|
|
|
Barry Bonds Ready for Legal Battle
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/12 11:30
|
For former San Francisco Giants superstar Barry Bonds, a man accustomed to controlling his own agenda and fortunes, life is now in the hands of his flotilla of lawyers.
A seemingly calm Bonds appeared in a San Francisco federal courtroom Friday, pleading not guilty to five felony charges of lying to a federal grand jury about using steroids at the zenith of his career. Major League Baseball's all-time home run leader, who came and went from the federal building without a peep to the media mob, is now unlikely to return there for months. His case, celebrity in nature or not, will grind slowly through the justice system like hundreds of felony cases on the local docket.
Bonds may have been silent, but he is giving every sign that he is ready for a pitched battle with the federal government. He is charged with four counts of perjury and one count of obstructing justice in connection with his December 2003 testimony to a federal grand jury probing the Balco steroids scandal.
The 43-year-old Bonds, dressed in a snazzy dark suit and striped blue tie, appeared in court with a newly assembled powerhouse defense team, led by Silicon Valley star lawyer Allen Ruby and East Bay defense specialist Cristina Arguedas. Ruby said immediately he expects to move to dismiss the indictment because it contained legal, technical flaws he did not specify.
Outside court, Ruby also told reporters that his client is prepared to go to trial. Doing so would force the strapping left fielder to directly address allegations that he used performance-enhancing drugs as he mounted his assault on baseball's home run record.
Bonds was equally defiant on his personal Web site, where he predicted he'll be "vindicated" of the charges, which could bring him one to three years in federal prison if convicted.
With legal wrangling a foregone conclusion, a trial is unlikely to take place before the next baseball season begins - and it may be doubtful before the World Series.
World-class cyclist Tammy Thomas, indicted on allegations of perjury in the Balco case, was charged nearly a year ago - and her case still awaits trial. Thomas was among a host of athletes, from baseball to track to football, caught up in the Balco probe, which exposed a Peninsula laboratory's link to the distribution of steroids in sports.
Meanwhile, Bonds' return to the same federal building where he testified in the Balco case four years ago lasted only about a half hour and demonstrated how much attention his legal troubles will attract. He arrived at about 8:30 a.m., making his way through a sea of television cameras into the courthouse, where he was escorted to a 19th floor private attorney conference room.
Outside court, a modest group of supporters, as well as a peculiar mix of other demonstrators, gathered. Only three Bonds supporters in their black and orange Giants gear bothered to get passes for the courtroom to show their support.
Rich Archuleta, 43, a lifelong Giants fan who drove 150 miles from his home near Sacramento, called the government's case a "witch hunt."
Perhaps the oddest spectacle was a pair of women representing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who used the media attention to get some of their own.
Clad in bikinis made of rhinestone-studded lettuce cups, they handed out tofu sandwiches. "If people are concerned with athletes pumping themselves with growth hormones, they should consider that the meat industry is doing the same thing every day to animals," said Nicole Matthews, a PETA staff member shivering in the chilly morning air.
The legal spectacle was more somber. Flanked by his wife, Liz, Bonds entered the courtroom with an entourage of six lawyers, striding past his nemesis, IRS agent Jeff Novitsky, the lead investigator in the Balco case. As U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Elena-James outlined the procedures, Bonds stood at the lectern, at one point fumbling with the microphone. He said little - Ruby entered the 'not guilty" plea for him.
Inside the courtroom, James rejected the government's bid to restrict Bonds from leaving the United States to travel after Ruby argued that such a restriction could hinder Bonds' ability to resume his baseball career.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who has presided over the entire Balco affair, then took over from James, setting the next routine court date for Feb. 7.
The lead prosecutor in the case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella, said the government may raise questions about whether some of Bonds' lawyers could have a conflict of interest. Parrella didn't specify, but Arguedas has represented six athletes who have appeared before the Balco grand jury. Bonds' defense lawyers said they do not expect the issue to present serious problems.
Bonds left the courthouse again without speaking to reporters, but stopped to hug his aging aunt, Rosie Bonds Kreidler, who was waiting for him in the lobby. They chatted for a few moments, Bonds flashed a smile, and he disappeared from the building into an awaiting sport-utility vehicle.
Bonds just finalized his defense team this week, after searching for a top-flight defense lawyer to replace Michael Rains, an East Bay lawyer who has represented Bonds since the early stages of the Balco investigation, but has little federal criminal trial experience. Rains was relegated to a bit part Friday.
Ruby, considered Silicon Valley's leading trial lawyer, appeared to take on the lead role for Bonds. Ruby has handled high-profile cases for decades, most recently getting San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales off the hook on public corruption charges related to the Norcal garbage scandal. Arguedas has a blue-chip list of clients. Bonds also added San Francisco attorney Dennis Riordan to his team.
Riordan has handled blockbuster cases ranging from the Phil Spector murder trial to the infamous San Francisco dog mauling trial. And, in a sign that there will be plenty of legal wrangling before and after the trial, he specializes in crafting legal motions and handling appeals.
Bonds is accused of lying to federal prosecutors in four separate exchanges when he testified before the grand jury investigating Balco. That probe has produced a number of indictments.
Prosecutors spent several years on the investigation into whether Bonds perjured himself before the grand jury, delayed in part by the refusal of Bonds' friend and personal trainer Greg Anderson to testify. Anderson spent the better part of a year in federal prison after a judge found him in contempt.
Anderson, who pleaded guilty in the original Balco case and is suspected of supplying Bonds and other athletes with steroids, could be called again to testify if Bonds goes to trial. Anderson's lawyers insist he'll never testify against Bonds.
Perjury cases are notoriously hard to prove, and likely witnesses include Bonds' former girlfriend, Kimberly Bell; his former doctor; and other athletes implicated in the Balco scandal. The indictment also revealed for the first time that prosecutors obtained evidence that Bonds tested positive for steroids in a 2000 drug test. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court turns down PG&E appeal
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/11 06:24
|
The Supreme Court on Monday, without comment, turned down an appeal by PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in a case that centers on whether federal energy regulators have authority over municipalities. At issue in the dispute is whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can order municipal government entities that aren't public utilities -- but that buy and sell electricity -- to issue refunds. The agency can order utilities to pay such refunds if it determines they sold power at 'unjust and unreasonable' prices.
Prices for electricity soared in California's auction markets during the 2000-2001 energy crisis. FERC eventually imposed price caps and ordered sellers to pay refunds to utilities, such as PG&E, that were forced to purchase power at inflated prices.
Municipalities, such as the California cities of Burbank, Pasadena and Palo Alto, among others, argued that FERC didn't have the authority to order them to pay refunds.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the municipalities and ruled against PG&E in 2005.
The Bush administration, meanwhile, urged the Supreme Court to reject the case. The Justice Department's Solicitor General said that energy legislation approved by Congress in 2005 gave FERC limited authority, going forward, to order refunds in some cases from municipalities. As a result, the issues raised by the case are 'of minimal ongoing importance,' Peter Clement, the Solicitor General, wrote.
The court's decision lets the appeals court ruling stand.
The case is Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration, 07-155. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals Court Upholds Patriot Act Ruling
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/11 06:22
|
| A federal appeals court ruled that some portions of the U.S. Patriot Act dealing with foreign terrorist organizations are unconstitutional because the language is too vague to be understood by a person of average intelligence. The ruling released Monday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirms a 2005 decision by U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins, who ruled on a petition seeking to clear the way for U.S. groups and individuals to assist political organizations in Turkey and Sri Lanka. Collins said language in the Patriot Act was vague on matters involving training, expert advice or assistance, personnel and service to foreign terrorist organizations. Her ruling prevented the federal government from enforcing those provisions as they apply to the terrorist groups named in the lawsuit. Without clear language, the plaintiffs argued, those who provide assistance to foreign terrorist organizations could be subject to prison terms of up to 15 years. Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said his agency was reviewing the ruling to determine a response. In its 27-page decision, the appeals court said that to survive a vagueness challenge, a statute "must be sufficiently clear to put a person of ordinary intelligence on notice that his or her contemplated conduct is unlawful." The language covered by the ruling remained unconstitutionally vague despite Congressional amendments to the Patriot Act meant to remedy the problems, the appeals court ruled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wineries Fight State Shipping Laws
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/10 09:52
|
Unionville Vineyards plans to expand by planting more pinot noir and adding Rhone varietals next year, but winemaker Cameron Stark knows he's fighting an uphill battle.
He recognizes New Jersey's reputation as a wine producer isn't exactly that of California or even Oregon. But vineyards here and in a dozen other states face another hurdle because of their states' stringent wine shipping laws, which wineries say are stymieing their growth and consumers say are limiting their choices.
"If laws changed, I think it would dramatically affect our business," said Stark, who came to Unionville from Napa Valley.
Many regions across the country are trying to become another Napa Valley or Sonoma, with wine industries that attract tourists.
But laws in some states still prohibit wineries from shipping directly to consumers, two years after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling led many to believe that all states would allow vineyards to ship wine directly to consumers across the country.
The Supreme Court ruling overturned laws in New York and Michigan that prohibited consumers from buying wine directly from out-of-state wineries. Wineries and consumers had sued, alleging those states violated the Constitution because they allowed in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers but prevented shipments from out-of-state.
The court said either all wineries should be allowed to ship directly to consumers or none, but each state still decides whether to allow shipments.
In the states where direct shipping is still banned, it often amounts to battle between wineries that want new customers and wholesalers who want to keep the system intact where intermediaries are a required step between wineries and customers. Wineries can also keep more profit if they don't rely on a wholesaler or retail store.
Allowing direct shipping would add another benefit for less prominent regions whose wines haven't been reviewed by influential wine publications, which don't want to write about wines that aren't accessible to everyone, said Jim Trezise, president of the New York Wine & Grape Foundation.
"In order to get broad-based respect, you need national distribution," he said. "You can get respect, but it's narrowly focused with the few people who can get your wines."
The ruling and a subsequent new state law allowed New Yorkers to receive wine from California and other states.
At the same time, it also opened channels of commerce to allow consumers in other states to directly receive New York wines, Trezise said. He noted that last year, the Finger Lakes region of New York State and the North Fork of Long Island landed on the cover of Wine Spectator.
That's attention emerging regions can only dream about.
Curtis Wallin, owner of Holly Ridge Winery in Livingston, Tenn., said the Internet has spurred interest from potential customers around the country, and he would like to be able to ship to whoever wants to buy his 35 varieties of wine. He said legislators in Tennessee aren't pushing for changing the shipping laws.
"We'd see between 30 and 40 percent increase of sales," said Wallin, who produces about 1,500 cases annually. "We're just a small winery and that's why shipping would mean a lot to us."
Bill Nelson, president of WineAmerica, the national trade association of American wineries, said bills died in Arkansas and Oklahoma this year, but there is legislative interest in a few states for next year.
One of those is New Jersey. About 3.3 percent of the nation's table wine — or 11.5 million cases, according the 2006 Adams Wine Handbook — was consumed last year in the Garden State, making it the most populous state with restrictive shipping laws, Nelson said.
Wineries in New Jersey cannot ship wine, and consumers cannot receive direct shipments from any state, including New Jersey.
With nearly three dozen wineries and more opening next year, New Jersey is looking to promote wine as an economic development strategy, said state Agriculture Secretary Charles Kuperus.
State Senator Ray Lesniak and Assemblyman John Burzichelli, who chair economic development committees, say they support changes to the shipping laws.
"I think a free flow of goods and services is good for the economy and good for the consumer," said Lesniak, who favors wines from Bordeaux and Burgundy. "The more we restrict trade, the less quality of services you get and the higher the price to the consumer and it damages the economy."
Burzichelli said he doesn't agree with the argument that shipping wine is a public safety concern because of arguments that underage drinkers would buy wine on the Internet.
"I grew up in households where there were barrels of homemade wines in the basement," he said.
They're likely to find opposition from New Jersey wholesalers. Lobbyist Jeffrey Warsh said wholesalers' concerns are public safety and taxation, and not losing their cut of profits.
"I'm surprised that the public safety concerns are so minimized in favor of commercial interests," he said.
He said wholesalers wouldn't be affected by the "small, obscure vineyards producing small batches of product."
But those are the exactly types of wines that Matt Wagner would like to have shipped to him from California: Kosta Browne and Merry Edwards Wines in Sonoma or Robert Hall Winery in Paso Robles.
"Basically, I can't get the wine I want," said Wagner, 29, of North Plainfield, N.J.
He enjoys boutique wines with small production that aren't sold in local stores. He also wants to buy directly from vineyards he and his wife have visited on vacations.
"There are ways around it," he said. "If you have relatives who live in Illinois, you can say, 'Hey, hold on to it until I see you next year.'"
Unlike New Jersey, Illinois allows direct shipping from wineries to consumers.
A 2003 federal lawsuit working its way through the court system in New Jersey also says consumers cannot get the wine they want because of shipping laws.
New shipping laws would help wineries as they try to grow, said Tom Sharko, owner of Alba Vineyard in Finesville, N.J., which produces about 13,000 cases per year with 60 percent of sales at the winery. He is planting more chardonnay, Riesling and pinot noir on his 93 1/2 acres, adding to foch, chambourcin and cayuga grapes.
He'd like to start a wine club and ship a few bottles per month to customers on a mailing list.
"There are wine clubs in California that sell their whole production that way," he said. "Instead of relying totally on a New Jersey base for customers, we would have a United States base of customers." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Battle Looms over Nina Wang's Estate
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/10 09:41
|
A High Court judge in Hong Kong Monday appointed an administrator to oversee the estate of Asia's richest woman, the late Nina Wang, ahead of an anticipated court battle over her fortune estimated to be at least 4.2 billion dollars.
Wang, 69, the former chairwoman of the Chinachem property empire, died of cancer in April, apparently leaving her entire fortune to a part-time feng shui master Chan Chun Cheun.
The will is being challenged by relatives acting through a Chinachem charitable foundation and judge Andrew Cheung said at a hearing Monday he expected a 'protracted' litigation over the huge fortune.
Speaking after the hearing, Chan's solicitor Jonathan Midgley, who had sought an administration order on behalf of Chan, said he still hoped the case could be settled outside court.
Wang was named as the richest woman in Asia in 2006 with a fortune estimated at 4.2 billion dollars, although some estimates suggested her real worth may have been closer to 13 billion dollars.
With no children of her own, Wang wrote a new will in 2006, two years after her ovarian cancer was diagnosed, making 48-year-old Chan her sole beneficiary.
However, her sisters and other relatives filed suit to fight for her estate, which was originally shared between charities and family members in an earlier 2002 will.
Chan is an expert in feng shui, the ancient Chinese practice of placement and arrangement of space to achieve harmony with the environment, and is consulted by property developers for readings.
Wang herself died only shortly after winning an eight-year legal battle over the fortune of her husband Teddy, which she inherited after he was kidnapped in 1990 and later declared dead when no trace of him was ever found.
She built his company, Chinachem, up into a multi-billion-dollar business empire, but initially lost a probate battle with her father-in-law.
In a 2002 hearing, Hong Kong's High Court heard claims that Nina Wang had an affair in the 1960s which led Teddy to cut her out of his will, although they remained married.
Appellate court judges initially ruled she had probably forged the will of her late husband and, after the ruling, police charged Nina Wang with forgery.
The charges were dropped, however, after Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal overturned the probate decision and ruled there was no evidence to support the claim that Wang had forged the will.
Despite her enormous wealth, Wang, who had her hair in pigtails and wore mini-skirts well into her 60s, was notoriously frugal, once claiming she needed only around 400 dollars a month to live. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court mulls racial bias in juror selection
Breaking Legal News |
2007/12/05 07:44
|
| A deeply torn Supreme Court on Tuesday probed the actions of a Louisiana prosecutor who eliminated all blacks from a jury pool, then invoked the O.J. Simpson case in urging the all-white jury to sentence a black man to death. Prosecutor James Williams said the "perpetrator" in that famous California case "got away with it." Allen Snyder, who was then sentenced to die for killing his estranged wife's friend, claims the prosecutor unconstitutionally excluded prospective black jurors. Snyder said the prosecutor's reference during the 1996 trial to Simpson, who a year earlier was acquitted of killing his ex-wife and her friend, helped reveal his biased intent. The justices appeared divided over the case, which could clarify standards for defendants who claim racial bias in jury selection. An overriding question is how deeply appeals courts should scrutinize the circumstances when a prosecutor purges blacks from a jury and a judge accepts the reasons as race-neutral, for example, that a potential juror seemed nervous. A 1986 case, Batson v. Kentucky, bars prosecutors from using their allotted "peremptory," or discretionary, challenges during jury selection to strike someone because of race. The justices have emphasized in recent rulings that the exclusion of minorities undermines the integrity of the justice system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
