|
|
|
John Murtha Immune from Defamation Suit
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/14 13:50
|
Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha is immune from a defamation lawsuit over statements he made to the press, allegedly accusing U.S. Marines of slaughtering 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005, the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich said Murtha damaged his reputation by telling reporters that Wuterich and his fellow Marines massacred civilian men, women and children in cold blood in Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005.
On Nov. 19, 2005, a roadside bomb detonated, killing a member of Wuterich's squad. Two dozen Iraqi civilians were killed in the ensuing fight. Iraqi witnesses said Marines slaughtered people in the street and in their homes to avenge their fallen comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. Charges were brought against eight Marines, including four who were charged with murder. Many of the charges were later dropped.
In the wake of Haditha, Murtha gave a series of interviews to news outlets such as CNN and NPR. Wuterich said the congressman's statements "provide the impression, implicitly or explicitly, that SSgt. Wuterich and others deliberately murdered innocent Iraqi civilians in a cold-blooded massacre" and "inappropriately compared the tragic events of Haditha with the infamous war crimes and deliberate wide-spread massacre of civilians at My Lai in Vietnam."
Murtha invoked the Westfall Act, which extends absolute immunity to federal employees acting in the course of their official duties. He also pointed to the fact that the attorney general's office had certified that his statements fell within the scope of his duties.
But the district court refused to certify the action under the Westfall Act pending discovery.
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., vacated the order denying certification and remanded with instructions to substitute the United States for Murtha as the defendant.
Senior Judge Edwards found insufficient evidence that Murtha's actions clearly exceeded the scope of his employment.
Further, Edwards said the case should be dismissed, because "the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for Wuterich's tort claims." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't revive Va. anti-spam law
Topics in Legal News |
2009/03/31 09:40
|
The Supreme Court will not consider reinstating Virginia's anti-spam law, among the nation's toughest in banning unsolicited e-mails.
The court on Monday said it will leave in place a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that the law was unconstitutional because it prohibited political, religious and other messages in addition to commercial solicitations.
Virginia was the only state to ban noncommerical spam e-mail. The decision also cements the reversal of the conviction of Jeremy Jaynes, who once was considered one of the world's most prolific spammers. Jaynes bombarded Internet users with millions of pieces of spam, all of it commercial. In 2004, Jaynes became the first person in the U.S. to be convicted of a felony for sending unsolicited bulk e-mail. He was sentenced to nine years but is currently serving time in federal prison on an unrelated conviction for securities fraud. The case is Virginia v. Jaynes, 08-765. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feds appeal ruling in oil royalties case
Legal Business |
2009/03/30 09:41
|
| The federal government on Monday asked a group of appeals court judges to overturn a ruling that could prevent the U.S. Interior Department from collecting billions in royalties on oil and natural gas leases. In January, a smaller three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that said the Interior Department could not collect royalties from eight deepwater leases held by Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in the Gulf of Mexico. The leases were obtained between 1996 and 2000 by Kerr-McGee Corp., which Anadarko later acquired. Government lawyers are now asking for an "en banc" review of the case, bringing it before the entire New Orleans-based 5th Circuit. A court spokesman said the circuit has 17 active judges. At issue is interpretation of a 1995 federal law designed to provide a break from royalties at a time when oil and natural gas prices were extremely low. The law waived all royalty payments until a specific amount of oil and gas was produced. The Interior Department has contended it had the authority to lift the royalty relief once prices reached a certain level. The law became particularly prickly as oil prices rose and oil companies began posting huge profits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida Foreclosure Law Firm Helps Clients
Press Release |
2009/03/23 09:31
|
The two-year-long meltdown in real estate values and sales has generated confusing options confronting property owners fearful of losing their homes as they fall behind in mortgage payments.
One well-known Tampa Bay law firm, which specializes in helping clients avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes, has recognized the growing "vogue" of mortgage modifications: the simple-sounding but complex process of working with lending institutions to decrease mortgage principals or interest rates, or extend the time for mortgage loan repayment, all of which decrease the financial burden on homeowners.
At its best, it is a good solution for some, says Shawn Yesner, managing partner in the firm of Yesner & Boss (www.YesnerBoss.com). At worst, it is a scam that can plunge desperate homeowners even deeper into the mortgage morass.
"Our goal for our clients is to make it possible for them to keep their homes with an affordable modification, or at least to reduce or eliminate their liability under their loans," said Yesner. "We don't want to add to their financial burdens, so we keep our rates low, much lower than fees demanded by 'foreclosure-rescue' scammers. Our work always includes legal services provided by a Florida-licensed attorney who specializes in foreclosure issues."
Yesner cautions that mortgage modifications are not a quick-fix for everyone. Many mortgages that are modified still go into default in a matter of months. Yet, the advantages for the property owner with a successful modification is being able to keep the home at an affordable monthly price. The incentive for the lender is the opportunity to turn a non-performing loan back into a good investment and sidestep foreclosure action in which the lender winds up owning a property it cannot sell while maintenance costs keep growing.
"So many people are desperate to save their homes they are vulnerable to scammers," said Christopher Boss, a partner in the firm Yesner & Boss. "Any time a company guarantees results, it should raise a huge red flag. And Florida law requires that homeowners be given certain disclosure documents. If they aren't provided, that should be a huge red flag." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribe Loses Battle over Land
Headline Legal News |
2009/03/19 11:01
|
An Oklahoma Indian tribe is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery in its attempt to regain control of land the federal government used for a military base, the D.C. Circuit ruled.
The Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma sued the United States to quiet title to land that President Chester Arthur had used for Fort Reno.
The Army stopped using Fort Reno in the 1930s, and the tribe claimed a reversionary interest. The two sides settled in 1965, and the government paid the tribe $15 million for the land.
The tribe sued to quiet title in 2004. The government argued that the settlement precluded any future quiet title actions, and that the 10-year statute of limitations had expired.
The district court dismissed, denying the tribe's motion to permit discovery of when the military stopped using Fort Reno. The court pointed to several times that the tribe should have known of government action that was adverse to its reversionary interests.
Judge Griffith upheld the decision.
"We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery, given the absence of any specific indication from the Tribes regarding what facts additional discovery could produce that would affect the court's jurisdictional analysis." |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
