|
|
|
Texas case before high court to test voting rights
Headline Topics |
2009/04/26 08:40
|
The community of Canyon Creek was ranchland rich with limestone and cedar trees when Jim Crow held sway in the South. The first house wasn't built until the late 1980s and not even a hint of discrimination attaches to this little slice in suburbia.
p
President Barack Obama won more than 48 percent of the vote in November in this overwhelmingly white community northwest of the state capital./ppYet Canyon Creek, the heart of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One, is the site of a major Supreme Court battle over the federal government's often used and most effective tool in preventing voting discrimination against minorities./ppThe utility district's elected five-person board manages a local park and pays down bond debt. Because it is in Texas, the board is covered by a section of the Voting Rights Act that requires approval from the Justice Department before any changes can be made in how elections are conducted./ppThat requirement applies to all or parts of 16 states, mostly in the South, with a history of preventing blacks, Hispanics and other minorities from voting./ppThe utility district is challenging that section of the law, which Congress extended in 2006 for 25 years. The Obama administration is defending it./ppThe Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965, opened the polls to millions of black Americans. The law has been the most important and transformative civil rights act in our country's history, said John Payton, director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund./ppThe federal government has used the provision, known as Section 5, to stop things that would have perverted our democracy, Payton said. His group represents Texans and organizations seeking to preserve the section./ppOn the other side are the utility district, an array of conservative legal groups and some Southern Republicans./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Marine leaves Philippines after court acquittal
Headline Topics |
2009/04/22 08:41
|
A U.S. Marine whose rape conviction was overturned by the Philippine appeals court has left the country, the U.S. Embassy said Friday.
The news that Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith had departed the Philippines under the authority of United States military officials came a day after the Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's sentence — a decision that sparked protests, including one Friday in which about 200 demonstrators tried to march to the embassy before they were stopped by police.pThree years ago, Smith was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for raping a Filipino woman after a night of drinking./ppThe emotional case soon turned into a political tug-of-war between the government — keen on maintaining smooth relations with its key ally — and nationalist, left-wing and women's rights activists eager to showcase that the Philippines can do without U.S. protection./ppSmith spent only about three weeks in a Philippine jail before U.S. officials obtained custody, arguing that the Visiting Forces Agreement between the two countries allowed them to hold the Marine until his legal appeal was resolved./ppThe U.S. Embassy statement did not say when Smith left the country or where he was headed and the embassy spokeswoman could not immediately be reached for details./ppThis has been a difficult and emotional case for all involved, especially their families and loved ones. We hope that the parties can now move on with their lives, the statement said./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Murtha Immune from Defamation Suit
Headline Topics |
2009/04/14 13:50
|
Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha is immune from a defamation lawsuit over statements he made to the press, allegedly accusing U.S. Marines of slaughtering 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005, the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich said Murtha damaged his reputation by telling reporters that Wuterich and his fellow Marines massacred civilian men, women and children in cold blood in Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005.
On Nov. 19, 2005, a roadside bomb detonated, killing a member of Wuterich's squad. Two dozen Iraqi civilians were killed in the ensuing fight. Iraqi witnesses said Marines slaughtered people in the street and in their homes to avenge their fallen comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. Charges were brought against eight Marines, including four who were charged with murder. Many of the charges were later dropped.
In the wake of Haditha, Murtha gave a series of interviews to news outlets such as CNN and NPR. Wuterich said the congressman's statements provide the impression, implicitly or explicitly, that SSgt. Wuterich and others deliberately murdered innocent Iraqi civilians in a cold-blooded massacre and inappropriately compared the tragic events of Haditha with the infamous war crimes and deliberate wide-spread massacre of civilians at My Lai in Vietnam.
Murtha invoked the Westfall Act, which extends absolute immunity to federal employees acting in the course of their official duties. He also pointed to the fact that the attorney general's office had certified that his statements fell within the scope of his duties.
But the district court refused to certify the action under the Westfall Act pending discovery.
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., vacated the order denying certification and remanded with instructions to substitute the United States for Murtha as the defendant.
Senior Judge Edwards found insufficient evidence that Murtha's actions clearly exceeded the scope of his employment.
Further, Edwards said the case should be dismissed, because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for Wuterich's tort claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribe Loses Battle over Land
Headline Topics |
2009/03/19 11:01
|
An Oklahoma Indian tribe is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery in its attempt to regain control of land the federal government used for a military base, the D.C. Circuit ruled.
The Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma sued the United States to quiet title to land that President Chester Arthur had used for Fort Reno.
The Army stopped using Fort Reno in the 1930s, and the tribe claimed a reversionary interest. The two sides settled in 1965, and the government paid the tribe $15 million for the land.
The tribe sued to quiet title in 2004. The government argued that the settlement precluded any future quiet title actions, and that the 10-year statute of limitations had expired.
The district court dismissed, denying the tribe's motion to permit discovery of when the military stopped using Fort Reno. The court pointed to several times that the tribe should have known of government action that was adverse to its reversionary interests.
Judge Griffith upheld the decision.
We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery, given the absence of any specific indication from the Tribes regarding what facts additional discovery could produce that would affect the court's jurisdictional analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minn. high court rejects Franken's Senate request
Headline Topics |
2009/03/06 22:05
|
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Friday blocked Democrat Al Franken's petition for an election certificate that would put him in the U.S. Senate without waiting for a lawsuit to run its course.
p
The decision means the seat will remain empty until the lawsuit and possible appeals in state court are complete. Republican Norm Coleman's lawsuit challenging Franken's recount lead is at the end of its sixth week, and both sides expect it to last at least a few more weeks./ppAfter a state board certified recount results showed Franken 225 votes ahead, he sued to force Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to sign an election certificate. Franken argued that federal law stipulates each state will have two senators when the Senate convenes, and that law trumped a state law that blocks such certificates while lawsuits are pending./ppBut the state Supreme Court disagreed. In their ruling Friday, the justices said states aren't required to issue such certificates by the date that Congress convenes./ppThe justices wrote in their unsigned opinion that if the Senate believes delay in seating the second Senator from Minnesota adversely affects the Senate, it has the authority to remedy the situation and needs no certificate of election from the Governor to do so./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEC Sued by a Stanford Financial Investor
Headline Topics |
2009/02/26 14:39
|
The Securities and Exchange Commission wrongfully froze the assets of account holders in Stanford Financial Group's Houston and Antigua institutions when it shut down the company's operations based on allegations of fraud, a Stanford investor claims in Federal Court.
J. Mark Brewster says his funds are being held for Stanford Financial by Pershing LLC, an investment firm affiliated with the Bank of New York Mellon, but the SEC prohibits Pershing from allowing him and other Stanford investors access to the $50 billion in savings Pershing is holding.
Brewster claims the SEC violated due process by to obtaining orders from a federal judge in Dallas when the courthouse was closed for President's Day without notice to anyone and without an opportunity to be heard by anyone.
There were no members of the public present, Brewster says. Instead the SEC lawyers simply provided a written statement to the court to act without any 'notice or hearing.'
They used these orders to shut down Stanford Financial's Houston offices, and to appoint Ralph Janvey, a Dallas lawyer in private practice, as receiver to manage Stanford customers' $50 billion in assets.
The order gives absolutely no information about (Janvey) not even his address or phone number, Brewster says. Only the SEC knows him.
How he came to be selected by the SEC as the agency's favored take-over specialist is shrouded in mystery in violation of due process and without any transparency, Brewster states.
U.S. Marshals carried out the SEC's order to shut down Stanford Financial's offices in Houston and Antigua on Feb. 16, based on allegations that the company was running an $8 billion Ponzi scheme.
But Brewster complains, The SEC's motion is full innuendo, bravado and hyperbole, but lacks any facts to the alleged violations by SFG or why seizure of innocent investors' accounts is warranted.
Brewster is represented by Sondra Jurica. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 Year Old Pleads Guilty In Father's Shooting Death
Headline Topics |
2009/02/20 09:27
|
Now that the charges against a 9-year-old boy accused in a double homicide have been resolved, attorneys in the case say they are hopeful he will receive the treatment he needs to move past the incident and have a chance at a normal life.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys say treatment options were a vital part of a plea agreement the boy signed Thursday. He had faced two counts of premeditated murder in the deaths of his father and his father's roommate. He pleaded guilty to negligent homicide in the death of 39-year-old Timothy Romans, and the murder charge stemming from the death of his father, 29-year-old Vincent Romero, was dropped.
I think this experience probably can change an individual, and I'm hoping this doesn't tremendously change him, said defense attorney Benjamin Brewer. To be as normal a kid as possible, it would be something we'd like to strive for.
Apache County Attorney Michael Whiting said prosecutors had two options in the case: proceed and risk that the boy be found incompetent and receive no treatment or have him enter a plea agreement.
We discussed that and felt better that he be under the state's care, that he get treatment, he said.
The boy has not been sentenced. Apache County Superior Court Judge Michael Roca will decide whether the boy will serve time in a county juvenile facility, be institutionalized for treatment or live with relatives.
The boy's plea spares the rural community of about 4,000 from what would have been an emotional trial and prevents the boy from serving time in the state juvenile corrections system or being tried as an adult.
He was polite in court and was never asked to explain any motive for the killings.
Defense attorney Ron Wood said the plea deal was a compromise that wouldn't please everyone.
I don't know it was the best thing. That remains to be seen, he said. This resolution of the case causes more potential for working out in (the boy's) favor.
The boy's mother cried throughout the hearing and, through her lawyer, objected to the plea deal. But Superior Court Judge Michael Roca accepted it.
In court Thursday, the boy was more talkative and relaxed than in previous hearings, laughing and chatting with his lawyer and mother.
But his demeanor became more serious as the hearing got under way. The judge questioned him for nearly half an hour, about whether he understood his rights, the terms of the plea agreement and the consequences.
The boy answered respectfully and politely, using yes, sir or no, sir in most cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
