AA's Popular Posts

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Swimming Pool Drifts Away From Homeowner




Swimming Pool Drifts Away From Homeowner

When is your swimming pool not actually your swimming pool? When it becomes the centerpiece of a confusing tax bill dispute between a homeowner and a city.

Sarita Murray, a Baltimore homeowner, says she's the victim of city workers who are unwilling to admit they made a mistake. The city says she failed to pay a property tax bill. Now a company has a tax lien on the property and her pool's gate is padlocked with a no trespassing sign.

"This has been devastating," says Murray, who bought the 1,295-square-foot house and the adjoining property for $90,000 in January 1996 and says she has canceled checks, as well as paperwork from the mortgage lender and the title company that handled herrefinance to prove her property taxes were all paid up.

She says all she wants is for her two young children to once again enjoy the $25,000 swimming pool she put in for them in the vacant lot she owned adjacent to her 1929-built 3-bedroom, 2-bath home. The pool was built in 2005; Murray's dispute with the city began in 2007.
Murray had been receiving two property tax bills, one for each lot she owned. When she decided to put in the pool in, the city processed all of the necessary paperwork to consolidate the lots and approve her permit to build. "The city came out every step of the way," she said.

Upon completion of the pool, her two separate tax bills of $400 for the original unimproved lot and $2,300 for the house were then combined, she said. The new single tax bill came to $3,200, incorporating the combined amounts plus an increase. However, she still kept receiving a $400 bill for the lot with the swimming pool, which she thought was a mistake. At one point she even received confirmation from the city that the lots had been successfully consolidated.

Thinking the second bill was simply an error, Murray stopped paying it.

"We live in our backyard. This is our Cancun."


After two years of the children splashing in the pool, Murray walked outside to remove some litter from her lawn one day in 2007. That's when she then saw a no trespassing sign posted on a tree in her yard. It said that ownership to the swimming pool lot had changed (for a mere $435 and some fees) and that her family would be trespassing if they used it.

What happened to Murray is not uncommon. Quite a few real estate investors have moved into buying tax lien certificates from cities as a way to get a quick turn on investment -- usually.

Murray's property was sold to the highest bidder who becomes the new debtor, a little like when a credit card company sells delinquent charge-offs to a debt-collector. The tax lien holder then tries to collect for a profit. If you don't pay up after a set period of time, it can foreclose on your property and try to sell it on the open market.

Murray admits the kids sometimes entered and went swimming anyway, and she didn't call them out. When tax lien holder Per Suit learned this was happening, they padlocked the gate and threatened to fill the pool with cement.

"I am paranoid every morning. I wake up if there is a truck going down the street; I'm wondering if they are coming to fill it in," she said.

She needed this issue resolved. "I called back to the city to the gentlemen who had helped me [when I built the pool]," said Murray. "He said, 'No, that's impossible we consolidated the lots.'" Another gentleman who got on the phone then told her, "Someone dropped the ball here. Those lots were never consolidated."

It's Hard to Fight City Hall

"When I started filing paperwork, the city changed the story several times," Murray told us. "They said I had an outdated tax bill, but any smart person knows when you refinancea lot, you have to pay any outstanding bills."

And how did the city explain her increased, single tax bill? Property values had gone up, they said, everyone's taxes increased. However, the taxes on the home's lot increased to more than combined amount of the lots previously, but the now-improved lot with the swimming pool was still $400.

It seemed to her that the city's story wouldn't hold water. So she took Per Suits to court to reclaim her property.

Murray's argument was that she was not properly served notice of an impendingforeclosure. However, before the case even started, it was dismissed by a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge, who told her lawyer before the hearing, "There is no way you can win this," according to transcripts obtained by Stephen Janis of Investigative Voice, which published photos of her property.

Murray says she's tired of fighting. It's been two and a half years and a lot of legal dollars spent. Plus, she says, she thinks it would be difficult for Per Suit to sell the property to someone else because there is a cloud hanging over the title. Her mortgage lender still has a stake in the property, and she is still paying the homeowner's insurance for it.

"My goal is to make the kids as happy as I can make them," she says. "I think they've already shed as many tears over this situation as I have."

She said if she had to do it all over again she would've accepted Per Suit's very first offer of $10,000 and then just sued the city.

Although this has all been a pain in the rear, Murray says: "My fight isn't over. I will continue to fight until the fat lady sings." What her next move will be is unclear, but for Per Suit, it is trying to sell the otherwise empty lot, including the pool, for $43,000, but has yet to find a buyer. Murray has been advised to just settle with the company and buy the lot from them, but she hasn't made a decision. She just hopes that, one day soon, her kids will be able to swim in the pool again.


What to Do If This Happens to You

Consolidate your bills. 

Don't ignore errors. Mistake or not, a bill is a bill until you clear up the mess.

Open your mail. Tax liens are commonly put on properties where owners are behind on either property taxes or even federal income taxes. In most cases, the taxpayer is provided with several letters of warning and requests for payment of back taxes or current taxes before a tax lien is implemented.

Regularly check your credit report. If the bill still goes unpaid, the government can foreclose on the property and sell it off for the amount of the unpaid debt and fees. An easy way to check if there is a tax lien against your property is to check your credit report, as it typically stays on your report for seven years. Also you can ask yourmortgage lender to do a title search.

Keep your receipts. When you pay your property taxes, be sure to keep a copy of the receipt from the city and your canceled check ot bank statement proving payment. Or do like Murray did and have your lender pay the bill out of escrow. It too will keep proof of payment.

Plan your next move.


A Baltimore family has been locked out of their backyard pool by a tax lien holder.






Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Top 10 Class-Action Lawsuits




Top 10 Class-Action Lawsuits

There have been numerous high profile class action lawsuits over the years, many involving securities fraud. But other famous class action lawsuits relate to pharmaceutical drugs, credit card abuses, and dangerous or unhealthy products.

Here, we present the top 10 class action lawsuits either won, settled or pending and in terms of damages sought as compiled by LawInfo.com. (Note: although corporations may be found legally and financially responsible for damages in these types of cases, they are almost always settled rather than taken to trial, and settlement agreements stipulate the defendant did not admit to any wrongdoing.)




10. Nortel Networks






Status: Settled 2006
Amount: $2.4 billion

Two separate class-actions covered investors who held Nortel stock from Oct. 24, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001, and from April 24, 2003 through April 27, 2004. The lawsuits were filed under federal securities laws for fraud.

Nortel was a leading supplier of fiber-optic equipment to emerging Internet companies. After the Internet bust caused the company’s sales to vanish, the company started creating false accounting entries showing steady equipment sales. When the fraud was uncovered, Nortel’s stock eventually fell to $0.47 from a high of $124.




9. AOL Time Warner



Status: Settled 2005
Amount: $2.5 billion

Investors in AOL Time Warner stock sued the company for fraud under federal securities law. The company was alleged to have improperly accounted for dozens of advertising transactions between 1998 and 2002.

The alleged transactions created the appearance that they were generating revenue when, in reality, were just shifting money back and forth. The alleged false earnings statements inflated the company’s value by $1.7 billion.



8. Cendant



Status: Settled 2000
Amount: $3.1 billion

A lawsuit representing all investors who held stock in Cendant from May 31, 1995 through Aug. 28, 1991, was filed against the company for securities fraud. In 1998, Cendant disclosed that for the prior 10 years the company had been fraudulently overstating its income by up to $500 million. Executives created false profit statements which caused an increase in the value of the company’s stock.

When the false profits were discovered, the value of the company collapsed. In addition to being sentenced to jail, former Vice Chairman Kirk Shelton was ordered to reimburse Cendant $3.27 billion at a monthly rate of $2,000.



7. Tyco International



Status: Settled 2007
Amount: $3.2 billion

A series of class-action lawsuits were filed against Tyco International Ltd., former officers and directors of Tyco, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, alleging that these individuals and entities made false and misleading public statements and omitted material information about Tyco's finances in violation of Sections 10(b), 14, 20A and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



6. Breast Implant Litigation



Status: Settled 1994
Amount: $3.4 billion

After years of litigation claiming women suffered autoimmune disease from their silicone breast implants, the major breast implant manufacturers (Corning, Baxter, Bristol-Meyers Squibb/MEC, 3M) settled class action litigation for $3.4 billion. At the time, it was the largest class action lawsuit in history.



5. Exxon Mobil



Status: Judgment 2001
Amount: $5 billion, later reduced to $500 million

This class action lawsuit related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill affecting thousands of people and more than 1,300 miles of coastline.

A federal judge ordered ExxonMobil to pay punitive damages and interest to thousands of commercial fishermen, cannery workers, land owners, Alaska natives and others who were harmed by the spill.



4. World Com



Status: Settled 2005
Amount: $6.2 billion

This class-action lawsuit represented investors who held World Com stock from April 29, 1999 through June 25, 2002. Lawsuits were initiated against World Com, and individual employees Bernard Ebbers (CEO), Scott Sullivan (CFO) David Myers (Controller) and Buford Yates (Accounting Director) for fraud.

The main charges of fraud stemmed from improperly classifying expenses as “capital costs” and inflating revenue statements with false entries. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) later stated that the earnings and assets had been falsely stated by over $11 billion.



3. Enron



Status: Settled 2006
Amount: $7.2 billion

Investors in Enron corporate stock filed lawsuits under both federal and state securities laws against Enron Corporation, individual Enron officers and directors, Enron’s accountant Arthur Anderson, individual Arthur Anderson partners and employees, and Enron’s former law firm Vinson & Elkins.

The lawsuit’s primary contention was that Enron engaged in fraud by concealing from investors losses by Enron-controlled special purpose entities (the Raptors). Because Enron’s primary corporate losses were attributed to these entities, those losses were not disclosed in annual reports or SEC filings.

In total, the $7.2 billion in settlements reached by Enron to compensate shareholders whose stock became worthless during the company collapse is the largest payout to date in a shareholder securities class action.



2. Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores



Status: Pending (filed 2000)
Amount: Seeking $11 billion

A female employee is suing Wal-Mart Stores for sexual discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claiming that after several years of excellent work evaluations she was denied a promotion. The case was converted to class-action status to represent every female employee from 1998 onwards.



1. Master Tobacco Settlement



Status: Settled 1998
Amount: $206 billion over 25 years

Each individual state, represented by that state’s Attorney General, filed suit against each of the top six tobacco companies in state court. To settle the individual suits, tobacco companies Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip Morris Incorporated, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Commonwealth Tobacco, and Liggett & Myers entered into a joint settlement.

The individual lawsuits were filed under the different states’ consumer protection and anti-trust laws for the recovery of smoking-related health care costs covered by each state under their Medicare/Medicaid programs, and to enforce laws designed to reduce smoking by those less than 18 years of age.

The master settlement agreement released the tobacco companies from further litigation in state courts.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Ruling Could Shield Some Homeowners From Foreclosure




Court: Busted Securitization Prevents Foreclosure

By ABIGAIL FIELD

On March 30, an Alabama judge issued a short, conclusory order that stopped foreclosure on the home of a beleaguered family, and also prevents the same bank in the case from trying to foreclose against that couple, ever again. This may not seem like big news — but upon review of the underlying documents, the extraordinarily important nature of the decision and the case becomes obvious.

No Securitization, No Foreclosure

The couple involved, the Horaces, took out a predatory mortgage with Encore Credit Corp in November, 2005. Apparently Encore sold their loan to EMC Mortgage Corp, who then tried to securitize it in a Bear Stearns deal. If the securitization had been done properly, in February 2006 the trust created to hold the loans would have acquired the Horace loan. Once the Horaces defaulted, as they did in 2007, the trustee would have been able to foreclose on the Horaces.

And that’s why this case is so big: the judge found the securitization of the Horace loan wasn’t done properly, so the trustee — LaSalle National Bank Association, now part of Bank of America (BAC) — couldn’t foreclose. In making that decision, the judge is the first to really address the issue, head-on: If a screwed-up securitization process meant a loan never got securitized, can a bank foreclose under the state versions of the Uniform Commercial Code anyway? This judge says no, finding that since the securitization was busted, the trust didn’t have the right to foreclose, period.

Since the judge’s order doesn’t explain, how should people understand his decision? Luckily, the underlying documents make the judge’s decision obvious.

check the rest of this victory:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/real-estate/court-busted-securitization-prevents-foreclosure/19900530/

Monday, April 4, 2011

The Case of the Day: Can Genes be Patented?



The Case of the Day:     Can Genes be Patented?



Science and The Law go head to head this morning, mano-a-mano, in what we’ll go ahead and call the must-see legal hearing of the day.
The high-profile case involves a challenge to organizations that hold patents covering the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which have been linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. The issue in the case: Whether human genes are subject to patent protection.
The ACLU and others have challenged the BRCA patents on the grounds that they have blocked scientists from conducting necessary testing and research that could yield better and cheaper care for cancer.
Myriad Genetics, which owns the BRCA patents, has countered that patent protection is needed to protect companies that invest considerable time and money developing pioneering genetic tests.
Last year, a New York federal judge struck down some of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents, holding that they relate to isolated DNA “found in nature” and thus aren’t subject to patent protection.
An appeal from the case will be heard this morning beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  (Here’s a walk-up to the hearing at the Atlantic and click here to read Law Blog background on the case.)
The Justice Department filed a brief in the case in favor of those challenging the BRCA patents, contending that the “genomic DNA that has merely been isolated from the human body, without further alteration or manipulation, is not patent-eligible.”
The case has far-reaching implications. As much as 20% of the genome, according to some estimates, is subject to patents, which also cover genetic sequences involving such conditions as hearing loss and Alzheimer’s disease.
As the Atlantic preview of the appeal puts it: “So many people in so many different industries and for so many different reasons are waiting for a ruling in this case from the Federal Circuit – and then perhaps from the United States Supreme Court.”
In separate genetic news, the New York Times today reports on the discovery of no fewer than five genes that promise greater understanding of Alzheimer’s.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Texting law frustrates law enforcement



Texting law frustrates Rochester-area law enforcement

Just weeks after five Fairport High School graduates were killed in a fiery car wreck in Bloomfield, state lawmakers were proposing legislation that would outlaw texting while driving, which police say may have been a factor in the fatal accident four years ago.

The bill, which outlawed the practice, hit the books on Nov. 1, 2009.

But in the 14 months that followed, the Greece Police Department, which serves a town of nearly 100,000 people, did not write a single ticket for texting while driving.

And according to public records requested by the Democrat and Chronicle, neither did the police departments of Gates, Irondequoit, Webster, Brockport or Ogden.

The Brighton Police Department wrote just three texting tickets during that span, and the New York State Police wrote just 40 of them in Monroe County in 2010, compared with more than 3,200 tickets for talking on a cellphone while driving.

The problem, police officers say, is that the law mandates "secondary enforcement," meaning that motorists cannot be pulled over and ticketed for texting unless they are committing another "primary" violation, such as speeding.

This means that a patrolling officer can literally pull alongside a driver and watch them send a text message, but then can't legally pull them over for doing so.

It's a technicality that has been frustrating law enforcement officers for the past year and a half.


"We've typically been a really strong cellphone and distracted driving enforcement agency," said Brighton Police Chief Mark Henderson, whose department gave out 476 tickets for talking on a cellphone while driving in 2010.

"Then you see that of all the hundreds of cellphone tickets written, there have only been three for texting. Obviously, that shows there's an issue with the law."

Gaye-Ann Dixon of Rochester, with State Trooper Robert Frost, uses a device that simulates texting and driving. She had an “accident.”
Gaye-Ann Dixon of Rochester, with State Trooper Robert Frost, uses a device that simulates texting and driving. She had an “accident.”

Death by distraction

As text messaging entered the mainstream, distracted driving accidents spiked. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that 5,474 deaths and an additional 448,000 injuries in 2009 were the result of distracted driving, a blanket term which includes a number of ill-advised driving behaviors, the most prominent being cellphone use.

These distracted driving accidents accounted for 16 percent of fatal crashes in 2009, up from 10 percent in 2005.

In response, states began passing texting-while-driving bans. Today, 38 states including New York, plus the District of Columbia, now forbid the act.

But New York's law is so toothless that the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, which assigns scores to each state's texting legislation, "rated New York as not even having a texting law," said Judith Stone, the Washington D.C.-based group's president.

"We decided we weren't even going to count laws of secondary enforcement," said Stone. "That's how weak they are."

Statistics from the New York State Police reinforce this notion, and show a similar ratio to the data from Monroe County: the state police gave only 615 texting-while-driving tickets throughout New York in 2010, compared with 38,460 tickets for talking on a cellphone while driving.

Such enforcement, some law enforcement officials say, is backwards.

While both acts increase the likelihood of a crash, texting while driving is far more dangerous than talking on a cellphone while driving, studies show.

But New York is the only state where talking on a cellphone while driving is a primary offense for all drivers, while texting is a secondary offense.

"It's hard enough to see (someone texting) when you're driving by," said Gates Police Lt. Jim VanBrederode, who said that most offenders have their phones in their laps. "And if you do happen to see them texting, you have to have something else to pull them over for."

With the restrictions on enforcement in place, some of the texting-while-driving tickets in the Rochester region have been given after an accident has already occurred — after a texting motorist has drifted into another lane and hit another car.

In some cases, it was too late to ticket for the offense; the driver had already been killed.

In November 2009, a woman was killed in Huron, Wayne County, when her vehicle crossed into the path of an oncoming truck. An investigation found that she was sending text messages just before the crash.

In April 2010, a State University College at Geneseo student died after drifting off the road in Leicester, Livingston County. Authorities said she, too, was likely texting at the time of the accident.

And while it was never confirmed who was sending or reading the messages, an investigation into the accident that claimed the lives of five Fairport High School students in 2007 found that the driver's cellphone had sent and received text messages moments before the crash. The Fairport Police Department was the only Monroe County agency that could not provide records of texting-while-driving tickets.

More dangerous than drinking and driving

The rise in texting-related accidents is unsurprising when the dangers are quantified.

A 2009 study by Car and Driver magazine presented drivers — some of whom were drunk, and some of whom were texting — with a randomly appearing stop light while they were traveling at 70 mph.

When texting, drivers needed, on average, 32 more feet to stop their cars than they did when they were drunk.

As each subsequent study showed similar findings and as texting-related accidents continued to climb, national advocacy groups formed, while Oprah Winfrey began a campaign online and on television to spread awareness of the dangers of texting while driving.

Such dangers are echoed by many drivers locally.

"They're a nuisance on the road," said Mike Castro, 22, of Irondequoit. "It drives people's attentions and causes problems, causes accidents. It's just a big distraction."

But many still text while driving, particularly younger drivers; 30 percent of drivers under the age of 30 admitted to sending text messages while driving, according to a poll from the U.S. Department of Transportation and Consumer Reports magazine, which was released in March.

“It’s so easy, and it’s so tempting,” said Ogden Police Chief Doug Nordquist. “The device will go off, and the urge to read that text is very large for some people.”

With enforcement proving extremely challenging, local agencies have been making other efforts to curb the practice.

Monroe County enacted a recent crackdown on distracted driving in the hopes of reducing injuries and raising awareness of the dangers of texting while driving.

And in Ontario County, a form on the sheriff’s website allows civilians to report driver cellphone usage; report a driver’s license plate, and the sheriff’s office will send a letter urging them to stop.

“Even if enforcement is difficult, we’re trying to come up with innovative ways to inform people that it is dangerous behavior,” said Ontario County Sheriff Philip Povero.

Local campaigns can help curb the behavior to an extent.

But to make a sizable dent, said Stone, a combination of three factors is needed: widespread education of the dangers, a law forbidding the activity and strict enforcement of that law.

New York only has two out of three.

“Enforcement’s not the only way,” to prevent texting, said Greece Police Chief Todd Baxter, “but it helps more than anything else.”

Through a spokesman, Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard declined to comment.
Legislative failures

Frustrated with the state’s slow pace in passing a texting-while-driving ban, Monroe County and Ontario County passed laws of their own in early 2009, banning the act and making it a primary offense.

But when the state’s law finally hit the books a few months later, the legislation superseded all of the local laws, and a dearth of texting-while-driving tickets has followed.

While the ineffectiveness of the secondary enforcement has come to the attention of state lawmakers, measures to amend the law have failed on a number of occasions.

Outspoken opposition to such a change has been difficult to find; instead, a stronger texting law appears to have simply fallen through Albany’s cracks. Proposed laws to make texting while driving a primary offense have passed both houses of the state Legislature — but not in the same year.

In 2008, an early version of the law passed in the state Senate, but died in the Assembly, said state Senator Joseph Robach, R-Greece.

Two years later, Governor David Paterson pushed for the change. This time the Assembly passed a bill, but matching legislation never made it to the floor in the Senate.

Now yet another bill is making its way through the state Senate.

Robach said this bill would be passed, but was less certain about its prospects in the Assembly, where a matching bill currently lies in the Assembly’s transportation committee.

Assemblyman David Gantt, D-Rochester, chairman of the transportation committee, did not return a call seeking comment.

So while local law enforcement officials can’t control what goes on in Albany, they’re continuing to do what they can to educate drivers about the dangers.

Said Povero: “It’s this continued discussion that again will get the word out to everyone.”




Local law enforcement sounds off

"Everyone agrees that texting is more dangerous than cellphone use itself, but the way the law is written — making it a secondary offense — is really counterproductive when it comes to enforcing it."


Greece Police Chief Todd Baxter
"We're finding that it is becoming a very, very serious issue, and we're finding it is the (cause) of some accidents. Any law should come under review when the results can yield such dangerous circumstances."


Ogden Police Chief Doug Nordquist
"They need to re-look at that and recognize that if police officers are going to have an impact on reducing (texting while driving), they've got to be able to enforce it like any other traffic offense."


Gates Police Chief David DiCaro
"A person talking on their phone can be issued a ticket, but a person texting cannot be issued a ticket. Is there a disparity in the law? Yes, there is. Should it be corrected? Yes, it should."


Brighton Police Chief Mark Henderson
"We need to continue to emphasize to legislators that texting while driving is growing in epidemic proportions. Law enforcement and sheriffs in general continue to support enhancing New York's law."
Ontario County Sheriff Philip Povero

Findings

From November 2009 through 2010, only 58 tickets were given in Monroe County and Victor for texting while driving, compared with more than 6,000 tickets for talking on a cellphone while driving.

The texting law mandates secondary enforcement, which requires a police officer to spot a second violation before pulling a driver over.

New York is the only state where talking on a cellphone while driving is a primary offense for all drivers, while texting is a secondary offense.

Distracted driving accidents accounted for 16 percent of all vehicular fatalities in 2009, up from 10 percent in 2005.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Judge refuses to invalidate Texas' new execution procedures




Judge refuses to invalidate Texas' new execution procedures

Two death row inmates said change in lethal drug was not done according to law.

By Steven Kreytak

A state district judge in Travis County on Friday refused to invalidate Texas' new procedure for executing murderers after finding that state law allows prison officials to make certain decisions without public scrutiny.
Lawyers for two condemned inmates claim in a lawsuit that in changing one of the drugs administered to kill inmates, officials failed to comply with the Texas Administrative Procedure Act .
That law, they said, compels officials to subject the new procedures to public scrutiny, including public review and comment periods, before they are implemented.
In rejecting the inmates' request for a temporary injunction, Judge Stephen Yelenosky sided with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, whose case was argued by the attorney general's office.
"There's only one way to read this," Yelenosky said. He then quoted the law: "This chapter does not apply to a rule of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice that applies to an inmate."
Lawyers Bryce Benjet and Maurie Levin, who represent plaintiffs Cleve Foster and Humberto Leal, argued that the exemption was intended to apply only to prison disciplinary policies and procedures. They said they would appeal to the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin.
Foster is slated for execution Tuesday. Leal, a Mexican citizen, is scheduled for execution July 7.
Levin said the issue is not just "important to inmates, but to the citizens of Texas."
"It's about state officials making decisions in the light of day," she said.
The new procedure replaces sodium thiopental with pentobarbital as one of three drugs used in lethal injections. The change was necessary because in the past year, the only U.S. supplier of sodium thiopental discontinued production.
According to his lawsuit, Foster has since November 2010 sought information on how prison officials planned to execute him, including through public information requests. The suit claims that prison officials delayed their response and made the decision to change drugs without required public input — or input from Foster and other condemned convicts.
According to the suit, the Criminal Justice Department announced March 16 — less than three weeks before Foster's scheduled execution — that it would change the drugs used.

RI congressman sponsors anti-bullying law




RI congressman sponsors anti-bullying law

PROVIDENCE, R.I.—Rhode Island congressman David Cicilline is working to curb all kinds of bullying, whether it's on the playground or the Internet.

The Democratic representative is sponsoring legislation designed to prevent bullying in a move he says will supplement anti-bullying efforts on a local level in Rhode Island.

The legislation is expected to help schools develop anti-bullying initiatives and improve measures already in place to combat bullying.

The congressman says bullying can contribute to a high drop-out rate.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Facebook Sued For $1 Billion


Facebook, Zuckerberg Sued For $1 Billion After Not Removing A Page Fast Enough


By: Robin Wauters


I took my sweet time to check if this was an April Fools joke to be put on our exhaustive 2011 list, but it appears to be as real as can be.
Larry Klayman, a renowned American activist, former Justice Department prosecutor, former U.S. Senate candidate and book author,says he has sued both Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg forover $1 billion after the social networking giant failed to remove a page calling for a third intifada against Israel’s Jewish population swiftly enough.
The suit was filed yesterday in Washington by Klayman, himself of Jewish origin. The complaint is embedded below.
Klayman, who founded controversial law firm Judicial Watch as well as political advocacy group Freedom Watch, alleges that Zuckerberg and Facebook willfully kept a page calling for a third Palestinian intifada against Jews online to “further their revenues and the net worth” of the company. The page, which was removed on March 29 because, according to Facebook, it indeed made “direct calls for violence” in violation of its policies.
On the page, Palestinians were urged to take to the streets after Friday prayers on May 15, 2011, and commence an uprising in the vein of the first two popular intifadas. “Judgment Day will be brought upon us only once the Muslims have killed all of the Jews,” read the call. The page reportedly garnered more than 340,000 fans.
The removal of the page, which according to Klayman was “begrudgingly” ordered after increased pressure was exerted by himself, the Israeli government and organizations like theAnti-Defamation League, did not stop him from filing suit against the company.
The activist argues that damage has already been done, and that he fears for his life since he’s been “called a Zionist publicly by radical Palestinians and other such Arabic interests” and is “thus a target of this call to kill Jews” along with other prominent public figures.
The complaint alleges assault and negligence, gross negligence and recklessness on Facebook’s part. It reserves the right to be amended into a class action suit and prays for damages in excess of $1 billion, plus an award of attorneys fees and costs.
Amusingly, Klayman bases part of his allegations on the fictional movie ‘The Social Network’:
“While Facebook has accomplished a lot of good, it can, as in this instance, be used for nefarious and evil purposes. Defendants Zuckerberg’s and Facebook’s callous and greedy actions in not taking down the page, but willfully allowing it to stay up for many days, has caused huge damage, for which they must be held accountable, so as to prevent this from ever happening again.
They must be not only enjoined but also hit in their purse, which is where they understand matters best. Apparently, the ethically compromised Zuckerberg has no conscience or sense of right or wrong, as depicted recently in the award winning film “Social Network.”
On the off chance that you still think this is a joke (and I’m honestly still a little in doubt myself), know that Klayman isn’t one to kid around when it comes to litigation.
As the founder and former Chairman of Judicial Watch, he attained notoriety through the initiation of 18 civil lawsuits against the Clinton Administration, and subsequently, an unsuccessful lawsuit against Vice-President Dick Cheney in order to obtain information about the White House’s energy task force.
Klayman’s targets have also included OPEC and Osama bin Laden. Most of his high profile lawsuits have been dismal failures, though.
Klayman also authored a book titled ‘WHORES: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment’ and regularly writes columns for conservative news site WorldNewsDaily.
Slate in a column titled Nut Watch once dubbed Klayman a “one-man litigation explosion” after word got out that, aside from suing the likes of Hillary Clinton, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, the Ground Zero Mosque and the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury, he once even filed a lawsuit against his own mother.
Request for comments were not immediately returned by either Facebook or mr. Klayman.

Missouri ethics laws struck down




Missouri ethics laws struck down

By JASON NOBLE

JEFFERSON CITY | Ethics laws meant to prevent Missouri politicians from laundering campaign money were struck down in court on Thursday.
A Cole County Circuit Court judge threw out the measures passed by lawmakers last year on procedural grounds but also found that one aspect of the law violated the First Amendment.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Chris Koster said the state would appeal the ruling and would encourage candidates to continue following the laws until the issue is resolved.
The bill’s sponsor, former Senate leader Charlie Shields, said he believes the matter will end up before the Missouri Supreme Court.
The ethics package, passed in SB 844 last May, bans certain cash transfers between campaign committees and places restrictions on who may donate to one type of committee, known as PACs, among other provisions.
The intent, lawmakers said, was to prevent donations from being funneled through several committees to obscure their source.
The lawsuit challenged one section of the law, which specified that only certain types of businesses may contribute to PACs, but excluded banks, credit unions and a handful of other industries.
Legends Bank filed suit, arguing that its constitutional rights to free speech were infringed by the prohibition on political donations.
Lawmakers have said the exclusion of banks and others from the bill was a mistake, and the House this year already has passed legislation correcting the problem.
The court found in favor of Legends Bank on the First Amendment issue, but a procedural matter is what led the court to completely void the ethics language. Judge Daniel R. Green ruled that SB 844 contained more than one subject — a violation of the state constitution.
When it was first introduced, the bill dealt exclusively with state government procurement issues and had nothing to do with political ethics. It was later amended to add the ethics language and another provision.
The existence of those multiple subjects makes the law invalid, Green found, and requires the court to find the “original controlling purpose” of the bill to determine which aspects of it should be upheld.
Since the bill started as a procurement law, those pieces of the law should be upheld while all others are thrown out.
“The provisions of the bill relating to government procurement … will be severed from the remainder of the bill and left intact,” Green wrote. “The remainder of the bill is unconstitutional.”
Current and former lawmakers involved with the bill’s passage were dismayed with the judicial decision but hopeful the ethics laws could be ultimately upheld or passed again in the legislature.
House Speaker Steven Tilley and House Majority Leader Tim Jones both suggested that the bill fixing the bank language could be amended to reinstate the entire ethics package, although that may be difficult to do in the waning weeks of the current session.