Hawaii Supreme Court voids telescope construction permit

A long-awaited Hawaii Supreme Court ruling Wednesday invalidating a construction permit for what would be one of the world's largest telescopes represents a major setback for the $1.4 billion project on a mountain astronomers tout for having perfect star-gazing conditions.

The ruling is a victory for protesters who say they are fighting the project to curb development, preserve Native Hawaiian culture and protect the Big Island's Mauna Kea, a mountain many consider sacred.

The court ruled that the state Board of Land and Natural Resources should not have issued a permit for the telescope before a hearings officer reviewed a petition by a group challenging the project's approval.

"Quite simply, the board put the cart before the horse when it issued the permit before the request for a contested case hearing was resolved and the hearing was held," the court's 58-page opinion said. "Accordingly, the permit cannot stand."

The ruling sends the matter back for a new contested case hearing.

"Today's decision provides direction to a new land board and another opportunity for people to discuss Mauna Kea's future," state Attorney General Doug Chin said in a statement. "The attorney general's office will be advising the land board regarding next steps."

A group of universities in California and Canada plan to build the Thirty Meter Telescope with partners from China, India and Japan.

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.

Houston Auto Accident Lawyer

Auto accidents account for the vast majority of personal injury claims in the US. After being involved in an auto accident most people aren’t sure what steps they should take immediately following the accident and in the days after.

The first thing to consider if you’ve been involved in an auto accident is the statute of limitations. This will vary among states and in Texas specifically, you have two years to file a case related to your accident. This two-year time limit begins the date of the accident, but it only applies to cases filed in court. For this reason it is important to file insurance claims as soon as possible – if negotiations or settlements break down along the way, you still have time to pursue damages through court. This two-year limitation doesn’t apply if a government entity was involved in the crash – for auto accidents which involve the government (say, an accident involving a public bus or unsafe public property) you have as little as 60-90 days to file an “administrative claim”. Even in a situation where a government entity was involved but didn’t seem to be at fault, it is important to file a claim as they might be more liable than you realize.

It’s important to consider who is at fault, as there are likely more parties involved than you realize. Perhaps there was a mechanical failure of the car which hit you; this would assume the automaker, and possibly auto part maker, are also at fault. Perhaps there was a large pothole which caused the other car to lose control; a situation like this might determine the government partially at fault for not maintaining road safety. It’s difficult to know who’s involved if you don’t have extensive knowledge of personal injury cases involving auto accidents and seeing the outcomes; this is why it’s always wise to consult with an attorney immediately following an accident.

The way fault is determined in Texas is also important to understand, as each state’s Comparative Fault laws will differ. Texas uses a modified comparative fault rule to determine how damages are awarded to injured parties, assuming that there isn’t only one party who is 100% responsible. For example, if you are seeking $100,000 in damages but the court determined the accident was 10% your fault, you will be awarded $90,000 (damages- %fault =award). Texas’s modified comparative fault law doesn’t apply if you are found to be 50% or more at fault, however; if you are 50% or more at fault, you won’t receive any award at all. This is why it is a “modified” comparative fault rule, as opposed to a “pure” comparative fault rule.

There is a lot to consider if you’ve been involved in an auto accident. Knowing when to file certain types of claims, how to file them, who all the involved parties are, and everything to include in your case can be very confusing, and is often done wrong. For example, administrative claims filed against the government are often dropped because the claimant didn’t include some necessary information. For these reasons it is always wise to consult with an experienced attorney. Contact The Salazar Law Firm for a free case evaluation if you or someone you know has been involved in an auto accident.

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.

Appeals court won't reinstate 1990 arson-murder conviction

An elderly man who spent 24 years in prison for his daughter's death in a fire will remain free after a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania on Wednesday refused to reinstate his murder conviction.

Han Tak Lee, 80, a native of South Korea who earned U.S. citizenship, was exonerated and freed last year after a judge concluded the case against him was based on since-discredited scientific theories about arson. Prosecutors appealed, saying that other evidence pointed to his guilt.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal, meaning Lee will stay out of prison.

The New York City shop owner had taken his 20-year-old, mentally ill daughter to a religious retreat in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains where, prosecutors say, he set fire to their cabin. Lee has long contended the 1989 fire was accidental.

Lee, who returned to Queens after his release from prison, did not answer his phone Wednesday. He told The Associated Press in an interview last month that he still loved America and "I expect America to make the right decision."

His attorney, Peter Goldberger, called on prosecutors to let the ruling stand.

"I hope, now, that they will finally see there is no basis for this conviction," Goldberger said. "They can say it's nobody's fault, that science changed, that this is over now, and the federal court has had the last word."

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 >>

Crimean Filmmaker Pleads Not Guilty in Terrorism Trial

A Ukrainian filmmaker who has been in a Russian jail for more than a year on Tuesday pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Critics have dismissed Oleh Sentsov's prosecution as revenge for his pro-Ukrainian position in Russia-occupied Crimea. Sentsov, a Crimean native, was a vocal voice against Russia's annexation of Crimea which followed a hastily called referendum in March.
The 39-year-old Sentsov was arrested in Crimea's capital in May 2014 after a pro-Ukrainian rally protesting the annexation.

At the opening of his trial in the southern city of Rostov-on Don on Tuesday, Sentsov pleaded not guilty and insisted the case against him is a fabrication, Russian news agencies reported.

Sentsov's defense team describes Sentsov's arrest in May 2014 as a kidnapping.

Sentsov, who unlike many Crimeans didn't apply for Russian citizenship, was grabbed on the street in Crimea's capital, Simferopol, by Russian security agents and resurfaced days later in custody in Moscow.

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. 

Charlotte Employment Attorney - Strianese Law

The Strianese, PLLC was founded by Chris Strianese, a Charlotte based attorney who focuses his practice on employment law including but not limited to sexual harassment, wage and hour, and discrimination within the work place. He primarily represents wronged employees who have been fired for unlawful reasons or are currently experiencing harassment or discrimination in the workplace. Mr. Strianese represents all wronged employees from high level executives to office workers.

Mr. Strianese has made it a point to provide individualized attention to each and every one of his clients in order to protect their rights and remain focused on the case. While most discrimination and harassment cases can be settled through negotiation, if litigation is necessary, Mr. Strianese will provide the experience, expertise, and strategic thinking necessary in order to best represent you and protect your rights. You will work directly with Mr. Strianese on your case and will be updated and walked through the whole process.

Mr. Strianese has handled all types of employment cases for Fortune 500 companies, private equity firms, and small businesses. He is well accustomed to the typical defenses raised by employers during litigation and can easily counter those defenses. If you are interested in discussing your case with Mr. Strianese, visit his website and fill out the contact form for more information. 

Playwright David Adjmi wins New York infringement court case

A playwright who was accused of copyright infringement by lawyers representing the TV show "Three's Company" over his parody of 1970s sitcoms has won a victory in court.

Loretta A. Preska, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled Tuesday that David Adjmi, whose play "3C" had a run at Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre in 2012, is protected under the doctrine of fair use.

"The play is a highly transformative parody of the television series that, although it appropriates a substantial amount of 'Three's Company,' is a drastic departure from the original that poses little risk to the market for the original," the judge wrote, noting that copyright law "is designed to foster creativity."

Adjmi had the backing of many theater community heavyweights, including Jon Robin Baitz, Stephen Sondheim, Tony Kushner, John Guare and Terrence McNally.

The play is about two girls — one a tomboy, the other a sexy ditz — and a guy who spontaneously become roommates in a rundown Santa Monica apartment after a wild party.

They clash with a dislikable landlord who makes offensive, homophobic jokes. The playwright is exploring the idea of a culture avoiding difficult issues and problems by retreating into sex and drugs.

5 arrested in protest inside Supreme Court

Protesters disrupted Supreme Court proceedings on Wednesday for the second time this year with shouted criticism of the court's previous rulings on campaign finance.

Supreme Court police swiftly removed five people from the courtroom after they rose, one after another, to interrupt the start of the court's session.

The advocacy group 99rise, which opposes the influence of money in elections, took responsibility for the protest, as it did for similar episodes in January and last year. The group said in a statement that six of its members took part Wednesday, though court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said only five people were arrested.

Arberg said all five have been charged under a law that prohibits making "a harangue or oration" or uttering "loud, threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court Building. They also were charged with conspiracy-related offenses and sent to a holding cell at Washington, D.C., police headquarters.

The first protester rose from his seat among spectators in the courtroom just after the justices took the bench at 10 a.m. "I rise to claim our democracy, one person, one vote," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially joked that he didn't think the court's scheduled arguments in bankruptcy cases "would attract such attention." But Roberts turned serious as the protests continued and warned that anyone disrupting proceedings could be charged with criminal contempt.

In the two previous protests, at least one person from 99rise carried a camera and recorded the disruption in violation of the court's ban on cameras in the courtroom. The surreptitiously recorded video was later posted online.

The group said in a statement that the protest was tied to the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the justices struck down the overall federal limit on individual campaign contributions. The anniversary is on Thursday, when the court will not be in session.

Spain court sentences man to 10 years for Codex theft

A Spanish court has sentenced a former electrician for Spain's famed Santiago de Compostela cathedral to 10 years in prison after convicting him of stealing a priceless 12th-century Codex Calixtinus, considered the first guide for Christians making the pilgrimage to venerate St. James.

In a ruling Wednesday, the court in A Coruna city convicted Jose Manuel Fernandez Castineiras of theft and money laundering.

Authorities found the richly-decorated Codex, which went missing in 2011, in his garage.

During the January trial, Castineiras, who is in his 60s, insisted he couldn't remember confessing to the theft.

Authorities who searched his home in 2012 also found other valuable religious works and recovered more than 1 million euros ($1.1 million).

Tens of thousands make the pilgrimage to Santiago each year.

Court says Chuck Yeager can sue Utah gun safe company

A federal appeals court says record-setting test pilot Chuck Yeager can sue a Utah gun safe company that named a line of safes after him.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Tuesday that the 91-year-old can sue Fort Knox Security Products over an oral agreement from the 1980s that allowed the use of his name and picture in exchange for free safes.

The decision says the arrangement ended around 2008, after Yeager's wife started asking questions about it.

The court dismissed some claims but ruled that Yeager can sue over claims that the company kept using his likeness after the agreement ended. The company disputes that accusation.

Yeager served during World War II and became the first person to break the sound barrier in 1947.

Two justices once open to cameras in court now reconsider

Two Supreme Court justices who once seemed open to the idea of cameras in the courtroom said Monday they have reconsidered those views, dashing even faint hopes that April's historic arguments over gay marriage might be televised.

In separate appearances, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said allowing cameras might lead to grandstanding that could fundamentally change the nature of the high court.

Sotomayor told an audience in West Palm Beach, Florida, that cameras could change the behavior of both the justices and lawyers appearing at the court, who might succumb to "this temptation to use it as a stage rather than a courtroom."

"I am moving more closely to saying I think it might be a bad idea," she said.

During her confirmation hearings in 2009, Sotomayor told lawmakers she had a positive experience with cameras and would try to soften other justices' opposition to cameras.

Speaking at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, Kagan told an audience that she is "conflicted" over the issue and noted strong arguments on both sides.

Kagan said that when she used to argue cases before the court as Solicitor General, she wanted the public to see how well prepared the justices were for each case "and really look as though they are trying to get it right."

But Kagan said she is wary now of anything "that may upset the dynamic of the institution."

She pointed to Congress, which televises floor proceedings, saying lawmakers talk more in made-for-TV sound bites than to each other.

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.

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.

Judicial candidates' appeals for campaign cash at high court

The Supreme Court is weighing whether candidates for elected judgeships have a constitutional right to make personal appeals for campaign cash.

The justices are hearing an appeal from Lanell Williams-Yulee of Tampa, Florida, who received a public reprimand for violating a Florida Bar rule that bans candidates for elected judgeships from personally soliciting donations.

The bar and many good government groups say the ban that is in place in Florida and 29 other states is important to preserve public confidence in an impartial judiciary.

A ruling for Williams-Yulee could free judicial candidates in those states to ask personally for campaign contributions.

In all, voters in 39 states elect local and state judges. In the federal judicial system, including the Supreme Court, judges are appointed to life terms and must be confirmed by the Senate.

The arguments are taking place five years after the Supreme Court freed corporations and labor unions to spend freely in federal elections. The court has generally been skeptical of limits on political campaigns, though slightly less so when it comes to those involving judges.

In 2002, the court struck down rules that were aimed at fostering impartiality among judges and barred candidates for elected judgeships from speaking out on controversial issues. But in 2009, the court held in a case from West Virginia that elected judges could be forced to step aside from ruling on cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.

High court won't hear challenge to Vermont campaign law

The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to part of Vermont's campaign finance laws that impose contribution limits on political action committees.

The justices on Monday declined to hear an appeal from the Vermont Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group. The group argued that Vermont's campaign finance registration, reporting and disclosure requirements for PACs were too broad and unconstitutional.

The group argued that a subcommittee it created should not be subject to Vermont's $2,000 limit on contributions to PACs because the subcommittee does not give money directly to candidates and makes only independent expenditures.

But a federal judge rejected those arguments, finding that there was no clear accounting between the two committees. A federal appeals court agreed.

Court won't hear free speech challenge to metals dealers law

The Supreme Court won't consider the constitutionality of an Ohio law that bars precious metals dealers from advertising without a license.

The justices on Monday declined to take up an appeal from Liberty Coins, a gold and silver dealer that claims the law violates the free speech rights of businesses.

Ohio officials say the 1996 law was enacted to protect consumers from theft and help police track down stolen wedding rings, gold bracelets and other items resold at stores that buy gold and silver merchandise.

A federal judge in 2012 ruled the law unconstitutional because the state failed to prove the license requirement was effective in curbing theft, fraud and terrorism. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling last year.

Danish court hits hash haven dealers with prison terms

A Danish court has sentenced seven men to prison for dealing hashish at Copenhagen's famed hippie enclave of Christiania, where the drug is openly smoked.

The Copenhagen City Court ruled the men, aged 37-50, were guilty of organizing, providing and stockpiling 1.7 tons of hashish, in the first ruling of several cases following numerous drugs busts by police. The sentences ranged from 2½ to seven years.

Tuesday's ruling followed the arrest of 85 people in March, including several Hells Angels members, when police also seized hundreds of kilograms of hashish, several million kroner (dollars) in cash and weapons.

The action was one of the biggest against illegal hashish sales in Christiania, created in 1971 when hippies squatted at a former navy barracks.

Suspect in trooper shooting case heads to court

A man who eluded police for 48 days after allegedly shooting to death a state trooper and wounding another is due in court for a preliminary hearing which could decide whether his case goes to county court for trial.

A Pennsylvania district judge must decide Monday whether there are sufficient grounds to send the case against Eric Frein, 31, to county court.

Frein has been charged with shooting Cpl. Bryon Dickson and Trooper Alex Douglass Sept. 12 outside their state police station in northeastern Pennsylvania. He was captured Oct. 30 at an abandoned airplane hangar in the Pocono Mountains.

Authorities say Frein confessed to what he described as an assassination designed to "wake people up" and result in a change in government. Dickson was killed and Douglass was wounded.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Frein was identified as a suspect shortly after the shootings when a passer-by found his vehicle partially submerged in a small pond near the state police station.

The manhunt, with drew a large police force to the rural area, frightened residents as there were numerous reported sightings of Frein, an expert marksman. A team of federal marshals performing a systematic search stumbled across him about 30 miles from the scene of the shooting and were able to arrest him.