|
|
|
Lawyer for NY man suing Facebook wants out of case
Topics in Legal News |
2012/11/06 10:41
|
The latest lawyer to represent a New York man in what authorities now say is a fraudulent lawsuit against Facebook is seeking to withdraw from the case.
Dean Boland, in a motion filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Buffalo, did not publicly say why he wants off Paul Ceglia's case, instead providing the reason in a private document to the judge.
The Lakewood, Ohio, lawyer did say, however, it has nothing to do with any belief that Ceglia engaged in fraud.
Given media coverage of the case, Boland wrote, "it is important to emphasize in the strongest terms possible, that the reasons underlying this request, provided to the court for its review, have nothing to do with any belief by the undersigned that plaintiff is engaged in now or has been engaged in during the past, fraud regarding this case."
Boland is among more than a half dozen lawyers and law firms to have signed on and then withdrawn from Ceglia's 2010 lawsuit. Ceglia claims in the suit that he's entitled to half-ownership of Menlo Park, Calif.-based Facebook based on a 2003 contract with founder Mark Zuckerberg when he was still at Harvard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Navy lawyer goes before Kan. Supreme Court
Court News |
2012/10/27 13:41
|
A former Navy lawyer who was convicted during a court martial in 2007 for mailing secret information about Guantanamo Bay detainees is seeking to get his law license reinstated in Kansas.
Attorneys for Matthew Diaz will argue on Thursday before the Kansas Supreme Court to accept a recommendation from the Office of Judicial Administration to suspend his law license for three years effective 2008. Because of the timeline, Diaz would be reinstated with the Kansas bar.
The disciplinary hearing panel said Diaz warranted "significant discipline" for his actions, which included the act of printing and sending classified information and sending it to an unauthorized person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Italian court convicts 7 for no quake warning
Legal Interview |
2012/10/25 13:41
|
Defying assertions that earthquakes cannot be predicted, an Italian court convicted seven scientists and experts of manslaughter Monday for failing to adequately warn residents before a temblor struck central Italy in 2009 and killed more than 300 people.
The court in L'Aquila also sentenced the defendants to six years each in prison. All are members of the national Great Risks Commission, and several are prominent scientists or geological and disaster experts.
Scientists had decried the trial as ridiculous, contending that science has no reliable way of predicting earthquakes. So news of the verdict shook the tightknit community of earthquake experts worldwide.
"It's a sad day for science," said seismologist Susan Hough, of the U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena, Calif. "It's unsettling." That fellow seismic experts in Italy were singled out in the case "hits you in the gut," Hough added.
In Italy, convictions aren't definitive until after at least one level of appeals, so it is unlikely any of the defendants would face jail immediately.
Other Italian public officials and experts have been put on trial for earthquake-triggered damage, such as the case in southern Italy for the collapse of a school in a 2002 quake in which 27 children and a teacher were killed. But that case centered on allegations of shoddy construction of buildings in quake-prone areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY appeals court nixes Defense of Marriage Act
Court Watch |
2012/10/22 14:50
|
Saying the gay population has "suffered a history of discrimination,"
a divided federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled Thursday that a
federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was
unconstitutional, adding fuel to an issue expected to reach the U.S.
Supreme Court soon.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed interested in adding its
voice to several other rulings already at the high court's doorstep by
issuing its 2-to-1 decision only three weeks after hearing arguments
on a lower court judge's findings that the 1996 law was
unconstitutional.
In a majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs, the 2nd Circuit,
like a federal appeals court in Boston before it, found no reason the
Defense of Marriage Act could be used to deny benefits to married gay
couples. It supported a lower court ruling after a woman sued the
government in 2010, saying the law required her to pay $363,053 in
federal estate tax after her partner of 44 years died.
Jacobs, though, went beyond the Boston court, saying discrimination
against gays should be scrutinized by the courts in the same
heightened way as discrimination faced by women was in the 1970s. At
the time, he noted, they faced widespread discrimination in the
workplace and elsewhere. The heightened scrutiny, as it is referred to
in legal circles, would mean government discrimination against gays
would be assumed to be unconstitutional.
"The question is not whether homosexuals have achieved political
successes over the years; they clearly have. The question is whether
they have the strength to politically protect themselves from wrongful
discrimination," said Jacobs, who was appointed to the bench in 1992
by President George H.W. Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court won't block early voting in Ohio
Court News |
2012/10/19 14:50
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for voters in the
battleground state of Ohio to cast ballots on the three days before
Election Day, giving Democrats and President Barack Obama's campaign a
victory three weeks before the election.
The court refused a request by the state's Republican elections chief
and attorney general to get involved in a battle over early voting.
Ohio is among 34 states, plus the District of Columbia, where people
can vote early without giving any reason. About 30 percent of the
swing state's total vote — or roughly 1.7 million ballots — came in
before Election Day in 2008. Crucial to Obama's win that year was
early voting in Ohio, North Carolina and Florida.
Obama won Ohio four years ago, but Republican rival Mitt Romney is
making a strong play for it this year. No GOP candidate has won the
White House without Ohio in his column.
Obama's campaign and Ohio Democrats had sued state officials over
changes in state law that took away the three days of voting for most
people but made exceptions for military personnel and Ohioans living
overseas.
Their lawsuit cited a recent study saying nearly 105,000 people voted
in the three days before the election in 2008, and they argued
everyone should have the chance to vote on those days. They also said
eliminating the opportunity for most Ohio residents to vote in person
on those days, while giving military or overseas voters the chance to
do so, leads to unequal treatment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
