|
|
|
9 Year Old Pleads Guilty In Father's Shooting Death
Headline Legal News |
2009/02/20 09:27
|
Now that the charges against a 9-year-old boy accused in a double homicide have been resolved, attorneys in the case say they are hopeful he will receive the treatment he needs to move past the incident and have a chance at a normal life.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys say treatment options were a vital part of a plea agreement the boy signed Thursday. He had faced two counts of premeditated murder in the deaths of his father and his father's roommate. He pleaded guilty to negligent homicide in the death of 39-year-old Timothy Romans, and the murder charge stemming from the death of his father, 29-year-old Vincent Romero, was dropped.
"I think this experience probably can change an individual, and I'm hoping this doesn't tremendously change him," said defense attorney Benjamin Brewer. "To be as normal a kid as possible, it would be something we'd like to strive for."
Apache County Attorney Michael Whiting said prosecutors had two options in the case: proceed and risk that the boy be found incompetent and receive no treatment or have him enter a plea agreement.
"We discussed that and felt better that he be under the state's care, that he get treatment," he said.
The boy has not been sentenced. Apache County Superior Court Judge Michael Roca will decide whether the boy will serve time in a county juvenile facility, be institutionalized for treatment or live with relatives.
The boy's plea spares the rural community of about 4,000 from what would have been an emotional trial and prevents the boy from serving time in the state juvenile corrections system or being tried as an adult.
He was polite in court and was never asked to explain any motive for the killings.
Defense attorney Ron Wood said the plea deal was a compromise that wouldn't please everyone.
"I don't know it was the best thing. That remains to be seen," he said. "This resolution of the case causes more potential for working out in (the boy's) favor."
The boy's mother cried throughout the hearing and, through her lawyer, objected to the plea deal. But Superior Court Judge Michael Roca accepted it.
In court Thursday, the boy was more talkative and relaxed than in previous hearings, laughing and chatting with his lawyer and mother.
But his demeanor became more serious as the hearing got under way. The judge questioned him for nearly half an hour, about whether he understood his rights, the terms of the plea agreement and the consequences.
The boy answered respectfully and politely, using "yes, sir" or "no, sir" in most cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Soul Man" Sues MGM and The Weinstein Co.
Court Watch |
2009/02/19 09:00
|
Sam Moore, "The Legendary Soul Man," sued The Weinstein Co. and MGM Studios for trademark infringement, privacy invasion and unfair competition, saying the studios made an offensive movie allegedly based on his life, called "Soul Men." Moore and the late Dave Prater - Sam & Dave - sang the immortal ditties, "Soul Man," "Hold On, I'm Comin'" and others.
Moore sued The Weinstein Company dba Dimension Films, MGM Studios, Genius Products, Concord Music Group, Harvey Weinstein, and Bob Weinstein.
The federal complaint states: "In early 2008, Sam Moore learned from a press release that TWC and the Weinsteins were producing a new film entitled 'Soul Men' about a lack duo from the 1960s that broke apart and was reunited after a long separation to perform a tribute at the famed Apollo Theater. The movie's title, theme, characters and music (the Memphis sound which became synonymous with Stax Records) immediately raised suspicions that the lead characters of the movie were being passed off as 'Sam and Dave.'"
He claims the movie contains "many references to Sam Moore." He claims that the "shooting script," which Moore apparently obtained, includes the direction: "(O)ver the opening credits 'The infectious, foot tapping sounds of 'Sam & Dave' rendition of 'Sweet Soul Music' plays over the credits. While that song plays, the script then provides for vintage footage to place the movie's lead characters, the singing duo The Real Deal, into their era - the 1960s and 1970s."
Sam & Dave were a hit act from 1961 to 1971. The complaint cites numerous other parts of the shooting script to substantiate the claim that the film is based on Sam & Dave. Moore claims that the movie and ads for it have been "highly damaging to Sam Moore, because among other things, the movie is filled with incessant, gratuitous and offensive language; the movie contains unnecessary, inappropriate and vulgar sexual content; the lead character identified with Sam Moore engages in the criminal use of a handgun; the lead characters' musical performances, most particularly Sam & Dave song, 'Hold On I'm Comin',' are so poor as to make a mockery of Sam Moore's talent; and the characters engage in the use of constant, repeated and despicable racial slurs and epithets."
Moore alleges conspiracy, trademark violation and dilution, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, deceptive competition, unfair publicity and privacy invasion. He wants all copies of the movie and all products associated with it recalled, plus punitive damages and disclaimers.
Moore is represented by Steven Zralek with Bone McAllester & Norton. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Sues Microsoft for Vista to XP $104 Downgrade
Court Watch |
2009/02/13 08:55
|
A federal class action claims Microsoft used its market power to force consumers to buy computers with a pre-installed, clunky and defective Windows Vista operating system, forcing them to spend more money to "downgrade" to the more reliable Windows XP. The class claims Microsoft extended its $104 "downgrade" offer twice, to reap "tremendous profits" from it.
"Microsoft prohibited its OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] Dell/HP/Sony etc. from selling new computers with Windows XP operating systems pre-installed," the class claims. They say Microsoft made it impossible for consumers to buy new computers with Windows XP, but charged $104 extra to downgrade from Vista to XP. Microsoft extended its $104 downgrade offer twice, most recently until July 31, 2009, to reap "tremendous profits" from the combination of clunky new system and relatively better old one, the complaint states. It claims that nearly 1 in 3 people who buy a computer with Vista downgrade to XP.
The Windows Vista operating system, released on Jan. 31, 2007, was not well received.
Plaintiffs claim Microsoft controls 90% of the "relevant market," and announced on July 18, 2007, that it had sold more than 180 Vista licenses - totting up gross sales of $30 billion to $60 billion from it. "However, these figures are believed to include Vista licenses that are downgraded to Windows XP."
The complaint claims Microsoft "willfully acquired monopoly power and have maintained such monopoly control over the relevant market by suppressing competition in the Intel-compatible PC operating systems software market through restrictive and exclusionary conduct. Defendants suppressed competition with the specific intent of acquiring and obtaining such monopoly power."
They claim Microsoft fixed prices for Windows XP at "supra-competitive levels" and forced consumers to downgrade to it due to the clunky Vista program.
They claim, "Microsoft prohibited its OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] Dell/HP/Sony etc. from selling new computers with Windows XP operating systems pre-installed."
The class demands treble damages for unfair business practices and state antitrust violations. Plaintiffs are represented by Beth Terrell with Terrell Marshall & Daudi. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruth Madoff Could be a Conspirator in Ponzi Scheme
Court Watch |
2009/02/12 11:32
|
Ruth Madoff, the wife of disgraced money manager Bernard Madoff could face conspiracy charges if it is proven that she knew about her husband’s massive Wall Street money scam and purposely tried to hide assets before he was arrested.
“I fully expect her to be named [in civil lawsuits] shortly,” said Adam Rabin, a Florida attorney who represents individuals victimized by Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
New court documents released Wednesday revealed Ruth Madoff, 67, withdrew $10 million from one of her husband’s company bank accounts on Dec. 10, 2008, the day before he was arrested on federal fraud charges. Two weeks earlier, on Nov. 25, 2008, she withdrew $5.5 million from the same account.
“It certainly raises questions,” said the Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who discovered the wire transactions as part of an investigation into the Boston-based company Cohmad Securities which Bernard Madoff co-owns. Secretary Galvin has determined that Cohmad was an extension of Madoff’s New York investment firm funneling in as much as $67 million a month from investors.
“In order to be guilty of a conspiracy [either criminal or civil] you don’t have to know all the details of a scheme,” said attorney Ryon McCabe, Rabin’s partner and former federal prosecutor. McCabe argues that if prosecutors want to hold Ruth Madoff legally responsible “all the government would have to do is prove that she knew [about the scam] and on at least one occasion took part” by withdrawing money just before the scheme was exposed.
As of right now, Ruth Madoff is not named in the federal case against her husband. However, Rabin believes that could change. The new revelations “could be used to put pressure on her to assist with the investigation.”
This is not the first move by Ruth Madoff that has raised eyebrows. A CBS News investigation that aired on Jan. 30 discovered Bernard Madoff's wife also took steps before her husband’s arrest to protect their $9.5 million Palm Beach, Florida home from being taken away in a bankruptcy proceeding. A unique Florida “homestead” law allows some homes to be shielded from creditors. Property records, obtained exclusively by CBS News show Ruth tried to get "homestead" status in 2006 at the same time federal authorities were probing Bernard Madoff. Her initial application in 2006 was rejected. She then reapplied on September 18, 2008, less than two months before federal authorities detained her husband.
“She may have been trying to get the homestead status to protect her home from civil creditors,” said Ryon.
Attorney Ira Lee Sorkin who represents both Bernard and Ruth Madoff declined to comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Life Lawsuit - "Infanticide" Claims
Headline Legal News |
2009/02/11 10:11
|
A Chicago-based pro-life law center has launched a law suit against staff of a clinic involved in a botched late-term abortion in hopes it will result in charges of "infanticide" and "change public opinion" about this controversial procedure.
The Thomas More Society said the law suit was filed last month on behalf of a young woman, Sycloria Williams, whose baby was allegedly killed by staff members of Hialeah clinic, Worthy News learned Tuesday, February 11.
The Florida Board of Medicine already revoked the license of Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique on charges of medical malpractice, delegation of responsibility to unlicensed personnel and failing to keep an accurate medical record.
Renelique arrived too late at a Hialeah clinic to perform an abortion on eighteen year-old Williams back on July 20, 2006, who instead managed to deliver her live baby.
The civil lawsuit claims that that while the baby, Shanice Osbourne, was still trying to breathe, Belkis Gonzalez – a staff member who had no medical license – came into the room and cut the umbilical cord. Gonzalez then allegedly "scooped up the baby” and the afterbirth, placed everything in a red biohazard bag, sealed it and tossed the bag into the trash.
A series of anonymous calls led police to discover the baby's body in a cardboard box in a clinic closet one week later, according to investigators. An autopsy apparently revealed that Williams' baby had air in her lungs and was trying to breath; the cause of death was said to be extreme prematurity.
"Its infanticide," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, which investigated the case. "We're trying to make sure we don't tolerate infanticide here," Brejcha told the Baptist Press news agency. "The baby was gasping for air. They used a pair of shears and didn't tie (the cord) up so the baby was going to bleed to death. They treated the baby like a piece of garbage."
The suit against Renelique, Gonzalez and other clinic staff claims wrongful death, medical negligence and personal injury; it was filed by a local counsel hired by the Thomas More Society.
Brejcha said the suit is intended to "pressure prosecutors to file murder charges," but to date, no criminal charges have been filed in the case. However, the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office is reportedly investigating the matter.
"Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, we can all agree that this is tragic and morally reprehensible," Florida State House Majority Leader Adam Hasner said in a statement, monitored by Worthy News Tuesday, February 11. "Administrative action against the physician by the Department of Health is not enough, anything less than murder charges being filed is unacceptable."
State Representative Rachel Burgin added that Florida's safe-haven law would have allowed the baby to be dropped off anonymously at any hospital and eventually adopted if she survived.
Williams was originally scheduled to receive a dilation and evacuation, which involves dismembering the baby while still in the womb, Worthy News learned.
"The degree of barbaric medical malpractice in this case is absolutely astonishing," explained Brejcha. "And that's something that pro-life people should not be hesitant to let the world know about, because the abortion industry is keeping that quiet and talking about safe, legal abortion. It's never safe for the baby." |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
