
|
US Supreme Court blocks execution of child killer
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/16 15:22
|
The U.S. Supreme Court halted the execution of convicted child killer Mark Dean Schwab on Thursday, hours before he was scheduled to die. The move by the high court was widely expected as it considers the appeals of two Kentucky inmates challenging the same lethal three-drug combination used in Florida. The court has blocked executions in three other states since accepting the Kentucky case Sept. 25. The state Attorney General Bill McCollum's office said it would not challenge the court's decision. Vicki Rios-Martinez, the victim's mother, was unhappy with the court ruling. "This is like 16 years ago. Today was the same kind of emotions, the same kind of chaos, the same kind of roller coaster ride," she said. "The system has disappointed us over and over and over again." Schwab was sentenced to death for the murder of 11-year-old Junny Rios-Martinez. In March 1991, the month Schwab was released from prison on a sexual assault sentence, a newspaper published a picture of Junny for winning a kite contest. He gained the confidence of Junny's family, claiming he was with the newspaper and was writing an article on the boy. On April 18, he called Junny's school and pretended to be Junny's father and asked that the boy meet him after school. Two days later, Schwab called his aunt in Ohio and claimed that someone named Donald had made him kidnap and rape the boy. He was later arrested and told police where he left Junny's body — in a footlocker in a rural part of Brevard County. Schwab's execution was to be the first in Florida since the botched execution of Angel Diaz on Dec. 13. It took 34 minutes for Diaz to die — twice as long as normal — because the guards pushed the needles through his veins. |
|
|
|
|
|
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." |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court May Target Second Amendment
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/15 15:32
|
The Supreme Court took no action Tuesday in the case involving the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The justices discussed the case at their private conference on Friday, but reached no resolution. Four justices must vote to grant an appeal. The court does not always reach a decision the first time it discusses a case. At issue is the capital's 31-year ban on handguns, among the strictest gun-control laws in the nation. In March, a federal appeals court struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. The justices next meet on Nov. 20 to consider accepting appeals. Their decision could be announced then or when the court convenes for oral arguments on Nov. 26. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|