|
|
|
US Marine leaves Philippines after court acquittal
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/22 08:41
|
A U.S. Marine whose rape conviction was overturned by the Philippine appeals court has left the country, the U.S. Embassy said Friday.
The news that Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith had departed the Philippines under the authority of United States military officials came a day after the Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's sentence — a decision that sparked protests, including one Friday in which about 200 demonstrators tried to march to the embassy before they were stopped by police.pThree years ago, Smith was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for raping a Filipino woman after a night of drinking./ppThe emotional case soon turned into a political tug-of-war between the government — keen on maintaining smooth relations with its key ally — and nationalist, left-wing and women's rights activists eager to showcase that the Philippines can do without U.S. protection./ppSmith spent only about three weeks in a Philippine jail before U.S. officials obtained custody, arguing that the Visiting Forces Agreement between the two countries allowed them to hold the Marine until his legal appeal was resolved./ppThe U.S. Embassy statement did not say when Smith left the country or where he was headed and the embassy spokeswoman could not immediately be reached for details./ppThis has been a difficult and emotional case for all involved, especially their families and loved ones. We hope that the parties can now move on with their lives, the statement said./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Murtha Immune from Defamation Suit
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/14 13:50
|
Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha is immune from a defamation lawsuit over statements he made to the press, allegedly accusing U.S. Marines of slaughtering 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005, the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich said Murtha damaged his reputation by telling reporters that Wuterich and his fellow Marines massacred civilian men, women and children in cold blood in Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005.
On Nov. 19, 2005, a roadside bomb detonated, killing a member of Wuterich's squad. Two dozen Iraqi civilians were killed in the ensuing fight. Iraqi witnesses said Marines slaughtered people in the street and in their homes to avenge their fallen comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. Charges were brought against eight Marines, including four who were charged with murder. Many of the charges were later dropped.
In the wake of Haditha, Murtha gave a series of interviews to news outlets such as CNN and NPR. Wuterich said the congressman's statements provide the impression, implicitly or explicitly, that SSgt. Wuterich and others deliberately murdered innocent Iraqi civilians in a cold-blooded massacre and inappropriately compared the tragic events of Haditha with the infamous war crimes and deliberate wide-spread massacre of civilians at My Lai in Vietnam.
Murtha invoked the Westfall Act, which extends absolute immunity to federal employees acting in the course of their official duties. He also pointed to the fact that the attorney general's office had certified that his statements fell within the scope of his duties.
But the district court refused to certify the action under the Westfall Act pending discovery.
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., vacated the order denying certification and remanded with instructions to substitute the United States for Murtha as the defendant.
Senior Judge Edwards found insufficient evidence that Murtha's actions clearly exceeded the scope of his employment.
Further, Edwards said the case should be dismissed, because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for Wuterich's tort claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't revive Va. anti-spam law
Legal World News |
2009/03/31 09:40
|
The Supreme Court will not consider reinstating Virginia's anti-spam law, among the nation's toughest in banning unsolicited e-mails.
p
The court on Monday said it will leave in place a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that the law was unconstitutional because it prohibited political, religious and other messages in addition to commercial solicitations./ppVirginia was the only state to ban noncommerical spam e-mail./ppThe decision also cements the reversal of the conviction of Jeremy Jaynes, who once was considered one of the world's most prolific spammers. Jaynes bombarded Internet users with millions of pieces of spam, all of it commercial./ppIn 2004, Jaynes became the first person in the U.S. to be convicted of a felony for sending unsolicited bulk e-mail. He was sentenced to nine years but is currently serving time in federal prison on an unrelated conviction for securities fraud./ppThe case is Virginia v. Jaynes, 08-765./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feds appeal ruling in oil royalties case
Legal Business |
2009/03/30 09:41
|
| The federal government on Monday asked a group of appeals court judges to overturn a ruling that could prevent the U.S. Interior Department from collecting billions in royalties on oil and natural gas leases.pIn January, a smaller three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that said the Interior Department could not collect royalties from eight deepwater leases held by Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in the Gulf of Mexico. The leases were obtained between 1996 and 2000 by Kerr-McGee Corp., which Anadarko later acquired./ppGovernment lawyers are now asking for an en banc review of the case, bringing it before the entire New Orleans-based 5th Circuit. A court spokesman said the circuit has 17 active judges./ppAt issue is interpretation of a 1995 federal law designed to provide a break from royalties at a time when oil and natural gas prices were extremely low. The law waived all royalty payments until a specific amount of oil and gas was produced./ppThe Interior Department has contended it had the authority to lift the royalty relief once prices reached a certain level. The law became particularly prickly as oil prices rose and oil companies began posting huge profits./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida Foreclosure Law Firm Helps Clients
Press Release |
2009/03/23 09:31
|
The two-year-long meltdown in real estate values and sales has generated confusing options confronting property owners fearful of losing their homes as they fall behind in mortgage payments.
One well-known Tampa Bay law firm, which specializes in helping clients avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes, has recognized the growing vogue of mortgage modifications: the simple-sounding but complex process of working with lending institutions to decrease mortgage principals or interest rates, or extend the time for mortgage loan repayment, all of which decrease the financial burden on homeowners.
At its best, it is a good solution for some, says Shawn Yesner, managing partner in the firm of Yesner amp; Boss (www.YesnerBoss.com). At worst, it is a scam that can plunge desperate homeowners even deeper into the mortgage morass.
Our goal for our clients is to make it possible for them to keep their homes with an affordable modification, or at least to reduce or eliminate their liability under their loans, said Yesner. We don't want to add to their financial burdens, so we keep our rates low, much lower than fees demanded by 'foreclosure-rescue' scammers. Our work always includes legal services provided by a Florida-licensed attorney who specializes in foreclosure issues.
Yesner cautions that mortgage modifications are not a quick-fix for everyone. Many mortgages that are modified still go into default in a matter of months. Yet, the advantages for the property owner with a successful modification is being able to keep the home at an affordable monthly price. The incentive for the lender is the opportunity to turn a non-performing loan back into a good investment and sidestep foreclosure action in which the lender winds up owning a property it cannot sell while maintenance costs keep growing.
So many people are desperate to save their homes they are vulnerable to scammers, said Christopher Boss, a partner in the firm Yesner amp; Boss. Any time a company guarantees results, it should raise a huge red flag. And Florida law requires that homeowners be given certain disclosure documents. If they aren't provided, that should be a huge red flag. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
