Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/12/honduras-congress-votes-to-remove-supreme-court-justices.php
injury attorneys injury lawers injury lawyer injury lawyers international law
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Honduras congress votes to remove Supreme Court justices
[JURIST] The Honduran National Congress on Wednesday voted to dismiss four justices of the country's Supreme Court [official websites, in Spanish] for alleged abuse of their position. The dismissal of the judges came after the justices ruled last week [AP report] that a police reform bill supported by the congress and President Porfirio Lobo [NYT profile] was unconstitutional. Lobo indicated earlier this week that he would seek approval of the law through a referendum despite the Supreme Court decision. It...
Jacksonville gunman gets 50-year prison sentence in 2011 shooting (Florida Times-Union)
Inside the Trayvon Martin Tragedy
The shooting death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Florida has sparked outrage across the country. On February 26, 2012, Trayvon died from a single gunshot to the chest. Police say neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, fired that shot. Zimmerman is using Florida’s "Stand Your Ground" Law to justify the killing. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi, welcome Professor Michelle Jacobs, from the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and Professor Kenneth Novak, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, to explore the legal issues surrounding the "Stand Your Ground" law, neighborhood watches, and the possibility of racial profiling.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/03/inside-the-trayvon-martin-tragedy/
Friday, December 14, 2012
LawBiz® Legal Pad: Cash Flow Needs
Ed talks about the cash flow needs of your practice.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/6Wfmp8VJ_q8/
letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors
Report On CIA Interrogation Tactics Revives Torture Debate
In a closed-door meeting Thursday, lawmakers will consider whether to approve the report, which human rights groups are pushing to be made public. It's part of an ongoing fight over whether harsh interrogation methods, which critics compared to torture, were effective.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
injury lawers injury lawyer injury lawyers international law international law schools
ICC confirms jurisdiction over Ivory Coast ex-president
[JURIST] The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] on Wednesday unanimously dismissed [judgment, PDF; press release] a challenge by former Ivory Coast president and alleged war criminal Laurent Gbagbo [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] that the court lacks jurisdiction to try him. Gbagbo is charged with crimes against humanity relating to violence following the 2010 elections in which Gbagbo lost but refused to cede power. Specifically, the ICC has charged Gbagbo [materials] with murder, rape, persecution...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/12/icc-confirms-jurisdiction-over-ivory-coast-ex-president.php
employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers
Medicare Set Aside Arrangements and Mass Torts
On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen is talking about Medicare Set Asides with colleague and co-host, Lynn DeMauro Clark and guest, Attorney John "Jay" F. Kearns III from the firm Kearns & Kearns. They take a look at mass torts and the facts surrounding the US v. James J. Stricker case. In addition, Jay explores the Medicare Medicaid SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) and how it has created an uproar among insurers and personal injury lawyers and talks about Stricker’s overall significance to plaintiff attorneys.
cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney
Blending Special Needs Trusts and Structured Settlements
For severely injured plaintiffs and their families, the combination of special needs trusts and structured settlements can help provide financial security to secure future needs. Ringler Radio host Larry Cohen and co-host, Carmella Limongelli discuss this beneficial combination of financial solutions with Attorney Jay J. Sangerman, an expert in special needs trusts. Listen and find out when a special needs trust should be considered and what features the trust should have to qualify as a self-settled special needs trust.
district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer
Obamacare on Trial
The fate of President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is now in the hands of the United States Supreme Court. But did lawyers for the Obama Administration convince the justices this historic healthcare initiative conforms to the U.S. Constitution? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, along with Professor Ilya Somin from the George Mason University School of Law and Professor Geoffrey Stone of The Law School of the University of Chicago, discuss the constitutionality and possible outcomes of this landmark Supreme Court case.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/04/obamacare-on-trial/
statute law statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer
Mid-year union dues increase: Hudson notice required, opt-in not opt-out
The US Supreme Court this morning held that "when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent."
Knox v. Service Employees Intl Union (US Supreme Ct 06/21/2012)
This is a remarkable decision for two reasons.
First, the Court has never before held that unions must issue a Hudson notice before changing the amount of dues. Hudson notices have always been based on an after-the-fact look-back based on the previous year's audited accounts.Second, the Court has never before held that unions cannot collect fees from nonmembers unless they affirmatively opt in. The Hudson notice system has always been based on the idea that nonmembers can get an after-the-fact refund.
The union representing California public sector employees has an agency shop agreement which requires nonmembers to pay an annual fee for "chargeable" expenses - nonpolitical costs related to collective bargaining. In June 2005 the union sent out its annual Hudson notice which estimated that chargeable expenses would be 56.35% of its total expenditures. After the 30-day period that nonmembers had to object, the union announced a 25% increase to fund a broad range of political expenses, but nonmembers were given no choice as to whether they would pay into this fund.
The US Supreme Court held (7-2) that
"when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent."
The Court described this case as one involving compelled funding of the speech of other private speakers or groups, which is akin to compelled speech and compelled association. Therefore, it is subject to "exacting First Amendment scrutiny." In order to prevent the union from extracting a loan from unwilling nonmembers, the union must issue a fresh Hudson notice and must exempt nonmembers unless they opt in.
Two Justices, CONCURRING in the judgment, criticized the majority for adopting an opt-in system of fee collection which was "not contained in the questions presented, briefed, or argued."
Two Justices, DISSENTING, pointed out that unions have always been allowed to calculate each year's fee based on its expenses during the previous year. Although an imperfect system, it is not unconstitutional.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/06/midyear_union_d.html
2011 Intellectual Property Year in Review and Outlook for 2012 - Part II: Trademarks
Attorney Peter Lando, host of IP Counsel and partner at the firm of Lando & Anastasi, LLP, welcomes John Welch, Of Counsel with Lando & Anastasi, to discuss important trademark cases and issues of 2011 that may continue well into the new year. Peter and John discuss the high profile trademark battle between designers, Christian Louboutin and Yves St. Laurent, over a trademark for the color red for shoe soles; the trademark "bullying" report from the U.S. Commerce Department; recent happenings regarding fraud at the USPTO; the latest cases interpreting the trademark statute on dilution by blurring; and the effect of the recent launch of generic TLD’s on trademark owners.
attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Testing The Testers
In a surprisingly frank post. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog™ , who has done more than his share of arguments before the Supreme Court, offers some inside baseball concerns about the gay marriage cases awaiting the Court's blessing.
© 2012 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.
The upshot is that the parties and lawyers driving the gay-marriage cases have cornered the Justices. They brought and won cases striking down a federal law, a California initiative, and an Arizona statute.
In fact, these are test cases. On day one, the lawyers knew that persuading the lower courts just meant they would end up here. They wanted to force the Justices’ hands.
It worked. Even if the Court wants to stay out, it cannot.
In other words, you got what you asked for. Now are you sure you really want it?
The dilemma for gay rights advocates is that these test cases may be too much, too soon. Too much because Justice Kennedy – the decisive vote – is a conservative on a conservative Court, and many conservatives view heterosexual marriage as foundational.
Too soon because while our culture has rocketed ahead to acceptance of gay marriage, the Court generally rides a horse and buggy. Often, that is just what we want: a Court that does not get pulled along by the tides of the moment.
The issue must be addressed, but are these the Nine we want deciding it? On the one hand, we don't get to pick the judges who will decide the test cases. On the other, we don't want to wait another generation or two for a court majority that has caught up with the rest of the nation. On the third hand, who knows when we will get a Supreme Court comprised of justices who aren't so deeply embedded in the past, or religion, or politics, that they feel the nature of cultural shifts that allow for foundational change? And do we want to condemn the next generation or two to living under the thumb of old law based on out-of-date cultural norms until most of the judges get it?
Without the time to adapt, this Court is unpredictable. Take Bush v. Gore and Obamacare. The constitutional claims in both cases were generally regarded as ridiculous. But the cases raced ahead to the Court. And both claims won, with only the Chief Justice saving the health care statute.
That is why other historic test cases like Brown v. Board of Education are so different. The NAACP controlled race discrimination litigation. It built a body of lower court and Supreme Court decisions over years. The Court had time to adapt before it had to decide.
And of course, Brown was decided by a very different Court. You cannot point to many liberal test cases that won in recent decades. Conservatives have won on guns and affirmative action; they lost on property rights. But for pretty good reasons, the left does not even try. Progressive groups spend all their energy keeping cases away from this Court.
As wonderful as it may appear to have an issue before the court of the historic, foundational nature as Brown v. Board of Education, imagine what our world would look like if the Court had ruled the other way. It's inconceivable now, but it wasn't then. And the NAACP spent much time and effort free lessons at Arthur Murray before taking it to the big dance. It was not going to blow its one big chance at changing the world.
Ohio State lawprof Doug Berman, in a rare commentary, reacts.
[T]his post has a flourish concerning the conservative leanings of the court Supreme Court that reflects what I see as a persistent and problematic myopia concerning criminal justice issues now reflected in the view of many (if not most) of the elites who follow and discussion the work of the Roberts court. Here is the passage that got under my skin:
You cannot point to many liberal test cases that won in recent decades.
Berman gives a list of decisions, ranging from Crawford in 2004 to Miller in 2012, to show that the Supreme Court has hardly been as conservative as Goldstein claims, and has in fact been pretty progressive.
I am a bit frustrated that Tom Goldstein does not in this context acknowledge that the Supreme Court right now is, in fact, acting in quite progressive ways on behalf of criminal defendants (which is, of course, one huge way in which the Warren Court established its liberal reputation). But the myopia in his recent post strikes me as symptomatic of a broader failing among SCOTUS elites and (too) many progressive elites who fail to focus upon or even recognize the extensive harms being done to various vulnerable populations through modern mass criminal justice systems.
Apparently, anyone who thinks the Supreme aren't up to warp speed are dismissed as myopic "elites," a rather disturbing resort to ad hominem characterization. At least Berman's commentary received the applause Bill Otis, who has never met a sentence that was too harsh.
While Berman's laundry list of criminal defense wins before the Supreme Court has some merit, though not all were as progressive as some seem to think, it misses a critical distinction in Goldstein's argument. There are big cases and small cases, big shifts and small shifts. Heller, for example, was a big decision. As it turned out, so was Booker in 2005, but it took the Supremes until 2007 in Kimbrough/Gall before anyone took it seriously.
But as much as those of us engaged in criminal law focus on cases that impact our practice and our clients, almost all of these decisions are, in the grand scheme of things, nibbling around the edges of the law. Fighting over whether sentences are imposed by judges or accountants is big to us, but hardly a seismic shift for society.
Brown v. Board of Education was a cultural shift in American society, affecting everyone and everything that would follow. Gay marriage is an issue of nearly that magnitude. Telling non-citizens of immigration consequences of conviction, per Padilla in 2010, isn't in the same ball park.
Look at a bug under a microscope and it's going to appear much bigger than it really is. We all suffer the conceit of myopia to some degree, focusing as we do on the issues that matter most to us. We believe them to be more important, more significant, to society than they turn out to be. It's not that they're insignificant, but they aren't earth-shattering. Truly foundational decisions come along very rarely.
Goldstein speaks to a cultural shift that has already happened in America, with only nine people who live cloistered lives left to decide whether it meets their sensibilities. Berman compares it to bugs under his personal microscope because his own myopia precludes him from realizing that gay marriage reflects a cultural shift of a fundamentally greater magnitude.
Like Berman, I spend a lot of time parsing the details of decisions affecting criminal law. Unlike Berman, I recognize that Goldstein is talking about something bigger than the issues that fascinate me.
© 2012 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/2012/12/06/testing-the-testers.aspx?ref=rss
2011 Intellectual Property Year in Review and Outlook for 2012 - Part II: Trademarks
Attorney Peter Lando, host of IP Counsel and partner at the firm of Lando & Anastasi, LLP, welcomes John Welch, Of Counsel with Lando & Anastasi, to discuss important trademark cases and issues of 2011 that may continue well into the new year. Peter and John discuss the high profile trademark battle between designers, Christian Louboutin and Yves St. Laurent, over a trademark for the color red for shoe soles; the trademark "bullying" report from the U.S. Commerce Department; recent happenings regarding fraud at the USPTO; the latest cases interpreting the trademark statute on dilution by blurring; and the effect of the recent launch of generic TLD’s on trademark owners.
criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law
Burn Injury Litigation
Millions of burn injuries are reported every year in the United States. When an individual is severely burned, they can be left scarred, endure severe emotional trauma and some often succumb to their injuries. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen joins Attorney Marc Breakstone, founder and principal at Breakstone, White & Gluck, to talk about the various types of burn injuries litigation, liability and prevention.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/11/burn-injury-litigation/
free attorney consultation free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california
Colombia puts security forces under martial jurisdiction
[JURIST] The Colombia Senate [official website, in Spanish] passed a bill [press release, in Spanish] on Tuesday that will create a military court for armed forces and police forces who commit crimes. Reportedly, the new law will allow for any armed forces' crimes to be prosecuted by military tribunals [Reuters report] rather than civil courts. A spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] last month expressed serious concern [JURIST report] regarding the...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/12/colombia-puts-security-forces-under-martial-jurisdiction.php
injury lawers injury lawyer injury lawyers international law international law schools
Making Selling Easier for Lawyers
Why is selling so hard for lawyers and what can you do about it? On this September edition Jared Correia, the host of The Legal Toolkit and Senior Law Practice Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, joins Stephen Seckler, principal of Seckler Legal Consulting and Coaching, to talk about selling vs. marketing, how important referrals are for attorneys and some of the key things that get in the way of attorneys successfully generating work.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/09/making-selling-easier-for-lawyers/
lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office
Act Two: Legal Tech Pioneers Return to Compete in Legal Tech Market
On Law Technology Now, host and Law Technology News magazine editor-in-chief, Monica Bay joins William Bice, co-founder and chair of LiquidPractice, and Graham Smith, founder and CEO of Opus 2 International, to talk about Law Technology News’ April cover story, "Act Two." Bice and Smith explain why they decided to return to the legal technology community after selling ProLaw and LiveNote to an industry giant.
Planning for Your Digital Estate
With so much of your key information and assets migrating online, it’s a challenge to remember all your passwords and accounts. So just imagine the headaches your spouse or family will have trying to figure it all out once you pass away. On this Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss how to prepare your “digital estate” before death or incapacity. After you listen, be sure to check out Tom & Dennis’ co-blog and book by the same name, The Lawyers Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies.
pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer solicitor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)