Alabama Supreme Court sets Jan. 21 execution for Brooks

The Alabama Supreme Court has set a Jan. 21 execution date for a man convicted of raping and murdering a woman more than 20 years ago.

If carried out, the death sentence against Christopher Brooks would mark Alabama's first execution in more than two years.

Justices handed down the order Monday setting the execution date. A federal judge on Monday also allowed Brooks to join a lawsuit filed by death row inmates challenging the state's new lethal injection drug combination as cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins said that Brooks has until Dec. 4 to file for a stay of execution.

Brooks was convicted for the 1993 murder and rape of Deann Campbell of Homewood.

Missouri execution on hold pending appeals court review

The U.S. Supreme Court put on hold the execution of a Missouri man at the last minute, sending the case back to an appeals court for further review.

Death row inmate Ernest Lee Johnson, who was convicted of beating three people to death with a claw hammer, was scheduled to die at 6 p.m. Tuesday at the Missouri state prison in Bonne Terre. But the Supreme Court on Tuesday night granted a stay while the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether a complaint from Johnson was properly dismissed.

Johnson, 55, claims that the execution drug Missouri uses could cause painful seizures because he still has part of a benign tumor in his brain, and surgery to remove the rest of the tumor in 2008 forced the removal of up to 20 percent of his brain tissue.

It wasn't immediately clear how quickly the appeals court might rule, but Mike O'Connell, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Corrections, sent media witnesses who had already gathered Tuesday night for the execution home.

"There is no indication of any kind that this is going to be resolved tomorrow," O'Connell added.

In Missouri, the state has 24 hours — in this case, until 6 p.m. Wednesday — to fulfill the execution warrant or the execution has to be rescheduled.

A second appeal, to the Missouri Supreme Court, claims Johnson's life should be spared because he is mentally disabled.

The Missouri Attorney General's Office says both claims are without merit.

Arkansas's highest court keeps executions on hold, for now

The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a lower-court judge overstepped his jurisdiction by halting the executions of eight death row inmates. But the high court immediately granted its own stay to give the inmates time to challenge a law that allows the state not to disclose where it gets its execution drugs.

The justices sided with the state in agreeing to toss a ruling made earlier this month by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen. Still, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said she was disappointed that the executions, the first of which was scheduled for this week, remained on hold.

"While the Supreme Court's decision is not about the merits of the case, it is unfortunate that this further delays justice for the victims. I will continue to defend Arkansas's lethal injection statute and fight for the victims and their grieving families," Rutledge wrote in a statement Tuesday.

Griffen had temporarily halted all of the state's executions, which were scheduled through January. He also set a hearing for March, and the Supreme Court didn't grant the state's request to order Griffen to adopt a faster timetable.

The prisoners are challenging the constitutionality of the state's new secrecy law, saying they need the information on where the state's execution drugs were made and how to determine whether they will lead to cruel and unusual punishment.

The inmates' attorneys also argued that the state agreed to tell the inmates that information as part of a previous settlement agreement in a different lawsuit. The state has said that agreement is not a binding contract.

Breathalyzer Tests and DUI in Florida

Breathalyzer tests have become a standard way that officers measure the blood-alcohol level of a suspect. While the traditional tests are still used alongside a breathalyzer, the breathalyzer results are going to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence against you when evaluating your DUI case. Let’s start covering how you can possibly fight this by exploring how these results are even determined.

A breathlyzer’s goal is to determine the amount of alcohol in your blood stream. For obvious reasons, it is impractical to draw and test blood at a traffic stop, which would give the most direct results. However, breathalyzer technology actually measures the concentration of alcohol in the alveolar air and uses this figure to determine the concentration in a suspect’s blood stream. As the alcohol you’ve consumed passes through the lungs, some is evaporated into the air sacs (alveoli) and this is referred to as alveolar air, and has a direct correlation with the blood-alcohol level.

There are 3 main types of breathalyzers that are used, and each will measure the amount of alcohol present in different ways. There is the standard breathalyzer, the intoxilyzer, and the alcosensor. The breathalyzer and alcosensor rely on chemical reactions to make a determination, whereas the intoxylizer uses infrared light. Most areas in Florida will use the intoxylizer to administer breathalyzer tests. Generally speaking, all three are accepted as standard breathalyzer devices and are recognized as reliable. However, the smaller devices that are used at traffic stops need to be calibrated and administered in certain ways, and often times courts will reject these occurrences as evidence. Instead, because of the multiple ways an officer can incorrectly administer a test at a traffic stop, a more reliable breathalyzer is often used at the jail, and the results of this are thought to be far more trustworthy when determining a conviction.

There are ways to invalidate a DUI offense that most people haven’t considered. Was there a legal reason the officer stopped you? Did the testing procedure follow Federal guidelines? Do you have a medical condition that might cause a false reading? Was the breathalyzer equipment used functioning properly? Was the test analyzed properly? Cases have been overturned through exposing errors in record keeping or the computer programs which run breathalyzer tests. Cultivating this kind of defense can be tricky and confusing for many people, so we always recommend discussing your case with a certified attorney. A skilled defense attorney might even subpoena the maintenance & calibration records of the device used, if applicable to your unique situation. To discuss your case and the possibility of dismissal, contact The Law Office of Jerry Jenkins and fill out a free case evaluation request. Read more about breathalyzer tests and DUI in Florida here.

Supreme Court to review European suit against R.J. Reynolds

The Supreme Court will decide whether the European Union can pursue its lawsuit claiming that tobacco company R.J. Reynolds sponsored cigarette smuggling in Europe as part of a global money-laundering scheme with organized crime groups.

The justices agreed Thursday to review an appeals court ruling that said the EU and 26 of its member states were within their rights to sue in U.S. courts under federal racketeering laws.

The suit alleges that RJR directed, managed and controlled the scheme that involved laundering money through New York-based financial institutions.

A federal judge threw out the claims, but a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that racketeering laws can apply to crimes committed in foreign countries.

The EU alleges that RJR orchestrated the scheme with the help of Colombian and Russian criminal groups and that the company laundered money through New York-based financial institutions. The EU claims the company's actions hurt the economies of EU member nations by depriving governments of tax revenues.

The suit alleges several violations of racketeering laws, including mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, violations of the Travel Act and laws banning material support to foreign terrorist organizations.

The company calls the claims baseless. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is a subsidiary of Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Reynolds American Inc.

Securities Attorneys Representing Clients in Florida and Nationwide

Securities are the financial instruments that represent a form of ownership or stake in a company. Securities allow individuals to own asset(s) without taking possession of them. Because of this, securities can be exchanged easily. In addition to this, pricing securities is not difficult which is why they are a strong indicator of the value of the asset. In order to purchase or sell securities, a trader must obtain a license to ensure they have been trained to follow a set of laws established by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). Despite the regulatory agencies and laws in effect, fraud is still widespread. Fraud is an “umbrella term” that encompasses a wide range of deceptive and manipulative practices utilized by perpetrators to profit at the expense of the investor(s).

 

Types of securities:

Bonds, which can be issued by corporations or the government (Federal/Local).

A corporate bond is essentially a loan to a corporate entity in which you receive interest annually until the loan is paid off. Corporate bonds offer stability and are considered safer than stock in a company. Bondholders do not get dividends or voting rights which is why in the long haul, stocks have the potential for larger returns.

A bond issued by the federal government is very low in terms of risk and most frequently issued by the US Treasury. The potential for return is significantly lower than stocks or bonds issued by corporate entities.

A municipal bond is issued by state and local government. These include a city, county, town or school district. Typically,the rate of interest is lower than that of a bond issued by a corporation.

Mutual Funds , which are composed of a variety of securities.

A mutual fund can be stock options, bonds or both. In most cases, the investment is placed in a pool with monies from other investors. The fund is managed by an investment company, who selects the securities. The risk of the investment is reduced due to the diversity of the portfolio.

Stock Options

The right to purchase or sell stock in a company, at a specific rate for a window of time. The right to purchase stock is referred to as a call, the right to sell is called a “put”.

Futures Option

A futures contract is an agreement to sell a certain security in the future for a pre-determined rate. An option is the right to purchase or sell a contract at a certain price for a specified period of time. Since it used to reduce risk, a futures option is utilized by many investors.

 

History of Regulation

The regulation of Securities in the United States dates back to the 1930’s when the New Deal was passed. In the 1930’s & 40’s, five major laws were put into place by the Federal Government.

• Securities Act of 1933 a regulation on the distribution of new securities
• Securities Exchange Act of 1934- regulation of trading securities , brokers & exchanges
• Trust Indenture Act of 1939- regulation of debt securities
• Investment Company Act of 1940- regulating mutual funds
• Investment Advisers Act of 1940- regulation of investment advisers

Since the 1940’s a number of amendments have been made to these regulations in order to promote fair trade and enforce illegitimate/illegal practices. These major laws also serve to protect investors, ensuring they are adequately informed at the time of purchase.

While many measures are in place to reduce risk, it is still inherent, especially when dealing with non-governmental entities. Educating yourself on the common practices of Fraudsters can help you identify red flags when it comes time to invest your hard earned money. While often, fraudsters target vulnerable investors, savvy, educated people are still victimized.

Florida Based Law Firm Place & Hanley have represented thousands of clients nationwide and represent individual investors in claims for securities and stockbroker misconduct. If you’ve suffered monetary loss due to misconduct or believe your investment was mishandled, contact us for a Free Case Evaluation. View the original article at The Law Offices of Place and Hanley.

US court upholds Oklahoma death row inmate's sentence

A divided federal appeals court panel upheld the murder convictions and death sentence Tuesday of a 54-year-old man who went on a multistate crime spree in 2003.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to affirm the death sentence of Scott Eizember, who received the punishment after his first-degree murder conviction in the Oct. 18, 2003, bludgeoning death of A.J. Cantrell, 76. Eizember was also found guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting of Patsy Cantrell, 70, for which he received 150 years in prison, as well as a variety of other charges.   

On appeal, Eizember alleged that the trial court allowed two jurors who he alleged were "impermissibly biased in favor of the death penalty," thus "depriving him of trial by an impartial jury and due process in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments."

The court agreed with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and a federal district judge in rejecting Eizember's claims.

Eizember was the focus of an intense manhunt following the shootings in rural Depew but eluded authorities for 37 days. He was discovered that November by a 75-year-old volunteer at a church, but then stole the volunteer's vehicle, which he abandoned near Waldron, Arkansas.

He was captured later that day outside Lufkin, Texas, after kidnapping an Arkansas physician and his wife, holding them at gunpoint for six hours and forcing them to drive. The physician eventually shot Eizember four times. Eizember was convicted of kidnapping, carjacking and using a firearm in a crime of violence in Arkansas and was sentenced 25 years in federal prison.

In a 30-page dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe wrote that she would affirm Eizember's convictions "but reverse his death sentence and remand for resentencing before a fair and impartial jury."

DUI Penalties in Orlando and Florida

A DUI in the State of Florida is defined as an offense in which the operator of a motor vehicle has a blood alcohol level greater than or equal to .08. The manner in which the offense is proven may vary, but once convicted, offenders are subject to the same penalties.

 

First Time DUI Offenders

A 1st conviction results in the impoundment or immobilization of the vehicle. The exception, being if the defendant's family has no other means of transportation. The impoundment or immobilization shall not occur at the same time as incarceration. If the vehicle is operated solely by the employees of the defendant or by a business owned by the defendant, the court may dismiss the order of impoundment.
Additionally, the drivers license of the offender will be revoked for a minimum period of 180 days and a maximum of 1 year.
The minimum fine imposed is $500 and the the maximum, $1000. For offenders whose blood alcohol level is equal to or greater than .15, a minimum fine of $1000 is imposed and the fine should not exceed $2,000. In addition to the fine, offenders receive 50 hours of mandatory community service or an additional fine of $10 for each hour of service required.
The total period of incarceration or probation for first time offenders shall not exceed 1 year. The sentence can be served at a residential alcohol and drug abuse treatment program at the discretion of the court. This is credited towards the term of imprisonment. For offenders with no prior convictions and a blood alcohol level less than .15, imprisonment shall last no longer than 6 months. Offenders with no prior convictions whose blood alcohol exceeds .15 or had a minor in the vehicle at the time of the offense, imprisonment shall not exceed a period of 9 months.

 

Second DUI Conviction

If the Second Conviction is within 5 years of the first, the drivers vehicle shall be impounded for a period of 30 days. The person may be imprisoned for up to 9 months and if their blood alcohol level was greater than .15 or they had a minor in the vehicle, no more than 12 months. Regardless, a second conviction within 5 years of the first results in mandatory imprisonment for 10 days in which 2 days of the imprisonment must be served consecutively. As with first time offenders, the court has the discretion to credit time at an abuse treatment program towards time served. Additionally, a conviction within 5 years of the first the license of the offender is revoked for a minimum of 5 years with possible eligibility for hardship reinstatement after 1 calendar year. Fines for 2nd Convictions are as follows: minimum of $1,000 and maximum of $2,000 . If blood alcohol level exceeded .15 or a minor was in vehicle, the minimum and maximum fines are doubled to $2,000 and $4,000 respectively.

 

Third DUI Conviction

If the Third Conviction is within 10 years of the second, the drivers vehicle shall be impounded for a period of 90 days. The driver is also charged with a Felony DUI. As with 1st and 2nd Convictions, impounded must not occur simultaneously with incarceration, in which a mandatory imprisonment of 30 days is served, with 2 days of consecutive time served. Additionally, the license of the offender is revoked for a minimum of 10 years, with the eligibility for hardship reinstatement after 2 years. If the conviction was more than 10 years after the previous conviction, imprisonment shall not last more than 12 months. The fines for 3rd convictions more than 10 years from the 2nd conviction are no less than $2,000 and no more than $5,000. If the blood alcohol level was greater than .15 or a minor was in the vehicle at the time of the offense, a minimum fine of $4,000 is imposed.

 

Fourth and Subsequent DUI Convictions

Offenders are categorized by the State of Florida as habitual/violent offenders and the penalties are significantly steeper, with the mandatory permanent revocation of the license and the possibility of up to 5 years of incarceration.

 

Additional Charges

There a number of circumstances in which additional charges are brought upon the offender, for which additional punishment is probable. Cases involving accidents that result in property damage, bodily injury or death, carry stiffer penalties. Offenders being charged with vehicular homicide or manslaughter can be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison and 30 years in prison if they left the scene of the accident. The fines under these conditions shall not exceed $10,000.

 

Summing it Up

DUI Penalties are dependent on a number of conditions including but not limited to:

• The record of the driver
• Whether any other crimes were committed in the process
• The blood alcohol level of the driver
• Compliance with hardship reinstatement policies (ie: Fines,Alcohol Programs, Interlock Device)
• The presence of a minor in the vehicle
• The age of the Driver: Were they of legal drinking age?

 

DUI offenses are time consuming and require immediate action. Visit The Law Office of Jerry Jenkins to learn more about DUI penalties in Florida.

Alaska Supreme Court won't block Medicaid expansion

Thousands of lower-income Alaskans will become eligible for Medicaid after the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday refused to temporarily block the state from expanding the health care program.

The win capped a big day for Alaska Gov. Bill Walker, who earlier flew with President Barack Obama from Washington, D.C., to Anchorage.
"The Alaska Supreme Court's ruling today brings final assurance that thousands of working Alaskans will have access to health care tomorrow," Walker said in a statement issued Monday evening.

Walker earlier this summer announced plans to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid coverage after state legislators tabled his expansion legislation for further review.

The Legislative Council, acting on behalf of lawmakers, sued to stop expansion.

Thirty other states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid, or plan to do so, to include all adults with incomes at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

The federal government agreed to pay all costs for the new enrollees through 2016, but it will begin lowering its share in 2017. States will pay 10 percent of the costs by 2020.

Some Alaska legislators have expressed concern with adding more people to a system they consider broken. Administration officials have acknowledged the current Medicaid program isn't sustainable, but they see expansion as a way to get federal dollars to help finance reform efforts.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner denied the request from lawmakers to halt expansion while a lawsuit moves forward. The Alaska Supreme Court on Monday agreed, saying lawyers for the lawmakers failed to show Pfiffner erred when denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Why hire a lawyer after a truck accident?

After being involved in an accident with a truck, you may wonder what the next step is, and if you should contact an attorney. Whether you were the driver of the truck, a driver of another vehicle, or a bicyclist/pedestrian, its important to know that you may actually be eligible to receive compensation for your injuries. Accident liability can be a very complicated area, so we recommend hiring an attorney. One of the first steps to take is to determine everyone who was involved in the accident. This includes all people who were physically there and affected by the accident, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. What is surprising, however, are the parties involved you may not have taken into consideration. This includes insurance companies, employers, vehicle manufacturers, government entities, trucking companies, or contractors. One advantage of using an attorney is that using their legal resources, they can quickly help you identify any parties involved in the litigation. Armed with this knowledge, you’ll be able to recover the maximum amount of damages for your injury. Next, make sure to receive medical treatment for your injuries. Keep up with all doctor/hospital visits, prescriptions, care plans etc. and don’t forget to keep copies of all related documentation. If your financial situation makes this a difficult step to take, please contact Hurt in Houston at 281.857.6770 to discuss how we can help. You’ll also likely be contacted by insurance companies who are trying to offer you a settlement – just remember, they are more than likely offering a far smaller sum than you are actually entitled to. It’s also prudent to understand how damages are rewarded, and these laws vary between states. Your case could fall under pure contributory negligence, pure comparative fault, or modified comparative fault (the latter has multiple provisions depending on the state). For example, in a state that rules under modified comparative fault with a 51 percent bar rule, any involved party is not entitled to damages if it is determined they are 51% or more responsible for the accident. If you’re in a state that practices pure contributory negligence, you won’t get any payout if you are even 1% at fault. Sound confusing? It becomes even less comprehendible when you take into consideration the multiple statutes attached to these laws – statutes that could, ultimately, affect your individual case in a way you don’t anticipate. Most importantly, don’t waste any time. Auto accidents often take into consideration many external factors like weather, road conditions, etc., and these external factors can be considered evidence. Often times and there is also a statute of limitations regarding these cases (which means if you wait too long to take action, you won’t be entitled to any reward at all). Hurt in Houston offers free case evaluations, so don’t waste in any time in contacting us. You can fill out a short form here, or call us at 281.857.6770. Read more on truck accidents on our truck accidents page.

Largo Bankruptcy Attorney

Financial situations can involve great amounts of stress and anxiety, and complicate the home atmosphere. At Watson & Moran we are prepared to give solid resolutions the stresses caused by troubled finances. We aim to provide personal, one-on-one solutions that guide you through bankruptcy.

Clients are in good hands with our knowledgeable bankruptcy lawyers. Keeping creditors away is our priority, and we help our clients to hold on to their homes, vehicles and other property. We can help you with a fresh start, relieving your debt and helping you move on with your life. Contact a Largo Bankruptcy Attorney at Watson & Moran to begin moving past your troubled finances.

Click here to find a bankruptcy lawyer and make a fresh start >>

Maine court: Anti-gay marriage group must disclose donors

Maine's highest court on Tuesday rejected a national anti-gay marriage group's latest bid to shield the identities of the donors who contributed to its effort to defeat the state's gay marriage law in 2009.

The National Organization for Marriage had sought permission to delay submitting a campaign finance report that the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices ordered it to file last year when it fined the group $50,250 for its involvement in overturning the law supporting same-sex marriage six years ago.

But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said Tuesday that NOM can't put off filing the report and revealing its donor list until after the court considers the group's challenge of the commission's ruling because the justices said it's unlikely that the Washington D.C.-based organization will win its appeal.

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills praised the court's decision, saying that Maine residents deserve to know who's paying to influence their elections.

"Enough is enough," Mills said in a statement. "NOM has fought for almost six years to skirt the law and to shield the names of the out-of-state donors who bank-rolled their election efforts. The time has come for them to finally comply with state law like everyone else."

After Maine's same-sex marriage law was overturned at the ballot box in 2009, it was legalized again by voters in 2012.

Maine's ethics commission ruled last year that the group broke the law by not registering as a ballot question committee and not filing campaign finance reports despite playing a central role in the 2009 referendum. The commission said the group gave nearly $2 million to Stand for Marriage Maine, the political action committee that led the repeal effort.

NOM has already paid the fine, which is thought to be the largest campaign finance penalty in state history.

But the group maintains that it followed the law, arguing that none of its donations were raised specifically for the purposes of defeating Maine's same-sex marriage law. The group, which has long fought in Maine courts to keep its donor list secret, said that revealing their identities will make people weary to contribute in the future.

Brian Brown, president of NOM, said Tuesday that he needs to discuss the decision with his lawyer to determine the group's next steps. But he said he believes that NOM is being unfairly penalized by the commission and the court because of its views on marriage.

"These are all unjust, illegitimate decisions," Brown said. "It does not bode well for the body politic when the judges and the ethics commission get to punish those they disagree with."

The supreme court acknowledged that forcing NOM to disclose their donor list will likely make the group's appeal of the commission's decision moot.

But the justices said that NOM hasn't put forward any persuasive constitutional challenges to the commission's decision or shown that the panel made any errors in reaching its conclusion, and therefore, hasn't proven that it will has a good chance of succeeding in its appeal.

Upper Marlboro County Domestic Violence Attorney

No matter if you are a victim of abuse, or have been wrongfully accused, domestic violence is always a highly sensitive issue. Being a victim of abuse is a terrible, disorienting experience. In many cases, victims are unsure where to go for assistance, and confused on their legal rights. In a similar way, people who have been wrongfully accused of abuse frequently do not know how to properly defend themselves.

If you are a victim of abuse in Upper Marlboro County, Maryland and the District of Columbia, you are entitled to obtain a protective or restraining order. Getting such an order is typically quite a rapid process. Retaining the services of a qualified Domestic Violence Attorney knowledgeable in the process will help you to resolve the matter quickly and thoroughly.

Contact an experienced Domestic Violence Attorney now >>

Largo Child Support Attorney

Watson & Moran is a law firm that specializes in child support in the Washington DC and Maryland areas. No matter the reason for parent separation, child support is an important issue that must be dealt with in the most effective yet delicate way possible. Finding the proper means to financially support a child must be dealt with using diligence, knowledge and compassion. It is vital to select the right attorney to achieve a great outcome.

A number of different thing affect child support, including parent income, expenses, education and support needs, and the majority of custody. Determining how to set up the income and resources to help a child is necessary for supporting that child. Though the state of Maryland provides guidelines, a qualified Largo Child Support Attorney will be able to help.

Get in touch with a Child Support Attorney in Largo now >>

US appeals court upholds EPA plan to clean up Chesapeake Bay

A U.S. appeals court has upheld a federal plan limiting pollution in the Chesapeake Bay despite objections from farmers who accuse the Environmental Protection Agency of abusing its power.

The ruling Monday upholds restrictions on farm and construction runoff and wastewater treatment and is a clear win for environmentalists.

Six states have agreed to the pollution limits: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, along with Washington, D.C.,

The American Farm Bureau Federation and others fought the restrictions. They argued that the EPA was usurping state authority to regulate waterways.

The EPA says animal waste and fertilizer that moves from streams into the Chesapeake is the single largest source of bay pollution.

Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro says Chesapeake Bay pollution is a complex problem that affects more than 17 million people.

Upper Marlboro County Divorce Lawyer

Watson & Moran are divorce lawyers serving Washington DC, Maryland and Upper Marlboro County.  Experiencing a divorce can be an event that affects every area of family life, and can have a huge impact on children.  Finances, property, custody and careers can be affected by divorce.

The experienced divorce lawyers at Watson & Moran have the care, compassion and dedication to help you get through the divorce process and make sure you understand each step of the process.  We work with you to get the best possible result.  Our negotiations will get you the best outcome, and we will never stop aggressively fighting for you.

Contact Upper Marlboro County Divorce Lawyers here >>

Former Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor

A lawyer at the Plymouth Canton Law Office of Rita O. White is available to help you with whatever you need (http://www.cantoncriminalattorney.com/). We are here to provide you with assistance of any kind in all of your legal issues.

With our law office you will be able to work with highly informed lawyers with great experience. We can offer you affordable fees and excellent office hours. We know that legal problems are difficult and stressful. Our firm’s lawyers provide close attention to each of our clients.

If you try to deal with your legal situation all by yourself, you are going to run into problems. When it comes to legal problems, don’t put yourself at risk. Call our office and speak to an attorney about your issue today. Contact the Law Office of Rita O. White now.

Read more about the Law Offices Of Rita O. White >>

Intellectual Property Matters and Trademark

The Intellectual Property Practice at Onu Law Firm (http://www.onulawfirm.com) can help with litigation for intellectual property disputes, and with developing and implementing new intellectual properties.

The Onu Law Firm is knowledgeable in all areas from transactions and disputes involving copyrights to counsel about trademarks, trade secrets and various intellectual prporties.

We help our clients protect, secure and manage their intellectual property at our practice. Furthermore, we create, develop and build agreements that help to boost value of the intellectual value of our clients.

To further enhance the value of your intellectual property, the Firm will help our clients in securing and managing various trademarks and licenses. Furthermore, we can help keep your trademark safe. The Onu Law firm is well known throughout the US as a firm that protects and enforces trademark law in Federal and State courts, in addition to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Read more about the Onu Law Firm here >>

Bowie MD Family Law Attorney

Watson & Moran is an expert on domestic and family law. We are aware that familial issues are private, very sensitive, serious and important. Through each step, including pre-separation, divorce and custody hearing, we will be there for you each step of the way.

When a family goes through a divorce or child custody hearing, it can be a time of extreme trauma and stress, with emotions running high. Our expert family law lawyers will help you handle these complex instances.

Learn more about Bowie MD Family Law Attorney here >>

Largo Family Law Attorney

Located in Prince George’s county, Maryland, the law firm of Watson & Moran has been representing clients in the Washington, D.C. area since 2001.  We are experts in giving our clients a fair chance in legal issues or civil lawsuits. We never give up, not matter if our client is an insurer, corporation, spouse, employer, celebrity or corporation.

We offer solid values and services, including aggressive representation, and fantastic personal service.  Watson & Moran was built on these central ideas, and they serve as a guide for our lawyers as they fight for client rights with superior legal representation.

We cater to each of our client’s unique needs and issues.  We will analyze your case and the outcomes you hope to achieve.  We will figure out the most effective strategy for your success and will follow the path to trial if negotiations are not satisfactory.

Learn more about Largo family attorney here >>

'Ugly' potential fallout from Supreme Court health care case

A Supreme Court ruling due in a few weeks could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by President Barack Obama's health care law. But it's Republicans — not White House officials — who have been talking about damage control.

A likely reason: Twenty-six of the 34 states that would be most affected by the ruling have Republican governors, and 22 of the 24 GOP Senate seats up in 2016 are in those states.

Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people without access to it on the job. In the court case, opponents of the law argue that its literal wording allows the federal government to subsidize coverage only in states that set up their own health insurance markets.

Most states have not done so, because of the intense partisanship over "Obamacare" and in some cases because of technical problems. Instead, they rely on the federal HealthCare.gov website.

If the court invalidates the subsidies in those states, an estimated 8 million people could lose coverage. The results would be "ugly," said Sandy Praeger, a former Kansas insurance commissioner.

Swiss Bank UBS Pleading Guilty To Wire Fraud

Swiss bank UBS says it is pleading guilty to wire fraud and is paying $545 million to settle U.S. cases of market manipulation.

The bank said Wednesday that under the deal with U.S. authorities it will be granted conditional immunity from prosecution in a Department of Justice probe on the manipulation of foreign exchange rates. UBS AG said it was the first to report to the DOJ potential misconduct by banks in forex markets.

It will however pay a $342 million fine to the Federal Reserve.

It will separately pay a $203 million fine to the DOJ for manipulating a key market interest rate called the London Interbank Offered Rate.

The bank said "the conduct of a small number of employees was unacceptable and we have taken appropriate disciplinary actions."

High court won't hear appeal over Walker campaign probe

The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from a conservative group seeking to end an investigation into possible illegal coordination between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's 2012 recall campaign and independent groups.

The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said Wisconsin Club for Growth and its director, Eric O'Keefe, must resolve their claims in state courts.

No one has been charged as a result of the investigation which has sought documents and testimony about possible violation of state campaign finance laws.

The investigation is on hold while a separate legal challenge is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The club and O'Keefe argued that the investigation was a violation of their First Amendment rights and an attempt to criminalize political speech.

New York Adoption Attorneys – Rosin Steinhagen Mendel

For over 35 years, the New York Adoption Attorneys of Rosin Steinhagen Mendel have served clients in New York City and the surrounding counties of Southern New York State and New Jersey in matters regarding adoption, foster care litigation, and family law. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel have represented clients in proceedings such as parental right termination, custody hearings, guardianship, and adoption.

The attorneys at Rosin Steinhagen Mendel have represented New York City Foster Care Agencies for over thirty years in all aspects regarding Family Law and New York State Administrative proceedings and provide representation for foster parents, persons seeking adoption, and parents in abuse and neglect proceedings.  Their practice focuses on the areas of law listed below:

·         Adoption

·         Foster Care litigation

·         General Family Law

·         Kinship Guardianship

·         Reproductive Law

In order to learn more about Rosin Steinhagen Mendel and their practice, please visit their website or contact them for more information regarding your case. 

Criminal Defense Attorney - Law Offices of Jerry Jenkins

Representing clients in Central Florida, Sanford, Tavares, Orlando, and surrounding areas, Jerry Jenkins is an intelligent criminal defense attorney who is dedicated to providing excellent representation to his clients. Jerry understands that once a person is involved in the criminal justice system each and every decision matters. The decisions a person within the criminal justice makes will have lifelong consequences not only on the person making it, but their family and friends too. These decisions should not be taken lightly as they can affect every aspect of your life from employment to housing. You need an attorney who will fight for you and protect your rights.

You need an attorney who knows their way around the criminal justice system.

You need Jerry Jenkins.

Jerry understands each case and situation is unique. After providing him the facts, Jerry will give the advice and counsel you need to make an informed decision. With Jerry by your side, no stone will be left unturned. He will explore every avenue and make sure that your case is presented to the court. Jerry always strives to provide the best representation for his clients and he will defend you against all charges and any state crime allegations. After all, the government has experienced prosecutors targeting you, so you should have a defense attorney with the necessary experience fighting back.

Every situation is different, but the one piece of advice that will never change is to not waive any of your rights. If authorities begin grilling you with questions regarding a crime, be polite and decline to speak without a lawyer present. They will try to strong arm and intimidate you, but remain firm in your request to have a criminal defense lawyer present.

If you need any more information regarding criminal defense in Florida, contact Jerry Jenkins for a free case evaluation.

Judge says court battle over giant emerald can proceed

A Los Angeles judge has ruled a trial can go forward to determine ownership of an emerald weighing 840 pounds that was hauled out of a Brazilian mine more than a decade ago.
 
The 180,000-carat emerald is at the center of a court battle between gem traders, miners, real estate tycoons and others vying for the jewel once valued at $372 million.

The latest claim to ownership came from the Brazil government, which wants the gem returned to its country of origin.

The Los Angeles Times reports Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson said this week a motion by Brazil lacked sufficient evidence to warrant halting the case.

The jewel known as the Bahia Emerald is one of the largest of its kind in the world.

Ex-UBS banker pleads guilty in US tax evasion case

A former executive at Swiss bank UBS AG has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge as part of a long-running U.S. investigation into tax evasion using secret accounts.

Hansruedi Schumacher entered the plea Thursday before a Florida federal judge. Schumacher is cooperating in the investigation and in return, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of five years' probation and a $150,000 fine.

Schumacher admitted in court papers that while at UBS and a second Swiss bank from 1995 to 2009 he helped wealthy U.S. citizens escape the Internal Revenue Service using secret offshore accounts.

Several other bankers and dozens of customers have been prosecuted. UBS itself paid a $780 million fine to the U.S. in 2009 and agreed to disclose names of thousands of its American customers.

High court must fix special prosecutor process, lawyers say

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not known for being shy about defending its prerogatives, has put itself in a curious situation.After months of intrigue and court silence, the justices surprised Pennsylvania's legal community by saying they would hear public arguments on Attorney General Kathleen Kane's legal challenge to the court's self-appointed power to launch special prosecutions.

The case in question is a court-ordered investigation into whether Kane's office illegally shared secret investigative material with the Philadelphia Daily News. The result was a grand jury's recommendation that Kane be charged with perjury and other offenses.

The justices may not ultimately agree with Kane that the courts lack the authority to appoint prosecutors to run grand juries or investigate her office. But, say lawyers and court watchers, the justices must at least clean up a murky and messy process that has been dogged by questions about legality and constitutionality.

NC Appeals Court says DOT must pay landowners

The North Carolina Court of Appeals says the state transportation department must pay some landowners whose property is in the path of a proposed road in Forsyth County.
 
Multiple media outlets reported that a three-judge panel of the court ruled Tuesday that a lower court was wrong to refuse to hear a lawsuit by 11 landowners who said the state's designation of their land in the proposed road's path hurt their property values.

There is no indication when the road might be built.

The 11 landowners say the state's designation of their property in the path of the planned road limits what they can do with the land.

The state attorney general's office is consulting with transportation officials on the ruling. They could appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

African leaders to court: Drop cases against top Africans

The International Criminal Court should drop or suspend charges against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto until African concerns about the court and proposals to change its founding treaty are considered, African leaders say.
 
The demand came in a report Saturday on previous decisions made by African Union leaders.

The African Union has accused the ICC of disproportionately targeting Africans. The court has indicted only Africans so far, although half of the eight cases it is prosecuting were referred to it by African governments themselves.

Ruto and radio journalist Joshua Sang have been charged with crimes against humanity for their alleged role in orchestrating Kenya's 2007-08 postelection violence. Their trial is underway at the ICC. More than 1,000 people died and 600,000 others were forced to flee their homes amid violence sparked by a flawed presidential election.

Similar charges against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta were dropped in December after the prosecution said it did not have enough evidence against him. Kenyatta and Ruto were on opposing sides of the postelection violence but joined forces to win the presidency in the March 2013 polls.

The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Bashir for failing to respond to summons to answer to charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for the violence in Darfur.

Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care

Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme Court.

This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.

Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.

And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.

Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.

The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.

The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.

Arizona sheriff could face civil contempt hearing in court

An Arizona sheriff could face a civil contempt hearing in federal court for his office's repeated violations of orders issued in a racial-profiling case.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow held a telephonic conference Thursday and told Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's attorneys that the six-term sheriff may face an April 21-24 hearing.

But a top lawyer with the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that Snow stopped short of officially ordering the hearing. The judge has given both sides until Jan. 23 to file additional paperwork.

At a Dec. 4 hearing, Snow sent strong signals that he intended to pursue contempt cases that could expose Arpaio to fines and perhaps jail time.

Lawyers for the sheriff didn't immediately return calls for comment on the possible civil contempt hearing.

Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the Arizona ACLU, said Friday that Arpaio's office could face sanctions or fines for not following court orders and "fines to deter future bad acts and fines to compensate anyone permanently harmed" in the racial-profiling cases.

High court rejects military contractors appeals

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away three appeals from military contractor KBR Inc. that seek to shut down lawsuits over a soldier's electrocution in Iraq and open-air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The justices offered no comment in allowing the lawsuits to proceed.

One lawsuit was filed by the parents of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted in his barracks shower at an Army base in Iraq in 2008. The suit claims KBR unit Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. was legally responsible for the shoddy electrical work that was common in Iraqi-built structures taken over by the U.S. military. KBR disputes that claim.

Dozens of lawsuits by soldiers and others assert they were harmed by improper waste disposal while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seek to hold KBR and Halliburton Co. responsible for exposing soldiers to toxic emissions and contaminated water when they burned waste in open pits without proper safety controls.

The contractors say they cannot be sued because they essentially were operating in war zones as an extension of the military.

The Obama administration agreed with the contractors that lower courts should have dismissed the lawsuits, but said the Supreme Court should not get involved now because lower courts still could dismiss or narrow the claims.

Fate of thousands at stake in Massachusetts court arguments

The highest court in Massachusetts is hearing arguments in a case that could determine the fate of thousands of people convicted of drug crimes based on tainted evidence.

The American Civil Liberties Union says many of those affected are afraid to vacate their guilty plea and seek a new trial because they can be prosecuted for crimes dropped when they entered their plea deal.

The ACLU will argue Thursday morning that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court should declare that any defendant who seeks a new trial cannot be convicted of a more serious offense or given a longer sentence.

The case comes after former state drug lab chemist Annie Dookhan admitted she faked test results and tampered with evidence.

Dookhan was sentenced to at least three years in prison in 2013.

Nebraska court could hold up Keystone pipeline

The Republican-led Congress appears ready to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but no matter what actions are taken in Washington, the entire 1,179-mile project could be delayed until Nebraska signs off on the route.

After several years of intense debate, the routing process is before the Nebraska Supreme Court, and depending on how the justices rule, months or years could pass before construction begins in that state.

Even if approval comes from Washington and the high court, opponents are looking for new ways to block the project, including filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of Native American tribes in Nebraska and South Dakota over the possible disruption of Indian artifacts.

The court is considering whether an obscure agency known as the Nebraska Public Service Commission must review the pipeline before it can cross the state, one of six on the pipeline's route. Gov. Dave Heineman gave the green light in 2013 without the involvement of the panel, which normally regulates telephones, taxis and grain bins.

The justices have given no indication when they will render a decision.

President Barack Obama has said he is waiting for the court's decision, and the White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill in what was expected to be the first of many confrontations with the new Congress over energy and environmental policy.

Idaho gay marriage fight appealed to Supreme Court

Idaho's governor and attorney general have filed separate petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court, fighting against gay marriage and arguing that the state's case has national consequences.
 
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Idaho since an October ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has struck down bans across the West.

Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's filing Friday states that the issue is a matter of a state's right to define marriage without the federal government's involvement.

"This case presents the Court with the opportunity to resolve a divisive split on a question of nationwide importance: Whether the United States Constitution now prohibits states from maintaining the traditional definition of civil marriage, i.e., between one man and one woman," Wasden said in the petition.

Gov. Butch Otter's petition, filed Tuesday, states that the high court should review Idaho's case alone or in addition to a pending case involving the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the right of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee to decide whether to allow gay marriage.

Appeals court won't delay or move Tsarnaev trial

The trial of marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev can begin as scheduled Monday in Boston after a federal appeals court ruled that the defense had not met the "extraordinary" standard required to justify its intervention.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision Saturday. Tsarnaev's lawyer had asked the court to delay the trial and move it out of Massachusetts, saying he couldn't get a fair trial in a place where so many were affected by the bombings.

The appeals court ruled 2-1 to avoid intervening in the trial's timing and location.

"The judges in the majority are satisfied that full consideration has been given to the issues raised by the petition, and it is clear that the petition falls short of meeting the requirements for issuing the extraordinary writ of mandamus," two judges said in the majority opinion. One judge dissented, saying he didn't have enough time to carefully consider the petition filed Wednesday.

One of Tsarnaev's attorneys, Miriam Conrad, declined to comment Saturday.

Tsarnaev has pleaded not guilty to 30 charges connected to the April 2013 explosions that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others. Some of the charges carry the death penalty.