<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://rss.cnn.com/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl" type="text/xsl" media="screen"?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://rss.cnn.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css" type="text/css" media="screen"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Courthouse News Service</title>
<link>http://www.courthousenews.com</link>
<description>RSS feed for CNS</description>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[No Injunction for Guantanamo Detainee]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57919.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57919.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - A Guantanamo Bay detainee unable to show he has been irreparably harmed will not be repatriated to his native Yemen, a federal judge ruled.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In 2008, the Supreme Court decision Boumediene v. Bush failed to explain what happens to a Guantanamo Bay detainee's habeas claim once he is transferred or released, leaving this question for the D.C. district court to address.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In April 2010, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan found that the district court cannot remedy the alleged collateral consequences of the petitioners' prior detention at Guantanamo, and therefore dismissed their habeas claims as moot.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Petitioner Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah, a Yemeni national, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to release him unless his detention complies with the Third Geneva Convention. He also asked the court to direct the respondents, which include President Barack Obama, the Secretary of Defense, and commanders overseeing Guantanamo Bay, to adhere to the 1946 Yemen Agreement, which allegedly prohibits it from refusing to repatriate him to Yemen and detaining him indefinitely in violation of international law.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The respondents opposed, arguing that Abdullah cannot challenge their suspension of repatriations to Yemen given the country's instability. They also claimed that, since Abdullah believes he is viewed as a detainee too dangerous to repatriate, even pending improvement in Yemen's security situation, he cannot trace their failure to repatriate him to their decision to suspend repatriations to Yemen.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The respondents further suggested that Abdullah has neither been irreparably harmed nor justified interim release. Abdullah responded that he does not actually seek pre-adjudication release, and instead seeks merely "compliance with the Yemen Agreement."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts denied Abdullah's motion Tuesday.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"If Abdullah seeks pre-adjudication release, he has not made any showing that his case is one where pre-adjudicative release is necessary to effectuate habeas," Roberts wrote. "Nor has he shown a lesser harm to the respondents if they cannot regain his custody should habeas be ultimately found unwarranted, or likewise that the public interest would favor the release now on an as-of-yet unadjudicated habeas claim. If Abdullah does not seek readjudicative release, he has not explained what irreparable injury he faces outside of the injuries addressed by the merits of underlying habeas petition itself if his order is not granted, and he has not explained how the order he seeks would rectify that injury. Nor has he shown the public interest and a lesser harm in precluding the executive from making assessments about the stability and safety of nations to which detainees might be transferred. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction be, and hereby is, denied."]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 16:01:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Group Challenges 501(c)(4) Tax Break at Center of IRS Rhubarb]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57894.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57894.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;WASHINGTON (CN) - In a response to the Tea Party tax brouhaha, a watchdog group claims a loophole in the Tax Code and IRS regulations creates a gaping funnel through which groups pour millions of dollars to political candidates with anonymity.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the IRS and its Acting Commissioner Daniel Werfel in Federal Court, claiming that the agency's denial of its petition to fix the loophole violates the Administrative Procedure Act.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, is evidently a response to Tea Party groups' complaints that the IRS singled them out for scrutiny. A Northern California Tea Party group sued the IRS for this on Monday in Cincinnati.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In its own complaint, CREW claims the IRS plays extremely loosely with so-called "social welfare" organizations, allowing de facto political campaign committees to waltz through the loophole bearing millions of dollars, while hiding the contributors, as required by weakly enforced campaign laws.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Tax Code provides a tax exemption for organizations not organized for profit but "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare," and IRS regulation &#167; 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(1) exempts groups that are "operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements," CREW says in its complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The slight difference in language gives anonymity to individual donors who contribute millions of dollars to politic groups under the guise of being apolitical nonprofits, according to the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It's also responsible for political pundits' widely reported arguments about the tremendous difference between a group that allegedly spends 49 percent of its money on politics, as opposed to 51 percent of it. The former would qualify for tax-exempt status as "social welfare" groups, the 51 percenters would not.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"CREW is hindered in carrying out its core programmatic activities when those individuals and entities that attempt to influence elections and elected officials are able keep their identities hidden," the complaint states. "This problem was exacerbated in the 2012 election cycle, when tax exempt &#167; 501(c)(4) organizations, relying on an IRS regulation requiring that they only be 'primarily' engaged in promoting charitable work, were able to pour vast amounts of anonymous money into the political system. As a result, CREW was deprived of information critical to advancing its ongoing mission of educating the public to ensure the public continues to have a vital voice in government decisions."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CREW says the discrepancy gives a weapon to "pay-to-play" schemers who can push their agendas through Congress while keeping their identities secret.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The discrepancy between the 'operated exclusively' standard of the statute and the 'primarily engaged' language of the regulations was a cause of controversy at the IRS both during the drafting of the regulations and for two decades after they were promulgated in 1959," the complaint states. "In 1962, the chief counsel for the IRS twice rejected recommendations to deny tax-exempt status under &#167; 501(c)(4) to organizations engaged in some amount of non-social welfare activity. In one case, the organization was conducting political activity, and although the chief counsel noted the difference between the statute and the regulations, he construed the regulations to 'in effect deny exemption only to organizations that are primarily engaged in' political activity.'"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In another case, CREW says, the IRS claimed that question of which definition to follow is a "policy decision."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CREW claims this discrepancy has created alarming results, allowing 501(c)(4) spending to increase from $92 million in the 2010 election cycle to $255 million two years later.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"CREW's rulemaking petition also advised the IRS that four &#167; 501(c)(4) organizations dominated outside spending in the 2012 election cycle: Crossroads GPS, founded by Karl Rove; Americans for Prosperity, founded by the Koch brothers; Americans for Tax Reform, founded by Grover Norquist; and the American Future Fund, founded by Nick Ryan, a longtime political adviser to former Republican Iowa Congressman Jim Nussle," the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"As set forth in the petition, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012 election cycle, Crossroad GPS spent $70,968,744 in independent expenditures; Americans for Prosperity spent $33,542,051 in independent expenditures; American Future Fun spent $24,599,533 in independent expenditures; and Americans for Tax Reform spent $15,794,552 in independent expenditures. [For a total of $144.9 million.]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Further, CREW's petition provided the IRS with spending information on specific 2012 Senate and House races. In the Virginia Senate race, for example, &#167; 501(c)(4) organizations spent approximately $15 million, or nearly 29 percent of all outside spending. Similarly, in the 2012 Nevada Senate race, &#167; 501(c)(4) organizations spent over $12 million, or 43.26 percent of all outside spending."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, 501(c)(4) groups accounted for 20 percent of outside spending ($9 million) in Wisconsin's 2012 Senate race, and 22 percent of outside spending ($8 million) in Ohio's Senate race that year.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CREW adds that American Action Network, a 501(c)(4) group, spent $1.5 million on a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois, causing the defeat of Democrat Dr. David Gill.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In the final weeks of that campaign, AAN spent over $1 million on political advertisements that included demonstrably false statements," CREW claims. "Dr. Gill lost his race by 1,002 votes, or three-tenths of 1 percent of the votes cast, even though nearly every reputable poll showed Dr. Gill leading his opponent, Rodney Davis, by margins ranging from 1 to 9 percent."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CREW claims the IRS has illegally failed to act on its petition for a rule change that would close the loophole.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It seeks a court order forcing the IRS to reform its regulations to comply with the Tax Code.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CREW is represented by staff attorney Anne Weismann.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Texas Judge Indicted on Misuse of Powers Charges]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57916.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57916.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;GALVESTON (CN) - A Texas judge has been indicted on criminal charges that he repeatedly misused his official powers to retaliate against attorneys appearing before him and other officials.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Galveston County Court at Law Judge Christopher Dupuy was charged Wednesday with two felony counts of obstruction or retaliation, two misdemeanor counts of official oppression and four misdemeanor counts of abuse of official capacity, the Houston Chronicle reported .&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If Dupuy is convicted on any of the criminal counts, he will be removed from the bench. He was arrested at 3 p.m. and posted $19,000 in bail hours later, according to Galveston County sheriff's spokesman Ray Tuttoilmondo.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hours earlier, attorney Greg Hughes filed civil suit against Dupuy, asking for his removal from office and accusing him of incompetence and oppression. Dupuy failed to obey an order from a state court of appeals, threatened the district clerk while attempting to interfere in his divorce case and retaliated against attorneys by abusing his power, the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"He has ruined dozens of lives over the last two years with ridicules, horrible rulings he has made," Hughes told the Chronicle.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also on Wednesday, Dupuy's ex-wife, Adrienne Viterna, filed for an emergency protective order in the wake of an affidavit taken Monday from Dupuy's former fiance. Tara Compton stated the judge intended to kill Viterna and flee with their two children to New Zealand, the Chronicle reported. Compton is scheduled to testify Friday in a hearing on the protective order.In one case, Dupuy is accused of official oppression against attorney Lori Laird, who represents his ex-wife in a custody dispute over their children. Laird said he retaliated against her trying to record his testimony during a deposition by driving to the courthouse, drawing up a contempt order against her and giving her 120 days in jail. Laird then appealed and the contempt order was tossed.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:10:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Horrors Reported in Migrant Labor Camp]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57893.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57893.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - Skilled workers from India suffered "barbaric and prison-like conditions" at a labor camp in Mississippi after Signal International and labor recruiters lured them to America with false promises, then robbed them of thousands of dollars, 80 workers say in three federal lawsuits.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Lakshmanan P. Achari and 31 of his compatriots sued Signal International and recruiter Michael Pol in the Southern District of Mississippi under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Two similar federal lawsuits filed in Beaumont, Texas by 48 other Indian workers make similar complaints against Signal and its recruiters.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The quotations in this article are from the 106-page Mississippi complaint. The Beaumont complaints - 51 and 72 pages long - also describe litanies of abuses.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Achari et al. claim that Signal charged them as much as $25,000 in "recruitment fees," and promised to help the workers get green cards. But in Mississippi they were trapped in a wretched "man-camp," fed rotten, bug-infested food and forced to pay for it, they say in the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It was all part of Signal's plan to profit from rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina by using the cheapest labor it could find, the workers say.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Signal is a Gulf-Coast based marine and fabrication company. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Signal set out to recruit several hundred foreign workers to work as temporary welders and pipefitters in Signal's Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. Signal also recruited workers to work at a Signal facility in Orange, Texas," the complaint says.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The cornerstone of the defendants' scheme was the tantalizing prospect that Signal would be able to hire a skilled workforce at effectively no cost by forcing the plaintiffs and their coworkers to foot the bill for their own recruitment, immigration processing, and travel. Indeed, an April 18, 2006 'Skilled Worker Recruitment Agreement' between Signal and [defendant] Global [Resources, Inc.] that set this scheme in motion expressly stated that the workers would be delivered at no cost to Signal and that all other charge, expenses and fees would be paid by the workers themselves or by Global, who in turn would be reimbursed through deduction from the plaintiffs' wages. In short, defendants paid for nothing; the future employees paid everything.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Beginning in mid-2206, Signal, both via its own employees and via its external agents, traveled to India in order to recruit workers, including each of the plaintiffs. In printed advertisements and in-person meetings in India, defendants promised plaintiffs that in exchange for 'recruitment fees payable to the agents, ranging anywhere from the equivalent of $10,000 to $25,000, defendants would provide jobs at Signal and assist them in apply for and receiving green cards."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;These are three more in a welter of previous complaints that make similar complaints of abuse of foreign workers during rebuilding after a series of Gulf Coast Hurricanes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Achari et al. claim that they sold family assets and took on debts to seek opportunity in America, but Signal crushed them.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In actuality, the defendants' promises regarding green cards for plaintiffs were illusory," the complaint states. "Defendants had not taken, and had no intention at that time of taking, any steps to assist the plaintiffs in applying for or receiving green cards. To the contrary, Signal (with the knowledge and assistance of the agents) represented to the United States government that it would employ the workers only temporarily, and that the workers would be returned to India 'within the ... year.' At no point did Signal or any of the agents take any steps to assist the plaintiffs in applying for or receiving a green card.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Plaintiffs, of course, were never told of Signal's representations to the United States government. The plaintiffs were unaware that defendants' promises of employment and permanent residency were false and relied on these false promises to their detriment.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Put simply, plaintiffs had been deceived into taking on life-altering debt for something that was never going to happen." (Parentheses and ellipsis in complaint.)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The workers say they were subjected to deplorable conditions at Signal's labor camp on the Gulf Coast.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Upon arrival at Signal's facilities in Mississippi, plaintiffs' plight only worsened. Signal utilized psychological abuse, coercion and fraud to leave plaintiffs afraid and unable to leave Signal's facilities and employ. Plaintiffs were required to live in camps on Signal's Pascagoula premises, enduring barbaric and prison-like conditions. Plaintiffs were among several hundred men crammed into trailer-like bunkhouses that were far too small for the number of men house therein, and otherwise unfit for human habitation. Privacy was nonexistent. Toilet and bathing facilities were insufficient. Food was often rotten. Private 'security guards' patrolled the grounds like prison guards, prevented the plaintiffs from leaving, and subjected the plaintiffs to random searches of their persons and belongings.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Signal sought to deflect as much of the housing costs as possible onto the plaintiffs. For the 'privilege' of living in prison-like squalor, Signal deducted $35 per day from plaintiffs' paychecks, seven days a week, which constituted over 34 percent of the workers' pre-tax earnings. When workers requested permission to live off-site, they were told by Signal that they could do so, but that Signal would continue to collect the $35 per day. This compulsory deduction essentially prohibited plaintiffs from living in more humane conditions, lest their work become even less remunerative, and consequently their 'recruiting fee' debt become even more crushing.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Non-Indian workers were not subjected to such squalid living conditions, degrading treatment, or extortionate room and board policies.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Plaintiffs were also made to work in unsafe working conditions that non-Indian workers were not subjected to, and were forced to endure regular anti-Indian invective from Signal personnel, along with threats to deport them if they did not do Signal's every bidding. Indeed Signal housed plaintiffs in the so-called 'man-camps' so that they would not mix with the Pascagoula community. The Signal executive supervising the Pascagoula man camp referred to the facility - privately and in professional correspondence to other Signal employees - as 'the Reservation,' a term adopted from Signal's 'shipyard folks.' Another Signal employee was more direct, promising Signal management on April 5, 2007 that if he were placed in charge of the man camp, he would not give in to the 'misguided notion that some of these Indians can be reasoned with,' but would instead 'most defiantly [sic] go on a 'rat hunt.'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Signal even forced men of Sikh heritage to shave their beards upon arriving in the camp. Wearing of a beard is an extremely important religious tradition to Sikh men, and Signal's coercion left the men, including plaintiff Ranjit Singh, reduced to tears.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Conditions were so poor at Signal's Pascagoula facility that, after just a couple months, workers (including plaintiffs) began to consider ways to convince Signal to improve conditions. In retaliation for the workers' attempts to improve their lot, Signal terminated the employment of three of the most outspoken workers, forcibly removed them from the camp and told them they would be immediately returned to India. One of those expelled men, so distraught over the thought of returning to India with the crushing debt of the 'recruitment fees,' attempted suicide in front of one of the plaintiffs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Signal used this horrifying incident to its advantage. In a meeting with the workers (including the plaintiffs) days after the attempted suicide, Signal told plaintiffs that if any of the Signal workers filed a lawsuit against Signal, Signal would send all of the workers back to India. The plaintiffs understood this to mean that they must remain quiescent and work, lest Signal retaliate and ruin them financially.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Signal employed other methods of forcing the plaintiffs to endure the abusive conditions. In keeping with its focus on deflecting labor costs, upon plaintiffs' arrival, Signal required workers to set up 'direct deposit' bank accounts with a local bank, to which Signal also had access. These accounts gave Signal control over the workers' ability to leave the facility because Signal could threaten to cut off the workers' access to the accounts at any point. Indeed, this is exactly what happened - in April 2007, after certain workers fled the Pascagoula camp, those workers were denied access to their accounts at the behest of Signal. This had the intended effect of intimidating and coercing the remaining workers, including plaintiffs, into compliance.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Deeply indebted, fearful, isolated, disoriented, and unfamiliar with their rights under United States law, plaintiffs felt compelled to continue working for Signal, on Signal's onerous terms and in abusive conditions.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In line with Signal's original intention as expressed to the United States government - but not to plaintiffs - to employ the workers temporarily, plaintiffs were all terminated within a year and a half of arriving in Pascagoula, or left to escape the horrid conditions."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rats, "oppressive smells," and "surprise searches" were regular features of life at the camp, the workers say.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The complaint cites an excerpt from an email sent by the camp's manager showing that Signal knew that its Indian employees were living in filth.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Our Indians have been dropping with sickness like flies," the manager allegedly wrote. "[They] are getting worried and believe there are unhealthful conditions in the camp. It is true."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In another email, a senior vice president at Signal allegedly acknowledged that the Indian workers were being fed "bad, stale, molded, and otherwise poor quality food."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The biggest attraction of Signal's offer, the chance of permanent residency in the United States, did not materialize for a single worker, the plaintiffs say.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"No plaintiff received a green card. Indeed, neither Signal nor the agents ever applied for a green card for any plaintiff."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The workers seek punitive damages for human trafficking, forced labor, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and civil rights violations.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here are the defendants in the Mississippi complaint: Signal International LLC, Signal International Inc., Malvern C. Burnett and his law office, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center LLC, Michael Pol, Global Resources Inc., Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants PVT Ltd. aka Medtech Consultants.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;These plaintiffs are represented by Robert McDuff with McDuff &amp; Byrd in Jackson, Miss.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In the Eastern District of Texas, Biju M. Joseph and 31 other Indian workers sued Signal and its recruiters under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the RICO Act. They are represented by Daniella Landers with Sutherland Asbill &amp; Brennan in Houston.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also in Beaumont Federal Court, Reji Samuel and 15 others sued Signal and its recruiters and cohorts. Samuel et al. are represented William Boice with Kilpatrick Townsend in Atlanta.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Signal International, LLC was organized in 2002 as a limited liability company after acquiring the offshore division of Friede Goldman Halter," the company says on its home Internet page, checked this morning.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Signal International, Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and began operations of offshore fabrication with shipyards in Texas and Mississippi."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The page contains a link to a Signal International statement of Jan. 4, 2012, on letterhead, about a previous class action alleging slavery. The statement says, in part: "Signal International L.L.C., a leading Gulf of Mexico provider of marine and fabrication services headquartered in Mobile, Alabama received news of a complete victory in the case pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana with regard to class certification of claims against it alleging human trafficking, slave labor and fraud, among other claims. In denying class certification, United States District Judge Jay C. Zainey, observed with regard to the allegations made against Signal, '[t]o the contrary, this case involves paid workers who in fact could leave their jobs at any time, albeit under penalty of returning to their home countries but that restriction was dictated by U.S. immigration law. The workers were for the most part paid well, free to come and go as they pleased, and some even took vacations and bought cars. The pressure to work for Signal arguably came at least in part from a set of circumstances that each plaintiff individually brought upon himself when he elected to pay what is now characterized as 'exorbitant' fees to participate in the green card program.'"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Signal International reports annual revenue of more than $100 million. In the employment section of its home page this morning, it offers jobs for welders in Pascagoula.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[5th Circuit Upholds Age Restrictions on Guns]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57910.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57910.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - Texas does not infringe on the constitutional rights of 18-20-year-olds by barring them from carrying handguns in public, the 5th Circuit ruled.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rebekah Jennings, Brennan Harmon and Andrew Payne joined the National Rifle Association in challenging the constitutionality of the state's general criminal provision prohibiting individuals from carrying handguns in public.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The group also took aim at the requirement that Texans must be at least 21 to obtain a concealed handgun license. The state makes an exception for younger applicants with military training.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit in Dallas alleging that the state's combination of gun restrictions specifically violates the rights of 18-20-year-olds under the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The District Court found the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the general criminal provision, and it upheld the state's concealed handgun licensing law, prompting the NRA and its fellow plaintiffs to appeal.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the state on Monday.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The panel agreed with Texas that the claims made by Jennings and Harmon, who have both turned 21, should be dismissed as moot.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Circuit Court reversed the finding that the NRA and Payne lacked standing to challenge the general criminal provision. Nevertheless, the panel determined that neither the provision nor the licensing law violates the Second Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Texas determined that a particular group was generally immature and that allowing immature persons to carry handguns in public leads to gun violence," Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote on behalf of the panel. "Therefore, it restricted the ability of this particular group to carry handguns outside their vehicles in public. This means is substantially related to Texas's stated goal of maintaining public safety, and it still allows 18-20-year-olds to have handguns in their cars and homes and to apply for concealed handgun licenses as soon as they turn 21."]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:37:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[$585,000 Bubble Gum Art Deal Blows Up]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57892.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57892.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MANHATTAN (CN) - The Stephan Stoyanov Gallery in Manhattan bounced a check for $585,000 to a collector in a "like kind exchange" featuring chewing gum art valued at half a million bucks, the collector claims in court.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Jane B. Holzer sued the Stephan Stoyanov Gallery, of 29 Orchard St., and Stephan Stoyanov, in New York County Supreme Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Holzer claims that she and Stoyanov agreed to exchange four artworks, two on each side, in a "like kind exchange" under Section 1031 of the Tax Code.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;According to the complaint, Holzer's pieces were Mike Kelley's 1985 acrylic "Rainbow Coalition," valued at $240,000, and Dan Colen's 2010 "Cardboard Cutout," created with chewing gum on an unprimed canvas and valued at $500,000.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[The typo-strewn complaint misspells Kelley's surname throughout as "Kelly." It also describes Colen's material as "chewing gun" {sic}, though his medium actually is candy, not soft, chewable weapons.]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In exchange, Stoyanov was to give Holzer two Richard Prince works from 2012, both called "Untitled (Cowboy)," in different dimensions. These were said to be worth $405,000 and $585,000, according to the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Section 1031 exchanges are common transactions and may involve all manner of property, with strict time limits within which the trade must be done. Section 1031 exchanges may include "boot" - commonly, the money paid in one direction to even out the exchange.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The complaint describes how this 1301 exchange was conducted.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"To accomplish this 'like kind exchange,' plaintiff was required to convey title and possession of the sale works to a third party who would then sell the Colen and the Kelly [sic] for fair market value in 'arms' length' transactions. The third party was then required to retain sole possession of the proceeds of sale from the sale works and use the funds to purchase other items of fine art, as directed by plaintiff's written instructions, and upon completion of these purchases to transfer possession, right, title and interest in the exchange works to plaintiff."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That third party was the nonparty Gagosian Gallery, according to the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For the boot, Holzer says, she paid Stoyanov $253,000, in checks of $166,500 and $86,500, plus a transaction fee of $1,500 for each.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Stoyanov agreed to buy her works from the Gagosian at the stated price, Holzer says.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;She claims that Stoyanov wrote a check to Gagosian for $405,000 for the smaller of the "Untitled (Cowboy)" works, then a $585,000 check to same gallery for the larger one about two weeks later, on May 8 this year.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"On May 14, 2013, Stoyanov, who by then was in Europe, emailed his advice to Gagosian Gallery that, even though he had issued the check and delivered it, the Gallery's account on which the check was written sufficient funds to cover this payment," the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Stoyanov assured the gallery that he would "arrange to cover the check from his current location in Belgium but, failing that, he would make the check good upon his return to the United States by the end of the week," according to the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But Holzer says Stoyanov's check for the larger "Untitled (Cowboy)" work was dishonored and returned, and Stoyanov did not make it back to the United States because, he claimed, he had to travel back to Bulgaria for a family matter.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Though Stoyanov insisted the development was a "mix-up," Holzer claims that "Stoyanov has been diverting and expending proceeds from plaintiff's escrowed funds for his own benefit on his current travel to Europe."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Stoyanov sent Courthouse News this statement today by email: "I am currently in Bulgaria where my brother passed away and dealing with family tragedy. Everything will be resolved as soon as I return to normal life within the next week. Thank you very much and please respect the privacy of my family and the tragedy."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In her lawsuit, Holzer claims that due to time limits on 1031 exchanges, the bounced check will have ripple effects on her.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In addition, by 'bouncing' the check in payment of the second exchange work, defendants have rendered essentially impossible the likelihood that they will deliver this piece pursuant to the Bill of Sale," the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Stated otherwise, as a result of the defendants' failure to safeguard plaintiff's funds in escrow and deliver good funds to the Gagosian Gallery to complete the purchase of the Exchange Art, plaintiff will be caused to pay for the second piece of exchange art twice and possibly incur taxes that would otherwise be avoided."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Holzer demands $585,000, with interest, and punitive damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;She is represented by Roger Olson. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Airline Alliance Avoids EU Antitrust Action]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57913.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57913.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - Star Alliance members Air Canada, Lufthansa and United avoided antitrust showdowns with the European Commission over a revenue-sharing agreement aimed at premium passengers.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Commissioners brought an action against the three airlines after learning that a joint venture between them harms first, business and flexible-economy class passengers on their Frankfurt-New York routes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Specifically, the commission believed the agreement - which eliminated price and capacity competition between them - resulted in higher ticket prices and kept other airlines from entering that transatlantic market.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The airlines argued that their cooperation made Frankfurt-New York flights more efficient and had a trickle down effect on connection itineraries, like Prague-Frankfurt-New York and Frankfurt-New York-Seattle. But regulators found that those benefits did not outweigh the negative impact of the trilateral pact.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Under the commitments accepted by the commission and announced Thursday, the three airlines will make landing and takeoff slots available to other carriers at both Frankfurt and New York airports. They will also extend their pact to other interested airlines, which commissioners believe will improve pricing and services for premium ticketholders.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The commission is committed to ensuring that consumers are not harmed by cooperation between airlines," said competition policy commissioner Joaquin Almunia. "Thanks to the commitments offered by the three airlines, passengers on the Frankfurt-New York route will benefit from stronger competition. This decision is a further milestone in our effort to create a level playing field on transatlantic aviation markets, following our decision on Oneworld in 2010."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oneworld, an air carrier revenue sharing group similar to Star Alliance, targets frequent international travelers. Commissioners accepted commitments from its 12 members aimed at leveling the playing field for transatlantic air travel three years ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;According to the commission, a similar antitrust investigation of the Skyteam alliance is ongoing.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:44:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Facebook Friendship Not Proof of Judicial Bias ]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57918.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57918.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DALLAS (CN) - A judge's social media relationship with the father of an assault victim did not affect his impartiality or neutrality regarding the assailant's conviction, a Texas appellate court ruled.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A three-judge panel with the Dallas-based 5th District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of William Scott Youkers on May 15.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Youkers appealed his eight-year prison sentence and revocation of community supervision for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend. He was on parole at the time for a previous felony conviction of tampering with evidence and pleaded guilty to the assault charges.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He later appealed, arguing the trial judge abused his discretion in denying a motion for new trial.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Youkers asked for a new trial by challenging the judge's neutrality, describing his Facebook friendship with his girlfriend's father - which continued through the pendency of Youkers revocation hearing -- and email messages the judge received from the plaintiff's community supervision officer.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The judge had testified at the hearing on Youker's motion for new trial that he knew the victim's father because both ran for office during the same election cycle. He also testified that other than private messages on Facebook, they had no other contacts on the social media site.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The Facebook communications began with a message from the father to the judge seeking leniency for Youkers," stated Justice Mary Murphy, writing for the panel. "That message was posted just prior to Youkers's original plea. The judge responded online formally advising the father the communication was in violation of rules precluding ex parte communications, stating the judge ceased reading the message once he realized the message was improper, and cautioning that any further communications from the father about the case or any other pending legal matter would result in the father being removed as one of the judge's Facebook friends."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Murphy continued, " ...The judge's online response also advised that the judge was placing a copy of the communications in the court's file, disclosing the incident to the lawyers, and contacting the judicial conduct commission to determine if further steps were required. The father replied with a message apologizing for breaking any 'rules or laws' and promising not to ask questions or make comments 'relating to criminal cases' in the future.'"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indeed, Murphy concluded, a Facebook friendship alone provides no insight into the nature or depth of a relationship.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Merely designating someone as a 'friend' on Facebook "'does not show the degree or intensity of a judge's relationship with a person," she wrote. "One cannot say, based on this designation alone, whether the judge and the 'friend' have met; are acquaintances that have met only once; are former business acquaintances; or have some deeper, more meaningful relationship ... Further context is required."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Murphy noted the evidence of the judge and father running for office at the same time and the father's communication about the trial provide no insight into a relationship that would lead to bias or partiality by the judge.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The judge also acted in full compliance with the Texas Committee on Judicial Ethics' recommended procedure for treatment of ex parte communications," she wrote. "A reasonable person in possession of all of the facts in this case likely would conclude the contact between the judge and the father did not cause the judge to abandon his judicial role of impartiality; besides the evidence that the judge and the father's acquaintance was limited, any appearance of bias created by the Facebook communications was dismissed quickly by the judge's handling of the situation."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Murphy wrote that even if the father made improper statements to Youker's mother about influencing the judge, the evidence contains does not show the judge was aware of such a statement.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The panel also disagreed with Youker's complaint of bias being created by the community supervision officer's ex parte email messages to the judge. The officer informed the judge of his "poor character" before the probation hearing, among other things.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The judge added the statement (about which Youkers complains) that he believed he was 'making a mistake and it should be a bigger number"; he was giving Youkers two years less than the maximum sentence 'in the hopes that [Youkers] use [his] intelligence to realize that [he's] got to fix these things and not keep trying to fix them to the minimum to where people stop watching [him]. Because the moment [he is] unwatched, [he] is untrustworthy," Murphy wrote.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The evidence supports the judge's comments, which do not reflect bias, partiality, or the judge's failure to consider the full range of punishment." The panel also rejected Youker's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding he did not miss the opportunity to accept a plea offer because he chose not to accept it, not because he was unaware of it.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:42:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Man Says Doc's Snake Oil Nearly Killed Him]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57891.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57891.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SEATTLE (CN) - A man claims a diet supplement nearly killed him by crippling his thyroid, and he sued the doctor who told him to take it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Curtis Farber claims the "Tri-Quench" iodide product gave him life-threatening" complications and he will have to take daily thyroid supplements for the rest of his life.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He claims defendant Dr. Jonathan V. Wright pitched the stuff through his alternative medical clinics and online, saying it would prevent atherosclerosis and actually reverse it. Farber also sued Asclepius Inc. aka Tahoma Clinic, the Tahoma Clinic Dispensary, the Scientific Botanicals Co., and Wright's wife.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In the complaint in King County Court, Farber says Wright used the clinics to cross-promote "his alternative medical theories and products."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"As part of Wright's scheme of cross-promotion, he holds himself out as an internationally acclaimed naturalist author, columnist, medical blogger, and lecturer, publishing articles, medical 'self-help' books, and lectures nationwide on topics including 'the natural treatment of cardiovascular diseases,'" the complaint states. "Wright advertises himself as a 'leader in the field of complimentary-medicine' and assures the public he 'applies his medical expertise in diagnosing and treating acute and chronic diseases' by means, supplements, and other products he just happens to sell to the public for a profit.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Wright promoted Tri-Quench as an iodide supplement that could cure "a number of ailments," according to the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In an effort to sell Tri-Quench, Wright promoted an article he authored in books, on blogs, and other social outlets wherein Wright promoted the use of Saturated Solution of Potassium Iodide ('SSKI') to cure a number of ailments, including atherosclerosis, COPD [congestive obstructive pulmonary disease] and acne. Therein, Wright informs the reader that SSKI is available 'on-line' and through dispensary.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Wright asserted that iodide would make oils, fats, and waxes more soluble in water reasoning that cholesterol was actually a wax. Wright further represented to his readers this known action of iodide likely explains why SSKI can be useful in actually reversing atherosclerotic clogging of arteries. Wright supported his medical claims by pointing to studies by unnamed ophthalmologists and unidentified 'published' photographs."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Wright claimed that no follow-up studies have been done because iodide is not patentable, so corporations could not profit, according to the complaint. He sells the stuff for $28 for a 30 ml bottle.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Farber says he believed it, so he bought Tri-Quench and took it and wasn't warned about side effects.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;However, "At all times material, defendants knew or should have known that SSKI works by shrinking the size of the thyroid gland and decreasing the amount of thyroid hormones produced. That at the dosages recommended by Wright, the endocrinologic side effects included hydrothyroidism by inhibiting the release of a thyroid hormone from the thyroid gland. Curtis was not informed of this deadly side effect and attempts, if any, by defendants to warn the public of this deadly risk were intentionally minimized and generalized in a direct effort to advance their entrepreneurial interests," according to the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Farber claims he suffered "an almost virtual shutdown of typical metabolic functioning" from taking the supplement and almost died.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Curtis is required to take daily thyroid supplements to address the permanent damage caused to his thyroid by the Tri-Quench. This condition is likely life-long. Failure to take the daily medications subjects plaintiff to the risk of coma and/or brain damage," the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Farber says he didn't know that Wright and his clinic had been raided by the FDA.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Curtis was not informed by the marketing machine of defendants that Wright, clinic, and dispensary had a history of raids by the Food and Drug Administration for issues relating to labeling violations, issues relating to misleading consumers, dosage inaccuracies, and prescribing FDA banned substances to consumers," the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Farber seeks past and future damages and special damages, and his wife seeks damages for loss of consortium. They are represented by R. Travis Jameson with Stritmatter Kessler Whelan &amp; Coluccio. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Court Erred In Tossing Exotic Animal Case]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57912.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57912.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - A circuit court erred when it dismissed the conviction of a Columbia, Missouri man for keeping a pair of alligators, a state appeals court ruled.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Kenneth Henderson was charged with two counts of violating the city of Columbia's exotic animals ordinance for keeping two alligators, which he named Babe and Snuggles.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Henderson asked the court to dismiss the charges, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The court declined his motion, and Henderson had to pay a fine.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He appealed, seeking a trial de nono, arguing that he kept the alligators for educational purposes. The court ruled in his favor and dismissed the case, stating that alligators did not fall under the ordinance's definition of "exotic animals."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The city appealed, and the Missouri Court of Appeals overturned the decision, ruling that Henderson was not allowed to keep Babe and Snuggles in the city of Columbia.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In his opinion, Judge Thomas Newton noted that alligators did not fall under the city's definition of exotic animals, which included nonhuman primates, poisonous reptiles, endangered species, predatory birds and mammals that do not normally live near humans.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;However, he agreed with the city's argument that elsewhere in that section of the law is a prohibition against "any deadly dangerous or venomous reptile."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Consequently, the trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that section 5-29 did not apply to alligators and granting Mr. Henderson's motion to dismiss. While alligators did not fall under section 5-1's definition of exotic animal, section 5-29 also barred the keeping of 'any deadly dangerous or venomous reptile,' Newton wrote."At trial, the city should be given the opportunity to prove as a factual matter whether alligators are a 'deadly dangerous or venomous reptile,'" he added.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:37:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Concessionaire Sues Ballpark Vendors' Union]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57888.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57888.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A giant ballpark concessionaire sued a Unite Here union local representing hot dog vendors and bartenders, claiming Local 2 is planning an illegal secondary strike to "exploit" the San Francisco Giants' World Series wins.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Volume Services dba Centerplate sued Unite Here, Local 2 in Federal Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Centerplate claims the union is trying to embroil the Giants in a labor dispute with which the team is not involved. It claims the union is coercing, striking or threatening to strike unless Centerplate and/or the Giants enter into an unlawful labor agreement.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Centerplate sued under the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 and the National Labor Relations Act.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Centerplate operates concessions at AT&amp;T Park - the Giants' home field - and at more than 300 sports, convention and entertainment venues in North America and the United Kingdom.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It claims that Local 2 threatened to strike unless the Giants signed a "successor addendum," which would bind the baseball team, and any future concessionaire at AT&amp;T Park, to the same terms Local 2 negotiates with Centerplate.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Local 2 is threatening and preparing to strike Volume Services Inc. dba Centerplate in order to attempt to expand Local 2's bargaining relationship with Centerplate to include the San Francisco Giants. Seeking to exploit the Giants' success as repeat World Series Champions and the financial success that flows from having a winning team, Local 2 seeks to convert its bargaining dispute with Centerplate to one with the Giants," the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In addition to tailoring its public appeals to make it appear that its dispute is with the Giants, Local 2 has made a key goal of its dispute an unlawful attempt to coerce the Giants into signing a 'successorship addendum' to Local 2's collective bargaining agreement with Centerplate (the 'Centerplate CBA'). This successorship addendum would bind the Giants to the terms of the Centerplate CBA and/or require that the Giants only do business with other entities that agree to bind themselves to the Centerplate CBA. Further, Local 2 has made it clear to Centerplate that it will only execute a new Centerplate CBA with Centerplate if the Giants execute the successorship addendum, thereby enmeshing Centerplate in Local 2's dispute with the Giants over the successorship addendum."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The union's "overreaching" does not end with the Giants, Centerplate claims.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"As part of its threatened strike and picketing, Local 2 seeks to end Centerplate's relationship with various not-for-profit organizations that benefit from the concession services Centerplate provides at AT&amp;T Park," including the Leukemia Lymphoma Society, U.S. Navy and Canning for Hunger, the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The partnerships "yield hundreds of thousands of dollar a year to worthy causes," Centerplate says.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Local 2 President Mike Casey "scoffed" at the charities, Centerplate claims, "at one point stating that the U.S. Navy did not need to work a stand at the ballpark to pay for prosthetic limbs for wounded veterans."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Centerplate claims Casey also "quipped" about the Marines, saying: "Why [don't] you have them man a boat and they can sell hot dogs out on the water?"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Centerplate claims: "Local 2's actions are part of a scheme by a union that represents some of the most highly compensated employees in the baseball concessions industry. It may well be that because of Centerplate's historical generosity towards its employees that Local 2 believes that it can bully Centerplate (and the Giants) into acceding to its unlawful demands. Moreover, because it cannot hope to gain public approval for its targeting of NPO's [not-for-profit organizations], Local 2 likely believes that the Giants, one of the most successful sports franchises in the country, are a more compelling target for its claims of unfair treatment. Finally, because the Giants are a beloved San Francisco institution, Local 2 likely believes that enmeshing the reigning World Series champs in a labor dispute will make more compelling headlines than on between a concessionaire and a union that represents hot dog vendors and bartenders."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Centerplate spokesman Sam Singer said in a statement that Local 2 "has overstepped the bounds of the law and of humanity."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"They are illegally attempting to force the Giants into a labor dispute between Centerplate and the union and wrongly trying to harm the many nonprofits that rely upon income from their charitable work at AT&amp;T Park," Singer said in the statement.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Last week, 97 percent of more than 500 AT&amp;T Park concession workers voted to strike. They seek job security, wage increases and improved health care, according to a May 13 statement on the union's website, checked this morning.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The vote authorized union leadership to call for any action, including up to a five-day strike and a boycott of food and beverages at the park.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Centerplate is the largest food service provider for the NFL, the largest caterer to stadia in the U.K., and partners with six of the top 10 most active convention centers, according to its website. It has provided services for 12 Super Bowls, 20 World Series, 15 presidential inaugural balls and more than 100 college bowl games.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Centerplate seeks declaratory judgment and punitive damages.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is represented by Scott Witlin with Barnes &amp; Thornburg, of Los Angeles.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Officials Must Explain 'Terrorism' Visa Denial]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57914.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57914.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - The government cannot deny a visa on "terrorism grounds" without further explanation, the 9th Circuit ruled Thursday, reinstating the claims of an Afghan man's wife.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In a split ruling, the federal appeals court in San Francisco said the government lacked "a facially legitimate reason" for denying a visa to Afghan citizen Kanishka Berashk.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The decision overturns a federal judge's dismissal of the case, brought by Berashk's wife, U.S. citizen Fauzia Din.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The couple married in September 2006, and a month later Din filed a petition for a visa on her husband's behalf. Government officials told her the petition was approved and arranged to interview Berashk at the embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Berashk answered the questions truthfully, according to the ruling, including inquiries about his work as a payroll clerk for the Afghan Ministry of Social Welfare during the Taliban regime.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Berashk was told to expect his visa in two to six weeks, but Din said they had to call the embassy several times before learning, almost nine months later, that the visa had been turned down.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The government cited only a broad provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that excludes applicants for a variety of terrorism-related reasons. The denial letter stated that there was "no possibility of a waiver of this ineligibility," according to the ruling.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When Berashk emailed the embassy for clarification, he was told that "[i]t is not possible to provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the denial."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Din and her pro bono attorney nevertheless tried to find out why the visa had been denied, but embassy officials declined to elaborate.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Din then sued, seeking an order that would force the government to process her husband's visa application in a legal manner. She claimed it was unconstitutional for the government to deny the visa without explaining what her husband allegedly did to be deemed inadmissible on terrorism grounds.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A federal judge granted the government motion to dismiss, and the 9th Circuit reversed.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The first problem is that the government has offered no reason at all for denying Berashk's visa; it simply points to a statute," Judge Mary Murguia wrote.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;She said the problem "is compounded by the sweeping nature of the cited section of the INA" - a section that exceeds 1,000 words and contains 10 different categories of those deemed inadmissible for terrorism reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The government's citation here is so broad that we are unable to determine whether the consular officer 'properly construed' the statute," Murguia wrote.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The panel acknowledged that the government is not required to prove that Berashk did something to render him inadmissible.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"We seek only to verify that the facts asserted by the government, however bare, constitute a ground for exclusion under the statute," Murguia wrote.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But dissenting Judge Richard Clifton said the government "was not required to provide more specific information" about why it denied Berashk's visa.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The factual basis of the consular's decision is not within our highly limited review," Clifton wrote.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"[I]t is simply not enough to allege that the consular official's decision was wrong. That is not for us to decide.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:34:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Antiwar.com Sues FBI for 'Threat Assessment']]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57889.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57889.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - Editors of the Antiwar.com news site claim in court that they learned from a FOIA request that the FBI conducted a "Threat Assessment" of them, but won't tell them any more about it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Editors Dennis Joseph Raimondo aka Justin Raimondo and Eric Anthony Garris sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the San Francisco Federal Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The editors describe their site as an "an anti-interventionist website that publishes news and opinion articles about U.S. foreign and military policy."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Garris says he founded the online magazine in 1995 to oppose U.S. intervention in the Balkans.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The editors learned in August 2011 that they were under federal surveillance, when another FOIA requester posted documents about them on Scribd.com.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Included in the posting was a FBI memorandum that names both plaintiffs, states their positions of employment at Antiwar.com, describes their First Amendment activities, and recommends opening a preliminary investigation," the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In this post, one FBI analyst suggested that the investigation should probe whether the editors "are engaging in, or have engaged in, activities which constitute a threat to National Security on behalf of a foreign power," according to the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Two news articles by plaintiff Raimondo were listed as attachments to the FBI memorandum and also posted on the website Scribd.com," the complaint states. "Following publication of the FBI memo by Antiwar.com and others, Antiwar.com lost significant financial support."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The editors say that they submitted their own FOIA requests in response, but the FBI gave them the brush-off.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"After an administrative appeals process, plaintiffs perfected their requests in May 2012 to include a clear request for records referring or relating to Antiwar.com," the complaint states. "A year later, plaintiffs have not received a substantive response for records relating to themselves or Antiwar.com."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;They seek declaratory judgment that the FBI violated the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, and an injunction forcing the agency to cough up documents.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;They are represented by Julia Harumi Mass and Linda Lye of the ACLU Foundation of Northern California and Laura Hurtado with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Antiwar.com describes itself as Libertarian. Readers of the site may conclude that it leans toward the left rather than the right side of that amalgamated political philosophy.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Insurance Underwriter Loses Bid for Indemnity]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57908.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57908.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - The Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company cannot hold its insurance broker responsible for claims arising from its failure to inform a couple of their HIV-positive status, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The decision by Justice Daryl Hecht affirmed an earlier ruling by Polk County, Iowa District Court Judge Arthur Gamble.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The events giving rise to the case commenced in October 1999, when a couple indentified as John and Mary Smith to protect their identities, applied for life insurance through Farm Bureau.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The insurer denied their application after a blood screen revealed they were both infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus; however, it never informed the couple they were both HIV-positive, something they wouldn't discover for themselves for another three years.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In 2002, they sued Farm Bureau for negligence and personal injury in the federal court in Wyoming, which concluded the insurance underwriter had no obligation to inform them of their HIV-status.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The 10th Circuit reversed the ruling, holding Farm Bureau should have at least provided the Smith with enough information about their blood screen to inspire them to make further inquiries about their health.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Smiths filed an amended damages complaint in Wyoming, which Farm Bureau settled in June 2006.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Farm Bureau then filed Iowa state court claims against its insurer, Federal Insurance Company, for indemnity, and its insurance broker, Holmes, Murphy &amp; Associates Inc., for failing to provide timely notice of the claims to its insurers.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Judge Gamble awarded summary judgment in favor of the insurers, finding that Farm Bureau failed to give them timely notice of the claims.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gamble also granted the broker's motion for summary judgment, concluding that even if the insurers had been given timely notice of the claims, coverage would have been denied based on two exclusions in the policies. Farm Bureau appealed.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Upon review, Justice Hecht affirmed the district court's ruling, holding it correctly concluded the underwriting exclusion in the Insurance Company Professional Liability (ICPL) policy issued to Farm Bureau by Federal Insurance would have precluded coverage for the Smiths' claims even if it had been timely notified under the policy's notice requirement. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 10:35:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Racial Insults Were Unending, Worker Says]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57887.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57887.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) - In a federal lawsuit recalling the worst abuses of the Old South, a worker claims auto shop owners subjected him to "long-term racial abuse," spat on him, and claimed they were free to call him the "N" word because their insurance covered harassment lawsuits.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Anthony Suggs sued Raymond Moxley, Peter Pirhalla, and their company First Choice Body Shop Corp., in Federal Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Suggs, an African-American, began working as a car detailer for Arlington-based First Choice in 1994, according to the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He claims Moxley and Pirhalla, the shop's white owners, harassed him for years and ignored his complaints, knowing he needed to keep his job.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Suggs, a former amateur lightweight boxer, was arrested and jailed on drug-related charges several times in his youth. He claims that despite rehabilitating himself after leaving jail, he could not find decent employment due to his criminal record and modest education.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The defendants hired Mr. Suggs in approximately 1994," the complaint states. "Since the beginning of Mr. Suggs' employment at First Choice he has been subject to regular racial harassment in the form of racial slurs and offensive commentary and conduct by defendants Moxley and Pirhalla, as well as other employees with the knowledge of defendants Moxley and Pirhalla. Mr. Suggs regularly complained to defendants Moxley and Pirhalla about their conduct. Notwithstanding Mr. Suggs' repeated complaints, the racial harassment persisted.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The demeaning harassment at issue has occurred regularly since the beginning of Mr. Suggs' employment, including in the four years prior to the filing of this complaint. The following exemplify the conduct at issue:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"a) Conduct and statements by defendant Pirhalla to Mr. Suggs or in his presence:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"'I didn't know n----rs fart like that.'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"'I wouldn't let my son go out because he came out of the house dressed like a n----r.'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Spitting on Mr. Suggs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Referring to Martin Luther King Day as Martin Luther 'Coon' Day.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Commenting that when a black person is put on U.S. currency, it should be the face of actor George Jefferson on one side and the head of a pit bull on the other.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"b) Conduct and statements by defendant Moxley to Mr. Suggs or in his presence:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"'Give a "n----r" a rope and he will swear he is a cowboy.'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Segregated bathrooms existed because black people's 'shit stinks so bad.'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"'I'm going to start calling you "my enigma" because you are so confused ... What's up, my enigma?'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Comments that Mr. Suggs could be won over by an offering of watermelon, chicken, and grape soda.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Mr. Suggs' responses to defendants' harassment were always ones of disapproval or disgust. He would ask them to stop their comments, shake his head at them, walk away, or otherwise ignore them.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Defendant Pirhalla told Mr. Suggs that because First Choice had purchased liability insurance protecting it against harassment claims, Mr. Suggs could be called a 'n----r' to his face with impunity.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"On or about Dec. 28, 2010, Mr. Suggs and Kelly LNU, a fellow employee who is white, had a disagreement, with Mr. Suggs stating that he was not responsible for removing Kelly's trash. Thereafter, Mr. Suggs overheard Kelly state repeatedly, 'Fuck that n----r!' Mr. Suggs told Kelly that he did not appreciate his language.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"On or about Jan. 3, 2011, Mr. Suggs complained to defendant Moxley about Kelly's racial abuse. He also told defendant Pirhalla that it would be humiliating for him to have to take out Kelly's trash after Kelly called him a 'n----r.'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Defendant Pirhalla brushed off Mr. Suggs' request and instructed Mr. Suggs to take out Kelly's trash.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In June 2011, defendant Moxley told Mr. Suggs that he should be happy white people brought black people over from Africa and 'bred' them because 'that's why there are big black athletes here and not in Africa.' Later that same day, Mr. Moxley returned to the same theme of white people 'breeding rich, fast, and good athletes.' Mr. Suggs suffered this abuse with expressions of disgust.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In July 2011, defendant Pirhalla told Mr. Suggs that he should be proud of him, as he (Pirhalla) had been picking corn that weekend since he 'couldn't find any cotton to pick.'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In April 2012, defendant Moxley stated to Mr. Suggs that Pontiac, the car brand, is an acronym for the phrase, 'Poor Old N----r Thinks It's a Cadillac.'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Defendants Pirhalla and Moxley regularly used the topics of Barack Obama's presidency and the newly constructed Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington D.C. as a means of needling, ridiculing and humiliating Mr. Suggs in a racially charged manner. Some examples include:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"(a) On or about May 24, 2011, in Mr. Suggs' presence, defendant Pirhalla asked, rhetorically, why President Obama had been in Ireland while a tornado caused a disaster in the United States, observing, 'I guess there weren't any black people in that town [where the tornado struck].'&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"(b) In September 2012, during the election season, defendants Moxley and Pirhalla advised Mr. Suggs that 'ya'll' would win the election.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"(c) Ray Moxley stated that President Obama fixed the BP oil leak of 2010 by placing President Obama's basketball on the hole.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"(d) In August 2011, defendants Pirhalla and Moxley told Mr. Suggs that the area earthquake had knocked off the head of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Statue.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"(e) In September 2011, defendant Pirhalla asked Mr. Suggs for a pair of basketball shoes to place on the statue of Martin Luther King." (Brackets in complaint).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Suggs claims the defendants ignored his requests to stop the offensive remarks.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Defendant Pirhalla also regularly abused Mr. Suggs physically, including pushing him, kicking his property and hitting Mr. Suggs on his buttocks and the arm in a purportedly 'joking' manner," the complaint states. "This conduct was particularly offensive given his ongoing racial harassment.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Notwithstanding that he could have put either of his supervisors on the floor with a single punch, Mr. Suggs responded to all their abuse, including defendant Pirhalla's physical abuse, simply with repeated statements that the offensive conduct and speech be stopped and that he did not like to be touched, or by walking away."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Suggs says the harassment caused him extreme emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He seeks compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He is represented by Victor Glasberg and Bernadette Armand. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Court Tosses Suit Over Disputed Concession Sale]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57911.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57911.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HOUSTON (CN) - "Haste and a failure to insist on precise contract language doomed a rock exporter's suit against a Texan accused of selling it a mineral concession he did not own, a federal judge ruled."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Genesis Agregados Honduras, a Honduran company with offices in Louisiana, sued Tom Cross, of La Porte, Texas in January 2012.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Genesis mines and imports volcanic rock from Honduras to the Gulf Coast of the United States for levee-building and other projects by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, according to its original complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Genesis says Cross claimed he owned an antimony concession in Santa Rita de Santa Barbara, Honduras and offered to lease it to the company with an option to purchase.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Antimony is a shiny silver metalloid used in microelectronics, cosmetics, as alloy material for lead and tin and as an additive to fire retardants.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Genesis says after it hired a geologist and mining engineer who determined the site had sufficient antimony to be profitable it paid the Honduras government $26,000 for back taxes on the concession, and $24,000 to Cross, through his attorney.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The company wasted no time hiring geologists, engineers and labor to mine the concession at a cost of $500,000, it says.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Genesis says it also negotiated a tentative joint venture with Mina Emusa, a Bolivian mining consort where Mina Emusa would provide the equipment and manpower to mine the concession and take it to port for 50 percent of the profits, which would have netted Genesis a minimum of $5 million a year.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The company says Cross signed a lease in November 2011, granting it an option to purchase the concession.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But in preparing to sign the lease Genesis contacted the office of the Minister of Mines in Honduras and found out Cross was not the registered owner of the concession, and "incapable of transferring the same," Genesis says in its original complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Genesis sued Cross for $10 million in punitive damages, $551,000 in compensatory damages and an injunction to stop him from marketing the concession on the Internet.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon granted Cross' initial motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but granted Genesis leave to file an amended complaint to fix deficiencies in the first.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Genesis filed an amended complaint that reasserted all allegations in the original but added an affidavit from Julio Zavala, Genesis' alleged CEO and president.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Included with Zavala's affidavit was a "Lease with Option to Buy Contract" between Cross and Zavala that names Zavala as "lessee" with no indication that Zavala is acting for Genesis, in fact it does not mention Genesis at all.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Zavala claims he pointed out to Cross that the lease incorrectly named him as the lessee/purchaser before the agreement was executed.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cross said it would be fixed, but Zavala signed the agreement anyway "due to urgency," according to Zavala's affidavit.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Based on Zavala's assertions Genesis brought a new claim for reformation of contract in its amended complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cross moved to dismiss arguing that Genesis had failed to plead a breach of contract claim or shown that it was ever a signatory party to any contract for the concession.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Harmon agreed with Cross and tossed the case.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Genesis has failed to identify and support with facts what law applies here; has failed to allege facts establishing that Genesis has standing to bring these vague allegations; has failed to plead fraud with the required particularity... has failed to state a claim for breach of contract or reformation of the lease/purchase agreement; and has failed to state facts supporting claims for negligent misrepresentation or unjust enrichment," Harmon wrote.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:03:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Drug-Users Sue City for Safety Services]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57886.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57886.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;VANCOUVER, B.C. (CN) - Drug-users in the Vancouver suburb of Abbotsford sued the city in a constitutional challenged to a bylaw that bans so-called "harm reduction services" such as needle exchanges and supervised injection sites.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Lead plaintiff Douglas Smith and the B.C./Yukon Association of Drug War Survivors sued the city in British Columbia Supreme Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;They claim that Abbotsford's zoning bylaw defining "Harm Reduction Use" of city lands is unconstitutional.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hospital admissions for overdoses are higher than average in Abbotsford and much higher than neighboring municipalities that offer services such as methadone clinics and mobile clean needle dispensing vehicles, the plaintiffs say in the complaint. Abbotsford also has a higher rate of hepatitis C infection than other cities.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The zoning bylaw, adopted in 2005 and amended in 2007, banned harm reduction services in commercial, residential and industrial zones in the mostly agricultural community, just over the border from Sumas, Wash.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Harm reduction measures, including the provision of sterile needles to people who inject drugs, are a proven, recognized and effective means to combat the spread of infection, save lives, promote public health, and integrate the 'hardest to reach' into medical services," the complaint states. "Supervised injection ('safe injection'), which is also prohibited by the Bylaw, has been proven effective in preventing the spread of deadly disease, preventing mortality from overdose of injection drugs, and in providing increased access to drug treatment facilities."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The regional health authority overseeing the city has not set up any of the services because of the bylaw, although it asked the city in 2010 to reconsider its position. Reviews and public consultation since then have not brought any amendments to the bylaw, and any change will requires City Council approval and more public hearings.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The individual plaintiffs are all residents of the City, currently drug users, and wish to access life-saving harm reduction measures. They are prohibited from accessing such services because these services are not readily available in their community," the complaint states. "The Bylaw ... puts the life and security of the individual plaintiffs and the public health in danger."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The B.C./Yukon Association of Drug War Survivors claims that many of its 300 members live in Abbotsford. A survey the association conducted in 2011 found that users believed the bylaw contributed to a "'cycle of harm'" and should be struck from the books. The association is willing to spearhead a mobile needle exchange and distribution service, but claims the city and the regional health authority haven't provided the resources to begin the service.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The Bylaw creates a climate of illegality around drug use and access to medically-proven interventions that reduce the spread of hepatitis C and HIV and reduce death from overdose, thereby depriving drug users of their liberty. The Bylaw forces drug users to inject drugs hurriedly and without adequate measures to improve their health and well-being," the complaint states. "Depriving people who use drugs of the ability to take measures to save their lives and improve their health exposes them to additional health and safety risks. It also causes serious, state imposed stress, and interferes with their ability to make the basic and fundamental decision to take practical steps to protect themselves from harm."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The plaintiffs want the bylaw struck down, claiming it violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and exceeds the jurisdiction of the City. They are represented by Scott E. Bernstein with the Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Man Wrongly Imprisoned for 20 Years May Sue]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/22/57878.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/22/57878.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CHICAGO (CN) - An innocent man imprisoned for 20 years for a sexual assault he did not commit may sue the forensics experts who falsely testified that his semen and teeth marks were linked to the crime, a federal judge ruled.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In 1986, Bennie Starks was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, and sentenced to 60 years in prison. But in 2002, Starks sought a new trial, arguing that DNA evidence excluded him as the attacker.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In 2006, the Illinois Appellate Court vacated Starks' conviction, and remanded the case for retrial. Starks was released on bond, and the state dropped all charges in 2012.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Starks then filed a federal complaint against the City of Waukegan, Illinois, and the government witnesses who testified against him, alleging violation of his due process rights and conspiracy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He claims Officers W. Biand and M. Juarez induced the victim to identify Starks as her attacker from a photo line-up, and met with her several times to ensure her story undermined Starks' alibi.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Drs. Carl Hagstrom and Dr. Russell Schneider, two dentists, allegedly testified that a bite mark on the victim's body matched Starks' teeth, but they used a methodology which they knew at the time was outdated and could not be relied upon.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Furthermore, the state's forensic technician, Sharon Thomas-Boyd, submitted a report falsely claiming that the semen found on the victim could have been Starks', although her tests excluded Starks as the source.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman denied the defendants' motions to dismiss except for Starks' claim for emotional distress, which is time-barred.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While the police may have immunity for lying to the jury, "the police defendants do not argue that the other allegations against them - for instance, that they caused M.G. to identify Starks as her assailant by giving her a suggestive photo array, and filed reports that falsely attributed inculpatory statements to Starks - could not ground a due process claim," Feinerman said.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He also upheld Starks' claims that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to convict him for the crime. "The complaint amply alleges that the police defendants, the dentist defendants, and Thomas-Boyd all worked to get Starks convicted for a crime he did not commit, and it is more plausible that they each made their contributions to that effort in the context of an agreement to secure a wrongful conviction than that, by some wild coincidence, everyone who came into contact with Starks's case independently developed a desire to see him convicted and a willingness to lie in pursuit of that goal," the judge said.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 16:25:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[South Miami Cheated on Bonds]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57890.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57890.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[   WASHINGTON (CN) - South Miami will pay more $260,345 and defease parts of two bond offerings to settle an SEC complaint of defrauding investors about the bond issues' eligibility for tax exemptions.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;South Miami borrowed $12 million in two bond offerings and claimed they qualified for special low, tax-exempt rates, but did not disclose that it jeopardized the tax-exempt status of the bonds by loaning proceeds from the first one to a private developer and restructuring a lease structure before the second offering, the SEC said.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;South Miami, pop. 11,000, agreed to settle the charges and hire an independent consultant to oversee its bond offerings.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The SEC said in a statement announcing the settlement: "South Miami sought financing to develop a public parking garage. The project ultimately became a mixed-use retail and public parking structure to be developed by a for-profit developer. Under the initial lease agreement between the city and the developer, the city was responsible for all construction costs except the retail portion. The city retained full control over the operation and maintenance of the parking garage portion and all parking revenues. The developer's limited role was critical to the city receiving the benefits of tax-exempt financing. Under IRS regulations, the project could be financed on a tax-exempt basis only if its use by the for-profit developer was kept to a minimum."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;South Miami also must defease, or annul, part of the bond offerings at a cost of $1.6 million, the SEC said.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The bonds were funded through the Florida Municipal Loan Council.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As is customary with the SEC, South Miami did not have to admit it did anything wrong, or even out of the ordinary.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Tribe Must Arbitrate Embezzlement Claims]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/22/57880.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/22/57880.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - The Miccosukee Indians must arbitrate claims a former tribal chairman embezzled millions from its Morgan Stanley accounts, a federal judge ruled.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The ruling, levied last week in Miami, centers around Billy Cypress, former chairman of the Florida-based tribe, and his relationship with the financial firm.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cypress "mishandled and misappropriated" the funds "with the assistance of" Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, the Miccosukee claimed - citing fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, embezzlement, civil theft and racketeering violations against eight defendants, including the multinational bank.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Morgan Stanley countered that the claims could not be heard in court due to arbitration clauses in account applications and client agreements that Cypress executed when he opened the accounts.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One such clause, according to the ruling, states: "All parties to this agreement are giving up the right to sue each other in court, including the right to a trial by jury, except as provided by the rules of the arbitration forum in which a claim is filed."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cypress "oversaw, controlled, supervised and had unrestricted access and control over all the financial finds and records of the Miccosukee Tribe" from 2005 to 2009, the 10-page ruling adds.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The tribe, in opposition, said, "Cypress, as the main co-conspirator in embezzling and misappropriating millions of dollars of the Miccosukee Tribe's funds for his personal gain, was without authority to bind the Miccosukee Tribe, absent the knowledge and consent of the Miccosukee Tribe's General Counsel, to arbitration." U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, however, sided with Morgan Stanley due to the contracts.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Neither party disputes that the validity and enforceability of the arbitration provision itself in the client agreements," Cooke said. "Nor do the parties dispute that the claims at issue against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney are arbitrable under the applicable provision."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"(T)he Miccosukee Tribe allowed defendant Cypress, without objection, to oversee, control, supervise and have unrestricted access to all financial funds and records of the tribe. With this unfettered control and access, the Miccosukee Tribe permitted Morgan Stanley Smith Barney to believe that defendant Cypress had the authority to establish accounts and execute contracts attendant to the establishment of the financial accounts. ...&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Given that defendant Cypress had the legal authority to bind the Miccosukee Tribe in commercial contracts at the time he entered the client agreements with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, the client agreements must be enforced against the Miccosukee Tribe," Cooke added.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cooke ruled Cypress had the "requisite legal authority" to enter into the arbitration agreement with Morgan Stanley on behalf of the Miccosukee Tribe.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Therefore, the Miccosukee Tribe must arbitrate its claims against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney," the ruling states. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 16:54:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[International Legal Wrangle Blamed on Clerk]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57885.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/23/57885.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;LOS ANGELES (CN) - An American-Iranian solicitor claims in a federal lawsuit that he was disbarred from the English legal system after Ventura County Superior Court records were falsified to make it look like he was guilty of a crime.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Shahrokh Mireskandari, an Iranian-born U.S. citizen and a former partner in the London firm of Dean &amp; Dean, sued the Clerk of the Ventura County Superior Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mireskandari seeks declaratory judgment that he did not plead guilty to any crime, and was never convicted of a felony. He also wants asks court to overturn his conviction and destroy all records of the criminal proceedings against him.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The British tabloid the Daily Mail reported in June 2012 that Mireskandari had faked his legal qualifications from a mail-drop university in Hawaii, concealed criminal convictions, and bilked his clients.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That investigation was the catalyst for Mireskandari's eventual disbarment from the English legal system, the Mail reported on March 27 this year.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Mail claims that Mireskandari took a "leading role" in a fraudulent telemarketing business in Ventura in the early 1990s.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That alleged scam is at the center of the former solicitor's new federal lawsuit, which does not mention the nature of the charges detailed in the Mail stories.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mireskandari says in his 10-page complaint that he was never convicted of any crime, and was kicked out of the English legal profession "based on false, misleading or incomplete records from the Ventura County Superior Court."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Mail reported that Mireskandari employed a teenager, Patricia Darcy, to make cold calls for the telemarketing scheme. Darcy told the Mail in a Sept. 10, 2008 story that Mireskandari had opened a Ventura office and run up debt under her name.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Darcy was charged with consumer fraud, entered a limited guilty plea, and was fined and sentenced to community service, the Mail reported.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In his recent lawsuit, Mireskandari claims Darcy masterminded the alleged scam.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"From 1990 to 1991, plaintiff was subject to criminal proceedings in the Ventura County Superior Court," the complaint states. "The allegations stemmed from a business arrangement plaintiff had with Patricia Darcy, in which Ms. Darcy performed all business tasks and record keeping, made all business decisions and was in actual control of the business. Plaintiff had no knowledge of wrongdoing. Upon determining these facts, the prosecutors agreed that plaintiff need not plead to any count that was a felony or a 'crime of moral turpitude' under California Law."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Facing four misdemeanor charges, Mireskandari claims, he took a plea bargain. Around the same time, he says in his complaint, Darcy pleaded guilty to 11 felony charges in separate proceedings.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"On or before October 2008, the clerk of the Ventura County Superior Court destroyed the paper records pertaining to plaintiff's criminal case and pleas. Apparently around the same time, defendant created a plastic microfiche purporting to be the case docket for the plaintiff's case ('the plaintiff fiche'). It is numbered 90C000627. This file was destroyed over 17 years ago, leaving the incomplete, inaccurate and incomprehensible microfiche as the only remnant of the record of those proceedings," the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mireskandari claims the microfiche of his case docket was "incorrect in almost every particular."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"(I)t is falsified in certain material particulars, or is materially misleading or is materially incomplete. One of the more obvious signs of this, is that whole pages from the Darcy fiche have been copied into the plaintiff fiche," the complaint states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In testimony to the English Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, California Appellate Justice Elizabeth Baron assured the tribunal that the reproduction of the solicitors' court docket was authentic, Mireskandari claims.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Former chief clerk of the court Michael Planet told Mireskandari's investigators that the microfiche was false, Mireskandari says in his complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He claims he discovered that Baron's testimony relied on Peggy Yost, the court's "custodian of records," who, he claims, held no such title, and was only a deputy clerk.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;According to the complaint, Justice Baron pressured Yost to certify the case docket even though the clerk doubted its authenticity. Mireskandari claims Yost refused but provided the judge with a written confirmation that a computer printout of the case docket came from the microfiche.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When she retired, Yost gave notes of her interactions with Baron to the court's managing attorney Brenda McCormick, according to the complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Ms. Yost asserted that Justice Baron barraged her with telephone calls insisting she certify the docket, despite the statements of clerk Planet and attorney McCormick that no such certification could be provided under the circumstances and in light of the type of document at issue. Yost was essentially forced to provide the authentication as a substitute for the certification, which clearly was extraordinary," Mireskandari says in his complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Though the court admitted that the docket is "false, misleading and/or inaccurate, the clerk refuses to correct it or alert the English tribunal," Mireskandari claims.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The tribunal ordered Mireskandari to pay &#163;1.4 million ($2.1 million) in costs, ruling that he had violated 104 rules governing solicitors conduct, the Mail reported in its March 27 story this year.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Courthouse News Service database lists Mireskandari as plaintiff in seven lawsuits since 2011. He sued the Law Society of England and Wales for discrimination in Superior Court in February 2012.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In April that year, he asked the L.A. Federal Court to enjoin the Daily Mail and Associated Newspaper Ltd. from publishing his confidential educational records.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mireskandari challenged the disbarment in Federal Court last year. In that case, he named as respondent the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which initiated administrative proceedings against him.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mireskandari is represented by Andrew Rosenfeld of Menifee.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ventura County Superior Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Police Suicide Excluded from Drug Raid Suit]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/21/57848.htm]]></link>
<guid><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/21/57848.htm]]></guid>
<description><![CDATA[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(CN) - Fayette County, Pa. may preclude evidence of a police officer's recent suicide as it continues to litigate a case stemming from the seizure of drugs and drug paraphernalia during the Church of Universal Love and Music's "funk fest," a federal judge ruled.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On Aug. 1, 2009, the Fayette County Drug Task Force raided the nondenominational, interfaith Church of Universal Love and Music's (CULM) outdoor "funk fest," which drew a crowd of about 800 to founder William D. Pritts's 147-acre property in Bullskin, Pa.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Officials seized 76 bags of marijuana and 1,090 smoking devices and charged 22 parishioners with drug offenses, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The raid occurred five months after county officials agreed to pay $75,000 to settle Pritts's religious discrimination claim after a prolonged zoning dispute. Pritts, who claims the church forbids illegal drug use, later agreed to a permanent ban on outdoor concerts.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pritts and 14 others then sued the task force and county, as well as then-District Attorney and current state judge Nancy Vernon, First Assistant District Attorney Mark Brooks, and police officers Ryan Reese and Autumn Fike, in federal court.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The complaint asserts violations of the concertgoers' First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, speech, and association and their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and malicious prosecution. Senior U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose dismissed the claims against Brooks and Vernon in April 2011 and dismissed the tortious interference claim months later.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In August 2012, Ambrose found that the task force relied on an invalid "all persons" search warrant, but left it to a jury to decide the civil rights claims.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"The affidavit does not state, nor do the facts recited therein reasonably lead to the conclusion, that evidence of illegal activity would be found upon every person at the 'Funk Fest,' or even every person in the vending, stage, or camping area of the CULM property," Ambrose wrote. "The facts stated in the affidavit simply could not lead one to analogize the subject premises during music concerts, to locations such as an apartment used as a crack house, or a barn used as a methamphetamine lab."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The next month, Fike committed suicide . The defendants filed motions in limine to preclude evidence of 1) Fike's cause of death; 2) the First Amendment retaliation claim and republican County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink's related testimony; and 3) a Fourth Amendment claim on behalf of the church and plaintiff Monica Wright.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ambrose denied all the motions but the one regarding Fike Thursday, tossing aside the argument that Zimmerlink knows of no illegal motivation by the other commissioners.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"As plaintiffs point out, Ms. Zimmerlink's testimony, as a former county commissioner, is relevant to the background of this matter and the parties' history," Ambrose wrote. "Thus, she shall not be precluded from testifying at trial."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Wright may pursue a Fourth Amendment claim, the ruling states.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Ms. Wright alleges that she was ordered to the ground by visibly armed officers," Ambrose wrote. "I have held this sufficient to support a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation. The question has been neither raised nor ruled on since that holding issued. Accordingly, the fact that Ms. Wright was not actually searched does not preclude her from pursuing a Fourth Amendment claim."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But the defendants may exclude evidence of Fike's suicide, the judge ruled. "Plaintiffs proffer that the fact of Ms. Fike's suicide is relevant as evidence of guilt over the events that are the subject of this litigation," Ambrose wrote. "To the extent that this evidence is relevant, however, I find that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, I will exclude the evidence pursuant to Rule 403." ]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 20:16:00 -0700</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
