Original Story: detroitnews.com
The Michigan couple at the center of the same-sex marriage debate vowed Thursday to "continue the fight" after a federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the state's gay marriage ban.
"We're going to fight for the rights of our children and do whatever it takes to ensure our children have rights here in Michigan," April DeBoer, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said during a press conference Thursday evening surrounded by a room of supporters in Ferndale.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld laws prohibiting gay marriage in Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, breaking ranks with other courts that have considered the issue and setting the stage for review by the U.S.Supreme Court.
"There are so many people in Ann Arbor and Lansing who are gathering behind us saying little prayers hoping this goes forward," said Jayne Rowse, DeBoer's partner. "We are so proud to represent you."
Carole Stanyar, co-counsel for the couple, said the U.S. Supreme Court could decide as soon as January whether to hear their appeal, which she plans to file in two weeks.
Stanyar, who argued the case before the appeals court in August, said the Michigan case could be precendent-setting for the country because it has gone to trial.
The three-judge appellate panel split 2-1 with Judge Jeffrey Sutton writing the majority opinion.
Sutton said it was pointless "to invalidate laws every time a new and allegedly better way of addressing a policy emerges."
Judge Deborah Cook concurred.
Dissenting Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, who made her support of same-sex marriage known during the trial, slammed Sutton and Cook for taking what she called a "wait and see" approach, noting women still wouldn't have equal rights if other courts had adopted similar reasoning.
"If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams," wrote Daughtrey.
At issue was the constitutionality of the so-called Michigan Marriage Amendment, passed by voters in 2004, which declares marriage is between "one man and one woman."
In March, after a nine-day trial in Detroit, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that Michigan's ban was unconstitutional because it denies same-sex couples equal protection under the law. A Cleveland Transgender Doctor is reviewing this case closely.
His ruling came after a lawsuit was brought by DeBoer and Rowse, two Hazel Park nurses raising, as a couple, children they had individually adopted. They sought to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage and the ban on joint adoption for gay couples.
Same-sex marriages are legal in 32 states and the District of Columbia. On Oct. 6 the U.S. Supreme Court issued orders that it would not review any of the seven marriage cases it had before it from five states that had appealed to the court for a review. That decision effectively made gay marriage legal in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
In addition, the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, the 10th Circuit in Denver, the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, and the 7th Circuit in Chicago have all overturned statewide gay marriage bans in the South, the Midwest and the West since the summer.
Larry Dubin, a law professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, said it seemed as though the appeals court wanted to allow the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.
"The court covers a lot of legal arguments, but in the end, gives deference to the voice of the voters of Michigan who passed the ban on same-sex marriage and the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman," Dubin said. "This decision is a minority voice among all of the other courts that have reviewed this issue, and now this decision will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court."
With the Supreme Court overturning the Defense of Marriage Act last year, Frank Aiello, a professor at Cooley Law School, said the justices may have hinted at how they would rule on the issue.
Same-sex couples such as Amanda and Kay Shelton were hoping for a different outcome.
"It's incredibly disappointing for hundreds of families," said Amanda Shelton, a Royal Oak attorney who is hoping to legally marry Kay. "I'm disappointed but not disheartened. This is not the end. We're not done yet."
Shelton called the court's ruling "absolutely ridiculous" since the "tide is changing" in other parts of the country where gay marriage bans have been lifted.
"This is an anomaly," she added. "I think the 6th Circuit is going to get smacked down by the U.S. Supreme Court."
But Michigan pastor Stacy Swimp was encouraged by the ruling.
"I'm very happy that the courts decided to uphold the voting rights of 2.7 million voters who under the Michigan and the U.S. constitutions exercised their voting rights," said Swimp of the National Christian Leadership Council and a member of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders, which filed amicus briefs in the case opposing gay marriage. "No court had the right to usurp their God-given rights."
In its 64-page opinion, the appellate court also said the traditional perception of marriage cannot simply be overruled.
"A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of states," the ruling states.
Attorney General Bill Schuette, who brought the appeal on Friedman's ruling, said he welcomes a Supreme Court review.
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled, and Michigan's constitution remains in full effect," Schuette said. "As I have stated repeatedly, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word on this issue. The sooner they rule, the better, for Michigan and the country."
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Monday, November 10, 2014
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Right to Work in Michigan
originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal:
In November, unions lost big in Michigan when voters rejected Proposal 2, Big Labor's plan to canonize collective bargaining in the state constitution. Now they're facing a backlash with the happy possibility that Michigan could become the 24th right-to-work state.
Lawmakers have been preparing to introduce a right-to-work bill in the state legislature, and the labor cavalry is heading to the Wolverine state. According to the United Auto Workers website, the union will rally Thursday in Lansing to spook lawmakers out of going through with the bill.
Target No. 1 is Governor Rick Snyder, who held a press conference on Tuesday to say that right to work was on the agenda for "thoughtful discussion." That's a shift for Mr. Snyder, who has tiptoed around the topic since he was elected, saying it wasn't a battle he was looking for. Unions took his soft touch as a sign of weakness and pushed Proposal 2, which would have given them a virtual veto over all union-related legislation.
Meanwhile, the economy has languished. Michigan is the fifth most unionized state in the country and the birthplace of the UAW. According to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan has lost 7,300 jobs since January, while next-door Indiana, which became a right-to-work state earlier this year, has been on the upswing.
According to the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, the state has a record number of businesses choosing to expand or set up in the state, including Amazon and Toyota. The 220 companies will create some 21,000 new jobs and invest $3.6 billion. The growth has come despite a decrease in the average tax incentives offered by the state to $8,900 from around $37,000 in previous years.
Republicans hold a 26-12 majority in the Michigan Senate and a 64-46 majority in the state House. According to a recent poll by Mitchell Research & Communications for a right-to-work advocacy group, 51% of Michiganders support a right-to-work law while 41% are opposed.
That's important because if a right-to-work law passed the legislature, unions could still try to repeal it on the ballot, as they did this year with the emergency manager law, which let the Governor appoint emergency financial managers who could redo collective-bargaining agreements. By the time a similar fight could be waged against right to work, voters could have had more than a year to see the law's economic benefits.
The AFL-CIO has said that politicians who oppose Big Labor would pay a steep political price, but it's not turning out that way. In Indiana, Republicans picked up nine seats after the right-to-work law passed and lawmakers who made the law a key part of their agenda won by wide margins. If that's the price they pay, Michigan's politicians should be all in.
In November, unions lost big in Michigan when voters rejected Proposal 2, Big Labor's plan to canonize collective bargaining in the state constitution. Now they're facing a backlash with the happy possibility that Michigan could become the 24th right-to-work state.
Lawmakers have been preparing to introduce a right-to-work bill in the state legislature, and the labor cavalry is heading to the Wolverine state. According to the United Auto Workers website, the union will rally Thursday in Lansing to spook lawmakers out of going through with the bill.
Target No. 1 is Governor Rick Snyder, who held a press conference on Tuesday to say that right to work was on the agenda for "thoughtful discussion." That's a shift for Mr. Snyder, who has tiptoed around the topic since he was elected, saying it wasn't a battle he was looking for. Unions took his soft touch as a sign of weakness and pushed Proposal 2, which would have given them a virtual veto over all union-related legislation.
Meanwhile, the economy has languished. Michigan is the fifth most unionized state in the country and the birthplace of the UAW. According to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan has lost 7,300 jobs since January, while next-door Indiana, which became a right-to-work state earlier this year, has been on the upswing.
According to the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, the state has a record number of businesses choosing to expand or set up in the state, including Amazon and Toyota. The 220 companies will create some 21,000 new jobs and invest $3.6 billion. The growth has come despite a decrease in the average tax incentives offered by the state to $8,900 from around $37,000 in previous years.
Republicans hold a 26-12 majority in the Michigan Senate and a 64-46 majority in the state House. According to a recent poll by Mitchell Research & Communications for a right-to-work advocacy group, 51% of Michiganders support a right-to-work law while 41% are opposed.
That's important because if a right-to-work law passed the legislature, unions could still try to repeal it on the ballot, as they did this year with the emergency manager law, which let the Governor appoint emergency financial managers who could redo collective-bargaining agreements. By the time a similar fight could be waged against right to work, voters could have had more than a year to see the law's economic benefits.
The AFL-CIO has said that politicians who oppose Big Labor would pay a steep political price, but it's not turning out that way. In Indiana, Republicans picked up nine seats after the right-to-work law passed and lawmakers who made the law a key part of their agenda won by wide margins. If that's the price they pay, Michigan's politicians should be all in.
Monday, April 30, 2012
U of M in Danger of Losing Funding Due to Student Protest
Story first appeared in The Detroit News.
A labor group's use of college students to stage Friday night protests outside an Italian restaurant in Dearborn could cost the University of Michigan millions in taxpayer funding.
The Detroit-based Restaurant Opportunities Center of Michigan settled its 15-month labor dispute with upscale restaurant chain Andiamo in March 2011. Now House Republicans are trying to compel U-M to drop its association with the group as part of strings attached to $4.7 million in new state funding.
Tucked in the House education budget at the request of the Michigan Restaurant Association is a provision prohibiting universities from collaborating with a non-profit worker center whose documented activities include coercion through protest, demonstration or organization against a Michigan business.
University professors nationwide are decrying the provision as an infringement of academic freedom, while Republican legislators say universities shouldn't be promoting free speech protests against businesses that pay the taxes that support university operations.
A Detroit News inquiry into the origins of the proposed law found it stems from protests staged in 2009 and 2010 during Friday night dinner hours at Andiamo's Dearborn location on Michigan Avenue. Dearborn Labor and Employment Lawyers are following the case with interest.
U-M's connection is its School of Social Work internship in community activism, which lets students receive internship credit for working with the workers' organization, said the vice president of governmental affairs at the Michigan Restaurant Association.
A U-M graduate student interning with the workers' organization got other students to join in the weekly protests, and the restaurant association wants the university to cut all ties with the workers' group.
University professors are demanding that lawmakers remove the provision from performance measures universities have to satisfy to qualify for $36 million in new money next school year.
Michigan budget plans don't include the provision, so the two Republican-controlled chambers will have to decide whether to keep it during budget negotiations next month.
If the provision becomes law, it will be the latest example of legislators chipping away at the autonomy of universities.
Andiamo settles
The university professors' association has sent lawmakers a letter signed by 134 university faculty and administrators from across the country opposed to the funding stipulation.
Republican lawmakers are caving to business interests without considering past allegations of Andiamo violating labor laws, say Lansing Labor and Employment Lawyers.
In July 2010, Andiamo settled allegations with the National Labor Relations Board that it illegally retaliated against two former employees. The company promised not to "call our employees liars" and "not engage in surveillance" of workers, according to a report from the labor board's Detroit office. The company also agreed to give one worker $30 in unpaid wages.
Operations 'frustrating'
The Andiamo attorney and Restaurant Opportunities Center coordinatoru declined to comment because of legal stipulations in their March 2011 confidential settlement. The group educates restaurant workers about their workplace rights and demands employers follow labor laws. In the past, she has said Andiamo had an "environment of intimidation."
The group is one of several social justice and human services organizations social work students can work for to get university internship credit, a U-M spokesman said.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
A labor group's use of college students to stage Friday night protests outside an Italian restaurant in Dearborn could cost the University of Michigan millions in taxpayer funding.
The Detroit-based Restaurant Opportunities Center of Michigan settled its 15-month labor dispute with upscale restaurant chain Andiamo in March 2011. Now House Republicans are trying to compel U-M to drop its association with the group as part of strings attached to $4.7 million in new state funding.
Tucked in the House education budget at the request of the Michigan Restaurant Association is a provision prohibiting universities from collaborating with a non-profit worker center whose documented activities include coercion through protest, demonstration or organization against a Michigan business.
University professors nationwide are decrying the provision as an infringement of academic freedom, while Republican legislators say universities shouldn't be promoting free speech protests against businesses that pay the taxes that support university operations.
A Detroit News inquiry into the origins of the proposed law found it stems from protests staged in 2009 and 2010 during Friday night dinner hours at Andiamo's Dearborn location on Michigan Avenue. Dearborn Labor and Employment Lawyers are following the case with interest.
U-M's connection is its School of Social Work internship in community activism, which lets students receive internship credit for working with the workers' organization, said the vice president of governmental affairs at the Michigan Restaurant Association.
A U-M graduate student interning with the workers' organization got other students to join in the weekly protests, and the restaurant association wants the university to cut all ties with the workers' group.
University professors are demanding that lawmakers remove the provision from performance measures universities have to satisfy to qualify for $36 million in new money next school year.
Michigan budget plans don't include the provision, so the two Republican-controlled chambers will have to decide whether to keep it during budget negotiations next month.
If the provision becomes law, it will be the latest example of legislators chipping away at the autonomy of universities.
Andiamo settles
The university professors' association has sent lawmakers a letter signed by 134 university faculty and administrators from across the country opposed to the funding stipulation.
Republican lawmakers are caving to business interests without considering past allegations of Andiamo violating labor laws, say Lansing Labor and Employment Lawyers.
In July 2010, Andiamo settled allegations with the National Labor Relations Board that it illegally retaliated against two former employees. The company promised not to "call our employees liars" and "not engage in surveillance" of workers, according to a report from the labor board's Detroit office. The company also agreed to give one worker $30 in unpaid wages.
Operations 'frustrating'
The Andiamo attorney and Restaurant Opportunities Center coordinatoru declined to comment because of legal stipulations in their March 2011 confidential settlement. The group educates restaurant workers about their workplace rights and demands employers follow labor laws. In the past, she has said Andiamo had an "environment of intimidation."
The group is one of several social justice and human services organizations social work students can work for to get university internship credit, a U-M spokesman said.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Whistleblower Lawsuit Filed in Pontiac
Story first appeared in The Detroit Free Press.
The former construction manager for the City of Pontiac filed a whistleblower lawsuit Thursday, alleging the city's emergency manager and the head of the building department fired him after he alerted state and federal officials to what he said were bid-rigging and environmental violations. He is seeking more than $25,000 in damages.
The emergency manager and building department head are both named in the suit. Also named in the suit is Wade Trim Associates, a Detroit construction consulting firm where the building department head works. He is contracted out to the City of Pontiac.
The suit claims the defendant was hired in May, in part to help supervise the cleanup and demolition of some of the city's aging housing stock, according to Minneapolis Whistleblower Lawyers.
He said he became aware that the city was violating laws in how it handled demolitions and asbestos disposal. He said he reported the violations to the federal office of Housing and Urban Development and to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
He also claims the building dept. head interceded in the city's bidding process to award business to a contractor who had been previously banned because of poor work.
The city was eventually cited for violations, the suit says. When the involved parties learned that the defendant had been reporting to state and federal agencies, they fired him, the suit says.
The involved emergency manager is well-known in municipal finance circles. Before the state governor appointed him as emergency manager in September, he was the executive administrator for the City of Warren. He also worked as the court-appointed receiver for the City of Ecorse, and the emergency manager for Hamtramck.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
The former construction manager for the City of Pontiac filed a whistleblower lawsuit Thursday, alleging the city's emergency manager and the head of the building department fired him after he alerted state and federal officials to what he said were bid-rigging and environmental violations. He is seeking more than $25,000 in damages.
The emergency manager and building department head are both named in the suit. Also named in the suit is Wade Trim Associates, a Detroit construction consulting firm where the building department head works. He is contracted out to the City of Pontiac.
The suit claims the defendant was hired in May, in part to help supervise the cleanup and demolition of some of the city's aging housing stock, according to Minneapolis Whistleblower Lawyers.
He said he became aware that the city was violating laws in how it handled demolitions and asbestos disposal. He said he reported the violations to the federal office of Housing and Urban Development and to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
He also claims the building dept. head interceded in the city's bidding process to award business to a contractor who had been previously banned because of poor work.
The city was eventually cited for violations, the suit says. When the involved parties learned that the defendant had been reporting to state and federal agencies, they fired him, the suit says.
The involved emergency manager is well-known in municipal finance circles. Before the state governor appointed him as emergency manager in September, he was the executive administrator for the City of Warren. He also worked as the court-appointed receiver for the City of Ecorse, and the emergency manager for Hamtramck.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Detroit's Ex-Mayor Rejects Plea Deal
Story first appeared in The Detroit News.
The former Detroit Mayor has rejected an offer to plead guilty in the federal racketeering conspiracy case and serve 15 years in prison, two sources close to the case told The Detroit News.
His co-defendant, an indicted contractor and friend, also rejected a plea deal that would have meant 13 years behind bars. The deal, which was formally rejected April 18, would have resolved charges in the racketeering case and a separate bid-rigging trial scheduled to begin next month in federal court, the sources said.
News of the offers provides the most detailed insight into behind-the-scenes talks preceding the area's highest-profile public corruption case. During a years-long investigation, prosecutors and the FBI have secured 18 felony convictions, including one against a former City Councilwoman, who is serving a 37-month federal prison sentence.
The defense attorney said there is no plea deal with the U.S. Attorney's Office ahead of a September trial.
Sources told The News that the former Mayor, who faces up to 30 years behind bars if convicted, recently rejected a 15-year offer. It was unclear if the offer was formally presented or casually floated by a prosecution team headed by the Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
One legal expert said the offer likely indicates prosecutors are confident they have a strong case.
Offer similar to others
A 15-year offer is in line with sentences imposed on several high-profile public officials nationwide who have been convicted of corruption charges.
The former Illinois Gov. was sentenced in December to 14 years in federal prison, but the former Detroit Mayor's alleged criminal enterprise lasted longer and involved millions in taxpayer dollars.
A former U.S. Rep., a Democrat from Louisiana who hid $90,000 cash in his freezer, was sentenced in November 2009 to 13 years in prison for taking bribes. That was the longest term ever imposed on a congressman for bribery charges.
Judges set plea deadlines in criminal cases but negotiations can continue up until a jury returns with a verdict, said a former federal prosecutor and current law professor at Wayne State University.
A plea deal would help prosecutors avoid the uncertainty of a jury and a trial involving a polarizing public figure.
A 15-year sentence would be the stiffest, by far, for anyone convicted in the Detroit City Hall investigation.
A Detroit businessman convicted of bribery in connection with the Synagro sewage sludge contract, received the longest sentence — five years in federal prison. He is scheduled to be released in July 2014.
According to prosecutors, the former Mayor allegedly headed a criminal enterprise that robbed taxpayers of millions and instilled a culture of corruption in one of the nation's poorest cities.
Among the charges in the indictment: the former Mayor and members of his so-called criminal enterprise threatened witnesses with violence and withheld city funds from firms that wouldn't pay to play. He allegedly pocketed a $10,000 kickback in a restaurant bathroom, according to prosecutors.
The enterprise included his father, a contractor and former Detroit Water and Sewerage Department director, according to an indictment.
The group faces federal charges that include racketeering conspiracy, extortion, bribery, fraud and tax evasion.
The various charges carry penalties ranging from three years in prison to 30 years.
Secured plea deals
Prosecutors already have secured plea deals with several insiders.
Former aide and childhood friend reached a plea deal with prosecutors in September and has agreed to cooperate against the ex-mayor. He faces up to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to corruption and tax charges, after admitted to playing a central role in the corruption case, saying he pocketed bribes, strong-armed contractors and funneled money to the former Mayor.
And political fundraiser has agreed to testify against the ex-mayor. Prosecutors allege the ex-Mayor demanded $286,500 in kickbacks from her.
She pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges in October, state Detroit Taxation Lawyers. Under a plea deal, she faces 18-24 months in prison, which could be cut in half if she provides substantial assistance.
In the racketeering case, the contractor allegedly obtained more than $58.5 million by extorting contractors and through other illegal conduct according to prosecutors. He spent a fraction of the money on his children's college education, his girlfriend and construction equipment, according to federal court records.
Besides the racketeering case, he was charged in a $12 million bid-rigging scheme in September 2010. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison.
The case is set for trial May 8.
At a final pretrial conference April 18 in front of U.S. District Judge David Lawson, Ferguson formally rejected the plea offer.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
The former Detroit Mayor has rejected an offer to plead guilty in the federal racketeering conspiracy case and serve 15 years in prison, two sources close to the case told The Detroit News.
His co-defendant, an indicted contractor and friend, also rejected a plea deal that would have meant 13 years behind bars. The deal, which was formally rejected April 18, would have resolved charges in the racketeering case and a separate bid-rigging trial scheduled to begin next month in federal court, the sources said.
News of the offers provides the most detailed insight into behind-the-scenes talks preceding the area's highest-profile public corruption case. During a years-long investigation, prosecutors and the FBI have secured 18 felony convictions, including one against a former City Councilwoman, who is serving a 37-month federal prison sentence.
The defense attorney said there is no plea deal with the U.S. Attorney's Office ahead of a September trial.
Sources told The News that the former Mayor, who faces up to 30 years behind bars if convicted, recently rejected a 15-year offer. It was unclear if the offer was formally presented or casually floated by a prosecution team headed by the Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
One legal expert said the offer likely indicates prosecutors are confident they have a strong case.
Offer similar to others
A 15-year offer is in line with sentences imposed on several high-profile public officials nationwide who have been convicted of corruption charges.
The former Illinois Gov. was sentenced in December to 14 years in federal prison, but the former Detroit Mayor's alleged criminal enterprise lasted longer and involved millions in taxpayer dollars.
A former U.S. Rep., a Democrat from Louisiana who hid $90,000 cash in his freezer, was sentenced in November 2009 to 13 years in prison for taking bribes. That was the longest term ever imposed on a congressman for bribery charges.
Judges set plea deadlines in criminal cases but negotiations can continue up until a jury returns with a verdict, said a former federal prosecutor and current law professor at Wayne State University.
A plea deal would help prosecutors avoid the uncertainty of a jury and a trial involving a polarizing public figure.
A 15-year sentence would be the stiffest, by far, for anyone convicted in the Detroit City Hall investigation.
A Detroit businessman convicted of bribery in connection with the Synagro sewage sludge contract, received the longest sentence — five years in federal prison. He is scheduled to be released in July 2014.
According to prosecutors, the former Mayor allegedly headed a criminal enterprise that robbed taxpayers of millions and instilled a culture of corruption in one of the nation's poorest cities.
Among the charges in the indictment: the former Mayor and members of his so-called criminal enterprise threatened witnesses with violence and withheld city funds from firms that wouldn't pay to play. He allegedly pocketed a $10,000 kickback in a restaurant bathroom, according to prosecutors.
The enterprise included his father, a contractor and former Detroit Water and Sewerage Department director, according to an indictment.
The group faces federal charges that include racketeering conspiracy, extortion, bribery, fraud and tax evasion.
The various charges carry penalties ranging from three years in prison to 30 years.
Secured plea deals
Prosecutors already have secured plea deals with several insiders.
Former aide and childhood friend reached a plea deal with prosecutors in September and has agreed to cooperate against the ex-mayor. He faces up to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to corruption and tax charges, after admitted to playing a central role in the corruption case, saying he pocketed bribes, strong-armed contractors and funneled money to the former Mayor.
And political fundraiser has agreed to testify against the ex-mayor. Prosecutors allege the ex-Mayor demanded $286,500 in kickbacks from her.
She pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges in October, state Detroit Taxation Lawyers. Under a plea deal, she faces 18-24 months in prison, which could be cut in half if she provides substantial assistance.
In the racketeering case, the contractor allegedly obtained more than $58.5 million by extorting contractors and through other illegal conduct according to prosecutors. He spent a fraction of the money on his children's college education, his girlfriend and construction equipment, according to federal court records.
Besides the racketeering case, he was charged in a $12 million bid-rigging scheme in September 2010. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison.
The case is set for trial May 8.
At a final pretrial conference April 18 in front of U.S. District Judge David Lawson, Ferguson formally rejected the plea offer.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Wrongful Death Suit Filed in Filling Station Shooting
Story first appeared in the Detroit Free Press.
The mother of a Detroit man who was shot in the back last month, reportedly by a gas station attendant during a dispute over the price of condoms, has sued the station, its petroleum supplier and the hospital where the man was treated before he died.
The Geoffrey Fieger law firm filed the lawsuit Monday in Wayne County Circuit Court on behalf of the mother of the deceased young man. A Detroit Personal Injury Lawyer is handling the case.
The wrongful death and negligence suit said station attendant shot the unarmed man without provocation at the BP station on Fenkell near Meyers about 12:45 a.m. March 10 after he knocked over a product display on his way out of the station.
The suit said the young man's two companions took him to Sinai-Grace Hospital, where security guards assaulted and detained them rather than getting medical help.
There was no immediate comment from the station owner, Skyline Petro. A spokesman for the petroleum supplier, BP America, said the company couldn't comment on pending litigation. The hospital said it doesn't comment on pending litigation, either, but a spokesperson previously said the young man received prompt medical attention and security guards acted appropriately.
The shooter is in custody on first-degree murder and firearms charges pending a preliminary examination Tuesday at 36th District Court in Detroit. The murder charge carries a mandatory penalty of life in prison without parole upon conviction.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
The mother of a Detroit man who was shot in the back last month, reportedly by a gas station attendant during a dispute over the price of condoms, has sued the station, its petroleum supplier and the hospital where the man was treated before he died.
The Geoffrey Fieger law firm filed the lawsuit Monday in Wayne County Circuit Court on behalf of the mother of the deceased young man. A Detroit Personal Injury Lawyer is handling the case.
The wrongful death and negligence suit said station attendant shot the unarmed man without provocation at the BP station on Fenkell near Meyers about 12:45 a.m. March 10 after he knocked over a product display on his way out of the station.
The suit said the young man's two companions took him to Sinai-Grace Hospital, where security guards assaulted and detained them rather than getting medical help.
There was no immediate comment from the station owner, Skyline Petro. A spokesman for the petroleum supplier, BP America, said the company couldn't comment on pending litigation. The hospital said it doesn't comment on pending litigation, either, but a spokesperson previously said the young man received prompt medical attention and security guards acted appropriately.
The shooter is in custody on first-degree murder and firearms charges pending a preliminary examination Tuesday at 36th District Court in Detroit. The murder charge carries a mandatory penalty of life in prison without parole upon conviction.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Michigan Court Sets New Standard in Injury Lawsuits
Bloomberg / Business Week
The Michigan Supreme Court has thrown out a 2004 decision and opened the door for more lawsuits by people seeking compensation after being injured in vehicle accidents.
The court, in a 4-3 decision, said conservative justices in the majority six years ago were too strict when they interpreted Michigan law about the impact of injuries on someone's ability to lead a normal life.
"This is huge," said lawyer Steven Gursten, whose specialty is auto cases. "The way Michigan law was changing, it was going to eliminate almost everyone who had been seriously injured in a car accident. That was not the intent of the Michigan Legislature."
An insurance trade group criticized the decision and predicted higher rates for motorists.
The court ruled in favor of a Genesee County man who suffered a serious ankle injury when he was run over by a truck at work. Under Michigan's no-fault law, someone hurt in a vehicle accident can recover lost wages and money for medical bills from their own insurer but suing a third party for pain and suffering is tougher.
Lower courts, citing a 2004 decision by the Supreme Court, had ruled against Rodney McCormick, noting he still had a job at the same pay and was living a normal life.
But Justice Michael Cavanagh, writing for the majority, said state law "merely requires that a person's general ability to lead his or her normal life has been affected, not destroyed."
Before being run over, McCormick worked 60 hours a week and regularly fished and golfed, Cavanagh said in an opinion released Sunday night.
"After the incident, at least some of plaintiff's capacity to live in this manner was affected," Cavanagh said. "For a month after the incident, plaintiff could not bear weight on his left ankle. He underwent two surgeries over a period of 10 months and multiple months of physical therapy."
Cavanagh was joined by justices Marilyn Kelly, Diane Hathaway and Elizabeth Weaver. In a dissent, conservative justices Stephen Markman, Robert Young Jr. and Maura Corrigan warned that Michigan's no-fault insurance system now could become financially stressed.
"The majority apparently holds ... that as long as a plaintiff's general ability to lead his normal life has been affected for even a single moment in time, the plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body function," Markman wrote.
The Insurance Institute of Michigan, which represents more than 90 companies, said motorists will see higher rates.
"The decision rewrites the standards ... and will provide for additional litigation and could seriously undermine the viability of our no-fault statute," director Pete Kuhnmuench said.
Gursten, however, said the ruling simply moves Michigan law back to where it was before the court's 2004 decision.
"I have trouble shedding tears for insurance companies," he said.
The court, in a 4-3 decision, said conservative justices in the majority six years ago were too strict when they interpreted Michigan law about the impact of injuries on someone's ability to lead a normal life.
"This is huge," said lawyer Steven Gursten, whose specialty is auto cases. "The way Michigan law was changing, it was going to eliminate almost everyone who had been seriously injured in a car accident. That was not the intent of the Michigan Legislature."
An insurance trade group criticized the decision and predicted higher rates for motorists.
The court ruled in favor of a Genesee County man who suffered a serious ankle injury when he was run over by a truck at work. Under Michigan's no-fault law, someone hurt in a vehicle accident can recover lost wages and money for medical bills from their own insurer but suing a third party for pain and suffering is tougher.
Lower courts, citing a 2004 decision by the Supreme Court, had ruled against Rodney McCormick, noting he still had a job at the same pay and was living a normal life.
But Justice Michael Cavanagh, writing for the majority, said state law "merely requires that a person's general ability to lead his or her normal life has been affected, not destroyed."
Before being run over, McCormick worked 60 hours a week and regularly fished and golfed, Cavanagh said in an opinion released Sunday night.
"After the incident, at least some of plaintiff's capacity to live in this manner was affected," Cavanagh said. "For a month after the incident, plaintiff could not bear weight on his left ankle. He underwent two surgeries over a period of 10 months and multiple months of physical therapy."
Cavanagh was joined by justices Marilyn Kelly, Diane Hathaway and Elizabeth Weaver. In a dissent, conservative justices Stephen Markman, Robert Young Jr. and Maura Corrigan warned that Michigan's no-fault insurance system now could become financially stressed.
"The majority apparently holds ... that as long as a plaintiff's general ability to lead his normal life has been affected for even a single moment in time, the plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body function," Markman wrote.
The Insurance Institute of Michigan, which represents more than 90 companies, said motorists will see higher rates.
"The decision rewrites the standards ... and will provide for additional litigation and could seriously undermine the viability of our no-fault statute," director Pete Kuhnmuench said.
Gursten, however, said the ruling simply moves Michigan law back to where it was before the court's 2004 decision.
"I have trouble shedding tears for insurance companies," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
