|
|
|
Judge rules fired state employees can go back to work
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/09 10:58
|
A judge Wednesday reinstated two state employees fired by the Blagojevich administration, describing the case as "bizarre, even as Kafkaesque."
After 16 months without paychecks, Dawn DeFraties and Michael Casey, held up as examples of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's effort to thwart government corruption, could be back at work as early as Monday with back wages.
Sangamon County Circuit Judge Patrick Kelley ruled that the Illinois Civil Service Commission mishandled the matter. DeFraties and Casey had a hearing last winter to get their jobs back, but the commission in May called for resuming the case to collect more evidence.
State law requires a ruling within 60 days of the end of testimony, a deadline Kelley agreed the commission blew. He noted commissioners did not explain why they wanted more evidence or what they were seeking.
"The facts of this case can be described as bizarre, even as Kafkaesque," Kelley said. "Clearly, these were the actions of a mysterious, calculating bureaucracy whose motives we can only speculate about."
DeFraties and Casey declined comment. DeFraties will get roughly $127,584 in back pay and Casey, $78,400.
The decree is a significant blow to Blagojevich. He fired the former personnel workers in April 2006 for allegedly rigging the state hiring process after an investigation by the state's executive inspector general.
DeFraties and Casey claimed they were being singled out for giving politically connected job applications -- many of which came from the governor's office -- special treatment to divert attention from federal prosecutors' inquiries about Blagojevich's hiring practices.
One of the attorneys for the state, Joseph Gagliardo, said an appeal is likely. The state attorney general will decide whether to appeal after consulting the commission, a spokesman said.
"The governor will spare no tax dollar getting his way," said Carl Draper, who represents DeFraties and Casey.
Gagliardo's law firm, Laner Muchin, has represented the state in the matter. The firm has gotten $2.2 million since July 2005, according to state records, but that work includes at least 12 other cases, Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said.
Another law firm, Schiff Hardin, has been paid $2.9 million during the same period. Blagojevich said the firm was hired to review state employment procedures after the federal inquiry began.
"It's unfortunate that the court's decision today is based on the Civil Service Commission's review process, not on the merits of the inspector general's findings," Ottenhoff said.
An administrative law judge who presided over the hearing, however, ruled on the merits, recommending the commission put DeFraties and Casey back to work after 14-day suspensions.
The commission balked and Draper sued in June, arguing not only that the 60-day clock had expired, but that his clients' due process rights were violated because the case, filed in May 2006, dragged on too long. Kelley rejected the due process argument.
Removing troublemakers from office shouldn't be an endless ordeal, Draper told Kelley.
"There's a reason courts have countenanced this process: Fire first and get your hearing later. But do it in a timely manner," Draper said. "To use the words of Larry the Cable Guy, 'Get 'er done.' If you have bad people, get 'er done."
The government countered that the commission had indeed made a decision in May -- to collect more evidence, which pushed back the deadline.
Matthew Bilinsky, an assistant attorney general representing the commission, said the hearing should have continued, the additional evidence collected, and then a judge could decide whether the process was proper.
"Who gets to say when the (hearing) transcript has to be cut off and no additional information be applied to it?" Bilinsky said.
The administrative law judge found evidence that the pair violated laws in evaluating job applications too weak to support dismissal and said they weren't insubordinate for failing to answer questions about hiring posed by a Schiff Hardin lawyer.
But he said they should be suspended for 14 days for not doing enough to stop the special review process for applications that came from the governor's office, legislators or other politicians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student pleads not guilty to hazing charge
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/08 13:48
|
A Rider University student pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to an aggravated hazing charge in connection with the binge drinking death of a freshman earlier this spring. Adriano DiDonato, 22, of Princeton, did not speak during the arraignment at the Mercer County Courthouse as his lawyer Paul Norris entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. A second student, Dominic Olsen, 21, of Kenilworth, who was originally scheduled to be arraigned along with DiDonato had his hearing delayed until next week, said Mercer County Prosecutor spokeswoman Casey DeBlasio.
Speaking after the court hearing, Norris said that his client was devastated by the death of Gary DeVercelly Jr., of Long Beach, Calif.
"This is a tragic event and by no means does Adriano minimize what happened here," Norris said. "He's very sad about what happened, as is the rest of the fraternity."
DeVercelly had a blood-alcohol level of 0.426 percent, or more than five times New Jersey's legal limit for driving, when he was pronounced dead March 30 at a Trenton hospital, authorities said. He died one day after drinking at a party at the Phi Kappa Tau house on the private school's campus in central New Jersey.
The party, according to prosecutors, was a special event in which pledges such as DeVercelly would drink with fraternity members. Some of the pledges drank entire bottles of hard liquor in under an hour, prosecutors have said.
Olsen was the pledge master of the fraternity's spring 2007 pledge class, and DiDonato was the fraternity's residence director and house master.
Two school officials and a third student were also charged in connection with DeVercelly's death: Ada Badgley, 31, the university's director of Greek life; Anthony Campbell, 51, the dean of students; and Michael J. Torney, 21, the fraternity chapter president.
The indictments mark one of the first times that university officials have been criminally charged in a suspected hazing death, according Doug Fierberg, a lawyer retained by DeVercelly's parents, who has represented hazing victims since the mid-1990s.
Torney and Campbell were to be arraigned Thursday, while no date had yet been set for Badgley's court appearance, DeBlasio said.
Jonathan Meer, Rider's vice president of university advancement, said Tuesday that no decision had been made about the employment status of the two school officials.
If convicted, the officials and fraternity members would face a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
The school dissolved the Phi Kappa Tau chapter last Friday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conn. Home Invasion Suspects in Court
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/08 12:43
|
Two suspects in a burglary and arson that left three people dead and rocked a suburban town last month faced a slew of charges Tuesday in a heavily secured courthouse. Family members of the victims - the wife and daughters of a prominent doctor, who survived the attack - filled two rows in the packed courtroom. A man was escorted from the courtroom after he yelled "Killer!" as Joshua Komisarjevsky faced the judge. Otherwise, the brief hearing was quiet. Komisarjevsky, 26, and Steven Hayes, 44, did not enter pleas and spoke only to answer yes or no questions. Department of Corrections special operations team members wearing fatigues and heavy, black vests kept watch on the two. The men have been held on $15 million bond since July 23, when they are accused of taking the family hostage, killing 48-year-old Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. The state medical examiner said Hawke-Petit, who was taken to a bank and forced to withdraw money during the ordeal, was strangled. The girls died from smoke inhalation after the family's suburban Cheshire home was set ablaze. William Petit Jr. was badly beaten but managed to escape. He did not attend Tuesday's hearing. Jeremiah Donovan, the attorney appointed to represent Komisarjevsky as a special public defender, acknowledged the challenge of working on such a high-profile case. "I myself live with a beloved wife and two lovely daughters, but I'm going to defend Joshua with all the ability and all the vigor that I might have," he said. Komisarjevsky and Hayes, who met in a halfway house and were on parole when the crime occurred, are charged with capital felony, kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, burglary, robbery, arson, larceny and risk of injury to children. Prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UC receives money from Enron class action lawsuit
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/06 15:30
|
As the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against Enron executives, the University of California has obtained more than $7.2 billion from the executives, accountants, attorneys and financial institutions that organized the fraud. On July 27, officials announced a proposed allocation plan to distribute the money to defrauded Enron investors who submit valid claims. “This is the first step in returning funds to these investors,” said Dan Newman, spokesman for lead counsel Lerach Coughlin, the law firm representing the university and the class of Enron investors. The proposed plan allocates money to investors who purchased Enron securities between Sept. 9, 1997 and Dec. 2, 2001. Roughly 1.5 million Enron stock and bond purchasers lost more than $40 billion during this period, Newman said. Due to accounting fraud, Enron shareholders have lost tens of billions of dollars. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2001. In 2002, the United States District Court chose the university as the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit due to both financial and legal factors, which included the amount of losses the plaintiff endured from Enron investments, and the plaintiff’s ability to coordinate litigation as a single investor, according to a press release from the university. As lead plaintiff, the university helps monitor and oversee the litigation of the case, Chris Patti, UC general counsel, said. The university lost $144.9 million based on 2.2 million Enron shares purchased during the class period, according to the press release. This money was taken from employees’ pension and endowment funds, said Trey Davis, director of special projections for the UC. “The money the UC will receive (from the allocation plan) will go back to these funds, so there will be no effect on students directly,” he said. The university worked with outside counsel and experts to design the plan. But it has been a difficult process, Patti said, to ensure that all investors receive the money they deserve. The allocation needs to account for what type of Enron stocks and bonds investors purchased, when they purchased them and when they sold them. “We want to make sure it’s as fair as possible, and (we are) therefore taking extra steps to ensure we do not miss anything,” Patti said. The UC is asking for feedback on the proposed plan from an independent expert consultant and the public. Comments from the public can be submitted until Aug. 20 through a specially created Web site, Enronfraud.com. After reviewing the public’s comments, university officials will request permission from Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to ask for formal input about the plan from members of the Enron class. Only after Judge Harmon approves the plan and any appeals are resolved will the money be distributed. It is difficult to predict when this will happen, Davis said, but it will not be before 2008. Other plaintiffs have still not settled cases against Enron executives. A similar case has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and its result will determine if the case against the remaining defendants will continue, Newman said. “This is an ongoing process, but investors have received a lot of support,” Newman said. Most attorney generals, academic experts and professional groups have filed friends-of-the-court briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of investor protections, according to the university’s press release. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US House passes intelligence surveillance bill
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/05 16:39
|
| The US House of Representatives voted 227-183 late Saturday in favor of the Protect America Act 2007, legislation that gives the Executive Branch expanded surveillance authority for a period of six months while Congress works on long-term legislation to "modernize" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill was passed by the Senate Friday and Bush said Saturday that he will sign the legislation. Bush said that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has provided the president assurances "that this bill gives him what he needs to continue to protect the country." The Protect America Act establishes legal guidelines on how the United States can conduct surveillance against foreign nationals "reasonably believed to be outside the United States," and requires the director of national intelligence and the attorney general's authorization before surveillance against a specific target can begin. The surveillance will be subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court within 120 days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: FBI Violated Constitution in Raid
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/03 17:01
|
| The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents in a corruption investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. The court ordered the Justice Department to return any legislative documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid and did not say whether prosecutors could use any of the records against Jefferson in their bribery case. Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business. "The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive" and violated the Constitution, the court wrote. "The Congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged." The raid was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, who allegedly accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman's Washington home. Jefferson pleaded not guilty in June to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. The Justice Department said it built that case without using the disputed documents from the raid. The court did not rule whether, because portions of the search were illegal, prosecutors should be barred from using any of the records in their case against Jefferson. That will be decided by the federal judge in Virginia who is presiding over the criminal case. "Today's opinion underscores the fact that the Department of Justice is required to follow the law, and that it is bound to abide by the Constitution," defense attorney Robert Trout, said, promising more legal challenges to "overreaching by the government in this case." The Justice Department did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the decision. Officials have said they took extraordinary steps, including using an FBI "filter team" not involved in the case to review the congressional documents. Government attorneys said the Constitution was not intended to shield lawmakers from prosecution for political corruption. The court was not convinced. It said the Constitution insists that lawmakers must be free from any intrusion into their congressional duties. Such intrusion, even by a filter team, "may therefore chill the exchange of views with respect to legislative activity," the court held. The case has cut across political party lines. Former House Speakers Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and Thomas Foley, a Democrat, filed legal documents opposing the raid, along with former House Minority Leader Bob Michel, a Republican. Conservative groups Judicial Watch and the Washington Legal Foundation were joined by the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in supporting the legality of the raid. Following his indictment, Jefferson's supporters accused the Bush administration of targeting black Democrats to shift attention from the legal troubles of Republican congressmen. "We are confident that as this case moves forward, and when all of the facts are known, we will prevail again and clear Congressman Jefferson's name," Trout said Friday. Despite the looming investigation, Jefferson was re-elected to a ninth term in 2006. His win complicated things for Democratic leaders who promised to run the most ethical Congress in history. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stripped Jefferson of his seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee and placed him instead on the Small Business Committee. He resigned that committee assignment after being indicted. The case was considered by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson and Judge Judith W. Rogers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
