|
|
|
Court: Some NC legislator emails must be released
Network News |
2014/11/21 16:14
|
North Carolina legislators aren't required to give up emails with other lawmakers and staff to those suing over the state's election-overhaul law, but correspondence with third parties is largely fair game, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Joi Peake ruled on the extent of legislative confidentiality in three lawsuits filed against the state and officials including Gov. Pat McCrory and challenging provisions of the 2013 law. Attorneys are collecting evidence for trial on the lawsuits next summer.
Those who sued demanded emails and other correspondence from more than a dozen state legislators that they hoped would provide insight to why the law was approved. The lawsuits, filed by civil rights groups, the U.S. government and voters among others, say that elements of the law are unconstitutional and discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act because they harm minority voters.
The lawsuits seek to overturn provisions that reduced the number of early voting days by one week, ended same-day registration during the early-voting period and mandate photo identification to vote in 2016.
In her ruling, Peake said legislative privilege applies to communications between legislators and their aides but not between lawmakers and constituents or interest groups. The state's attorneys cited no authority by which lawmakers should receive the privilege simply because they expected privacy with the communications, she wrote.
Peake rejected a request by the suing groups to require state attorneys to create a log of specific documents with lawmakers or staff corresponding with each other and that lawmakers believe are subject to the privilege — presumably for Peake later to decide whether the documents should be disclosed.
The privilege log "would itself significantly intrude into the legislative sphere, and would also place a heavy burden on the legislators in contravention of one of the aims of the legislative privilege," she wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court weighs role of race in Alabama redistricting
Network News |
2014/11/13 15:46
|
The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with a dispute over the use of race to redraw political districts that turns the usual arguments on their heads.
The complicated case argued at the high court involves the use of a landmark voting rights law that led to the election of African-Americans across the South and Supreme Court decisions that limited the use of race to draw electoral maps.
Only in this case, Republicans in Alabama are invoking the Voting Rights Act to justify concentrating black voters in some legislative districts, and African-Americans challenging the state's legislative maps said the GOP relied too heavily on race.
"Do you realize you are making the argument that the opponents of black plaintiffs used to make here?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked a lawyer for the challengers. Scalia appeared favorable to the state's argument.
Justice Stephen Breyer was more skeptical of the state's claims, but he too found the role reversal curious. "This is an obverse and odd situation," Breyer told Alabama Solicitor General Andrew Brasher.
The outcome could come down to whether the justices think that race was the motivating factor in the state's 2012 redistricting or that Republicans merely tried to maximize their partisan advantage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina Worker's Compensation & Social Security Disability
Network News |
2014/11/04 14:43
|
We at DiRusso & DiRusso have been helping those in our area with legal need for the past 23 years. Located near Mount Airy, North Carolina, we are grateful for the citizens of Surry County for consistently choosing us for legal representation. Our staff takes pride in this distinction and we believe it is wise that our clients chose local
counsel.
Unlike firms in the larger cities, it is important to us that our clients speak directly with DiRusso and DiRusso, not assistants or paralegals. This local touch extends to our knowledge of the local employers, local court officials, and local employers. It is of upmost importance that we are available to you and sensitive to the needs of
the area.
In addition to being local, we also have the expertise and resources to advocate for you, no matter who you're going against. We at DiRusso and DiRusso are here to listen compassionately about the difficult time you may be having, while also being solution-oriented. Our attorneys are dedicated to representing their clients, and nobody else. We will provide you with current rules, cases, and codes to keep you up to date with the law.
Call us today to speak with an attorney regarding your case. Your initial consultation concerning Personal Injury, Social Security Disability, and Workers' Compensation is always free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jury finds 2 men guilty in federal terror trial
Network News |
2014/09/29 13:12
|
Two Southern California men were convicted Thursday of conspiring to support terrorists and murder Americans overseas.
Sohiel Omar Kabir and Ralph Deleon face life sentences for the convictions announced in U.S. District Court after jurors deliberated for a week.
Kabir, 36, of Pomona and Ralph Deleon, 25, of Ontario were each charged with five counts of conspiracy for what prosecutors said was a plan to train overseas as terrorists so they could target U.S. military and allies.
Kabir was acquitted on one of five conspiracy counts and jurors were deadlocked on two of the five identical counts against Deleon.
Defense lawyers portrayed the two as hapless pot smokers who talked a big game but didn't intend any harm.
Deleon and two other men were arrested two years ago before embarking on a journey to meet Kabir in Afghanistan. Kabir was later caught by U.S. troops in Kabul.
Federal agents began tracking the group after one of the men, Miguel Santana Vidriales, returned from visiting his mother in Mexico in January 2012 with a copy of a jihadist magazine in his possession. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules against homeowners in toxic water case
Network News |
2014/06/10 12:11
|
The Supreme Court says a group of homeowners in North Carolina can't sue a company that contaminated their drinking water because a state deadline has lapsed.
The justices ruled 7-2 on Monday that state law strictly bars any lawsuit brought more than 10 years after the contamination — even if residents did not realize their water was polluted until years later.
The high court reversed a lower court ruling that said federal environmental laws should allow the lawsuit against electronics manufacturer CTS Corp. to proceed.
The decision is a setback for the families of thousands of former North Carolina-based Marines suing the federal government in a similar case for exposing them to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune. The government is relying on the same state law to avoid liability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Condemned Texas inmate loses Supreme Court appeal
Network News |
2014/05/30 13:03
|
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review an appeal from condemned Texas inmate Duane Buck, whose supporters contend his death sentence decided by a Houston jury 17 years ago unfairly was based on race.
"His death sentence is the product of pervasive racial discrimination," attorneys Christina Swarns, Kathryn Kase and Kate Black said in a statement Wednesday.
Without comment, the high court Tuesday rejected Buck's appeal. The ruling was an appeal of a similar rejection in November from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court.
Buck, 50, was convicted of capital murder and sent to death row for the slaying of his ex-girlfriend and a man at her Houston apartment in July 1995. During the punishment phase of Buck's 1997 trial, psychologist Walter Quijano testified under cross-examination by a Harris County prosecutor that black people were more likely to commit violence.
Advocates for Buck, who is black, say that unfairly influenced jurors, who in Texas capital cases must decide when deliberating a death sentence whether an offender would be a continuing threat. Quijano, called as a defense witness, had testified earlier that Buck's personality and the nature of his crime, committed during rage, indicated he would be less of a future danger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire court upholds COPSLIE vanity plate
Network News |
2014/05/09 11:02
|
If a New Hampshire man thinks cops lie, he's free to say so on his license plate, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday.
In a unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court agreed with the arguments of David Montenegro, who wanted the vanity plate reading "COPSLIE" to protest what he calls government corruption.
State law prohibits vanity plates that "a reasonable person would find offensive to good taste." But the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union argued that the law is unconstitutionally vague and gives too much discretion to a person behind a Department of Motor Vehicles counter.
New Hampshire had argued that state workers were right to deny the plate, because the phrase disparages an entire class of people — police officers.
The justices said that state law does not define the phrase "offensive to good taste."
"The restriction grants DMV officials the power to deny a proposed vanity registration plate because it offends particular officials' subjective idea of what is 'good taste,'" the court wrote. The decision states the law is unconstitutionally vague and violates free speech rights.
The case was sent back to Strafford County Superior Court for further proceedings.
Attorney Anthony Galdieri, who argued the case on behalf of Montenegro and the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, said he was not surprised by the ruling. "This regulation was an impermissible way to regulate speech under the First Amendment," Galdieri said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
