Eight months after Utah's immigration enforcement law was put on hold by
a federal judge, attorneys on both sides will have an opportunity on
Friday to argue the constitutionality of the measure.
The law created by House Bill 497 would have allowed police to check the
citizenship of anybody they arrest. It was initially blocked last May
by U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups, 14 hours after it went into
effect. At the time, Waddoups pointed at similarities to a contentious
Arizona law that is bound for the U.S. Supreme Court and said there was
sufficient evidence that at least some parts of the Utah law would be
found unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center
sued a week before the law went into effect to stop the implementation
of House Bill 497, saying it could lead to racial profiling. The U.S.
Justice Department joined the lawsuit in November, claiming the measure
usurped federal authority.
Lawyers for the Utah attorney general's office have maintained the law
is constitutional because it doesn't allow police to check the
citizenship of everyone they encounter. They argue lawmakers worked to
avoid the constitutional pitfalls of the Arizona law and passed a
significantly different bill.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
NY appeals court orders NJ programmer's acquittal
A federal appeals court on Friday reversed the conviction of a former
Goldman Sachs programmer on charges he stole computer code, ordering an
acquittal in a case that tested the boundaries of what can be considered
a crime as companies seek to protect their intellectual property from
competitors.
The unusually speedy mandate from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan will result in freedom for Sergey Aleynikov, of North Caldwell, N.J. He has been in prison since he was sentenced in March to more than eight years in prison. He was convicted in December 2010 of stealing trade secrets and transporting stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce.
A three-judge appeals panel heard arguments on Thursday, but the judges gave no indication that they would reverse the lower court hours later with a terse, one-paragraph order. The 2nd Circuit said it would issue a written ruling "in due course" to explain its decision.
Aleynikov's attorney, Kevin Marino, said he spoke with his client Friday. He said Aleynikov reacted by concluding: "There is justice in the world."
"I could not be happier," Marino said. "It's justice because Sergey Aleynikov did not commit either of the crimes with which he was charged. The government's attempt to stretch this criminal federal statute beyond all recognition resulted in a grave injustice that put Sergey Aleynikov in prison for a year."
In arguments before the 2nd Circuit on Thursday, Marino called it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" that his client was facing eight years in prison because he was found to have information that was not a product that Goldman Sachs sold in interstate and foreign commerce. A prosecutor had asked the court to uphold the conviction, saying protection of trade secrets was the only way companies could retain their technological advantages.
The unusually speedy mandate from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan will result in freedom for Sergey Aleynikov, of North Caldwell, N.J. He has been in prison since he was sentenced in March to more than eight years in prison. He was convicted in December 2010 of stealing trade secrets and transporting stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce.
A three-judge appeals panel heard arguments on Thursday, but the judges gave no indication that they would reverse the lower court hours later with a terse, one-paragraph order. The 2nd Circuit said it would issue a written ruling "in due course" to explain its decision.
Aleynikov's attorney, Kevin Marino, said he spoke with his client Friday. He said Aleynikov reacted by concluding: "There is justice in the world."
"I could not be happier," Marino said. "It's justice because Sergey Aleynikov did not commit either of the crimes with which he was charged. The government's attempt to stretch this criminal federal statute beyond all recognition resulted in a grave injustice that put Sergey Aleynikov in prison for a year."
In arguments before the 2nd Circuit on Thursday, Marino called it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" that his client was facing eight years in prison because he was found to have information that was not a product that Goldman Sachs sold in interstate and foreign commerce. A prosecutor had asked the court to uphold the conviction, saying protection of trade secrets was the only way companies could retain their technological advantages.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
High court asked to undo Mont. campaign money ban
Corporations are asking the Supreme Court to allow them to spend freely
to influence upcoming elections in Montana, despite a state high court
ruling upholding a ban on independent corporate campaign spending.
Three groups filed papers with Justice Anthony Kennedy on Friday, saying that the Montana court's decision in December is out of step with Kennedy's majority opinion in the 2010 Citizens United case that struck down a federal ban on independent campaign spending.
The American Tradition Partnership and two other groups sued soon after the 2010 decision to overturn Montana's century-old corporate spending ban. But the state Supreme Court said the Montana law could remain in place because it was a response to political corruption and allows for some corporate spending.
Three groups filed papers with Justice Anthony Kennedy on Friday, saying that the Montana court's decision in December is out of step with Kennedy's majority opinion in the 2010 Citizens United case that struck down a federal ban on independent campaign spending.
The American Tradition Partnership and two other groups sued soon after the 2010 decision to overturn Montana's century-old corporate spending ban. But the state Supreme Court said the Montana law could remain in place because it was a response to political corruption and allows for some corporate spending.
Miss high court hears challenge to Barbour pardons
Feuding attorneys asked the Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday to
determine the validity of pardons that Haley Barbour gave to convicted
killers and other convicts during his final days as governor.
Chief Justice Bill Waller Jr. said the court would not rule Thursday, but he didn't say when a decision would come.
"We want them to take enough time to do it right," said Randy Walker, who objects to the pardons. Walker was shot in the head in 1993 by one of the men Barbour set free last month. That former inmate, David Gatlin, also fatally shot his own estranged wife as she held the couple's baby.
At the heart of the dispute is Section 124 of the Mississippi Constitution, which says "no pardon shall be granted" by the governor until the convicted felon applying for the pardon publishes notice of that application for 30 days in a newspaper in or near the county where the crime was committed.
Justices could uphold the pardons, as requested by a private attorney representing Republican Barbour. Or they could declare the pardons invalid, as requested by Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood. If they agree with Hood that the 30-day publication is a must, they could send the pardons back to a lower court, where a circuit judge could hold a trial to determine whether the pardons met those requirements.
Chief Justice Bill Waller Jr. said the court would not rule Thursday, but he didn't say when a decision would come.
"We want them to take enough time to do it right," said Randy Walker, who objects to the pardons. Walker was shot in the head in 1993 by one of the men Barbour set free last month. That former inmate, David Gatlin, also fatally shot his own estranged wife as she held the couple's baby.
At the heart of the dispute is Section 124 of the Mississippi Constitution, which says "no pardon shall be granted" by the governor until the convicted felon applying for the pardon publishes notice of that application for 30 days in a newspaper in or near the county where the crime was committed.
Justices could uphold the pardons, as requested by a private attorney representing Republican Barbour. Or they could declare the pardons invalid, as requested by Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood. If they agree with Hood that the 30-day publication is a must, they could send the pardons back to a lower court, where a circuit judge could hold a trial to determine whether the pardons met those requirements.
Foreign donations are a risk in super PAC setting
Money pouring into the presidential election from super political action
committees and nonprofit campaign groups appears so far to be strictly
American in origin, donated by U.S. companies, unions and millionaires.
But it's easier than ever to conceal the source of money and the
identities of contributors, making conditions ripe for illegal donations
from foreigners, overseas companies or governments attempting to help a
favored candidate for the White House.
"Clearly it is more difficult to enforce the ban on foreign spending when the source of the money is not publicly disclosed," said Trevor Potter, head of the Campaign Legal Center and former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission. Potter is the attorney advising television comedian Stephen Colbert, who set up his own super PAC to illustrate absurdities of how money affects U.S. elections.
Foreign political donations have been outlawed since 1966, and a brief U.S. Supreme Court order last month upheld the ban for foreigners living in the U.S. as well as corporations and individuals abroad.
"Clearly it is more difficult to enforce the ban on foreign spending when the source of the money is not publicly disclosed," said Trevor Potter, head of the Campaign Legal Center and former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission. Potter is the attorney advising television comedian Stephen Colbert, who set up his own super PAC to illustrate absurdities of how money affects U.S. elections.
Foreign political donations have been outlawed since 1966, and a brief U.S. Supreme Court order last month upheld the ban for foreigners living in the U.S. as well as corporations and individuals abroad.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between February 1, 2011 and October 18,
2011, inclusive.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/powerwave/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Powerwave and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Powerwave engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of wireless solutions for wireless communications networks worldwide.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing a dramatic decline in demand from customers in its North American markets; (ii) that the Company was rapidly burning through its free cash flow as revenues declined and expenses increased; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and earnings.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/powerwave/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Powerwave and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Powerwave engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of wireless solutions for wireless communications networks worldwide.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing a dramatic decline in demand from customers in its North American markets; (ii) that the Company was rapidly burning through its free cash flow as revenues declined and expenses increased; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and earnings.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
Strauss-Kahn has March court date in US
A New York court has scheduled a hearing on a lawsuit filed by the woman
who accused former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique
Strauss-Kahn of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan hotel.
Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Strauss-Kahn last year, but his accuser has demanded damages in civil court.
The March 15 hearing will deal with issues that must be resolved before a trial, which has yet to be scheduled.
Strauss-Kahn wants the lawsuit dismissed because he says he had diplomatic immunity. He isn't required to attend the March court session.
The hotel maid who says she was attacked and forcibly sodomized by Strauss-Kahn is Nafissatou Diallo (na-fee-SAH'-too dee-AH'-loh). Her lawyer, Kenneth Thompson, says she is "looking forward to her day in court and can't wait to get to trial."
Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Strauss-Kahn last year, but his accuser has demanded damages in civil court.
The March 15 hearing will deal with issues that must be resolved before a trial, which has yet to be scheduled.
Strauss-Kahn wants the lawsuit dismissed because he says he had diplomatic immunity. He isn't required to attend the March court session.
The hotel maid who says she was attacked and forcibly sodomized by Strauss-Kahn is Nafissatou Diallo (na-fee-SAH'-too dee-AH'-loh). Her lawyer, Kenneth Thompson, says she is "looking forward to her day in court and can't wait to get to trial."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)