Thursday, July 31, 2014

Welcome Back, Spitzer

Nature abhors a vacuum, and Eliot Spitzer didn't have much to do after his foray into TV punditry crashed and burned, a few times. It was a match made in...New York.  The disgraced former governor, marauding attorney general, overly ambitious assistant district attorney, horn-dog hypocrite and liar, now wants to do the books for New York City.

Well, not really do the books, as he wants to use the oversight authority of the Comptroller's office to once again become the sheriff of something. He got a lot of mileage out of playing sheriff, as the public loves the pretense of someone in public officer "fixing" the people they hate. Few were able to create targets of derision better than Spitzer, enough so that when he used bazookas to go after flies, even innocent flies, the only sound from the groundlings was applause.

At Cato, Walter Olson reminds us of who this Spitzer guy was before his fall from grace. But hubris never takes a day off, so Spitzer made his pitch:

On “CBS This Morning,” Spitzer said, “I sinned, I owned up to it, I looked them in the eye, I resigned, I held myself accountable. I think that was the only right thing to do. There’s a record there that I hope they will look to and say, ‘yes, the comptroller’s position is one that fits his skill set and we hope that we can bring him back for public service.’”
Some might think the generous thing to do, particularly from someone inclined toward redemption as befits a criminal defense lawyer, would be to accept his concession of wrongdoing, the price he paid by giving up the post of governor with his wife (could she be described as cuckolded?) forced to stand next to him as if this wasn't a humiliation so far beyond anything she could ever imagine happening to her. 

And yet, while his announcement has produced no end of hilarity in some circles, it should be taken with brutal seriousness.  George Santayana's warning comes to mind, though it strikes me as needing a slight adjustment here. It's not that we've forgotten the past of Eliot Spitzer, but maybe we just can't muster the will to reject him despite the past. There just isn't anyone else around who has enough name recognition, star stature, to interest us, unless Kim Kardashian jumps into the race. 

It's not that there aren't other people whose ideas are worthy of our political consideration, but, heck, Americans need to be spoonfed what they think because critical thought makes our head hurt and takes us away from important bonding time at fast food restaurants and in front of computer gaming consoles.

"Spitzer? Yeah, I remember that name. He was, like, somebody once, right?  Pass me a beer."

Even local newspapers aren't particularly outraged. In fact, because of what the New York Post calls a "talent drought," they are preparing to do what they never do: forgive.  Newsday says his candidacy is "worth a look," a curious position given its rush to convict the amorphous unindicted and forgive the admitted criminal. The Daily News takes a more level headed approach, relating the hard facts of his failures as governor to the job of comptroller to remind people that Spitzer would be a disaster even if he wasn't pond scum otherwise.

Since SJ isn't political, you might wonder why I've written a post about Spitzer, who wouldn't be eligible to vote no less run had he been prosecuted like a regular guy for what he did.  Because Eliot Spitzer would be the first guy, aside from Rudy Giuliani and Joe McCarthy, to string you up for a millisecond of adoration.

Is it unduly hopeful to believe that the age of the popular appeal of the avenging angel is over?  Is it wrong to hope that the public bloodlust for "getting" someone, anyone, so that we can pretend we've rid society of all the people who make our lives unpleasant and can go back to a time when we can only take for ourselves? 

Eliot Spitzer reflected the worst of us. Then he was gone, destroyed by his own hand as the overly righteous should be.  And now he's back?  Will we reject him and all he represents because we've had enough of the avenging angels?  Or are we as still as angry and mindless as we were when he was crowned governor?



Go away, Spitzer. Just go away.

 



© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.

Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/09/welcome-back-spitzer.aspx?ref=rss

local attorney local lawyer local solicitors

Punishment for former Tax Court Judge George Perez stands

The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the Board on Judicial Standards. Former Tax Court Judge George Perez should be censured and his case should be forwarded to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Registration.

The Supreme Court also said it would supervise any future application Perez submits to the Minnesota Bar.

In November 2012, the BJS filed a disciplinary petition against Perez alleging that he failed to issue his opinions in a timely manner, falsified court records to show he had no cases pending, refused to accept new cases and demonstrated a “pattern of delay” in issuing decisions

Chief Justice Lorie Gildea appointed a three member panel to hear the case. That body ruled the BJS proved two of the claims by “clear and convincing evidence”, but did not prove two others.

Among other findings, the panel concluded Perez made “a substantial number of false certifications over an extended period of time.”

For punishment, the panel recommended a nine month suspension, a prohibition on serving out the rest of the term and for Perez to submit monthly status reports on his pending cases. The BJS pushed to have Perez removed from office, effectively ending his judicial career.

None of that mattered however because Perez was up for reappointment. In the waning days Gov. Mark Dayton recommended he not be confirmed. The Minnesota Senate vote was unanimous and Perez’s tenure as a Tax Court judge ended.

But Perez appealed the panel’s decision arguing it was moot because he was no longer a Tax Court Judge and secondly, he argued the BJS did not prove its case. He also claims the damage has been done. He also argues that any discipline should be mitigated because since January 2012, the time when he engaged with the BJS’ investigation, all of his decisions were decided within the three month deadline.

“Judge Perez argues we should not discipline him. He contends his removal from office… and the news media coverage of the panel’s findings constitute sufficient discipline for his misconduct.”

The Supreme Court disagreed with Perez and affirmed the discipline handed down by the panel. Doing so, “protects the integrity of the judicial system and should help restore the public’s confidence.”

Justice David Lillehaug took no part in the decision.

 

 

Source: http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2014/01/15/punishment-for-former-tax-court-judge-george-perez-stands/

corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer criminal defense

All Door Are Definitely Not Alike

doors

Door are similar in that they all lead somewhere. On a plane, though, where they lead is kind of important – the bathroom, or, as reported at theindependent.ie …

Tomasz Mucha (26) had never been on a plane before and drank vodka and beer to steady his nerves before attempting to open the back door of the Ryanair aircraft.

Yeah, unless you’re on the ground, that door is not your average door. But fortunately …

Dublin District Court heard he did not manage to get the door open due to the air pressure.

Whew. Still, the Judge must have thrown the book at this gent.

Judge James Faughnan fined him €200 after the accused said he realised how serious the situation could have been.

And that was after “Mucha … pleaded guilty to being intoxicated on an aircraft and using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour.” Had that happened in the United States, do you think the guy would have been hit with only a 200 euro fine ($270 US)?  You’ll find the source, and more, by clicking here.

 

Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/UFH_Fayr47I/asfd-8.html

patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer

Jared Correia Interviews Legal Marketing Expert Joyce Brafford at the Mass LOMAP Conference

Jared Correia, co-host of The Legal Toolkit on Legal Talk Network, interviews Joyce Brafford about marketing for lawyers at Mass LOMAP's 4th Annual Super Marketing Conference. She recommends that lawyers choose one social media platform, maintain consistent engagement, and be sincere, especially in solo and small firms with more personal clients. Brafford is a Practice Management Advisor with the North Carolina Bar Association, making sure lawyers have access to the technology that can help them run their firms efficiently and professionally.

Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/special-reports/2014/07/jared-correia-interviews-legal-marketing-expert-joyce-brafford-mass-lomap-conference

free attorney consultation free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california

Rights groups condemn Algeria for unfair trial of activists

Two major human rights advocacy groups on Tuesday voiced [HRW press release] their opposition to the "unfair trial" that led to the conviction of 26 Algerian activists on charges of holding an "armed gathering" and violence against the police. Nine activists were sentenced to six months in prison. The remaining 17, convicted in absentia, received prison sentences of two years. Protesters gathered in the Algerian city of Laghouat [official website, in French] on June 8 to protest the government's protocol...

Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/07/rights-organizations-call-algerian-activists-convictions-unfair.php

real estate attorney real estate lawyer solicitor

Zimmerman: No Appeal From The Court of Public Opinion (Update)

George Zimmerman was acquitted on a Saturday night. Keyboards were pounded. Reporters reported. Pundits opined. And the jury in the court of public opinion rendered its verdict.

Almost no criminal lawyer, prosecution or defense, saw a second degree murder conviction coming. Education and experience condemns us to view evidence and law with detached logic, so there is no emotionalism, no reliance on "common sense," to fudge the proof.

While juries regularly reach verdicts that bear little relation to the facts, evidence and applicable law, mostly because it's a deeply flawed system, that didn't happen here. The best discussion of what happened that has been produced thus far comes from the Unwashed Advocate, Eric Mayer, who succinctly lays it out.

Acquittal was the right verdict in this case, no matter how much you feel Zimmerman acted out of prejudice, or how terrible it is that a young man was killed.

But the court of public opinion rendered its opinion on twitter following the verdict. For those who embrace the "wisdom of crowds," consider its holding:

1. Trayvon Martin's family should appeal the verdict, up to the Supreme Court if necessary.
2. On appeal, they can make George Zimmerman testify.
3. Then, George Zimmerman will be convicted because a young man is dead.

It's not that people intentionally determined that the Constitution should be ignored. It's that the crowds have no clue.  Maybe they slept through civics class. Maybe they don't remember. Maybe they don't care. But less than ten days after we celebrated the independence of this nation, the court of public opinion has decided they don't like them.

There will be no appeal because of the double jeopardy clause, which precludes it. Zimmerman did not have to testify, and will never have to testify in a criminal prosecution, because he has the right not to testify. And most sadly, the fact that a young man is dead does not compel the conclusion that someone be convicted of a crime.

So much for the adoration of crowdsourcing, or the desiderata that the public can be entrusted with the handling of the law.  In the court of public opinion, assumption runs rampant, as people get their own "feel" for right and wrong, and then become so entrenched in their own bias that they refuse to consider the hard details of evidence and proof.  People need no trial to tell them what happened. They hear a story and whatever gut reaction they have to it becomes their reality.

As it turns out, much of what was told about the death of Trayvon Martin is either false or mired in mystery. When left with the proposition that we will never know what "really" happened, the significance is that the prosecution then lacks evidence to prove its case.  But Trayvon is dead, so it's unfair since he can't tell his side of the story?  True, but that doesn't change the requirement that a defendant be proven guilty. The rule is not proof if its available, assumption if it's not. Except in the court of public opinion.

Is there nothing left to do? There is the possibility of a civil suit for wrongful death by Trayvon Martin's family, just as Nicole Brown Simpson's family sued O.J. The standard of proof is lower, "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the outcome will be money damages at worst, not conviction of a crime and imprisonment.

There is also the possibility of a prosecution in federal court for violating Trayvon Martin's civil right to live by shooting him, under the dreaded dual sovereignty that allows the feds a shot if the state fails to convict. That's what happened to LAPD Sgt. Stacey Koon in the Rodney King beating. 

Will either of these happen? Time will tell. The former seems far more likely than the latter, but Trayvon's family may be more legally sophisticated by this point, such that they realize the difficulty that exists with providing evidence to prove their claim.  It's not that they can't believe, but they can't prove.

As show trials go, this one has generated plenty of fodder for television heads to fill the empty minutes between commercials.  But it has also shown that the court of public opinion can't be trusted. Americans still don't understand their own system. They don't get that the rights they want for themselves have to be given to people they despise as well. They refuse to accept that someone they feel with absolute certainty is guilty can be properly acquitted.

Did George Zimmerman have hate in his heart? Who knows. I don't. Neither do you, no matter how strongly you believe you do. But he wasn't proven to have killed Trayvon Martin because of his ill will toward a young black man, and when that happens under our system, acquittal must follow. Yet the court of public opinion refused to accept the verdict, instead pushing its million member jury deeper into ignorance.

There is one truth that neither conviction nor acquittal can change:

 A young man named Trayvon died. He didn’t need to die. That is both tragic and sad.
And there is another truth that twitter cannot change. For all the vast information that has become available to us by virtue of the internet, there is no wisdom of the crowds.

Update: Already this morning, television news has broadcast the twits of New York City politicians and candidates following the verdict. They have the potential to enlighten, to calm, to inform. Instead, they are pandering and inflaming the passions and ignorance of the public, playing the confirmation bias card.

Whether they too lack a working grasp of our legal system, or know better and just don't care, is unclear. Either way, a million people could end the day stupider than it began. Is it worth a vote? Don't answer.


© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.

Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/14/zimmerman-no-appeal-from-the-court-of-public-opinion.aspx?ref=rss

stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer absolute power of attorney

Washington's sexual orientation discrimination amendment is not retroactive

The Washington State Supreme Court held today that a sexual orientation discrimination amendment adopted in 2006 is not retroactive.

The court also concluded that conduct that took place prior to the amendment is admissible background evidence to prove the discriminatory nature of certain conduct occurring after the amendment.

Loeffelholz v. Univ of Washington (Washington 09/13/2012)

Loeffelholz sued under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation. WLAD was amended in 2006 to include sexual orientation as a protected class, and Loeffelholz alleged several pre-amendment acts and one post-amendment act.

The Washington Supreme Court held that (1) the WLAD amendment is not retroactive and the pre-amendment conduct is not actionable as it was not unlawful when it occurred, and (2) the post-amendment allegedly discriminatory comment is arguably similar enough to the pre-amendment conduct to survive summary judgment.

Loeffelholz alleged that her supervisor between 2003 and June 2006 maintained a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation. This was prior to the WLAD amendment. Loeffelholz also alleged a single act of discrimination by this supervisor after the WLAD amendment.

The court's findings:

(1) Pre-amendment conduct is not actionable. Retroactive application of the amendment would violate the employer's due process rights. The plain language of the amendment and its legislative history indicate only prospective application.

(2) Pre-amendment conduct is admissible as background evidence to prove why the post-amendment conduct is discriminatory.

(3) The post-amendment conduct was a single statement by Loeffelholz's supervisor, who was about to be deployed to Iraq, that he was "going to come back a very angry man." The court found that a reasonable jury could infer that this comment was a natural extension of pre-amendment conduct - the supervisor's dislike of lesbians and his anger management problems as illustrated by his comments that he had a volatile temper and kept a gun. This is enough to preclude summary judgment.

28 Day Free Trial

Custom Alerts

Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/09/washingtons_sex.html

divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney

Mark Woods: My VAM is much less exact but far more accurate (Florida Times-Union)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Law - Video Stories, RSS and RSS Feed via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/law/video/389355026?client_source=feed&format=rss

attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer

OPINION: A Calculation of Fido's Value Must Include Warm, Fuzzy Factor

Awarding traditional property damages in cases of injured or killed pets falls short.

Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202631180028?rss=rss_nlj

dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney

Police Unions' Motion Denied in Stop/Frisk

Southern District Judge Analisa Torres said police unions' intervenor bids opposing the settlement between New York City and plaintiffs in stop-and-frisk litigation were untimely and the unions had "no significant protectable interests relating to the subject of the litigation that would warrant intervention."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sign_me_in.jsp?article=http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202665239518&rss=newswire

solicitor solicitors statute law statutory law stupid laws

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Federal appeals courts split on health care subsidies

[JURIST] Two separate federal appeals court reached opposite conclusions Tuesday on subsidies for individuals who sign up for health insurance through the federal government's marketplace. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] that such subsidies are only available through state-run exchanges, currently operating in only 14 states and the District of Columbia. That ruling reversed a lower court decision [JURIST report] from January. In contrast, the US Court of Appeals for...

Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/07/federal-appeals-courts-split-on-health-care-subsidies.php

family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney

OPINION: A Calculation of Fido's Value Must Include Warm, Fuzzy Factor

Awarding traditional property damages in cases of injured or killed pets falls short.

Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202631180028?rss=rss_nlj

find lawyer free attorney consultation free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation

Second Circuit Applies Morrison v. National Australia Bank to Allow Certain Extraterritorial Application of RICO

In European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-2475 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., could apply to conduct outside the territory of the United States.  In doing so, the Second Circuit addressed the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) [blog article here], which held that United States statutes are presumed not apply to extraterritorial conduct, unless Congress has clearly indicated its intent that the statute have extraterritorial application.  Applying Morrison, the Second Circuit determined that RICO could apply to extraterritorial conduct, because a number of the statutes listed as predicate acts for RICO liability clearly apply extraterritorially.  The Second Circuit ultimately concluded “that RICO applies extraterritorially if, and only if, liability or guilt could attach to extraterritorial conduct under the relevant RICO predicate.”  Thus, even after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison, RICO liability can still attach to foreign conduct where the underlying predicate statute applies to extraterritorial conduct.

In this case, the European Community and 26 of its member states (collectively the “European Community”) brought an action against RJR Nabisco, Inc. and a number of its corporate affiliates (collectively, “RJR”) alleging that “RJR directed, managed, and controlled a global money-laundering scheme with organized crime groups in violation of the RICO statute, laundered money through New York-based financial institutions and repatriated the profits of the scheme to the United States, and committed various common law torts in violation of New York state law.  The complaint alleged a number of predicate racketeering acts, as required by the RICO statue, including violations of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, and violations of the statutes criminalizing mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations.  The complaint also alleged claims under New York state law for fraud, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and money had and received.  RJR filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing primarily that RICO could not apply to extraterritorial conduct in the wake of Morrison.

In considering RJR’s motion to dismiss, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that the racketeering enterprise alleged in the complaint was a foreign enterprise “which consisted largely of a loose association of Colombian and Russian drug-dealing organizations and European money brokers whose activity was directed outside the United States.”  The district court held that the complaint failed to state a viable RICO cause of action, because the “focus” of the RICO statute is the racketeering enterprise, and, absent a domestic enterprise, Morrison’s presumption that United States statutes do not apply extraterritorially would preclude such extraterritorial application.

The Second Circuit disagreed, holding that “Congress manifested an unmistakable intent that certain of the federal statutes adopted as predicates for RICO liability apply to extraterritorial conduct.”  The Second Circuit held further that when a predicate act underlying a RICO claim applies extraterritorially, then any claim based upon that act would also.  In support of this holding, the Second Circuit cited RICO predicate statutes that only apply to extraterritorial conduct, such as 18 U.S.C. § 2332, which criminalizes killing and attempting to kill United States nationals outside of the United States.  The Second Circuit found that these predicate statutes exhibited Congress’s intent that, in certain circumstances, RICO should apply extraterritorially.  The Second Circuit then determined that the European Community’s claims that alleged predicate acts of money laundering and providing material support for terrorism could apply extraterritorially in light of the clear indications from Congress that those statutes were designed to criminalize foreign conduct.

The Second Circuit reached a different conclusion with respect to the RICO claims based upon predicate acts of mail fraud, wire fraud and violations of the Travel Act.  The Court held that these claims did not apply extraterritorially because Congress did not exhibit the intent to make those statutes apply extraterritorially.  The Second Circuit, however, allowed those claims to proceed, because it held that the complaint alleged “that RJR essentially orchestrated a global money laundering scheme from the United States by sending employees and communications abroad.”  The Court held that this allegation, and other similar allegations, established a domestic enterprise and that the alleged scheme was directed at the United States in a way that had significant domestic ramifications.  Ultimately, those allegations provided a sufficient domestic nexus for the claims to proceed past the pleading stage.  The Second Circuit, however, made clear that, at trial and on summary judgment, the European Community would be required to provide proof of the domestic nature of those predicate statutory violations.

Whereas the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison dealt specifically with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Second Circuit’s application of Morrison to RICO claims in this case suggests that Morrison may have significant implications beyond the securities laws.  Future decisions likely will rely upon the Court’s approach here of carefully heeding the underlying principals articulated in Morrison, and requiring a showing of clear Congressional intent before any federal statute will be applied to extraterritorial conduct.

Source: http://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/2014/05/second-circuit-applies-morrison-v-national-australia-bank-to-allow-certain-extraterritorial-application-of-rico/

patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney

License Loss Keeps Habeas Claim Alive 

A petitioner may pursue her habeas claim after completion of a jail sentence; an Augusta County Circuit Court says petitioner’s claim is not moot because she ultimately seeks reinstatement of her nursing license. It is reasonable to suggest that prior to the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision in E.C. v. Va. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, ...

Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/2014/01/02/license-loss-keeps-habeas-claim-alive/

attorney at law attorney definition attorney directory attorney fees attorney finder

Eric Turkewitz on Legal Blogging

Eric Turkewitz, of The Turkewitz Law Firm and author of the New York Personal Injury Law Blog, offers dos and don'ts for first-time legal bloggers.

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sign_me_in.jsp?article=http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202596852680&rss=newswire

government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer

This Week on Legal Talk Network (7/7/2014)

Hello. This is Laurence Colletti for This Week on Legal Talk Network. Monday, Digital Detectives hosts Sharon Nelson and John Simek asks special guest Bob Ambrogi about a new survey that suggests that 77% of lawyers at not trustworthy with client data. Here's a preview.
On Wednesday, The Legal Toolkit's Heidi Alexander takes to the road for a Special Report and interviews Clio's Jack Newton at the recent MASS LOMAP conference about his views on cloud technology and customer centricity.
Thursday, we spotlight Heidi again at MASS LOMAP as she speaks to Jim Schonrock from Findlaw about the concept of a "silver bullet" in marketing.
And on Friday, we finish the week with Lawyer 2 Lawyer - our hosts Bob Ambrogi, J Craig Williams and guests discussing the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling and how it will effect free speech, women's reproductive rights and the Affordable Care Act. So tune in. It's all right here . . . This Week on Legal Talk Network.

Source: http://traffic.libsyn.com/sr/This_Week_on_LTN_7-7_Audio_Only.mp3

legal advice legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society

Comity Prompts Court’s Deferral 

A Richmond Circuit Court denies plaintiff’s motion to add party defendants, and says these proposed defendants are the same ones named as defendants in a companion case pending before another judge of this court and it appears plaintiff is seeking an end run around an adverse ruling by another court. Since the issue of whether ...

Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/2014/01/02/comity-prompts-courts-deferral/

law firms law office law offices

In Colo., An Effort To Ease Court Confusion Over Same-Sex Marriage

The Colorado attorney general has asked the state's Supreme Court to stop same-sex marriages.

» E-Mail This

Source: http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/336123307/in-colo-an-effort-to-ease-court-confusion-over-same-sex-marriage?ft=1&f=1070

divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: Religion, Contraception, and Regulation

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby invokes passionate debates and fiery discourse. At the spearhead of exchange are questions about reproductive, First Amendment, and healthcare rights. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi brings light to these issues along with Emily Martin from the National Women's Law Center and Elizabeth Slattery from the Heritage Foundation. Together they discuss the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act vs. invoking a Constitutional argument centered around the First Amendment. Tune in to learn more about the 4 debated methods of contraception, Justice Ginsburg's dissent, and religious rights of corporations.
Emily Martin is the Vice President and General Counsel at the National Women's Law Center, where she undertakes cross-cutting projects addressing women's health, economic security, and education and employment opportunities. Prior to joining the Center, Ms. Martin served as Deputy Director of the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union and served as a law clerk for Senior Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the Eastern District of Virginia. She has served as Vice President and President of the Fair Housing Justice Center, a non-profit organization in New York City.
Elizabeth Slattery is a senior legal policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. She researches a variety of issues such as the rule of law, the First Amendment, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions. Ms. Slattery also studies and writes about cases before the Supreme Court, judicial nominations, and the proper role of the courts. She manages the Meese Center's appellate advocacy programs, including moot court sessions to prepare litigators for oral argument before the Supreme Court. Ms. Slattery's analysis and commentary have appeared in The Washington Times and The Washington Examiner, as well as outlets including National Review Online, The Daily Signal, The Daily Caller and U.S. News and World Report.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2014/07/burwell-v-hobby-lobby-religion-contraception-regulation

pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer solicitor

Jared Correia Interviews Legal Marketing Expert Joyce Brafford at the Mass LOMAP Conference

Jared Correia, co-host of The Legal Toolkit on Legal Talk Network, interviews Joyce Brafford about marketing for lawyers at Mass LOMAP's 4th Annual Super Marketing Conference. She recommends that lawyers choose one social media platform, maintain consistent engagement, and be sincere, especially in solo and small firms with more personal clients. Brafford is a Practice Management Advisor with the North Carolina Bar Association, making sure lawyers have access to the technology that can help them run their firms efficiently and professionally.

Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/special-reports/2014/07/jared-correia-interviews-legal-marketing-expert-joyce-brafford-mass-lomap-conference

dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law employment law courses