|
|
|
Bank Robber Blames Gambling and Loan Sharks
Court Watch |
2007/12/07 10:13
|
Self-described gambling addict Scott A. Hasenjaeger was hedging his bets when he robbed a Marseilles bank in January -- he said in court this week he was partly hoping to get caught and partly hoping to get away.
Either way, a federal judge called in his marker Tuesday.
The 34-year-old Hasenjaeger was sentenced to one year and one day in prison. However, the former insurance agent and part-time post office letter carrier from Minooka will be able to spend the holidays with his wife and three small children -- he doesn't have to report to prison until January.
Wearing a ski mask, Hasenjaeger entered Twin Oaks Savings Bank in Marseilles Jan. 24 and pointed at tellers a BB handgun that resembled a semi-automatic pistol. He made off with about $35,277, some of which he dropped as he left the bank. State police arrested Hasenjaeger about 45 minutes later in Minooka with a portion of the loot. As part of his deal to plead guilty, he agreed to pay back the rest of the money.
In seeking mercy, Hasenjaeger told the judge he grew up the son of an "emotionally-detached alcoholic father," catching the betting bug around age 8, when he blew $100 on a cruise ship slot machine.
Picking up his story in college, Hasenjaeger said he was the leading scorer for the 1993-1994 Central Connecticut State University basketball squad. The night before the "biggest game of the season," Hasenjaeger said he used $3,000 in credit card money to gamble at a casino, which he built into $12,000, before losing it all. With empty pockets, he duped a cab driver into taking him back to campus, promising to pay the fare once there. However, after he was dropped off, he fled without paying and was arrested by campus police. He played miserably the next night and was booted from the team the next year.
After his failed college career, he was hired and rose to become a district manager with American General Finance in Minooka, but continued to lose thousands of dollars through gambling.
At the time of the bank robbery, Hasenjaeger said loan sharks were circling him, he was on the verge of losing his job, and his house -- mortgaged twice to get money to pay gambling debts -- was in foreclosure. He said he partly wanted to get caught, because then he figured he would be forced to quit gambling.
After his arrest, he declared bankruptcy and his family now is about to be evicted.
Hasenjaeger joined Gamblers Anonymous, and in 1995 and 2000 was hospitalized at Proctor Hospital in Peoria for what doctors termed a "severe gambling disorder." For brief periods after each hospitalization, Hasenjaeger said he refrained from wagering.
Hasenjaeger's court-appointed attorney, Robert G. Clarke, wrote of his client:
"Virtually all of his family, many of whom he has hurt quite severely, and some of his friends, some of whom have been betrayed by earlier promises of reformation, attest to his good will and his persuasive efforts to reform since his arrest."
In 1995, Hasenjaeger was convicted of criminal damage to property.
Until he reports to prison, Hasenjaeger is under electronic monitoring and has to remain home from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily. He also is prohibited from gambling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kirkland & Ellis Host Literacy Event in D.C. Office
Law Firm News |
2007/12/07 09:44
|
Last night at Kirkland & Ellis’ D.C. office, law firms engaged in a battle of who knows the most about nothing much in the first annual Lawyers for Literacy Trivia Night. The event, which raised funds for the children’s literacy program Everybody Wins! D.C., pitted nine firms against each other for five rounds of general interest trivia, with a heavy emphasis on, appropriately enough, children’s literature.
The nine firms—Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal; Morrison & Foerster; Sidley Austin; Steptoe & Johnson; White & Case; Nordhaus Law Firm; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; and Kirkland & Ellis—donated $1,500 to the literacy program for each six-person team.
Mark Young, a partner with Kirkland who knows a fair bit about Winnie the Pooh, Monopoly, and Warren Harding, has been reading to children in the Everybody Wins! D.C. Power Lunch Program for 11 years. Twelve firms around town participate in the program, and he says reading to an elementary school child for an hour once a week is easy to fit into a lawyer’s hectic schedule. “People that have become lawyers have done an awful lot of reading, and they appreciate the value of reading as a skill,” says Young.
The trivia questions ranged from popular movies and music to history. For example, what did Scout dress up as for her school pageant in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird? Answer, a ham. And what country has outlawed resurrecting the dead? Answer, Haiti.
Occasionally the crowd got a little rowdy, forcing quiz master, Neal Racioppo, to lay down the law, so to speak. “I just assumed you all were used to the judge being right,” said Racioppo, when one of the Steptoe teams objected to his answer.
Though White & Case had an early lead followed closely by Kirkland & Ellis’ appellate team, the fourth round was especially brutal, knocking out the frontrunners. The Shook Hardy team, called Nobody Puts Baby in a Corner, played a steady game and came in to win in the last round with 51 points.
The team, which scored an impressive looking trophy for their efforts, said their secret to winning was trusting their instincts. Christopher Appel, a staff attorney at the firm, described their strategy with a quote from “The Simpsons.” “God gave us the atom. It’s up to us to make it dance,” he said.
Racioppo enjoyed the crowd, but added that in the seven years he’s been quizzing folks around Washington he’s never seen a more competitive lot. “They weren’t all about finding the answer to the question,” said Racioppo. Instead, “they looked for the loopholes around the questions.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY Law Firm Subpoenaed Over Questionable Hiring
Law Firm News |
2007/12/07 09:39
|
As legislative leaders seek to award New York's thoroughbred racing franchise that's due to expire Dec. 31, a state committee has subpoenaed a firm that recently won a no-bid contract with the New York Racing Association, which holds the current franchise.
The law firm of Getnick & Getnick of Manhattan has been subpoenaed to testify before the state Commission of Investigation, Neil V. Getnick said Thursday, just as NYRA fights to keep the franchise it's held since 1955.
The subpoena apparently stems from a recent hearing by the state Senate's racing committee, in which the no-bid contract to Getnick & Getnick as integrity counsel was criticized. The contract is worth $125,000 a month.
Senators and NYRA's competitors have questioned the hiring of the law firm. The firm was appointed by a court in 2005 to oversee NYRA's finances and was instrumental in helping NYRA avoid a federal indictment for mismanagement.
"I regret that I was not afforded the opportunity to appear before the state Senate racing committee when it held its NYRA related hearing earlier this fall," Getnick said. "I would welcome the opportunity to testify before the state investigation commission. The facts are straightforward and should be heard by the public."
"We stand in full support of Neil and his firm," said Charles Hayward of NYRA. "We're thrilled to be associated with them."
Asked if he thought the subpoena was timed to hurt NYRA's chances at renewing its franchise, Hayward said: "I think the investigation is not fact based."
In 2005, Getnick & Getnick's report found that after years of mismanagement and corruption, NYRA had reformed itself enough to avoid a federal indictment and be in the running to retain its lucrative franchise. The U.S. Attorney's Office investigating NYRA then moved to dismiss the indictment against NYRA. Getnick & Getnick was paid more than $4 million for that study, funded by NYRA.
Now NYRA is competing against Empire Racing, Capital Play and Excelsior Racing Associates for what is expected to be a 30-year franchise to operate Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga race tracks.
Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno called for public negotiations with Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to form a consensus. The various options discussed in closed-door sessions include awarding the racing franchise to NYRA _ favored by Spitzer and supported initially by Silver. Bruno said he opposes Spitzer's plan, but is open to discussing various combinations that could include NYRA.
Under Spitzer's plan, a separate franchise would be awarded _ with NYRA's input _ to one of the gaming partners with the racing groups that would run video slot machines at Aqueduct and potentially at Belmont.
The Senate is scheduled to be in session next week to consider only racing, Bruno said. The Assembly will commit only if there is agreement by the leaders, spokesmen said.
The closed-door negotiations, however, have grown to include several other measures including a pay raise from lawmakers and state judges, a senior citizen tax break, and a $900 million capital budget that would be directed to projects back in lawmakers' districts as a kind of pork-barrel spending. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bengal's Founder's Kids Lose 4 Year Battle
Court Watch |
2007/12/06 10:18
|
Two children of one of the founders of the Cincinnati Bengals have lost their four-year court battle over his estate, which includes about 30 percent of the shares in a team that Forbes estimated is worth $912 million this year.
A Hamilton County Probate Court jury on Tuesday rejected their claims that Austin E. "Dutch" Knowlton's will was a forgery. They sued after Knowlton died in 2003, at age 93, and they discovered they were left out of his will, which was dated February 1996 and left the bulk of his estate to the Austin E. Knowlton Foundation.
Knowlton, who owned a construction company, founded the Bengals in 1967 with Paul Brown and other investors. Two of his three children, Peter Knowlton and P. Valerie Knowlton, challenged the will.
Peter Knowlton has since died, but his claim remains. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Online Law Firm Offers Affordable Services
Law Firm News |
2007/12/06 10:04
|
The name of Greenwich resident Patricia A. DeWitt's business says it all: lawyersforless.net.
In such a litigious society where attorney fees can cost as much as $1,000 per-hour and many individuals and families are feeling strapped by the rising cost of living, DeWitt is convinced that her "E" law firm will be the wave of the future with Web surfers - and anyone in need of an effective attorney at an economical price.
"The time is right for an Internet law firm," DeWitt said. "People can save a lot of money shopping on the Internet, so why not save a lot of money on the services of an attorney?"
While she has numerous reasons for launching a Web-based law firm, paramount among them is the desire to spend time with her 11-year-old daughter, Annie, a student at Glenville School. "I have my daughter's interests in mind," DeWitt said. "She's very excited. She's my biggest helper. She's my biggest fan."
A single mother, DeWitt enjoys working out of the home because it provides her more time to be with her daughter, who is adopted. With that background, part of DeWitt's focus is on assisting those interested in adoption through the legal process.
"Once I adopted, as an attorney I became extremely interested in the resources that are available to people who seek to adopt," she said. "I am dedicated to advising and assisting persons interested in adopting or having their infant adopted."
She also handles product liability, medical malpractice and negligent matters. Those type of cases, though, can take years to resolve, so they are taken only after agreeing on a contingent retainer. DeWitt does not handle criminal law.
"A small contractor knows it costs the customer more money to hire an attorney than the customer could get back in small claims court," DeWitt said. "Affordable legal representation might help those who don't want the hassle of personally appearing, but want the satisfaction of getting back whatever was rightfully theirs, up to the $5,000 limit of small claims courts."
With word quickly spreading about lawyersforless.net through articles published in local newspapers, DeWitt has cases coming her way. Some are simply small business owners who want to craft a better contract, others involved motor vehicle accidents. The common denominator, though, is that her clients are "savvy professionals" with little spare time on their hands.
"I'm really very impressed with the clients," she said.
Perhaps the most widely followed set of rates for attorney fees is what is called the Laffey Matrix, which is available from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, and is updated each year. The hourly rates are shown by years of experience. For June 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007 the rates are as follows: 20+ years of experience, $425 per hour; 11-19 years, $375; 8-10 years, $305; 4-7 years, $245; 1-3 years, $205; and paralegals/law clerks $120.
Hourly rates are increasing almost every year and some lawyers charge substantially higher than the rates shown by the Laffey Matrix. Consider, the first attorney in the U.S. to regularly charge a four-digit hourly fee ($1,000 and higher) was Benjamin Civiletti in late 2005.
With a resume that dates her professional law career back two decades, including serving as an enforcement attorney for the New York Stock Exchange before beginning her general practice in 1993, DeWitt can certainly charge more per hour. Yet she has decided quality of life and time with her daughter is more important to her than making a killing. Some attorneys have called her nuts, she said.
DeWitt's hourly rates were initially $70 per hour, yet after reevaluating her expenses and the amount of time she puts into cases (hours of research), she decided on an hourly rate of $140.
"In this day and age it's just really interesting to see that even with doubling my rates, I'm going to still be half of some of the lowest rates."
Further, there is the matter of combating a widely held societal belief: "Primarily, people think they get what they pay for."
DeWitt, certified to practice law in both New York and Connecticut, wants to focus on clients in Westchester and Fairfield counties because they are close to home and she is familiar with the courts in these jurisdictions. But with the lack of geographical boundaries on the Internet, lawyersforless.net could grow into something much larger than a single-mother's humble practice. "We could create a network," she said when asked about the potential for growth. "I suppose something can be done about it."
"There is life after the law firm," she reminds aging attorneys.
For information, visit www.lawyersforless.net or call DeWitt at 532-4120. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit card receipt rule leads to class-action suits
Class Action |
2007/12/05 09:48
|
A law to protect against identity theft has spawned more than 300 class-action lawsuits across the country. The lawsuits claim merchants failed to remove both the expiration date and sufficient digits of the credit card number on receipts they give back to customers. Lawyers are trying to get the lawsuits certified as class actions, potentially opening restaurants and stores to thousands or even millions of dollars in liability. The claims are filed under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA. Congress enacted the law in 2003 to address identity theft and credit card fraud. Most people, if they've dealt with FACTA at all, tapped a provision that gives consumers the right to a free credit report each year. But another section requires that businesses truncate credit card information on receipts. That's why retailers no longer print out receipts containing all 16 digits of your credit card number. They must limit the digits to five and remove the credit card expiration date. Lawyers say thousands of retailers across the country -- many using outdated credit card processing machines -- probably are in violation. Businesses that fail to comply with FACTA's credit card rule can be liable for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per consumer if the noncompliance is willful. Since it would be very difficult to prove actual damages -- that someone had their identity stolen or was the victim of credit card fraud because of receipt errors -- the FACTA lawsuits focus on the argument that the violation was intentional. Defense attorneys describe the lawsuits as the latest consumer class-action fad. "We have lawsuits growing out of a situation where, as far as we know, no one's been actually injured," said Thomas Zych, a partner at a Cleveland law firm that is representing the Children's Place clothing store chain in a FACTA case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Court Hears Pledge, Motto Cases
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/05 09:45
|
| An atheist pleaded with a federal appeals court to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, saying the references disrespect his religious beliefs. "I want to be treated equally," said Michael Newdow, who argued the cases consecutively to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. He added that supporters of the phrases "want to have their religious views espoused by the government." Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued his daughter's school district in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children in another district. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento again found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional. The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit's ruling in Newdow's first case. Terence Cassidy, a lawyer for the school district, argued Tuesday that reciting the pledge is simply a "patriotic exercise" and a reminder of the traditions of the U.S. "How is pledging allegiance to a nation under God not a religious act?" Judge Dorothy W. Nelson asked. Cassidy said the pledge has religious elements but is not a religious exercise. Newdow said the pledge has "tons of religious significance. That's why everyone gets so angry when we talk about ... taking it out." Nelson asked Cassidy whether removing the words "under God" would make the pledge any less patriotic. "Not necessarily," he replied, arguing it provided a historical context, not a religious one. Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust" a year later. Congress first authorized a reference to God on money in 1864. In describing the historical context for use of the word "God," the government cited the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing the motto's presence on coins and currency violated his First Amendment rights. A federal judge in Sacramento ruled against him last year, and Newdow appealed. On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer Lowell Sturgill Jr. said "In God We Trust" is not an endorsement of a particular faith, but simply a patriotic or ceremonial message. Judge Stephen Reinhardt indicated support for Newdow's position. The "In God We Trust" motto "affects Mr. Newdow every moment of his life," Reinhardt said. "The government has no compelling interest to put a slogan on a dollar bill." Newdow said he didn't advocate hostility toward God or religion and respected people's right to their own beliefs. He said he wanted equal respect for atheists. About 20 Newdow supporters in the courtroom and outside the courthouse wore T-shirts touting evolution and atheism and carried signs supporting the separation of church and state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
