David M. Louie, formerly of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, appointed Attorney General for Hawaii.
The law firm of Roeca Luria Hiraoka announced that former partner, David M. Louie, was appointed Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. David Louie is an experienced trial lawyer who has been practicing law for over 30 years. Mr. Louie's areas of practice include personal injury defense, construction defect litigation and commercial litigation. While a part of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, he was named a Hawaii Super Lawyer from 2008 to the present and selected for inclusion in the 2011 Best Lawyers in America.
“I couldn’t be happier that Mr. Louie’s accepted this critical position of State Attorney General,” said the Governor of Hawaii. “He is well versed in many areas of law and will be a tireless advocate for the interests of the people of Hawaii. He is the kind of person we need on our team as we address the challenges facing our communities.”
In addition to Mr. Louie's past legal career, he has also served as the President, Vice-President and Director of the Hawaii State Bar Association (1995-2001), a Lawyer Representative for the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2005-2008), and the Northwest Regional Governor for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (2008-2010). He is the current Vice Chair of the Hawaii Supreme Court Special Committee on Judicial Performance (1999-Present) and was Chairman of the State of Hawaii Aloha Tower Development Corporation (1999-2005). David Louie attended Occidental College and Boalt Hall School of Law, and he is a frequent lecturer for numerous continuing legal education seminars.
About Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP (formerly named Roeca Louie & Hiraoka)
Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP(RLH) is one of the top law firms in Hawaii for civil trial, providing experienced trial and litigation services to its clients. The firm's core areas of practice are in civil litigation, including: personal injury, construction litigation, products liability, medical, legal and other professional malpractice, toxic torts, insurance coverage/claim disputes, employment and labor law, commercial litigation, contract disputes, aviation law, premises liability, prison litigation, directors and officers liability, and other areas.
The top lawyers of RLH are highly experienced in trial work and litigation. They are skilled at persuasively presenting a case to a jury, judge or arbitrator. RLH's top attorneys are highly rated and have distinguished themselves in their fields. Roeca Luria Hiraoka and many of the firm's attorneys are listed in Martindale-Hubbell’s Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys, Best Lawyers in America, Hawaii Super Lawyers and Outstanding Lawyers of America. RLH partners all have the highest AV ratings with Martindale-Hubbell and several are active members of nationally recognized organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute and the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Primerus Member Attorney Named Hawaii’s Attorney General
David M. Louie, formerly of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, appointed Attorney General for Hawaii.
The law firm of Roeca Luria Hiraoka announced that former partner, David M. Louie, was appointed Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. David Louie is an experienced trial lawyer who has been practicing law for over 30 years. Mr. Louie's areas of practice include personal injury defense, construction defect litigation and commercial litigation. While a part of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, he was named a Hawaii Super Lawyer from 2008 to the present and selected for inclusion in the 2011 Best Lawyers in America.
“I couldn’t be happier that Mr. Louie’s accepted this critical position of State Attorney General,” said the Governor of Hawaii. “He is well versed in many areas of law and will be a tireless advocate for the interests of the people of Hawaii. He is the kind of person we need on our team as we address the challenges facing our communities.”
In addition to Mr. Louie's past legal career, he has also served as the President, Vice-President and Director of the Hawaii State Bar Association (1995-2001), a Lawyer Representative for the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2005-2008), and the Northwest Regional Governor for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (2008-2010). He is the current Vice Chair of the Hawaii Supreme Court Special Committee on Judicial Performance (1999-Present) and was Chairman of the State of Hawaii Aloha Tower Development Corporation (1999-2005). David Louie attended Occidental College and Boalt Hall School of Law, and he is a frequent lecturer for numerous continuing legal education seminars.
About Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP (formerly named Roeca Louie & Hiraoka)
Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP(RLH) is one of the top law firms in Hawaii for civil trial, providing experienced trial and litigation services to its clients. The firm's core areas of practice are in civil litigation, including: personal injury, construction litigation, products liability, medical, legal and other professional malpractice, toxic torts, insurance coverage/claim disputes, employment and labor law, commercial litigation, contract disputes, aviation law, premises liability, prison litigation, directors and officers liability, and other areas.
The top lawyers of RLH are highly experienced in trial work and litigation. They are skilled at persuasively presenting a case to a jury, judge or arbitrator. RLH attorneys are highly rated and have distinguished themselves in their fields. Roeca Luria Hiraoka and many of the firm's attorneys are listed in Martindale-Hubbell’s Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys, Best Lawyers in America, Hawaii Super Lawyers and Outstanding Lawyers of America. RLH partners all have the highest AV ratings with Martindale-Hubbell and several are active members of nationally recognized organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute and the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.
The law firm of Roeca Luria Hiraoka announced that former partner, David M. Louie, was appointed Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. David Louie is an experienced trial lawyer who has been practicing law for over 30 years. Mr. Louie's areas of practice include personal injury defense, construction defect litigation and commercial litigation. While a part of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, he was named a Hawaii Super Lawyer from 2008 to the present and selected for inclusion in the 2011 Best Lawyers in America.
“I couldn’t be happier that Mr. Louie’s accepted this critical position of State Attorney General,” said the Governor of Hawaii. “He is well versed in many areas of law and will be a tireless advocate for the interests of the people of Hawaii. He is the kind of person we need on our team as we address the challenges facing our communities.”
In addition to Mr. Louie's past legal career, he has also served as the President, Vice-President and Director of the Hawaii State Bar Association (1995-2001), a Lawyer Representative for the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2005-2008), and the Northwest Regional Governor for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (2008-2010). He is the current Vice Chair of the Hawaii Supreme Court Special Committee on Judicial Performance (1999-Present) and was Chairman of the State of Hawaii Aloha Tower Development Corporation (1999-2005). David Louie attended Occidental College and Boalt Hall School of Law, and he is a frequent lecturer for numerous continuing legal education seminars.
About Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP (formerly named Roeca Louie & Hiraoka)
Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP(RLH) is one of the top law firms in Hawaii for civil trial, providing experienced trial and litigation services to its clients. The firm's core areas of practice are in civil litigation, including: personal injury, construction litigation, products liability, medical, legal and other professional malpractice, toxic torts, insurance coverage/claim disputes, employment and labor law, commercial litigation, contract disputes, aviation law, premises liability, prison litigation, directors and officers liability, and other areas.
The top lawyers of RLH are highly experienced in trial work and litigation. They are skilled at persuasively presenting a case to a jury, judge or arbitrator. RLH attorneys are highly rated and have distinguished themselves in their fields. Roeca Luria Hiraoka and many of the firm's attorneys are listed in Martindale-Hubbell’s Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys, Best Lawyers in America, Hawaii Super Lawyers and Outstanding Lawyers of America. RLH partners all have the highest AV ratings with Martindale-Hubbell and several are active members of nationally recognized organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute and the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Chevron Battles Record Ruling In Ecuador Environmental Law Case
In what may be considered to be the largest environmental law judgment of all time, an Ecuadorian judge ordered Chevron Corp. to pay $8.6 billion to clean up oil pollution in the country's rain forest.
The judge added an additional claim that if Chevron fails to publicly apologize within the next two weeks, the U.S. oil company must payout twice that amount.
The recent decision marks a significant point in a twenty year legal dilemma between Ecuador and the U.S.
The oil suit has been a hard fought battle by both sides, with each country accusing the other of improprieties. In recent months, Chevron discovered a memo disposing of the plaintiffs' strategy for enforcing any environmental law or regulation in the world that favors an Ecuadorian victory. That implies that the oil giant could be forced to defend itself in virtually any of the countries where it conducts business.
Chevron Corp, which claims to have no assets in Ecuador, denies responsibility for the pollution and put up a stand against any efforts of the courts to seize its property overseas.
The plaintiffs of the case are the current Ecuador residents living in the oil-rich Amazon rain forest. They are seeking to hold Chevron responsible for damages they say was caused by Texaco Inc., a company that operated in the region from 1965 to 1992. After Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001, they company inherited the accountability.
For more over a year, Chevron has said that it expected to lose the battle against Ecuador. The company said that the collusion between the government and the plaintiffs in the country created grounds for an unfair judgment. On Monday, Chevron confirmed its plans to appeal the ruling, adding that it won't pay the fine or apologize for the mess.
The ruling is "illegitimate and unenforceable," said a Chevron spokesman. "It's the product of fraud, and it's contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence."
Ecuadorian plaintiffs disagree by arguing that scientific evidence backs up their claims of environmental damage. Such a ruling was uplifting news for the plaintiffs who experienced many setbacks in U.S. courts that left them strapped for financial support.
However the win for Ecuador could be short-lived. A panel of international arbitrators last week granted Chevron a preliminary injunction that could put a hold on the plaintiffs' ability to enforce the ruling.
The judgment raising many questions of international interests, said an Augusta business lawyer following the case. This only marks a new beginning in this long dispute.
"We believe today's judgment affirms what the plaintiffs have contended for the past 18 years about Chevron's intentional and unlawful contamination of Ecuador's rain forest," said the lawyer who led the plaintiffs' side of the case for years until Chevron's attacks influenced him to step down.
Under Ecuadorian law, Chevron is not responsible for paying any fines until after an attempted appeal, which could take months.
Meanwhile, the oil company is using the power behind U.S. courts in an effort to eliminate all payments due. The company sued the plaintiffs and their top lawyers in the U.S., where a federal judge recently issued a temporary stay blocking the plaintiffs' American lawyers from seeking to enforce any judgment.
Chevron has also sued Ecuador for a sketch trade agreement between the country and the U.S. The panel of arbitrators in The Hague ruled Ecuador to take "all measures at its disposal" to prevent any ruling until the panel contributes to the case's final judgment. That could bottleneck the plaintiff's attempts to convince a foreign court to seize Chevron's assets.
The country of Ecuador has asked a U.S. court to put a hold on a Chevron's trade suit, challenging the panel's legal jurisdiction.
Even if the oil provider never has to pay, the ruling could make matters worse publicly for Chevron as all oil companies are already under scrutiny from last year's major oil spill in the Gulf.
As for the fines due to Chevron, the judge determined it must pay $5.4 billion to restore polluted soil and $1.4 billion to create a health system for the community, in addition to many other penalties. The court also ruled that Chevron owes the Amazon Defense Front an extra 10% in damage fines, factoring to be about $860 million. That could bring the total judgment to $9.5 billion.
During the judgment, the Ecuadorian judge claimed that Texaco had the awareness and ability to prevent such a mess and that the damages were also foreseeable.
The plaintiffs first sued Texaco back in 1993. Texaco, and later Chevron, successfully countered the claim, arguing that it should instead be heard in Ecuador, which at the time was run by a government viewed as friendly to American commercial interests.
However, Ecuador's president Rafael Correa has publicly supported the plaintiffs' cause. The oil giant accuses the country's government of interference of the case.
The plaintiffs in the case have made an effort to better prepare themselves for the next stage of the trial by securing millions of dollars, some of it from a London-based hedge fund that focuses on supporting class-action suits. In addition, they have considered hired new Boise business lawyers to improve their legal approach.
The judge added an additional claim that if Chevron fails to publicly apologize within the next two weeks, the U.S. oil company must payout twice that amount.
The recent decision marks a significant point in a twenty year legal dilemma between Ecuador and the U.S.
The oil suit has been a hard fought battle by both sides, with each country accusing the other of improprieties. In recent months, Chevron discovered a memo disposing of the plaintiffs' strategy for enforcing any environmental law or regulation in the world that favors an Ecuadorian victory. That implies that the oil giant could be forced to defend itself in virtually any of the countries where it conducts business.
Chevron Corp, which claims to have no assets in Ecuador, denies responsibility for the pollution and put up a stand against any efforts of the courts to seize its property overseas.
The plaintiffs of the case are the current Ecuador residents living in the oil-rich Amazon rain forest. They are seeking to hold Chevron responsible for damages they say was caused by Texaco Inc., a company that operated in the region from 1965 to 1992. After Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001, they company inherited the accountability.
For more over a year, Chevron has said that it expected to lose the battle against Ecuador. The company said that the collusion between the government and the plaintiffs in the country created grounds for an unfair judgment. On Monday, Chevron confirmed its plans to appeal the ruling, adding that it won't pay the fine or apologize for the mess.
The ruling is "illegitimate and unenforceable," said a Chevron spokesman. "It's the product of fraud, and it's contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence."
Ecuadorian plaintiffs disagree by arguing that scientific evidence backs up their claims of environmental damage. Such a ruling was uplifting news for the plaintiffs who experienced many setbacks in U.S. courts that left them strapped for financial support.
However the win for Ecuador could be short-lived. A panel of international arbitrators last week granted Chevron a preliminary injunction that could put a hold on the plaintiffs' ability to enforce the ruling.
The judgment raising many questions of international interests, said an Augusta business lawyer following the case. This only marks a new beginning in this long dispute.
"We believe today's judgment affirms what the plaintiffs have contended for the past 18 years about Chevron's intentional and unlawful contamination of Ecuador's rain forest," said the lawyer who led the plaintiffs' side of the case for years until Chevron's attacks influenced him to step down.
Under Ecuadorian law, Chevron is not responsible for paying any fines until after an attempted appeal, which could take months.
Meanwhile, the oil company is using the power behind U.S. courts in an effort to eliminate all payments due. The company sued the plaintiffs and their top lawyers in the U.S., where a federal judge recently issued a temporary stay blocking the plaintiffs' American lawyers from seeking to enforce any judgment.
Chevron has also sued Ecuador for a sketch trade agreement between the country and the U.S. The panel of arbitrators in The Hague ruled Ecuador to take "all measures at its disposal" to prevent any ruling until the panel contributes to the case's final judgment. That could bottleneck the plaintiff's attempts to convince a foreign court to seize Chevron's assets.
The country of Ecuador has asked a U.S. court to put a hold on a Chevron's trade suit, challenging the panel's legal jurisdiction.
Even if the oil provider never has to pay, the ruling could make matters worse publicly for Chevron as all oil companies are already under scrutiny from last year's major oil spill in the Gulf.
As for the fines due to Chevron, the judge determined it must pay $5.4 billion to restore polluted soil and $1.4 billion to create a health system for the community, in addition to many other penalties. The court also ruled that Chevron owes the Amazon Defense Front an extra 10% in damage fines, factoring to be about $860 million. That could bring the total judgment to $9.5 billion.
During the judgment, the Ecuadorian judge claimed that Texaco had the awareness and ability to prevent such a mess and that the damages were also foreseeable.
The plaintiffs first sued Texaco back in 1993. Texaco, and later Chevron, successfully countered the claim, arguing that it should instead be heard in Ecuador, which at the time was run by a government viewed as friendly to American commercial interests.
However, Ecuador's president Rafael Correa has publicly supported the plaintiffs' cause. The oil giant accuses the country's government of interference of the case.
The plaintiffs in the case have made an effort to better prepare themselves for the next stage of the trial by securing millions of dollars, some of it from a London-based hedge fund that focuses on supporting class-action suits. In addition, they have considered hired new Boise business lawyers to improve their legal approach.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Feds face countersuit from Arizona's governor
Arizona Governor filed a lawsuit against the federal government for its poor enforcement of immigration laws and failure to adequately control the U.S.-Mexico border. She also sued the fed for requiring such high costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes.
The claims emphasizes the federal government's failure to protect Arizona from an invasion of illegal immigrants crossing the border. In addition, the claim seeks to acquire more funds and increased protection measures like better fencing on the Mexican border.
The governor's claim is a countersuit to the fed's legal challenge regarding Arizona's immigration law enforcement. The Justice Department is taking action to invalidate the law.
Because they (federal government) have failed to fully protect Arizona citizens, we are left with no other alternatives, said the Governor.
The spokesperson for the Justice Department elected not to comment on the countersuit. A representative for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the organization responsible for border regulation, labeled the Arizona Governor's claim meritless and argued that the border's enforcement staff is the highest that it has ever been.
"Not only do actions like this ignore all of the statistical evidence, they also belittle the significant progress that our men and women in uniform have made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it," said the Homeland Security spokesperson. "We welcome any state and local government or law enforcement agency to join with us to address the remaining challenges."
The Governor's lawsuit seeks that the feds take additional steps to better enforce the Mexico-Arizona border. The claim also asks for more border agents, fencing and technology along the border.
There is a desperate need to step up security around the Arizona-Mexico border, claimed a Tucson medical malpractice lawyer. "I've been hearing a lot of issues regarding illegal immigration control, and something needs to be done about it." he added.
Arizona is not looking to acquire an award from the suit, but rather demands much needed changes in the way the government reimburses states for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.
Arizona's enforcement law was put into law during a time of many complaints that the fed has failed to lessen the state's responsibility in enforcing the nation's busiest illegal entry point. The law's passage prompted protests over whether the law would lead to a large influx racial profiling.
The result of the Governor's claim could set an interesting precedent over border control as well as an allocation of the federal spending money, said a Tuscon personal injury lawyer who is tracking the case.
The enforcement law would have required agents, while busy regulating other matters of law, to question an individual's immigration status if officials had reasonable suspicion the person crossed the border illegally. That requirement was put on hold by a U.S. District Judge, coupled with a mandate that immigrants carry immigration registration papers.
However, the judge allowed other components of the law to take effect. One key part of the law bans individuals from blocking traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.
Arizona's Governor challenged the decision made by the U.S. District Judge in an appeals court. She argued the judge erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law could potential burden legal immigrants, and by concluding the federal government likely would prevail. The appeal is still pending.
Arizona Attorney General, one of the top lawyers defending the law on behalf of the state, claimed Arizona is faced with inconsistent costs from illegal immigration enforcement, yet the feds claim the state is relieved from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
The state's Attorney General noted that the Federal Government has done a poor job in protecting the state against a invasive illegal immigrants.
The Governor's lawsuit drills on the problem concerning Arizona's unreimbursed costs for imprisoned illegal immigrants. The Governor's predecessor, who is currently the secretary of Homeland Security, consistently submitted invoices to the Justice Department seeking such reimbursement when she was governor.
The claim does not outline exactly how much in reimbursement funds the state desires, but rather, seeks that the court reviews the criteria on which reimbursements are based upon.
In the filing, the Governor noted latest annual reimbursement from the federal government, which totaled almost $10 million. The state had dish out an additional $125 million to cover the illegal immigration costs.
The claims emphasizes the federal government's failure to protect Arizona from an invasion of illegal immigrants crossing the border. In addition, the claim seeks to acquire more funds and increased protection measures like better fencing on the Mexican border.
The governor's claim is a countersuit to the fed's legal challenge regarding Arizona's immigration law enforcement. The Justice Department is taking action to invalidate the law.
Because they (federal government) have failed to fully protect Arizona citizens, we are left with no other alternatives, said the Governor.
The spokesperson for the Justice Department elected not to comment on the countersuit. A representative for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the organization responsible for border regulation, labeled the Arizona Governor's claim meritless and argued that the border's enforcement staff is the highest that it has ever been.
"Not only do actions like this ignore all of the statistical evidence, they also belittle the significant progress that our men and women in uniform have made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it," said the Homeland Security spokesperson. "We welcome any state and local government or law enforcement agency to join with us to address the remaining challenges."
The Governor's lawsuit seeks that the feds take additional steps to better enforce the Mexico-Arizona border. The claim also asks for more border agents, fencing and technology along the border.
There is a desperate need to step up security around the Arizona-Mexico border, claimed a Tucson medical malpractice lawyer. "I've been hearing a lot of issues regarding illegal immigration control, and something needs to be done about it." he added.
Arizona is not looking to acquire an award from the suit, but rather demands much needed changes in the way the government reimburses states for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.
Arizona's enforcement law was put into law during a time of many complaints that the fed has failed to lessen the state's responsibility in enforcing the nation's busiest illegal entry point. The law's passage prompted protests over whether the law would lead to a large influx racial profiling.
The result of the Governor's claim could set an interesting precedent over border control as well as an allocation of the federal spending money, said a Tuscon personal injury lawyer who is tracking the case.
The enforcement law would have required agents, while busy regulating other matters of law, to question an individual's immigration status if officials had reasonable suspicion the person crossed the border illegally. That requirement was put on hold by a U.S. District Judge, coupled with a mandate that immigrants carry immigration registration papers.
However, the judge allowed other components of the law to take effect. One key part of the law bans individuals from blocking traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.
Arizona's Governor challenged the decision made by the U.S. District Judge in an appeals court. She argued the judge erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law could potential burden legal immigrants, and by concluding the federal government likely would prevail. The appeal is still pending.
Arizona Attorney General, one of the top lawyers defending the law on behalf of the state, claimed Arizona is faced with inconsistent costs from illegal immigration enforcement, yet the feds claim the state is relieved from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
The state's Attorney General noted that the Federal Government has done a poor job in protecting the state against a invasive illegal immigrants.
The Governor's lawsuit drills on the problem concerning Arizona's unreimbursed costs for imprisoned illegal immigrants. The Governor's predecessor, who is currently the secretary of Homeland Security, consistently submitted invoices to the Justice Department seeking such reimbursement when she was governor.
The claim does not outline exactly how much in reimbursement funds the state desires, but rather, seeks that the court reviews the criteria on which reimbursements are based upon.
In the filing, the Governor noted latest annual reimbursement from the federal government, which totaled almost $10 million. The state had dish out an additional $125 million to cover the illegal immigration costs.
Companies requesting zip codes may be fined under new CA Supreme Court ruling
On Thursday the Supreme Court of California ruled that merchandising companies are no longer able to ask for customer ZIP codes who buy with credit cards. The ruling was set because the courts determined such requests are a violation of state consumer-protection law.
The decision made by the courts, which claims that an individual's ZIP code is considered "personal identification information," overturned two decisions made by lower courts that scrapped suit. The result setback California retailers and a lawyer for one national chain said the decision would likely lead to more lawsuits.
Thursday's ruling derived from a lawsuit established against Williams-Sonoma Inc. A clerk working for the company had asked a women for her ZIP code and she sued the retailer in arguing that the request violated not only her privacy, but also the credit card law.
"It's a terrible decision," said the president of the California Retailers Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on William-Sonoma's side.
The president of the Association said it is too early to realize how disruptive the ruling will be to businesses that routinely require consumers to provide a ZIP code to authorize a transaction.
The defending retailer, William-Sonoma as well as several other retailers, claimed they ask for ZIP codes as a security precaution - an argument leveraged by many of the company's top lawyers.
Carlos Moreno, California Supreme Court Justice, claimed that the ZIP code is considered part of a consumer's address, which California law sees as off-limits to merchandisers.
"First, a ZIP code is readily understood to be part of an address; when one addresses a letter to another person, a ZIP code is always included," said Justice Moreno. "Otherwise, a business could ask not just for a cardholder's ZIP code, but also for the cardholder's street and city in addition to the ZIP code, so long as it did not also ask for the house number. Such a construction would render the statute's protections hollow."
During the trail, the Supreme Court showed evidence that Williams-Sonoma recorded the women's ZIP code in a digital cash register, which was submitted into the retailer's main customer database. The company then used software to align the customer's name and ZIP code with her undisclosed address, key data that can be used to market products and can be shared or sold to other companies. For that reason, the California Supreme Court determined that asking for a customer's ZIP code was in violation of California state law.
The result of this case supports and protects the privacy of California consumers, said a Boise business lawyer following the case.
The attorney added that gas stations that require ZIP codes be entered at the pump are exempt because such companies do not record the transaction.
The Supreme Court returned the case to the appeals court for further action, which could include an evaluation of the damages. Retailers who fail to adhere to the new legal standards can be fined up to $250 for the first violation and as much as $1,000 for additional infractions.
A representative of Michaels Stores, a craft supplies retailer, said that several lawsuits regarding the ZIP code issue are pending throughout the state. He foresees more suits will be submitted because of the Supreme Court ruling.
The court's ruling is going to have a tremendous impact on California retailers, said a St. Louis business lawyer tracking the case. He added that the decision still leaves the question open over whether retailers can request similar customer information when buyers are using cash or gift cards to purchase their goods.
The decision made by the courts, which claims that an individual's ZIP code is considered "personal identification information," overturned two decisions made by lower courts that scrapped suit. The result setback California retailers and a lawyer for one national chain said the decision would likely lead to more lawsuits.
Thursday's ruling derived from a lawsuit established against Williams-Sonoma Inc. A clerk working for the company had asked a women for her ZIP code and she sued the retailer in arguing that the request violated not only her privacy, but also the credit card law.
"It's a terrible decision," said the president of the California Retailers Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on William-Sonoma's side.
The president of the Association said it is too early to realize how disruptive the ruling will be to businesses that routinely require consumers to provide a ZIP code to authorize a transaction.
The defending retailer, William-Sonoma as well as several other retailers, claimed they ask for ZIP codes as a security precaution - an argument leveraged by many of the company's top lawyers.
Carlos Moreno, California Supreme Court Justice, claimed that the ZIP code is considered part of a consumer's address, which California law sees as off-limits to merchandisers.
"First, a ZIP code is readily understood to be part of an address; when one addresses a letter to another person, a ZIP code is always included," said Justice Moreno. "Otherwise, a business could ask not just for a cardholder's ZIP code, but also for the cardholder's street and city in addition to the ZIP code, so long as it did not also ask for the house number. Such a construction would render the statute's protections hollow."
During the trail, the Supreme Court showed evidence that Williams-Sonoma recorded the women's ZIP code in a digital cash register, which was submitted into the retailer's main customer database. The company then used software to align the customer's name and ZIP code with her undisclosed address, key data that can be used to market products and can be shared or sold to other companies. For that reason, the California Supreme Court determined that asking for a customer's ZIP code was in violation of California state law.
The result of this case supports and protects the privacy of California consumers, said a Boise business lawyer following the case.
The attorney added that gas stations that require ZIP codes be entered at the pump are exempt because such companies do not record the transaction.
The Supreme Court returned the case to the appeals court for further action, which could include an evaluation of the damages. Retailers who fail to adhere to the new legal standards can be fined up to $250 for the first violation and as much as $1,000 for additional infractions.
A representative of Michaels Stores, a craft supplies retailer, said that several lawsuits regarding the ZIP code issue are pending throughout the state. He foresees more suits will be submitted because of the Supreme Court ruling.
The court's ruling is going to have a tremendous impact on California retailers, said a St. Louis business lawyer tracking the case. He added that the decision still leaves the question open over whether retailers can request similar customer information when buyers are using cash or gift cards to purchase their goods.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
NFL official berates attorneys involved in Super Bowl seating dispute
One of the top officials of the National Football legal spoke out against the mass of legal activity targeting the spectator seating controversy of Super Bowl XLV.
Earlier this week, a lawsuit seeking $5 million in damages was filed on behalf of some of the 1,250 fans who were removed from their seats at the big game. The claims came about due to breach of contract, fraud and deceptive sales practices .
Executive VP of the NFL's business operations berated the top lawyers involved in the cases to reduce the legal battle on the league.
"I wish they'd go off and work on something like world peace because I think we have to keep this in perspective," the VP told ProFootballTalk Live.
"We didn't provide a great experience to 100% of the fans. But keeping a little perspective is probably what I wish the lawyers would do."
He also said the NFL - which has extended an offer of "compensation packages" to many of ticket-holders who were effected by the incident -- wants "a second chance" with spectators.
After just one day the Super Bowl was played, the website SuperBowlSuit.com launched stories from affected ticket-holders interested in joining a potential suit.
Earlier this week, a lawsuit seeking $5 million in damages was filed on behalf of some of the 1,250 fans who were removed from their seats at the big game. The claims came about due to breach of contract, fraud and deceptive sales practices .
Executive VP of the NFL's business operations berated the top lawyers involved in the cases to reduce the legal battle on the league.
"I wish they'd go off and work on something like world peace because I think we have to keep this in perspective," the VP told ProFootballTalk Live.
"We didn't provide a great experience to 100% of the fans. But keeping a little perspective is probably what I wish the lawyers would do."
He also said the NFL - which has extended an offer of "compensation packages" to many of ticket-holders who were effected by the incident -- wants "a second chance" with spectators.
After just one day the Super Bowl was played, the website SuperBowlSuit.com launched stories from affected ticket-holders interested in joining a potential suit.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
CitiGroup foreclosure assignments raise eyebrows
After being accused by borrowers of filing fraudulent mortgage documents, Citigroup Inc., the third-largest bank in the U.S., settled or lost at least five of the latter claims in 2010.
In the company's most recent December of 2010 settlement, a bankrupt homeowner in New York challenged against the bank’s use of a mortgage “assignment,” which displays the transfer of ownership of a mortgage. The transfer was signed by Orion Financial Group employee. The Texas firm specializes in document services to lenders.
"(The document was) of fraudulent nature and questionable origin,” the borrower’s attorney wrote in objection to Citigroup’s claim at U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The attorney continued to say the disputed lending company established and submitted the assignment after proceedings began because it otherwise would not have been able to prove its right to collect the debt. Citigroup denied the allegations and failed to acknowledge liability in the settlement.
Top attorneys general in 50 states are investigating the financial industry’s application of mortgage assignments as part of a broader concern into faulty foreclosure methods, according to a spokesman for Iowa's attorney general. A Massachusetts court ruled last month that two foreclosures by other financial institutes were invalid because assignments presented in those cases did not to prove the chain of ownership of the mortgage, sending financial stocks down.
Judges in bankruptcy court are skeptical as to when mortgage servicers claim to have assignments, said a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in an interview. They have been inundated with concerns from a Wilmington bankruptcy lawyer, and potentially a few other attorneys.
“They’ve got to show me more than their swearing that they have the right,” he said. “They’re going to have to connect up the dots back to the note and the security agreement, which would be the mortgage.”
The executive with the CitiMortgage subsidiary explained to Congress that the company reorganized foreclosure operations last year, in an effort to avoid the faulty affidavit-signing practices that required industry peers to temporarily put a hold on home seizures.
Citigroup dished out nearly $82,000 in opponents’ legal costs when settling challenges to four bankruptcy claims that used Orion letters in 2010, according to agreements filed with New York and Arkansas federal bankruptcy courts. The filings show that Citigroup reduced interest rates on the remaining debt by an average of 49 percent, while slashing outstanding mortgage balance in three cases by a combined $55,000.
“It doesn’t strike me as something that lenders do every day of the week,” said a bankruptcy law professor at UNC in Chapel Hill. “It does raise some questions about the practices.”
A spokesman for Citigroup said it does not comment on individual claims. The company continues to use Orion for assignment letters, he said. While borrowers continue to dispute the bank’s use of assignments, they have not accused Orion of doing wrong.
“We don’t create fraudulent documents,” said Orion CEO. Orion's documents reveal which company may hold the note and can be based on information from the bank, he added.
Citigroup declined to comment on how often the bank relies on Orion or other document providers for assignments. Documented records can not be searched electronically in most of the counties across the U.S. In Dallas County, where documents are available online, Orion prepared at least 14 assignments transferring mortgages to Citigroup since the start of 2009.
In the case pertaining to Wappingers Falls, Citigroup claimed it was owed about $390,000 from a property mortgage. The company filed an assignment prepared by Orion to support the claim. This questionable document had said another lender had assigned the loan to CitiMortgage more than three weeks after the bankruptcy began.
While settling the borrower’s objections, Citigroup failed to admit any wrongdoing. The bank paid the defendant's $35,000 in legal fees, dropped the mortgage principal by $29,000 and lowered its interest rate by almost 50%.
Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld a voiding of two 2007 foreclosures carried out by financial institutions because the companies failed to show that they possessed the mortgages at the time of the seizures. The banks had backed claims with so- called blank assignments completed after foreclosure sales.
A lender such as Citigroup may elect to avoid scrutiny of its foreclosure practices during litigation, said one of the top lawyers with Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, who instructs attorneys on representing consumers in foreclosure and bankruptcy cases.
Orion is a “mortgage assignment, lien release and document retrieval services” to the mortgage industry, according to its website. Citigroup also partners with Orion for assignments in foreclosures, the bank's CEO said.
Citigroup is still dealing with claims connected to assignment prepared by Orion regarding a case at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Mississippi. In that case, the judge disallowed the bank’s initial claim to a property in a city about 20 miles south of Memphis, Tennessee. The borrower later asked the court to force the bank to prove whether it has rights to the loan. Citigroup filed a response last month, disputing the demands of the borrower. The company expects to hear a response from the defendant's Salt Lake City real estate lawyer.
In the company's most recent December of 2010 settlement, a bankrupt homeowner in New York challenged against the bank’s use of a mortgage “assignment,” which displays the transfer of ownership of a mortgage. The transfer was signed by Orion Financial Group employee. The Texas firm specializes in document services to lenders.
"(The document was) of fraudulent nature and questionable origin,” the borrower’s attorney wrote in objection to Citigroup’s claim at U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The attorney continued to say the disputed lending company established and submitted the assignment after proceedings began because it otherwise would not have been able to prove its right to collect the debt. Citigroup denied the allegations and failed to acknowledge liability in the settlement.
Top attorneys general in 50 states are investigating the financial industry’s application of mortgage assignments as part of a broader concern into faulty foreclosure methods, according to a spokesman for Iowa's attorney general. A Massachusetts court ruled last month that two foreclosures by other financial institutes were invalid because assignments presented in those cases did not to prove the chain of ownership of the mortgage, sending financial stocks down.
Judges in bankruptcy court are skeptical as to when mortgage servicers claim to have assignments, said a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in an interview. They have been inundated with concerns from a Wilmington bankruptcy lawyer, and potentially a few other attorneys.
“They’ve got to show me more than their swearing that they have the right,” he said. “They’re going to have to connect up the dots back to the note and the security agreement, which would be the mortgage.”
The executive with the CitiMortgage subsidiary explained to Congress that the company reorganized foreclosure operations last year, in an effort to avoid the faulty affidavit-signing practices that required industry peers to temporarily put a hold on home seizures.
Citigroup dished out nearly $82,000 in opponents’ legal costs when settling challenges to four bankruptcy claims that used Orion letters in 2010, according to agreements filed with New York and Arkansas federal bankruptcy courts. The filings show that Citigroup reduced interest rates on the remaining debt by an average of 49 percent, while slashing outstanding mortgage balance in three cases by a combined $55,000.
“It doesn’t strike me as something that lenders do every day of the week,” said a bankruptcy law professor at UNC in Chapel Hill. “It does raise some questions about the practices.”
A spokesman for Citigroup said it does not comment on individual claims. The company continues to use Orion for assignment letters, he said. While borrowers continue to dispute the bank’s use of assignments, they have not accused Orion of doing wrong.
“We don’t create fraudulent documents,” said Orion CEO. Orion's documents reveal which company may hold the note and can be based on information from the bank, he added.
Citigroup declined to comment on how often the bank relies on Orion or other document providers for assignments. Documented records can not be searched electronically in most of the counties across the U.S. In Dallas County, where documents are available online, Orion prepared at least 14 assignments transferring mortgages to Citigroup since the start of 2009.
In the case pertaining to Wappingers Falls, Citigroup claimed it was owed about $390,000 from a property mortgage. The company filed an assignment prepared by Orion to support the claim. This questionable document had said another lender had assigned the loan to CitiMortgage more than three weeks after the bankruptcy began.
While settling the borrower’s objections, Citigroup failed to admit any wrongdoing. The bank paid the defendant's $35,000 in legal fees, dropped the mortgage principal by $29,000 and lowered its interest rate by almost 50%.
Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld a voiding of two 2007 foreclosures carried out by financial institutions because the companies failed to show that they possessed the mortgages at the time of the seizures. The banks had backed claims with so- called blank assignments completed after foreclosure sales.
A lender such as Citigroup may elect to avoid scrutiny of its foreclosure practices during litigation, said one of the top lawyers with Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, who instructs attorneys on representing consumers in foreclosure and bankruptcy cases.
Orion is a “mortgage assignment, lien release and document retrieval services” to the mortgage industry, according to its website. Citigroup also partners with Orion for assignments in foreclosures, the bank's CEO said.
Citigroup is still dealing with claims connected to assignment prepared by Orion regarding a case at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Mississippi. In that case, the judge disallowed the bank’s initial claim to a property in a city about 20 miles south of Memphis, Tennessee. The borrower later asked the court to force the bank to prove whether it has rights to the loan. Citigroup filed a response last month, disputing the demands of the borrower. The company expects to hear a response from the defendant's Salt Lake City real estate lawyer.
Widow benefits become complicated after Congressional intervention
Many of the nation's war widows are finding it not only confusing, but disrespectful to their past military husbands that to be able to fully collect on the insurance that their husbands purchased for them when they were alive, they must marry another man.
Additionally, in order to qualify for insurance, the widows are required to remarry when they are 57 or older. Those widows who remarry earlier are ineligible.
The core of the issue stems from a government policy known as the "widows' tax." The policy states that a military spouse whose loved one dies from a service-related cause is not eligible to collect both survivor's benefits and the full annuity benefits from insurance the couple bought from the Defense Department at retirement. Rather, the amount of the annuity payment is reduced by the amount of the monthly survivor benefit.
Members of Congress have agreed to help the 55,000 affected widows multiple times in the past, but certain laws that have been enacted have only created a more complicated system that has resulted in more confusion.
What does remarriage have anything to do with it? As it turns out - very little. The marriage condition was slipped into the law by Congress with the idea that it would help the survivors retain certain benefits if they remarried later on. Because Congress has failed to come up with the money to help all the widows, insurance money has been limited to that group.
"I've never even wanted to date, much less remarry," said widow of a military husband who past away in 2002. "I already married the love of my life. Why would you bring that as a factor?"
Compounding the confusion and angst is yet another stipulation that segregates even more of those who should benefit from the system - women under the age of 57 who have found love a second time and remarried.
For widows who were denied the complete insurance benefits, the government lend a hand by giving them back the premiums their spouses had paid for the policies. However if a widow remarries at the age 57 or older, making themselves eligible for the benefit, she is only able to receive money by repaying the premiums that the government had refunded to her.
A 76 year old widow whose late husband served in the Vietnam War and past away due to a service-induced disability after over 30 years in the Air Force, said she was stunned after remarrying last year to receive a bill from the government to repay over $41,000 in premiums. Those insurance premiums had been refunded to her after his death in 2003 because at that time she unable to receive the annuity's full benefit.
"It doesn't seem to make much sense," said a Knoxville estate planning lawyer who is helping widows find a solution to the issue.
It also doesn't make sense to 11 Senators of Congress who last week filed legislation to aid the distressed widows.
"This has always been an issue of the military doing the right thing and living up to its promises," one of the senators said in a statement. "These policies were bought by servicemen and women to make sure their loved ones would be taken care of following their deaths. Not only is it a promise the government hasn't kept, but now it's sending bills to survivors. That's just outrageous."
Approximately 700 of the widows who have remarried after age 57 are considered to be the lucky ones because they do not have to deal with one benefit being subtracted from another.
Many spouses, for the past few years, have taken the battle to Capitol Hill.
A congressionally aimed group of military widows was established to support legislation efforts by the senators that would eliminate the benefit offset and not demand widows to repay premiums previously refunded. Their argument is that the affected war widows have spent many years living without the benefits and it is less expensive for the feds to forgo the insurance premiums than manually calculate the amounts owed.
The largest issue in dealing with the concern is to eliminate the offset of the benefits. This would imply an expense to the government of about $6.7 billion over the course of a decade to allow the spouses to collect both benefits in full.
The Defense Department has long claimed that never was there expectations of both programs being provided at the same time. Last year, the defense undersecretary for personnel told Congress that scrapping the offset would result in inequities in overall benefits programs.
The affected war widows did not agree. Most of the spouses paid roughly 6.5 percent of their retirement pay - or the equivalent of about $100 a month or more - for the annuity. The service members past away with the thought that their spouses would benefit from it, the widows claim, similar to the effect of a private life insurance policy. They reinforce the fact that benefits would be reduced if the husband died from a service-related cause and the widow was receiving survivor benefits was never explained to them.
It was completely unexpected said the chair of government relations at the group that supports military widows. Many widows are seeking their local top attorneys for legal help.
An effort to get rid of the offset has passed in the Senate only to be dropped when officials of the House and Senate met in private to hash out spending.
Instead, Congress has given the spouses minuscule legislative victories that only appear to have created inequities in the system, said a retired military colonel who is a director of a government relations association.
Among the "victories" was the 57-and-older remarriage rule, which in the beginning the Defense Department failed to recognize. Three of the widows later successfully sued, and as a result, in 2009 the Defense Department issued new guidance claiming those war widows 57 and older who remarry would not be subjected to the offset.
During the court ruling, even the federal appellate judge questioned what Congress was thinking in its effort to only help such a small fraction of the widows.
A Harrisburg estate planning lawyer helped to reinforce his opinion with a compelling argument: The government's intervention has only perplexed the situation, leading to confused widows who are feeling victimized.
Another small win on Capitol Hill gave the widows affected by the offset a taxable $50 a month starting in 2010. Instead of making the widows happy, however, many felt Congress was acknowledging that they'd been wronged but wasn't ponying up the money to fix the problem properly.
An individual who chairs a House subcommittee with control over military personnel issues said that for many of the survivors, eliminating the offset would mean the difference between scraping by and having a middle-class lifestyle. GOP House members have vowed to slash government spending, but the person said that even in tight times, taking care of survivors is important.
Additionally, in order to qualify for insurance, the widows are required to remarry when they are 57 or older. Those widows who remarry earlier are ineligible.
The core of the issue stems from a government policy known as the "widows' tax." The policy states that a military spouse whose loved one dies from a service-related cause is not eligible to collect both survivor's benefits and the full annuity benefits from insurance the couple bought from the Defense Department at retirement. Rather, the amount of the annuity payment is reduced by the amount of the monthly survivor benefit.
Members of Congress have agreed to help the 55,000 affected widows multiple times in the past, but certain laws that have been enacted have only created a more complicated system that has resulted in more confusion.
What does remarriage have anything to do with it? As it turns out - very little. The marriage condition was slipped into the law by Congress with the idea that it would help the survivors retain certain benefits if they remarried later on. Because Congress has failed to come up with the money to help all the widows, insurance money has been limited to that group.
"I've never even wanted to date, much less remarry," said widow of a military husband who past away in 2002. "I already married the love of my life. Why would you bring that as a factor?"
Compounding the confusion and angst is yet another stipulation that segregates even more of those who should benefit from the system - women under the age of 57 who have found love a second time and remarried.
For widows who were denied the complete insurance benefits, the government lend a hand by giving them back the premiums their spouses had paid for the policies. However if a widow remarries at the age 57 or older, making themselves eligible for the benefit, she is only able to receive money by repaying the premiums that the government had refunded to her.
A 76 year old widow whose late husband served in the Vietnam War and past away due to a service-induced disability after over 30 years in the Air Force, said she was stunned after remarrying last year to receive a bill from the government to repay over $41,000 in premiums. Those insurance premiums had been refunded to her after his death in 2003 because at that time she unable to receive the annuity's full benefit.
"It doesn't seem to make much sense," said a Knoxville estate planning lawyer who is helping widows find a solution to the issue.
It also doesn't make sense to 11 Senators of Congress who last week filed legislation to aid the distressed widows.
"This has always been an issue of the military doing the right thing and living up to its promises," one of the senators said in a statement. "These policies were bought by servicemen and women to make sure their loved ones would be taken care of following their deaths. Not only is it a promise the government hasn't kept, but now it's sending bills to survivors. That's just outrageous."
Approximately 700 of the widows who have remarried after age 57 are considered to be the lucky ones because they do not have to deal with one benefit being subtracted from another.
Many spouses, for the past few years, have taken the battle to Capitol Hill.
A congressionally aimed group of military widows was established to support legislation efforts by the senators that would eliminate the benefit offset and not demand widows to repay premiums previously refunded. Their argument is that the affected war widows have spent many years living without the benefits and it is less expensive for the feds to forgo the insurance premiums than manually calculate the amounts owed.
The largest issue in dealing with the concern is to eliminate the offset of the benefits. This would imply an expense to the government of about $6.7 billion over the course of a decade to allow the spouses to collect both benefits in full.
The Defense Department has long claimed that never was there expectations of both programs being provided at the same time. Last year, the defense undersecretary for personnel told Congress that scrapping the offset would result in inequities in overall benefits programs.
The affected war widows did not agree. Most of the spouses paid roughly 6.5 percent of their retirement pay - or the equivalent of about $100 a month or more - for the annuity. The service members past away with the thought that their spouses would benefit from it, the widows claim, similar to the effect of a private life insurance policy. They reinforce the fact that benefits would be reduced if the husband died from a service-related cause and the widow was receiving survivor benefits was never explained to them.
It was completely unexpected said the chair of government relations at the group that supports military widows. Many widows are seeking their local top attorneys for legal help.
An effort to get rid of the offset has passed in the Senate only to be dropped when officials of the House and Senate met in private to hash out spending.
Instead, Congress has given the spouses minuscule legislative victories that only appear to have created inequities in the system, said a retired military colonel who is a director of a government relations association.
Among the "victories" was the 57-and-older remarriage rule, which in the beginning the Defense Department failed to recognize. Three of the widows later successfully sued, and as a result, in 2009 the Defense Department issued new guidance claiming those war widows 57 and older who remarry would not be subjected to the offset.
During the court ruling, even the federal appellate judge questioned what Congress was thinking in its effort to only help such a small fraction of the widows.
A Harrisburg estate planning lawyer helped to reinforce his opinion with a compelling argument: The government's intervention has only perplexed the situation, leading to confused widows who are feeling victimized.
Another small win on Capitol Hill gave the widows affected by the offset a taxable $50 a month starting in 2010. Instead of making the widows happy, however, many felt Congress was acknowledging that they'd been wronged but wasn't ponying up the money to fix the problem properly.
An individual who chairs a House subcommittee with control over military personnel issues said that for many of the survivors, eliminating the offset would mean the difference between scraping by and having a middle-class lifestyle. GOP House members have vowed to slash government spending, but the person said that even in tight times, taking care of survivors is important.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Feds recommend jail sentence for TV's "Survivor" champ Richard Hatch
Reality TV's "Survivor" champ Richard Hatch, who spent over three years in prison due to tax evasion, should face more jail time for violating the conditions of his supervised release, governmental prosecutors announced earlier this week.
In 2006, Hatch was convicted of neglecting taxes on the $1 million award he won on the first season of "Survivor." In 2009, Hatch was released and placed on a three-year supervised release.
Probation officers accused Hatch of violating his release terms by neglecting to submit amended tax returns for 2000 and 2001. The judge agreed that he was in violation of the terms of his release, in addition to the tax issue, but chose to withhold punishment until he could hear more from both sides.
Hatch has a debt of $1.7 million in back taxes and claims he did not refile his taxes because he has a pending appeal with the U.S. Tax Court. His lawyer argued in court papers that Hatch was simply following standard procedure by not filing new tax returns while his appeal was pending. Hatch asked the judge to not sentence him to jail time.
Assistant U.S. Attorney did not say how long he believes Hatch should be behind bars, although he currently faces up to about two years - or the remainder of his release. The top attorneys said Hatch has a history of defying orders from the court.
The Assistant U.S. Attorney wrote in a letter: "The defendant's punishment for violating the terms of his supervised release should take into account the fact that the defendant has failed to accept responsibility for his conduct, that he has disregarded the order of the court, and that he has continued to make false representations to the court just as he did during his trial."
"He is only making the issue worse by neglecting the courts," said a Corpus Christi tax lawyer who is tracking the case. The courts will likely show him no mercy, he added.
Hatch earned the reputation as reality TV's first villain when he topped the "Survivor" competition with a winning blend of smarts and ruthlessness.
He was prosecuted in Rhode Island, where Hatch lives, for failing to pay his taxes on his "Survivor" prize money as well as other income. Hatch was sentenced to 51 months behind bars, with a judge adding extra prison time for lying in court.
Hatch, who is openly gay, argues that he was unfairly sentenced partly due to his sexuality - a complaint prosecutors claim is absurd.
In 2006, Hatch was convicted of neglecting taxes on the $1 million award he won on the first season of "Survivor." In 2009, Hatch was released and placed on a three-year supervised release.
Probation officers accused Hatch of violating his release terms by neglecting to submit amended tax returns for 2000 and 2001. The judge agreed that he was in violation of the terms of his release, in addition to the tax issue, but chose to withhold punishment until he could hear more from both sides.
Hatch has a debt of $1.7 million in back taxes and claims he did not refile his taxes because he has a pending appeal with the U.S. Tax Court. His lawyer argued in court papers that Hatch was simply following standard procedure by not filing new tax returns while his appeal was pending. Hatch asked the judge to not sentence him to jail time.
Assistant U.S. Attorney did not say how long he believes Hatch should be behind bars, although he currently faces up to about two years - or the remainder of his release. The top attorneys said Hatch has a history of defying orders from the court.
The Assistant U.S. Attorney wrote in a letter: "The defendant's punishment for violating the terms of his supervised release should take into account the fact that the defendant has failed to accept responsibility for his conduct, that he has disregarded the order of the court, and that he has continued to make false representations to the court just as he did during his trial."
"He is only making the issue worse by neglecting the courts," said a Corpus Christi tax lawyer who is tracking the case. The courts will likely show him no mercy, he added.
Hatch earned the reputation as reality TV's first villain when he topped the "Survivor" competition with a winning blend of smarts and ruthlessness.
He was prosecuted in Rhode Island, where Hatch lives, for failing to pay his taxes on his "Survivor" prize money as well as other income. Hatch was sentenced to 51 months behind bars, with a judge adding extra prison time for lying in court.
Hatch, who is openly gay, argues that he was unfairly sentenced partly due to his sexuality - a complaint prosecutors claim is absurd.
Jury hung over Prince Hamlet mock murder trial
An infamous criminal case that was prolonged 400 years before a jury resulted in no concrete answer to whether or not Prince Hamlet of Denmark - the defendant in the case - was sane when he committed the act of murder.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court presided over a mock trial at the University of Southern California.
The mock trial gave a Los Angeles attorneys the opportunity to argue for and against the dispute that Hamlet was coping with a mental disease when he stabbed Polonius, the king's adviser in the classic Shakespeare play.
"This mock trial is quite fascinating," said one Mobile criminal defense lawyer who is following the case. "It is interesting to see a historical case be played out in a present day judicial system."
After about a half hour of deliberations, ten of the twelve jurors found him sane, while two others found him insane.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court presided over a mock trial at the University of Southern California.
The mock trial gave a Los Angeles attorneys the opportunity to argue for and against the dispute that Hamlet was coping with a mental disease when he stabbed Polonius, the king's adviser in the classic Shakespeare play.
"This mock trial is quite fascinating," said one Mobile criminal defense lawyer who is following the case. "It is interesting to see a historical case be played out in a present day judicial system."
After about a half hour of deliberations, ten of the twelve jurors found him sane, while two others found him insane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
