|
|
|
Attorney Admits Stealing from Clients/Firm
Law Firm News |
2007/06/25 12:08
|
A Memphis attorney admitted in court this morning to stealing more than $60,000 in client funds from clients and his law firm.
John House Parker, 60, who was disbarred in December, entered his plea in Criminal Court, where he was scheduled to go on trial today. He faces eight to 12 years in prison and is awaiting sentencing by Judge James Beasley Jr.
Parker, who was with the firm formerly known as Rossie, Luckett, Parker & Ridder, took the money from private trust accounts and from probate estates. He was charged with multiple counts of theft involving at least seven victims, including charitable trusts, estates, his law firm and individuals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia Man Seeks Last Minute Clemency
Court Watch |
2007/06/25 11:55
|
A man set to die for killing his wife and two stepdaughters in 1987 deserves to live because he has remorse for the crimes, has tried to redeem himself in prison and the prosecutor at his trial acted improperly, a lawyer argued at a clemency hearing Monday.
John Hightower's attorney, Jack Martin, also said in his petition to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles that several jurors who convicted his client now support his bid for a reprieve.
"There is a terrible and profound irony in that Mr. Hightower is a person to whom family means so much, yet he has committed the act of destroying part of his family," Martin wrote in the petition.
"This fact is not lost on Mr. Hightower. His regret is intense."
As for the allegations against the man who prosecuted Hightower, Martin said that the district attorney at the time removed blacks as potential jurors during the trial over the objection of the defense. Hightower is black.
Martin also said that many of the death penalty sentences the prosecutor obtained before resigning in 1994 were reversed because of error.
The prosecutor, Joe Briley, who is now in private practice, did not immediately return a phone call to his office Monday seeking comment. A call to his home went unanswered.
Hightower's attorneys were trying several last-minute appeals -- including the clemency petition and a request to the U.S. Supreme Court for a delay -- to keep him from the death chamber. Absent any relief, he will be given a lethal injection on Tuesday.
Prosecutors were expected to appear before the parole board later Monday to argue for the execution to proceed.
Hightower, 63, was convicted for the July 12, 1987, slayings of his wife, Dorothy Hightower, and his two stepdaughters, Evelyn Reaves and Sandra Reaves, at a home in Milledgeville, in central Georgia.
If carried out, the execution would be Georgia's first in nearly two years.
Among the evidence investigators said they had against Hightower: a confession and a flesh- and blood-covered murder weapon found in the car he was driving when he was arrested. His clothes also were stained with blood.
According to authorities, Hightower admitted he had been having marital problems. In the admission, he said he had been drinking and snorting cocaine hours before he entered the home where the victims were, placed a gun under a pillow in the room he shared with his wife and waited for everyone to go to sleep.
At about 3 a.m, police say, Hightower retrieved the gun and shot each of the three victims in the head. A 3-year-old girl in the house was found unharmed.
Hightower was arrested about 90 minutes after the shootings while driving his wife's car.
The execution would be Georgia's first since Robert Conklin, a 44-year-old parolee who fatally stabbed a lawyer and dismembered the victim's body, was given a lethal injection on July 12, 2005. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ariel Sharon's Son Sentenced to 7 Months in Prison
International |
2007/06/25 11:32
|
A Tel Aviv court today sentenced the eldest son of coma-stricken former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to seven months in jail for corruption, reducing his original sentence by two months. While handing down the reduced prison term, Judge Yehudit Shaitzer pointed out that Omri Sharon had acted out of personal interests and his actions were tainted with political corruption. "Sharon's actions resulted in a distortion of the will of the voter," the Judge said.
Sharon had filed an appeal in March against the nine-month jail term he had received for concealing illegal contributions from secret donors for his father's 1999 campaign for leadership of the Likud party.
The court, however, deferred the implementation of the sentence until July 22 to give Sharon's lawyers a chance to appeal against the verdict. Sharon's lawyers said they would consider taking their appeal against the sentence to the Supreme Court soon.
"The reduction in sentence is significant but we think the appropriate punishment in this case is community service, not imprisonment," Sharon's attorney Navit Negev told the Israel Radio.
The former Likud party lawmaker and the state had earlier reached a plea bargain arrangement, according to which Sharon had agreed to plead guilty to the two most serious charges provided the state changed two other charges to less serious ones. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Finds Missing Pants Not Worth $54M
Breaking Legal News |
2007/06/25 11:28
|
A judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a case against a dry cleaner that claimed $54 million in damages for a pair of missing pants.
The case was brought by Roy L. Pearson, himself a judge. He originally sought $67 million from the Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners. He calculated the amount by estimating years of law violations, adding almost $2 million in common law claims for fraud.
The Chungs denied Pearson's allegations and insisted that the pants they tried to give him were those he had brought in.
The saga began in May 2005, when Pearson took several pairs of pants to Custom Cleaners for alteration as he prepared to start his new job as an administrative law judge. He alleged that he'd brought in a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, but when he came to collect them the Chungs tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his.
'Project Runway' for the t-shirt crowd
During a two-day trial earlier this month, Pearson said that when he took the pants to Custom Cleaners, his financial situation was ruinous - he had just been ordered to pay $12,000 in attorney's fees to his ex-wife and his credit cards were at their limit.
Pearson, representing himself during the trial, claimed millions of dollars in attorney fees and millions more in punitive damages for what he called fraudulent advertising under the law.
He also claimed that a sign in the store's window that promised "Satisfaction Guaranteed" was an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer without limitation.
The Chungs' attorney argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction. District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff agreed.
In a 23-page conclusion, Bartnoff ruled that Custom Cleaners had not violated the city's Consumer Protection Act. She wrote: "A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute."
Pearson had "not met his burden of proving that the pants the defendants attempted to return to him were not the pants he brought in for alteration" she said.
Bartnoff awarded court costs to the defendants. The Chungs - who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the case - are attempting to have their attorney's fees paid by Pearson.
Their attorney, Chris Manning, said his clients "are relieved that we are past this stage. Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated. Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."
He added: "Hopefully Mr. Pearson doesn't take this any further on appeal, but we expect him to."
During the two-day trial, Soo Chung said that "economically, emotionally and healthwise as well, it has been extremely hard for us." She started the business with her husband after they moved to the United States from South Korea in 1992. Top of page |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amy Baker Expected in KY Courtroom Today
Court Watch |
2007/06/25 11:22
|
Amy Baker, the woman who helped authorities solve the disappearance of foster child Marcus Fiesel, is expected inside a Kentucky courtroom today.
Baker is facing charges in Maysville, accused of helping dispose of Marcus' remains in the Ohio River.
The hearing today is a preliminary hearing for Amy Baker. A few things could happen during the hearing. She could accept a plea deal with prosecutors or go forward with a trial.
Baker is charged with tampering with evidence in the death of 3-year-old foster child Marcus Fiesel.
Ohio authorities gave Baker immunity for testifying against Liz and David Carroll, the couple convicted of killing Marcus.
Baker, 26, was the Carrolls' live-in girlfriend. Investigators said the Carrolls burned Marcus' remains and dumped them in the Ohio River after stuffing him inside a closet where he died last August.
Baker has reportedly said she would confess to the tampering with evidence charge and admit she helped dispose of the remains, if Mason County prosecutors would agree to no jail time.
Kentucky officials prosecuted the "star witness" in the Ohio case because the remains were dumped in the Ohio River, which is owned by the state of Kentucky.
Baker is no longer in the Mason County Jail. Her mother posted a $5,000 cash bond a few weeks ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Rules in "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case
Breaking Legal News |
2007/06/25 11:19
|
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case that schools do not violate a student’s First Amendment free-speech rights by punishing speech that appears to promote drugs at a school-sponsored event.
The Court reversed the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Morse v. Frederick by deciding that Joseph Frederick, a former student at Juneau-Douglas High School, was not protected by the First Amendment when he held up a banner with the words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” across the street from his school during a 2002 Olympic torch relay. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States, states the ruling was made in favor of Principal Deborah Morse and the school because the banner could be interpreted as a pro-illegal drug-use message at a school-sanctioned activity.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred with the Roberts opinion while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David Souter dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in part and gave a partial dissent to the opinion.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of Frederick, using the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, and finding that Morse’s actions are unconstitutional because the banner did not “materially or substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”
But the Supreme Court’s decision cites the Court’s 1986 Bethel School District v. Fraser decision — a case involving sexually suggestive speech delivered at a high school assembly — to justify its decision in Morse, stating that students in public schools do not have the same constitutional rights as adults and arguing that the standard set by Tinker is not absolute.
The Court agreed with Morse that the 14-foot banner could be read as a promotion of drug use, deciding that the “Bong Hits” message could be interpreted as either encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or celebrating of drug use. The Court also agreed that the speech took place at a school-sponsored event, although the banner was held up off campus on a public street.
“Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be reasonably regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick,” the decision reads.
Stevens, who wrote the dissents and was joined by Ginsburg and Souter, wrote that the First Amendment should not be curtailed by a “nonsense banner” containing “an oblique reference to drugs.”
“[I]t is one thing to restrict speech that advocates drug use,” Stevens wrote. “It is another thing entirely to prohibit an obscure message with a drug theme that a third party subjectively — and not very reasonably — thinks is tantamount to express advocacy.”
Breyer in his partial dissent stated that the Court should have only held that Frederick cannot seek monetary damages for being disciplined and that attempting to resolve the First Amendment question is “unwise and unnecessary.
Jason Brandeis, staff attorney for the Alaska ACLU and co-counsel for Frederick said he is concerned that the decision will set a dangerous precedent for censorship of speech that does not create a disruption of the educational environment.
“This decision seems to create a drug exception to First Amendment with respect to student speech without any real justification about why the student free speech can be censored,” he said.
Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said although he is disappointed in the decision, he sees it as a narrow ruling that only allows school officials to limit student speech that promotes illegal drug use and not speech relating to discussion of political and social issues.
“It’s disappointing that the Court once again felt the need to diminish student First Amendment protection at a time when teenagers’ understanding and appreciation for the First Amendment is so incredibly low,” he said. “The last thing the country needs is a court ruling that further diminishes its relevance to their lives.”
Frederick, then an 18-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, said he had his banner confiscated and was suspended 10 days — five days for displaying the banner and five days for refusing to divulge the names of the other participants and quoting Thomas Jefferson: “Speech limited is speech lost.”
Frederick, who later said he deliberately unfurled the banner to test “the limits” of his free speech, filed a lawsuit against Morse and the Juneau School Board in a federal district court after losing appeals to the superintendent and board. The court ruled in favor of the school, but Frederick took his case to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously reversed the lower court’s ruling by deciding that “[n]o educational function was disrupted” by the banner and that the school had violated the First Amendment.
The school board asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and the Court heard oral arguments March 19.
A number of diverse organizations, ranging from the traditionally conservative Alliance Defense Fund to the Drug Policy Alliance filed amicus briefs to the court in support of Frederick. Many groups, including the National School Boards Association and Drug Abuse Resistance Education, filed for Morse.
Frederick, who recently returned from studying in China, could not be reached for comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Battle Looms Over Tacoma Billboards
Breaking Legal News |
2007/06/25 11:15
|
Ten years ago, the City of Tacoma adopted strict new rules limiting the size and placement of billboards. Nothing bigger than 300 square feet. Nothing closer than 250 feet to a residential area, church or school, historic district, playground or park.
More than two-thirds of the city’s billboards didn’t conform, but nothing happened right away. The billboard industry, which lobbied hard to block the limits, was given 10 years to bring the signs into compliance or remove them.
The deadline is Aug. 1.
But it doesn’t appear anything will happen then, either. Clear Channel Outdoor – the sole owner of billboards under the city’s jurisdiction – is gearing up for a legal battle similar to those waged by billboard owners throughout the country.
The first indication came this week when the city received a response to a letter sent to a Clear Channel representative in Seattle earlier this month reminding him of the approaching deadline, and asking for a schedule by Friday of how the company intended to comply with the city’s ordinance.
Chris Artman, president of Clear Channel Outdoor Northwest, told The News Tribune on Thursday that his company wants to meet with Tacoma officials to work out a solution. “This isn’t something that needs to end up in litigation,” Artman said.
The same day, the city received a letter from a Clear Channel attorney stating that the city’s ordinance was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Even if it was enforceable, the company would be owed $50 million or $60 million to remove the signs, wrote Seattle attorney Paul Taylor.
“Clear Channel’s billboards in Tacoma are worth millions of dollars,” Taylor said. “Absent an agreed resolution, Clear Channel has no choice but to vigorously protect its interest. There will be protracted, expensive multi-year litigation.”
Tacoma’s tightening of the rules came partly in response to the sprouting of billboards on tribal property along Interstate 5 – which the city could do nothing about – as well as a 600-square-foot billboard erected at South Union Avenue and Center Street. Then-Mayor Brian Ebersole referred to the city’s billboards as ugly and obnoxious, and wanted to ban them.
After facing intense lobbying from the billboard industry, the City Council approved the ordinance with a 10-year amortization period that officials said was intended to give billboard owners time to recoup their investments. The action, characterized at the time as the beginning of a slow death for billboards, was considered preferable to an outright ban, which a city planner said would require the city to compensate billboard owners and the land owners who lease to the billboard companies to the tune of $40 million to $60 million.
Since then, the City of Federal Way lost a court battle over its sign code when a business owner refused to comply at the end of an amortization period. Two lower courts sided with the business, saying that amortization period alone wasn’t sufficient compensation, and the city must either compensate the owner for the loss of his sign or allow it to remain. The city appealed to the state Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
In its letter to Clear Channel, Tacoma’s building official appears to concede that the city may need to compensate the company for the loss of some signs, namely those that fall under the state’s Scenic Vistas Act. City officials are still calculating how many they believe would fall under the law, but they think it’s in the neighborhood of 30 of the 193 nonconforming Clear Channel billboards.
Clear Channel’s attorney said the company has 83 billboards that are visible from a state highway and are subject to compensation under state law. He identified the highways as Interstate 5, and highways 16, 705, 7, 163 and 509.
The conservative value of those structures is between $12 million and $15 million, Taylor estimated. But the city would also have a constitutional obligation to compensate Clear Channel for the remainder of the company’s signs, which would bring the required payment up to the $50 million or $60 million range, he said.
In addition, the landlords who lease to Clear Channel would be entitled to compensation for lost rent, Taylor said, adding that he has reason to believe one or more landlords will be bringing a class action lawsuit against the city.
Billboard operators have become highly skilled at opposing regulations, often using the court system to delay enforcement of rules and drive up the cost to local governments, said Kevin Fry, president of Scenic America.
The Washington D.C.-based nonprofit organization opposes billboards and other so-called visual pollution. But Fry said Tacoma shouldn’t back down. Unless the city’s ordinance was badly written, the city will eventually prevail, he predicted.
William Brinton, a Jacksonville, Fla., attorney who serves on the board of directors of Scenic America, said billboard operators work from a predictable playbook.
“They have three tactics,” Brinton said. “One: Delay. Two: See the first tactic. Three: Delay.”
Local governments generally fare better when they take the fight to the industry, Brinton said. In some cases, it’s true that governments need to compensate billboard companies for taking down signs, Brinton said. But the amount of compensation isn’t specified, and local governments can try to reach a settlement that lets the billboard company keep the sign up for a period of time in lieu of cash.
“At the end of the day, it comes down to the spine of the elected officials and the skill of the lawyer,” Brinton said.
Councilman Tom Stenger signaled a willingness to take on the struggle by noting the city’s successful drive to ban minicasinos. “Why wouldn’t we beat the billboard industry?” he asked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
