Story first appeared in the Detroit News.
Detroit— A failed $10 million pension fund loan that led to a businessman's suicide and an international manhunt started with a $100,000 bribe to the ex-Mayor's father, the dead man's partner said.
A Businessman said he told a federal grand jury in January about the alleged payment and a second $80,000 bribery demand from a powerful Detroit businessman. The response he received indicated that they were already aware of both instances.
The allegations offer insight into a secretive, ongoing FBI investigation of the city's pension funds, which in February resulted in the indictment of the former city Treasurer. The allegations emerged as a businessman and his wife were on the run and holed up at a Caribbean resort while federal investigators and lawyers hunted for the South Carolina couple and the pension fund's money.
The alleged bribe payment is the latest accusation against the ex-Mayor's father, who is awaiting a September trial date along with his son, the ex-Mayor, on federal racketeering conspiracy charges. A Dayton Criminal Lawyer has been following the case.
The father's consulting firm Maestro Associates was hired by a Detroit businessman, and the father's lawyer said his client did not receive a bribe. The Detroit businessman who hired them killed himself in August amid accusations he was involved in a Ponzi scheme that defrauded the pension fund.
Detroit police and fire pension fund members knew about the ex-Mayor's father's involvement. However, some pension fund members were surprised to learn about the ex-Mayor's father's involvement.
In a June 2007 letter, the Detroit businessman told pension members that no loan money would be used to pay consulting fees or commissions in connection with a $10 million loan to his company Paramount Land Holdings. Criminal Lawyers in Cincinnati say that the prosecutors previously have accused the father of wrongdoing related to the city's pension funds.
The father, his son the ex-Mayor and a former city official are charged in the racketeering conspiracy indictment with soliciting and pocketing more than $1.2 million in cash and property from people seeking deals with the city's pension funds. The money was paid in return for official acts and favorable treatment from the ex-Mayor, according to the indictment. In addition, these men also obtained items from some of these individuals through the fear of economic harm.
The indictment does not mention the Paramount deal.
The father's lawyer is prohibited from talking about evidence uncovered during the racketeering investigation. But he said he has not heard anyone characterize the Paramount payments as a bribe.
The father's lawyer said there was nothing improper about his client consulting on a deal pitched to a pension board whose members included appointee and fraternity brother of the ex-Mayor.
The loan was intended to buy and restore more than 1,400 foreclosed homes in Metro Detroit. The loan went into default last year, the Detroit businessman committed suicide in August, and the pension fund is trying to recover money from the $10 million deal.
The Detroit businessman was concerned an $80,000 bribe demand made by a Detroit businessman scuttled a second pension fund deal. He was in talks with the police and fire pension fund about a second $10 million loan in 2009. He was told to meet with the businessman in late summer or early fall 2010. During the meeting, the businessman claimed he could ensure the loan's approval in return for an $80,000 bribe.
Pension fund officials dispute the allegation. He had withdrawn his request for a second $10 million loan months earlier, in spring 2010, according to the police and fire pension fund chairman.
A review, however, discovered questionable financial issues involving the first Paramount deal, and those questions led to a lawsuit in May 2011.
The Detroit businessman refused the alleged $80,000 demand and talked to the FBI.
Within weeks, not only did the second loan disappear but the pension fund issued a letter of default on the first loan.
The ex-Mayor's father received the $100,000 bribe in spring or summer 2007.
The Paramount deal has drawn federal scrutiny.
A pension fund lawyer was subpoenaed to testify twice before the federal grand jury, according to copies of subpoenas obtained by The News. She was instructed to bring all records relating to the Paramount deal in March and July 2011.
The July subpoena instructed her to produce records involving the two businessmen involved with the pension loan, including the dead man.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Fake Lawyer Is Found Out
Story first appeared on The Detroit Free Press.
He's gotten dozens of court-assigned cases, handled hundreds of DUI cases, appeared in civil suits and even monitored the federal terrorism trial of a man often called the Underwear Bomber, who tried to blow up an airliner headed to Detroit on Dec. 25, 2009.
And he did it all without a Michigan law license.
Now holding the distinction of being disbarred before he ever got a state law license, a 1992 graduate of the Obafemi Awolowo University Law School in Nigeria, leveraged a rarely issued limited license for foreign lawyers into an unauthorized, three-year legal career in criminal, civil and traffic courts around metro Detroit.
On Monday, he said that he is appealing his March disbarment and declined to comment further. But the problems are just beginning for the courts where he handled cases.
The Presiding Judge of the Wayne County Circuit Court's criminal division, where the Nigerian lawyer managed to get paid $9,645 as a court-appointed lawyer in more than 50 cases between 2009 and 2011, said he is a nightmare.
The court systems are still sifting through the files to identify and contact the defendants, most of whom pleaded to low-end felonies, such as minor drug possession.
The first priority is the clients now in prison. Of the first six, five of them -- after meeting with lawyers from the Legal Aid and Defenders office -- decided to stick with their pleas struck with him. The sixth is talking it over with his family.
The defendants can withdraw their pleas and start over. But they should be careful what they wish for, because any previous deals or offers now could be off the table. For those who already have prevailed, there will be no re-examining of their cases.
The Nigerian lawyer also collected $2,625 as a court-appointed lawyer in Wayne County juvenile court.
He appeared on larger stages as well. He attended some of the early court proceedings for The Underwear Bomber and identified himself to international reporters as an observer on behalf of the Nigerian government.
The Nigerian embassy did not respond to questions about him.
His extraordinary -- and illegal -- courtroom career in Michigan, now under investigation for possible criminal prosecution, came to a crashing end in 2009 over five crates of kola nuts.
His courtroom clumsiness wasn't a tip-off, the opposing counsel in the kola nuts case said, because there are lots of lawyers who don't appear to know what they're doing. Instead, some questionable documents Anjorin submitted to support a claim against her client about the ruined load of nuts sent up red flags.
A complaint to the state's Attorney Grievance Commission led to the discovery that he was not licensed to practice law in Michigan. The commission charged him with violating his limited license.
He was authorized under a special license from the State Bar of Michigan to give legal advice about Nigerian law. The limited license as a special legal consultant included what is called a "P number," the five-digit identifier fully licensed Michigan lawyers all have.
Occupying a little-known niche, there have been just 14 special legal consultants in Michigan since 1988. And last year, he was one of just four in the state.
The limited license authorizes lawyers with foreign accreditation to give legal advice about their homeland to clients in Michigan. It does not make them lawyers approved to practice in Michigan courts - a limitation that was not part of the bar association online listing.
Since the Nigerian lawyer case, the bar association has changed its handling of special legal consultants. The five-digit P number has been replaced with a four-digit LP number, and the online directory states they are "ineligible to practice law in state court matters."
The Nigerian lawyer used his P number to sign up for seminars so he could get approved as a court-appointed attorney, a lawyer paid with public money to represent indigent clients in criminal cases. He also set up a website offering legal services for divorces, international laws, immigration, traffic offenses and his self-proclaimed specialty of drunken driving cases.
He also filed a case in federal court in 2010, but it went inactive after he was notified that he must join the local federal bar association.
His special license was stripped last month after a one-day hearing in December before the Attorney Discipline Board. Representing himself at the hearing, he said he believed he could take cases involving U.S. laws that were similar to Nigerian laws.
Losing his license may be just the tip of his problems. Court officials are collecting information for a possible criminal investigation and forwarding it to the Michigan Attorney General's Office, which declined to comment or confirm the investigation.
The December disciplinary hearing seemed like a slow-motion confession, according to records of the proceedings.
He admitted he handled many criminal cases, and by his own estimation he took "like a thousand" traffic cases.
He said he strayed from his own guidelines for taking only Michigan cases that paralleled Nigerian law because there is no DUI law in Nigeria. But feels that he is one of the best DUI lawyers in the county.
In his final plea, he said he should be able to take some makeup courses because he was misled by the rules governing his limited license. He feels that he has wasted four years.
But he did have a solution for the panel that he said would make things right: he urged the panel to make him a state attorney.
Whether that proposal will fly on appeal is yet to be seen.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
He's gotten dozens of court-assigned cases, handled hundreds of DUI cases, appeared in civil suits and even monitored the federal terrorism trial of a man often called the Underwear Bomber, who tried to blow up an airliner headed to Detroit on Dec. 25, 2009.
And he did it all without a Michigan law license.
Now holding the distinction of being disbarred before he ever got a state law license, a 1992 graduate of the Obafemi Awolowo University Law School in Nigeria, leveraged a rarely issued limited license for foreign lawyers into an unauthorized, three-year legal career in criminal, civil and traffic courts around metro Detroit.
On Monday, he said that he is appealing his March disbarment and declined to comment further. But the problems are just beginning for the courts where he handled cases.
The Presiding Judge of the Wayne County Circuit Court's criminal division, where the Nigerian lawyer managed to get paid $9,645 as a court-appointed lawyer in more than 50 cases between 2009 and 2011, said he is a nightmare.
The court systems are still sifting through the files to identify and contact the defendants, most of whom pleaded to low-end felonies, such as minor drug possession.
The first priority is the clients now in prison. Of the first six, five of them -- after meeting with lawyers from the Legal Aid and Defenders office -- decided to stick with their pleas struck with him. The sixth is talking it over with his family.
The defendants can withdraw their pleas and start over. But they should be careful what they wish for, because any previous deals or offers now could be off the table. For those who already have prevailed, there will be no re-examining of their cases.
The Nigerian lawyer also collected $2,625 as a court-appointed lawyer in Wayne County juvenile court.
He appeared on larger stages as well. He attended some of the early court proceedings for The Underwear Bomber and identified himself to international reporters as an observer on behalf of the Nigerian government.
The Nigerian embassy did not respond to questions about him.
His extraordinary -- and illegal -- courtroom career in Michigan, now under investigation for possible criminal prosecution, came to a crashing end in 2009 over five crates of kola nuts.
His courtroom clumsiness wasn't a tip-off, the opposing counsel in the kola nuts case said, because there are lots of lawyers who don't appear to know what they're doing. Instead, some questionable documents Anjorin submitted to support a claim against her client about the ruined load of nuts sent up red flags.
A complaint to the state's Attorney Grievance Commission led to the discovery that he was not licensed to practice law in Michigan. The commission charged him with violating his limited license.
He was authorized under a special license from the State Bar of Michigan to give legal advice about Nigerian law. The limited license as a special legal consultant included what is called a "P number," the five-digit identifier fully licensed Michigan lawyers all have.
Occupying a little-known niche, there have been just 14 special legal consultants in Michigan since 1988. And last year, he was one of just four in the state.
The limited license authorizes lawyers with foreign accreditation to give legal advice about their homeland to clients in Michigan. It does not make them lawyers approved to practice in Michigan courts - a limitation that was not part of the bar association online listing.
Since the Nigerian lawyer case, the bar association has changed its handling of special legal consultants. The five-digit P number has been replaced with a four-digit LP number, and the online directory states they are "ineligible to practice law in state court matters."
The Nigerian lawyer used his P number to sign up for seminars so he could get approved as a court-appointed attorney, a lawyer paid with public money to represent indigent clients in criminal cases. He also set up a website offering legal services for divorces, international laws, immigration, traffic offenses and his self-proclaimed specialty of drunken driving cases.
He also filed a case in federal court in 2010, but it went inactive after he was notified that he must join the local federal bar association.
His special license was stripped last month after a one-day hearing in December before the Attorney Discipline Board. Representing himself at the hearing, he said he believed he could take cases involving U.S. laws that were similar to Nigerian laws.
Losing his license may be just the tip of his problems. Court officials are collecting information for a possible criminal investigation and forwarding it to the Michigan Attorney General's Office, which declined to comment or confirm the investigation.
The December disciplinary hearing seemed like a slow-motion confession, according to records of the proceedings.
He admitted he handled many criminal cases, and by his own estimation he took "like a thousand" traffic cases.
He said he strayed from his own guidelines for taking only Michigan cases that paralleled Nigerian law because there is no DUI law in Nigeria. But feels that he is one of the best DUI lawyers in the county.
In his final plea, he said he should be able to take some makeup courses because he was misled by the rules governing his limited license. He feels that he has wasted four years.
But he did have a solution for the panel that he said would make things right: he urged the panel to make him a state attorney.
Whether that proposal will fly on appeal is yet to be seen.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Shooter Accused of Racism in Case
Story first appeared in The Huffington Post.
MIAMI - The U.S. Justice Department could bring a hate crime charge against the shooter in the killing of a black Florida teenager if there is sufficient evidence the slaying was motivated by racial bias and not simply a fight that spiraled out of control, Civil Rights Lawyers in Coral Gables say.
So far, only one such clue has surfaced publicly against the neighborhood watch captain who fatally shot the 17-year-old teen on Feb. 26 in the central Florida town of Sanford. On one of his 911 calls to police that night, the watch captain muttered something under his breath that some listeners say sounds like a racial slur. His father is white, and his mother is Hispanic.
Others, however, say the recording is not clear enough to determine what was actually said. And many experts say more evidence would be needed that he harbored racial prejudice against black people and went after the teen for that reason alone. There had previously been burglaries in the complex committed by young black males, possibly heightening suspicions when he spotted the teen.
The shooter's parents, in a letter to a local newspaper, insisted their son is not a racist, and several black residents of the neighborhood where the teen was shot have only good things to say about him. He has not been charged with any crime and is claiming self-defense under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which eliminated a person's duty to retreat when threatened with serious bodily harm or death. He claims the teen attacked him as he was walking back to his truck, according to police.
Those "Stand Your Ground" laws, in place in about two dozen states, have come under increasing scrutiny. A U.S. Senator on Sunday sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General asking for a federal investigation into whether killings are going unprosecuted because the laws put too much of a burden on local authorities.
The teen's parents and hundreds of supporters say the shooter should have been immediately arrested and charged with the youth's killing, but local police say they have little evidence to disprove his self-defense claim. A grand jury will be convened April 10 to consider whether to bring state charges, which could include second-degree murder or manslaughter.
After receiving a no-confidence vote from the city commission, the Police Chief announced last week he was temporarily stepping aside from his post. The city manager said officials want the case to be resolved fairly.
A Civil rights activist who has been appearing at rallies with the teen's parents to call for an arrest, said the Justice Department should investigate the case as a hate crime.
The Justice Department's civil rights division and the FBI are conducting their own probe in the case, and a federal hate crimes charge could come out of that no matter what state authorities do. The hate crimes law carries a potential life prison sentence when a death is involved.
One key is determining whether the teen's race alone was the reason the shooter decided to follow him in his vehicle. The teen, who was from Miami, was staying in the neighborhood with his father and father's fiancée and was returning from a convenience store with Skittles and a can of iced tea when the confrontation took place. He was not armed.
If the shooter were a police officer or a government official, he could be prosecuted by the Justice Department for using his official authority to violate the teen's civil rights. That was the case made against Los Angeles police officers who had been acquitted in state court of a beating which sparked huge riots. Two of the four officers were eventually convicted of federal civil rights violations.
But the shooter was a volunteer watch captain, and even though he had a permit to carry his Kel Tek 9mm semiautomatic handgun, he didn't have any official law enforcement or government authority.
Another possibility is an investigation of the Sanford Police Department itself, including questions about whether any evidence was destroyed or covered up, or whether there has been a pattern of problems involving black people. City officials insist they did an appropriate and thorough investigation, but if such violations occurred federal prosecutors could bring civil rights conspiracy charges against anyone responsible. Bonaparte did acknowledge last week that the police department has had issues with the city's African-American residents.
For instance, in 2010, it took a month for investigators to arrest and charge the son of a police lieutenant who was accused of knocking out a homeless black man. The attack was captured on video.
Ultimately, much depends on the results of the state grand jury investigation. If the shooter ultimately is charged in the teen's death, the Justice Department may not bring its own separate case depending on the outcome of any trial.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
MIAMI - The U.S. Justice Department could bring a hate crime charge against the shooter in the killing of a black Florida teenager if there is sufficient evidence the slaying was motivated by racial bias and not simply a fight that spiraled out of control, Civil Rights Lawyers in Coral Gables say.
So far, only one such clue has surfaced publicly against the neighborhood watch captain who fatally shot the 17-year-old teen on Feb. 26 in the central Florida town of Sanford. On one of his 911 calls to police that night, the watch captain muttered something under his breath that some listeners say sounds like a racial slur. His father is white, and his mother is Hispanic.
Others, however, say the recording is not clear enough to determine what was actually said. And many experts say more evidence would be needed that he harbored racial prejudice against black people and went after the teen for that reason alone. There had previously been burglaries in the complex committed by young black males, possibly heightening suspicions when he spotted the teen.
The shooter's parents, in a letter to a local newspaper, insisted their son is not a racist, and several black residents of the neighborhood where the teen was shot have only good things to say about him. He has not been charged with any crime and is claiming self-defense under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which eliminated a person's duty to retreat when threatened with serious bodily harm or death. He claims the teen attacked him as he was walking back to his truck, according to police.
Those "Stand Your Ground" laws, in place in about two dozen states, have come under increasing scrutiny. A U.S. Senator on Sunday sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General asking for a federal investigation into whether killings are going unprosecuted because the laws put too much of a burden on local authorities.
The teen's parents and hundreds of supporters say the shooter should have been immediately arrested and charged with the youth's killing, but local police say they have little evidence to disprove his self-defense claim. A grand jury will be convened April 10 to consider whether to bring state charges, which could include second-degree murder or manslaughter.
After receiving a no-confidence vote from the city commission, the Police Chief announced last week he was temporarily stepping aside from his post. The city manager said officials want the case to be resolved fairly.
A Civil rights activist who has been appearing at rallies with the teen's parents to call for an arrest, said the Justice Department should investigate the case as a hate crime.
The Justice Department's civil rights division and the FBI are conducting their own probe in the case, and a federal hate crimes charge could come out of that no matter what state authorities do. The hate crimes law carries a potential life prison sentence when a death is involved.
One key is determining whether the teen's race alone was the reason the shooter decided to follow him in his vehicle. The teen, who was from Miami, was staying in the neighborhood with his father and father's fiancée and was returning from a convenience store with Skittles and a can of iced tea when the confrontation took place. He was not armed.
If the shooter were a police officer or a government official, he could be prosecuted by the Justice Department for using his official authority to violate the teen's civil rights. That was the case made against Los Angeles police officers who had been acquitted in state court of a beating which sparked huge riots. Two of the four officers were eventually convicted of federal civil rights violations.
But the shooter was a volunteer watch captain, and even though he had a permit to carry his Kel Tek 9mm semiautomatic handgun, he didn't have any official law enforcement or government authority.
Another possibility is an investigation of the Sanford Police Department itself, including questions about whether any evidence was destroyed or covered up, or whether there has been a pattern of problems involving black people. City officials insist they did an appropriate and thorough investigation, but if such violations occurred federal prosecutors could bring civil rights conspiracy charges against anyone responsible. Bonaparte did acknowledge last week that the police department has had issues with the city's African-American residents.
For instance, in 2010, it took a month for investigators to arrest and charge the son of a police lieutenant who was accused of knocking out a homeless black man. The attack was captured on video.
Ultimately, much depends on the results of the state grand jury investigation. If the shooter ultimately is charged in the teen's death, the Justice Department may not bring its own separate case depending on the outcome of any trial.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Marine Exercises Free Speech
Story first appeared in timesunion.com.
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) — A Marine who criticized the President on his Facebook page has committed misconduct and should be dismissed, a military board recommended late Thursday. A San Diego Civil Rights Lawyer could become involved in the case based on First Amendment rights.
The Marine Corps administrative board made the decision after a daylong hearing at Camp Pendleton for an accused Marine Sergeant.
The board also recommended that the Marine be given an other-then-honorable discharge. That would mean he would lose his benefits and would not be allowed on any military base.
The board's recommendations go to a general who will either accept or deny them. If the general disagrees with the board, the case could go to the secretary of the Navy.
The Sergeant's lawyers argued that the 9-year Marine, whose service was to end in four months, was expressing his personal views and exercising his First Amendment rights.
During the hearing, the prosecutor said that the Marine went as far as superimposing images of the President's face on a poster for the movie "Jackass."
The prosecutor argued that the behavior repeatedly violated Pentagon policy that limits the free speech rights of service members, and said he should be dismissed after ignoring warnings from his superiors about his postings.
The government submitted screen grabs of the postings on one Facebook page he created called Armed Forces Tea Party, which the prosecutor said included the image of the President on the "Jackass" movie poster. The Sergeant also superimposed the President's image on a poster for "The Incredibles" movie that he changed to "The Horribles," the prosecutor said.
The prosecutor also said anti-Presidential comments by the Marine that were posted on a Facebook page used by Marine meteorologists were prejudicial to good order and discipline, and could have influenced junior Marines.
The Sergeant's security clearance was taken away and he has no future in the Marine Corps because he can't do his job without that clearance.
During the hearing prosecutors were trying to dredge up any damaging information they could against the Marine.
The Sergeant's attorney expressed after the hearing that he hoped that the recommendation would be rejected by the general, saying the case will go forward. The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticism of the commander in chief.
Pentagon directives say military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.
Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials.
Backed by a team of lawyers and congressmen, the Marine has said he is fighting for his constitutional rights and should be allowed to stay in the military. His lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union contend his views are protected by the First Amendment.
The Sergeant has said his opinions are his own and has put a disclaimer on his Facebook page saying so. His attorneys argued service members have a right to voice their opinions as long as they do not appear to be presenting their views as being endorsed by the military. They say the Pentagon policy is vague and military officials do not understand it.
The Marine Corps has said it decided to take administrative action after Stein declared on Facebook that he would not follow orders from Obama and later clarified that statement saying he would not follow unlawful orders.
The Sergeant could face other-than-honorable discharge while seeing his rank reduced to lance corporal and losing his benefits. The nine-year veteran was set to finish his service in four months.
He said he was removed from his job at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego last month and given a desk job with no access to computers.
A former Marine who is also a California House Representative, wrote a letter to the commanding officer stating the sergeant should not face dismissal for an opinion shared by a majority of Marines. It was stated that he was referring to the statement that he would not obey unlawful orders.
The Sergeant said his statement about the President was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.
In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if it involved detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) — A Marine who criticized the President on his Facebook page has committed misconduct and should be dismissed, a military board recommended late Thursday. A San Diego Civil Rights Lawyer could become involved in the case based on First Amendment rights.
The Marine Corps administrative board made the decision after a daylong hearing at Camp Pendleton for an accused Marine Sergeant.
The board also recommended that the Marine be given an other-then-honorable discharge. That would mean he would lose his benefits and would not be allowed on any military base.
The board's recommendations go to a general who will either accept or deny them. If the general disagrees with the board, the case could go to the secretary of the Navy.
The Sergeant's lawyers argued that the 9-year Marine, whose service was to end in four months, was expressing his personal views and exercising his First Amendment rights.
During the hearing, the prosecutor said that the Marine went as far as superimposing images of the President's face on a poster for the movie "Jackass."
The prosecutor argued that the behavior repeatedly violated Pentagon policy that limits the free speech rights of service members, and said he should be dismissed after ignoring warnings from his superiors about his postings.
The government submitted screen grabs of the postings on one Facebook page he created called Armed Forces Tea Party, which the prosecutor said included the image of the President on the "Jackass" movie poster. The Sergeant also superimposed the President's image on a poster for "The Incredibles" movie that he changed to "The Horribles," the prosecutor said.
The prosecutor also said anti-Presidential comments by the Marine that were posted on a Facebook page used by Marine meteorologists were prejudicial to good order and discipline, and could have influenced junior Marines.
The Sergeant's security clearance was taken away and he has no future in the Marine Corps because he can't do his job without that clearance.
During the hearing prosecutors were trying to dredge up any damaging information they could against the Marine.
The Sergeant's attorney expressed after the hearing that he hoped that the recommendation would be rejected by the general, saying the case will go forward. The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticism of the commander in chief.
Pentagon directives say military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.
Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials.
Backed by a team of lawyers and congressmen, the Marine has said he is fighting for his constitutional rights and should be allowed to stay in the military. His lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union contend his views are protected by the First Amendment.
The Sergeant has said his opinions are his own and has put a disclaimer on his Facebook page saying so. His attorneys argued service members have a right to voice their opinions as long as they do not appear to be presenting their views as being endorsed by the military. They say the Pentagon policy is vague and military officials do not understand it.
The Marine Corps has said it decided to take administrative action after Stein declared on Facebook that he would not follow orders from Obama and later clarified that statement saying he would not follow unlawful orders.
The Sergeant could face other-than-honorable discharge while seeing his rank reduced to lance corporal and losing his benefits. The nine-year veteran was set to finish his service in four months.
He said he was removed from his job at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego last month and given a desk job with no access to computers.
A former Marine who is also a California House Representative, wrote a letter to the commanding officer stating the sergeant should not face dismissal for an opinion shared by a majority of Marines. It was stated that he was referring to the statement that he would not obey unlawful orders.
The Sergeant said his statement about the President was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.
In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if it involved detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Kansas Choosing Sides on Immigration Law Issues
Story first appeared in ljworld.com
TOPEKA — Kansas hasn’t adopted an Arizona-like immigration law, but several current and former elected officials from Kansas have chosen sides as the issue goes before the U.S. Supreme Court. Immigration Lawyers in Raleigh have been following the case.
The court will hear arguments April 25 in the legal battle between the state of Arizona and the federal government over the immigration law known as Senate Bill 1070.
A Republican who before being elected Kansas secretary of state gained national attention by pushing tough anti-immigration laws, helped write SB 1070. The measure was adopted by the Arizona Legislature and enacted by the Governor in 2010.
The law contained a number of controversial provisions that are now front and center before the Supreme Court.
One of the most controversial laws requires local police in Arizona to determine the immigration status of anyone stopped if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
The Justice Department says regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not the states. Officials in Arizona, a state bordering Mexico, say the feds haven’t done their jobs and that is one of the reasons for SB 1070.
In addition to legal briefs from the specific parties in the case, the Supreme Court has received approximately 40 legal briefs from others who support and oppose SB 1070, according to a report completed by the Immigration Policy Center, a nonpartisan group whose mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration.
Kansas is one of 16 states that have signed on in support of SB 1070. That decision was made by Kansas Attorney General, a Republican. His office says he supports preserving powers of states to promote public safety. His office said Kansas has not spent any money in the litigation.
The man whom the Kansas Attorney General defeated for office in 2010, a Democrat, has joined a group of more than 40 former attorneys general, who have filed a legal brief opposing SB 1070. A Republican who served as Kansas attorney general from 1979 to 1995, has also signed on in opposition.
They argue that SB 1070 makes citizens less safe. By turning local police into immigration agents and inviting racial profiling, the law undermines the necessary trust in communities that police must have to carry out their duties, the former attorneys general say.
On the federal level, two Kansas U.S. Reps. have joined 54 other Republican members of Congress in a legal brief supporting the Arizona law.
The Justice Department, however, has argued that SB 1070 will make matters worse. Requiring local law enforcement to investigate all suspected illegal immigrants diverts time and resources from higher priority criminal cases committed by non-citizens, it argues.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
TOPEKA — Kansas hasn’t adopted an Arizona-like immigration law, but several current and former elected officials from Kansas have chosen sides as the issue goes before the U.S. Supreme Court. Immigration Lawyers in Raleigh have been following the case.
The court will hear arguments April 25 in the legal battle between the state of Arizona and the federal government over the immigration law known as Senate Bill 1070.
A Republican who before being elected Kansas secretary of state gained national attention by pushing tough anti-immigration laws, helped write SB 1070. The measure was adopted by the Arizona Legislature and enacted by the Governor in 2010.
The law contained a number of controversial provisions that are now front and center before the Supreme Court.
One of the most controversial laws requires local police in Arizona to determine the immigration status of anyone stopped if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
The Justice Department says regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not the states. Officials in Arizona, a state bordering Mexico, say the feds haven’t done their jobs and that is one of the reasons for SB 1070.
In addition to legal briefs from the specific parties in the case, the Supreme Court has received approximately 40 legal briefs from others who support and oppose SB 1070, according to a report completed by the Immigration Policy Center, a nonpartisan group whose mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration.
Kansas is one of 16 states that have signed on in support of SB 1070. That decision was made by Kansas Attorney General, a Republican. His office says he supports preserving powers of states to promote public safety. His office said Kansas has not spent any money in the litigation.
The man whom the Kansas Attorney General defeated for office in 2010, a Democrat, has joined a group of more than 40 former attorneys general, who have filed a legal brief opposing SB 1070. A Republican who served as Kansas attorney general from 1979 to 1995, has also signed on in opposition.
They argue that SB 1070 makes citizens less safe. By turning local police into immigration agents and inviting racial profiling, the law undermines the necessary trust in communities that police must have to carry out their duties, the former attorneys general say.
On the federal level, two Kansas U.S. Reps. have joined 54 other Republican members of Congress in a legal brief supporting the Arizona law.
The Justice Department, however, has argued that SB 1070 will make matters worse. Requiring local law enforcement to investigate all suspected illegal immigrants diverts time and resources from higher priority criminal cases committed by non-citizens, it argues.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
First Divorce Expo in the US
Story first appeared on msnbc.com.
Bridal expos have long provided attendees with knowledge about what’s hot for the wedding process; but what’s out there for those dealing with the harrowing situation of divorce?
The “Start Over Smart” expo, the first divorce expo in the U.S., promises to put a friendly face on the process. The two-day event, held in New York City this weekend, will draw industry professionals together to offer information and services to those going through a divorce. Including Divorce Lawyers in Raleigh.
With half of all marriages in the U.S. ending in divorce, there’s a need for this expo, the founders tell TODAY in a segment that aired Friday.
Cities throughout Europe have been putting on such expos for years, and founders were actually inspired to bring the event to the U.S. after heading to one in Paris.
The mother-daughter team brings relevant experience to the table. The mother is married and a family therapist. The daughter, a recent divorcée and single mom, is a divorce mediator. Calling her own divorce “isolating,” she set out to put everything into the expo that she wished she’d had when she was going through her divorce.
The event, which costs $75 for a one-day ticket and $125 for both days, includes over 100 professionals that deal with divorce, with vendors hawking everything that one would expect, like counseling, legal services and financial expertise. A Raleigh Divorce Lawyer may be attending the event. More surprising exhibitors include a business that arranges ceremonies providing reconciliation for couples embroiled in divorce proceedings, plastic surgery professionals, a matchmaker and beauty experts.
A mother of two, is ending a 14-year marriage and says she plans to attend the expo.
The founders say they’re not proponents of divorce; instead, they are in the business of supporting the people going through the process. They call the expo empowering and uplifting, and say that people shouldn’t look at divorce as something negative, but as a necessary transition in people’s lives when the dream of happily ever after doesn’t quite last for forever.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Bridal expos have long provided attendees with knowledge about what’s hot for the wedding process; but what’s out there for those dealing with the harrowing situation of divorce?
The “Start Over Smart” expo, the first divorce expo in the U.S., promises to put a friendly face on the process. The two-day event, held in New York City this weekend, will draw industry professionals together to offer information and services to those going through a divorce. Including Divorce Lawyers in Raleigh.
With half of all marriages in the U.S. ending in divorce, there’s a need for this expo, the founders tell TODAY in a segment that aired Friday.
Cities throughout Europe have been putting on such expos for years, and founders were actually inspired to bring the event to the U.S. after heading to one in Paris.
The mother-daughter team brings relevant experience to the table. The mother is married and a family therapist. The daughter, a recent divorcée and single mom, is a divorce mediator. Calling her own divorce “isolating,” she set out to put everything into the expo that she wished she’d had when she was going through her divorce.
The event, which costs $75 for a one-day ticket and $125 for both days, includes over 100 professionals that deal with divorce, with vendors hawking everything that one would expect, like counseling, legal services and financial expertise. A Raleigh Divorce Lawyer may be attending the event. More surprising exhibitors include a business that arranges ceremonies providing reconciliation for couples embroiled in divorce proceedings, plastic surgery professionals, a matchmaker and beauty experts.
A mother of two, is ending a 14-year marriage and says she plans to attend the expo.
The founders say they’re not proponents of divorce; instead, they are in the business of supporting the people going through the process. They call the expo empowering and uplifting, and say that people shouldn’t look at divorce as something negative, but as a necessary transition in people’s lives when the dream of happily ever after doesn’t quite last for forever.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Texas Hospital Discriminate Fat People
Story first appeared on msnbc.com
There have been undercurrents of weight discrimination in the workplace for years, but a Texas hospital decided to go anti-fat full throttle. Austin labor and Employment Lawyers are following the case.
A Texas newspaper recently reported about a fat-averse Texas hospital — Citizens Medical Center in Victoria, Texas — and its unheard-of policy of refusing to hire anyone with a body mass index of more than 35.
The policy, according to The Texas Tribune, states:
… an employee’s physique “should fit with a representational image or specific mental projection of the job of a healthcare professional,” including an appearance “free from distraction” for hospital patients.
Body mass index is calculated based on height and weight, with a measure over 30 qualifying as obese. A 5-foot-10 man who weighs 245 pounds would have a BMI of over 35, the hospital's cutoff. A 5-foot-2 woman would be over the cutoff at 195 pounds.
The hospital’s policy may cause outrage, but it’s an extreme example of an obesity bias that has been percolating in the nation’s workforces, starting with seemingly benign measures such as encouraging workers to walk at lunch.
Companies are beefing up their efforts to make you healthier, and they’re taking out the big guns. You’re costing employers too much money for medical coverage, and increasingly firms are imposing penalties on workers who don’t get with the healthy program. Labor and Employment Lawyers in Austin are citing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding this case.
According to a report released this week by consulting firm Mercer:
“87% of large employers say they will add or strengthen programs or policies to encourage more health-conscious behavior.”
While this hospital is talking about the image heavier workers send to customers, what drives so much of these decisions is the cost fatter employees represent. Healthier workers cost less when it comes to insurance, sick time, productivity, etc., according to many business experts.
For anyone who lives outside Michigan, the only recourse is going to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and seeking help under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Don’t expect a lot. Simply being overweight generally does not qualify as a disability.
An employment attorney with the Employment Law Group the hospital could be on shaky legal ground unless it can establish a job-related reason for banning heavy workers, such as the possibility that they would be unable to physically fit between hospital beds.
The Texas example may seem over the top, but heavier workers have been hit in the wallet before.
In a study by an associate professor at Cornell University, it was found found that obese white women had worse labor market outcomes than any other overweight workers.
It’s hard to make a case for such bias at work, especially in today’s economy where finding a job can be so difficult.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
There have been undercurrents of weight discrimination in the workplace for years, but a Texas hospital decided to go anti-fat full throttle. Austin labor and Employment Lawyers are following the case.
A Texas newspaper recently reported about a fat-averse Texas hospital — Citizens Medical Center in Victoria, Texas — and its unheard-of policy of refusing to hire anyone with a body mass index of more than 35.
The policy, according to The Texas Tribune, states:
… an employee’s physique “should fit with a representational image or specific mental projection of the job of a healthcare professional,” including an appearance “free from distraction” for hospital patients.
Body mass index is calculated based on height and weight, with a measure over 30 qualifying as obese. A 5-foot-10 man who weighs 245 pounds would have a BMI of over 35, the hospital's cutoff. A 5-foot-2 woman would be over the cutoff at 195 pounds.
The hospital’s policy may cause outrage, but it’s an extreme example of an obesity bias that has been percolating in the nation’s workforces, starting with seemingly benign measures such as encouraging workers to walk at lunch.
Companies are beefing up their efforts to make you healthier, and they’re taking out the big guns. You’re costing employers too much money for medical coverage, and increasingly firms are imposing penalties on workers who don’t get with the healthy program. Labor and Employment Lawyers in Austin are citing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding this case.
According to a report released this week by consulting firm Mercer:
“87% of large employers say they will add or strengthen programs or policies to encourage more health-conscious behavior.”
While this hospital is talking about the image heavier workers send to customers, what drives so much of these decisions is the cost fatter employees represent. Healthier workers cost less when it comes to insurance, sick time, productivity, etc., according to many business experts.
But are any these policies legal?
In fact, weight discrimination is one of the last types of bias that’s, for the most part, legal. Michigan is the only state that has any laws on the books protecting the rotund among us, and a handful of cities also have some restrictions. The Michigan law, on the books in that state since 1977, has seldom been used but appears to be getting dusted off lately by overweight workers who believe they were given the shaft because of their weight.For anyone who lives outside Michigan, the only recourse is going to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and seeking help under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Don’t expect a lot. Simply being overweight generally does not qualify as a disability.
An employment attorney with the Employment Law Group the hospital could be on shaky legal ground unless it can establish a job-related reason for banning heavy workers, such as the possibility that they would be unable to physically fit between hospital beds.
The Texas example may seem over the top, but heavier workers have been hit in the wallet before.
In a study by an associate professor at Cornell University, it was found found that obese white women had worse labor market outcomes than any other overweight workers.
It’s hard to make a case for such bias at work, especially in today’s economy where finding a job can be so difficult.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Trucking Harassment Lawsuit Backfires
Story first appeared in The Detroit News.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa— They were learning to become truck drivers but wound up in a nightmare. In detailed accounts to a federal agency, dozens of female employees of one of the nation's largest trucking companies told of being propositioned, groped and even assaulted by male drivers during cross-country training rides. An Iowa Trucking Lawyer has been following the case.
But rather than leading to a workplace discrimination judgment, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's sexual harassment lawsuit against Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based CRST Van Expedited Inc., has backfired and put the agency on trial. The agency is coping with a court ruling that could make it harder and more expensive to pursue large discrimination cases against companies in the Midwest, if not nationwide. A Labor Lawyer in Des Moines is concerned about the resulting lack of attention to the victims and their cases.
And dozens of women who described an ordeal of unwanted and aggressive sexual conduct may receive no compensation for lost wages or emotional distress because of judicial criticism of the agency's investigation.
A February ruling in the case sets a new standard for workplace class-action lawsuits in the federal court district that includes Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska and the Dakotas. Before filing a lawsuit on behalf of employees alleging similar discrimination, the agency will first have to investigate the merits of every worker's claim and attempt to reach settlements. If the agency doesn't, EEOC risks having the case dismissed.
The agency has argued that such a standard is impractical in cases involving hundreds or thousands of potential victims. At a minimum, the agency says, investigations would take longer and delay relief compared to other regions, where class-action cases can be filed with a lower standard. EEOC has a deadline next week to determine whether to appeal.
But businesses say the ruling could stop unfair legal tactics and prevent unnecessary and expensive litigation.
The ruling came as the agency has made systemic discrimination cases — those involving many employees — a larger enforcement priority. EEOC investigates 100,000 complaints of workplace discrimination annually, and recovered more than $450 million for employees last year.
The agency's tactics have rattled the business community, which says lawsuits can cost millions of dollars and destroy reputations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the CRST case denouncing EEOC's tactics and calling for the agency to be more cooperative with the industry.
The trucking company case was prompted by a December 2005 complaint from a female driver of Azle, Texas, who alleged she was paired with a driver who constantly made crude sexual remarks and advances. After she escaped his truck, she said, she was paired with another driver who demanded sex in exchange for a passing grade.
After failing to reach a settlement, EEOC filed a lawsuit in 2007 on behalf of all female drivers subjected to a sexually hostile and offensive work environment. After the company sent letters to thousands of female employees, about 150 gave depositions in which they described being alone for weeks in trucks with male drivers.
One woman said her trainer asked for oral sex every morning and told her if she slept with him she'd certainly pass. Another testified that her trainer put on pornographic movies daily and told her he wanted her to perform similar acts.
But some of their claims were barred for a variety of legal reasons. And EEOC's tactics infuriated the Judge, who said the agency used a 'sue first, ask questions later' litigation strategy. She dismissed the case and ordered the agency to pay CRST an unprecedented $4.4 million in attorney's fees, acknowledging that dozens of potentially meritorious sexual harassment claims may now never see the inside of a courtroom.
The appeals court largely sided with her in a 2-1 ruling, but threw out the fee award and reinstated two claims. The court ruled that EEOC should have done more investigation and informal mediation before filing suit.
CRST is expected to renew its request for compensation for legal fees. The company said it took disciplinary action such as banning offenders from riding with females.
But one case that reached a jury — a California woman who opted out of the EEOC process and filed her own lawsuit — resulted in a $1.5 million verdict against the company.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa— They were learning to become truck drivers but wound up in a nightmare. In detailed accounts to a federal agency, dozens of female employees of one of the nation's largest trucking companies told of being propositioned, groped and even assaulted by male drivers during cross-country training rides. An Iowa Trucking Lawyer has been following the case.
But rather than leading to a workplace discrimination judgment, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's sexual harassment lawsuit against Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based CRST Van Expedited Inc., has backfired and put the agency on trial. The agency is coping with a court ruling that could make it harder and more expensive to pursue large discrimination cases against companies in the Midwest, if not nationwide. A Labor Lawyer in Des Moines is concerned about the resulting lack of attention to the victims and their cases.
And dozens of women who described an ordeal of unwanted and aggressive sexual conduct may receive no compensation for lost wages or emotional distress because of judicial criticism of the agency's investigation.
A February ruling in the case sets a new standard for workplace class-action lawsuits in the federal court district that includes Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska and the Dakotas. Before filing a lawsuit on behalf of employees alleging similar discrimination, the agency will first have to investigate the merits of every worker's claim and attempt to reach settlements. If the agency doesn't, EEOC risks having the case dismissed.
The agency has argued that such a standard is impractical in cases involving hundreds or thousands of potential victims. At a minimum, the agency says, investigations would take longer and delay relief compared to other regions, where class-action cases can be filed with a lower standard. EEOC has a deadline next week to determine whether to appeal.
But businesses say the ruling could stop unfair legal tactics and prevent unnecessary and expensive litigation.
The ruling came as the agency has made systemic discrimination cases — those involving many employees — a larger enforcement priority. EEOC investigates 100,000 complaints of workplace discrimination annually, and recovered more than $450 million for employees last year.
The agency's tactics have rattled the business community, which says lawsuits can cost millions of dollars and destroy reputations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the CRST case denouncing EEOC's tactics and calling for the agency to be more cooperative with the industry.
The trucking company case was prompted by a December 2005 complaint from a female driver of Azle, Texas, who alleged she was paired with a driver who constantly made crude sexual remarks and advances. After she escaped his truck, she said, she was paired with another driver who demanded sex in exchange for a passing grade.
After failing to reach a settlement, EEOC filed a lawsuit in 2007 on behalf of all female drivers subjected to a sexually hostile and offensive work environment. After the company sent letters to thousands of female employees, about 150 gave depositions in which they described being alone for weeks in trucks with male drivers.
One woman said her trainer asked for oral sex every morning and told her if she slept with him she'd certainly pass. Another testified that her trainer put on pornographic movies daily and told her he wanted her to perform similar acts.
But some of their claims were barred for a variety of legal reasons. And EEOC's tactics infuriated the Judge, who said the agency used a 'sue first, ask questions later' litigation strategy. She dismissed the case and ordered the agency to pay CRST an unprecedented $4.4 million in attorney's fees, acknowledging that dozens of potentially meritorious sexual harassment claims may now never see the inside of a courtroom.
The appeals court largely sided with her in a 2-1 ruling, but threw out the fee award and reinstated two claims. The court ruled that EEOC should have done more investigation and informal mediation before filing suit.
CRST is expected to renew its request for compensation for legal fees. The company said it took disciplinary action such as banning offenders from riding with females.
But one case that reached a jury — a California woman who opted out of the EEOC process and filed her own lawsuit — resulted in a $1.5 million verdict against the company.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Smartphones In the Courtroom During Divorces
Story first appeared in Detroit Free Press.
If the smartphone in your pocket or purse seems critical to your daily life, imagine how important it could be to your spouse's divorce lawyer states a Raleigh Divorce Lawyer.
The modern cell phone brims with information divorce lawyers and judges are eager to see, such as text messages, photographs, videos, e-mail, Internet browser links, call histories, calendar entries and GPS tracking data.
Add that to the golden triumvirate through which private misbehavior now becomes permanently public -- Facebook, Twitter and YouTube postings -- and lawyers practicing family law have more electronic means than ever to settle those timeless "he said, she said" arguments with devastating certainty.
Consider the possibilities:
• Not bad-mouthing me to the kids? Really? Take a look at this text message you sent them.
• Can't find a job? Then why do you spend all day noodling websites that have nothing to do with work?
• In Omaha on business? So how did your iPhone "check in" on Facebook at this fancy restaurant in Boston? And who's with you in that picture?
In a recent survey of more than 800 divorce lawyers by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 92% said they've seen more cases during the last three years using evidence taken from iPhones, Droids and other smartphones.
Ferreting out the details of an illicit relationship isn't really the purpose of collecting electronic evidence, lawyers said. Rather, it's all about the custody of two things that often are at the heart of family disputes: children and money.
A lawyer with a matrimonial practice in Kansas City, Mo., once represented a man who was fighting a demand from his ex-wife for additional maintenance payments. Her Facebook postings revealed that she had been spending lavishly on a maintenance issue of her own: cosmetic surgery.
The president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said electronic evidence is particularly good at giving clues to whether one party in a divorce case is selling assets or trying to hide assets. He once found a cryptic text message that led to evidence that his client's former spouse was hiding assets.
A St. Louis Family Lawyer said that on custody issues, judges are particularly sensitive to what parents say about each other to their children. Texts often illuminate that subject.
And credibility always is a key for judges. One of the clients found a photo on her husband's cell phone of him drying a load of marijuana. She forwarded it to her own phone while he was in another room.
When the husband denied having issues with drugs, the court was treated to 30 seconds of stunned silence as he looked at the picture.
But sometimes electronic evidence makes resolving a custody or paternity issue almost too easy. A Kansas City lawyer once uncovered a YouTube video that a man, who was claiming paternity of a child, had posted a couple of years before. During an appearance on a reality TV show, the man adamantly insisted the child wasn't his. That video, and not the man's testimony, decided the issue.
Parties in a lawsuit generally are entitled to electronic evidence, and laying hands on it has become fairly routine, lawyers said. Estranged spouses usually can count on text messages they've sent to each other to emerge if they're material to the case.
Children and spouses' friends also are steady sources of electronic communications. And information from shared computers and telephone accounts also is fair game, lawyers said.
Lawyers can request that people not destroy electronic evidence before the lawyers look at it.
The impulsive nature of electronic communications -- often visceral and sharp -- can make it powerful evidence in a divorce case already infused with raw emotions, lawyers said. In the light of calm reflection, even an idle threat looks far worse on a page with an evidence sticker attached.
So how to avoid that moment? Lawyers advise never to write or text anything that you wouldn't want a judge to read.
To read more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
If the smartphone in your pocket or purse seems critical to your daily life, imagine how important it could be to your spouse's divorce lawyer states a Raleigh Divorce Lawyer.
The modern cell phone brims with information divorce lawyers and judges are eager to see, such as text messages, photographs, videos, e-mail, Internet browser links, call histories, calendar entries and GPS tracking data.
Add that to the golden triumvirate through which private misbehavior now becomes permanently public -- Facebook, Twitter and YouTube postings -- and lawyers practicing family law have more electronic means than ever to settle those timeless "he said, she said" arguments with devastating certainty.
Consider the possibilities:
• Not bad-mouthing me to the kids? Really? Take a look at this text message you sent them.
• Can't find a job? Then why do you spend all day noodling websites that have nothing to do with work?
• In Omaha on business? So how did your iPhone "check in" on Facebook at this fancy restaurant in Boston? And who's with you in that picture?
In a recent survey of more than 800 divorce lawyers by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 92% said they've seen more cases during the last three years using evidence taken from iPhones, Droids and other smartphones.
Ferreting out the details of an illicit relationship isn't really the purpose of collecting electronic evidence, lawyers said. Rather, it's all about the custody of two things that often are at the heart of family disputes: children and money.
A lawyer with a matrimonial practice in Kansas City, Mo., once represented a man who was fighting a demand from his ex-wife for additional maintenance payments. Her Facebook postings revealed that she had been spending lavishly on a maintenance issue of her own: cosmetic surgery.
The president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said electronic evidence is particularly good at giving clues to whether one party in a divorce case is selling assets or trying to hide assets. He once found a cryptic text message that led to evidence that his client's former spouse was hiding assets.
A St. Louis Family Lawyer said that on custody issues, judges are particularly sensitive to what parents say about each other to their children. Texts often illuminate that subject.
And credibility always is a key for judges. One of the clients found a photo on her husband's cell phone of him drying a load of marijuana. She forwarded it to her own phone while he was in another room.
When the husband denied having issues with drugs, the court was treated to 30 seconds of stunned silence as he looked at the picture.
But sometimes electronic evidence makes resolving a custody or paternity issue almost too easy. A Kansas City lawyer once uncovered a YouTube video that a man, who was claiming paternity of a child, had posted a couple of years before. During an appearance on a reality TV show, the man adamantly insisted the child wasn't his. That video, and not the man's testimony, decided the issue.
Parties in a lawsuit generally are entitled to electronic evidence, and laying hands on it has become fairly routine, lawyers said. Estranged spouses usually can count on text messages they've sent to each other to emerge if they're material to the case.
Children and spouses' friends also are steady sources of electronic communications. And information from shared computers and telephone accounts also is fair game, lawyers said.
Lawyers can request that people not destroy electronic evidence before the lawyers look at it.
The impulsive nature of electronic communications -- often visceral and sharp -- can make it powerful evidence in a divorce case already infused with raw emotions, lawyers said. In the light of calm reflection, even an idle threat looks far worse on a page with an evidence sticker attached.
So how to avoid that moment? Lawyers advise never to write or text anything that you wouldn't want a judge to read.
To read more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Swine-flu Prescription Harmful to Children
Story first appeared on TheRealNews.com
Scientists urge the government to rethink its strategy of giving swine flu anti-virals to some children because the harmful side effects outweigh the preventative benefits. A Medical Malpractice Lawyer in Baltimore is following the story, as this could result in instances of incorrect prescriptions given or complications as a result of prescription.
Researchers have found that Tamiflu and Relenza may only reduce symptoms by one day in children up to 12-years old - and balanced against potential side effects they say it's not worth the risk.
The authors of the study have called on the Department of Health to urgently rethink its strategy and believe a more conservative approach should be taken to treating swine flu in this age group.
And the drug had little or no effect on asthma flare-ups, ear infections or the likelihood of a youngster needing antibiotics. Their study found that Tamiflu caused vomiting in some children, which can lead to dehydration and complications. The drug tended to only reduce the illness by a single day, and caused cases of vomiting in children. Unfortunately, the side effects of vomiting in children is also in addition to the vomiting induced by the illness which could result in severe dehydration in children.
The Deputy Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, told Channel 4 News at Noon that in any treatment you take the benefits of the treatment and relate them to the harms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
