 |
|

Legal news from Thursday, September 20, 2007 |
 |
|


Melvyn Weiss indicted on Milberg Weiss conspiracy charges
Joshua Pantesco on September 20, 2007 6:43 PM ET

[JURIST] Federal prosecutors on Thursday handed down an indictment accusing Milberg Weiss name partner Melvyn Weiss [firm profile] of conspiracy, racketeering, obstruction of justice and making false statements. The indictment stems from a long-running US Attorney investigation into allegations that Milberg Weiss [firm website] paid up to $11.3 million in illegal kickbacks since 1984 to individuals to serve as lead plaintiffs in class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits. On Wednesday, federal prosecutors announced that former Milberg Weiss partner William S. Lerach has agreed to plead guilty [press release; JURIST report] to conspiracy to obstruct justice and will forfeit $7.75 million to the government, pay a $250,000 fine, and will serve one to two years in prison.
According to a statement [text] issued by Milberg Weiss Thursday morning, Weiss will remain of counsel to the firm while he defends himself against the charges, but has relinquished his management duties. In May 2006, a federal grand jury indicted Milberg Weiss [PDF text; JURIST report] and two name partners, David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman, on charges of conspiracy to make false statements and obstructing justice. As part of the scheme, certain individuals who agreed to serve as class action representatives were promised 10 percent of the attorney fees eventually gathered by Milberg Weiss. This kickback was not revealed to the judge overseeing litigation, and the named plaintiffs who collected the kickback money made false statements under oath concerning the payments. Three individuals pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in connection with the scheme in May 2006, and former Milberg Weiss name partner David Bershad pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to conspiracy charges in July. Prosecutors said Thursday that Schulman has now also agreed to plead guilty to racketeering. As part of his plea agreement, Schulman will forfeit 1.85 million and pay a $250,000 fine. Reuters has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Blackwater Iraq killings highlight lack of legal recourse against US contractors: NYT
Gabriel Haboubi on September 20, 2007 2:10 PM ET

[JURIST] Private security contractors operating in Iraq work largely above the law due to legal loopholes, according to a Thursday New York Times report [text] on the aftermath of Sunday's shooting death of at least eight Iraqi civilians at the hands of private security contractor Blackwater USA [corporate website]. The Iraqi Interior Ministry withdrew Blackwater's operating license [AP report] in the wake of the killings and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called on the US to replace the security firm [Bloomberg report] after its "criminal act." The US government exempted its employees and contractors from Iraqi law [order, PDF] when Iraq was still under US administration, an exemption that still applies even though Iraq has since formed its own government. This exemption has in the past denied Iraqis legal recourse against US-based contractors, and has been a source of tension between the US and Iraqi governments. In December, the US government returned a Blackwater employee accused [Virginian-Pilot report] of killing a bodyguard of Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi to the United States, where he was released without charge. Even if charges were brought domestically, it is not certain that US courts have jurisdiction.
Efforts to ensure legal accountability for contractors remain incomplete. An amendment to a Defense Department spending bill last year now means that military contractors in Iraq are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice [text]. The bill [text; see S. 552, Clarification of Application of Uniform Code of Military Justice During a Time of War] does not apply to State Department contractors; the Blackwater employee involved in Sunday's shooting was contracted by the US State Department. Critics argue that until such loopholes are closed, companies like Blackwater will continue to operate above the law. Salon.com has additional coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Canada government sued for alleged non-compliance with Kyoto Protocol statute
Joshua Pantesco on September 20, 2007 11:44 AM ET

[JURIST] A Canadian environmental advocacy group has sued the Canadian government over the 2007 Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act [text], alleging that the government's current compliance plan for the 2005 Kyoto Protocol [text; JURIST news archive] does not meet the act's minimum requirements. The application for judicial review [PDF text; Ecojustice backgrounder], filed by Friends of the Earth Canada [advocacy website], seeks both a declaration that the government's plan is unlawful and an order directing the government "to prepare a revised plan that provides a description of measures to be taken to ensure that Canada meets its obligations under Article 3.1 of the Protocol."
Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse emissions to six percent below 1990 levels by 2012; however, its emissions are currently up 26.6 percent. South Africa brought a complaint to the committee charged with enforcing the Protocol in May 2006, listing Canada among the 15 nations that have failed to report on their progress toward achieving its goals. Canada has said that if it fails to meet targets, it will not purchase emissions credits through the European Union's Emissions Trading System. A previous lawsuit [JURIST report] filed by Friends of the Earth Canada challenging Canada's failure to reduce greenhouse emission standards was stayed [press release] pending the results of the Implementation Act, which was passed in June.
Canada officially ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 while Liberal Party Prime Minister Jean Chretien was in power; the Conservative Party government of current Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been at best ambivalent about the pact it inherited, which Harper once called a "job-killing, economy-destroying" scheme [CBC report] to drain money from industrialized countries. The United States and Australia are the only two industrialized states still refusing to ratify the landmark environmental treaty.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Federal judge rules Kentucky courthouse Ten Commandments display constitutional
Mike Rosen-Molina on September 20, 2007 10:50 AM ET

[JURIST] A display featuring the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse passes constitutional muster because it does not promote religion, a federal judge held in a ruling released Wednesday. Judge Karl Forester of the Eastern District Court of Kentucky [official website] ruled against a lawsuit [ACLU backgrounder] brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kentucky [advocacy website], finding that the display was part of an exhibition on the basics of American law and government. The ruling allows a similar lawsuit involving a Ten Commandments display at another Kentucky courthouse to proceed, because Forester was not convinced that other display was not intended to endorse religion.
In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government property must be determined on a case by case basis, but that displays which included the Commandments for their legal or historical value rather than for their religious significance were more likely to be constitutional. In 2005, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a display of the Ten Commandments [ruling text, PDF] in a Mercer County, Kentucky courthouse that was originally accompanied by other historical documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Writing for the appeals court, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich noted that the Mercer County display did not demonstrate a religious intent or purpose, nor were the Ten Commandments more prominent than the other documents on display. His reasoning paralleled the Supreme Court's in another Ten Commandments ruling when it permitted a display of the Commandments on the Texas state capitol grounds [JURIST report] that included other historical documents and had existed for almost 40 years. AP has more. From Louisville, the Courier-Journal has local coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Khmer Rouge tribunal expects cooperation from former second-in-command
Joshua Pantesco on September 20, 2007 10:45 AM ET

[JURIST] Former Khmer Rouge official Nuon Chea [GenocideWatch backgrounder] has expressed his desire to cooperate fully with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website; JURIST news archive], the court established to try former Khmer Rouge leaders, an ECCC judge told the press Wednesday. You Bunleng, a Cambodian investigating judge of the ECCC, told Reuters that Chea "has no complaints" and will "elaborate on the regime when the trial comes." The ECCC will not try Chea and other defendants before the court, including the chief Khmer Rouge inquisitor known as Duch, until after the judges have collected and analyzed all the evidence, a process expected to take months or years.
Chea was known as Brother Number Two in the Khmer Rouge, indicative of his high position in the communist movement led by Pol Pot, who died in 1998 having never been prosecuted for alleged war crimes. He was arrested Wednesday, and subsequently charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes [JURIST report]. The Khmer Rouge is generally held responsible for the genocide of an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians who died between 1975 and 1979. The ECCC was established by a 2001 law [text as amended 2005, PDF] to investigate and try surviving Khmer Rouge officials, but to date, no top officials have faced trial. Reuters has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

France lower house passes controversial immigration bill
Joshua Pantesco on September 20, 2007 10:01 AM ET

[JURIST] France's National Assembly [official website, in French], the lower house of the French parliament, passed a new immigration bill [dossier and materials, in French; JURIST report] aimed at increasing the ratio of skilled to unskilled immigrants entering France by a 91-45 vote Thursday. The bill has sparked controversy, both in France and abroad, for a provision that permits officials to test the DNA of an applicant seeking to rejoin family in France if immigration officials doubt the veracity of the application. Another provision requires applicants to prove financial security and take a test on French language and culture as a condition of immigration.
The bill follows a campaign promise by French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official profile] to toughen the country's immigration policy, a move already begun by the introduction of deportation quotas seeking to expel 25,000 illegal immigrants in 2007. Prior to assuming the presidency [JURIST report], Sarkozy also took a tough stance on immigration while serving as interior minister. In February 2006, he proposed legislation [JURIST report] to enable the government to expel immigrants who did not make sufficient efforts to integrate in French society and seek work. In June 2006, the French parliament passed a conservative immigration bill [JURIST report] that tightened restrictions on unskilled, non-EU immigrants and required immigrants to sign a pledge to learn French and to abide by French law. In September 2006, Sarkozy announced that France had granted amnesty [JURIST report] to 6,924 illegal immigrants with school-age children, even though thousands more had applied. The move was criticized as "totally arbitrary" - an assertion that Sarkozy denied.
The current bill is now before the Senate [official website] for debate, and will be voted on sometime next month. EU Observer has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|