|
|
|
Court denies motion to stop Loughner medication
Law Firm News |
2011/07/25 08:18
|
A federal court Friday night denied an emergency motion by defense lawyers to keep prison officials in Missouri from forcibly medicating the Tucson shooting rampage suspect with a psychotropic drug.
In a one-page ruling, judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also denied a request by Jared Lee Loughner's attorneys for daily reports about his condition at a federal prison facility in Springfield, Mo.
The judges said their denial is without prejudice to the defense seeking appropriate relief in the district court. The 9th Circuit had previously scheduled an Aug. 30 hearing in San Francisco on an appeal by Loughner's lawyers over forced medication. It wasn't immediately clear if that hearing will still be held.
Calls to lead Loughner attorney Judy Clarke for comment Friday night weren't immediately returned.
Federal prosecutors said in a filing earlier Friday that Loughner should remain medicated because he may be a danger to himself and his mental and physical condition was rapidly deteriorating.
Loughner's attorneys questioned Thursday whether the forced medication violates an earlier order by the 9th Circuit that forbid prison officials from involuntarily medicating Loughner as the court mulls an appeal on his behalf. They also said their client has been on 24-hour suicide watch.
U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke wrote in his filing Friday that despite being under suicide watch, Loughner's unmedicated behavior is endangering him and that no measure short of medication will protect him from himself more than temporarily because they do not address the mental state which underlies his self-destructive actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sets oral arguments in campaign lawsuit
Law Firm News |
2011/07/15 21:32
|
A conservative group fighting campaign finance rules in Montana says in a recent filing that it agrees disclosure laws can apply to corporate speech, but Western Tradition Partnership argues it isn't subject to current disclosure laws because its attack mailers fall outside the definition of electioneering.
The Montana Supreme Court has set oral arguments for September in the state's challenge to a district court decision that tossed out the outright ban on corporate political spending.
Western Tradition Partnership first filed the lawsuit last year piggybacking on the high-profile Citizen's United case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The group aims to undo Montana's century-old restriction on corporate political spending.
Western Tradition is separately fighting a decision that it failed to report campaign expenditures. The group argues its activities are not intended to influence elections.
In a brief filed earlier this month with the Supreme Court on the main case fighting the ban corporate campaign spending, WTP made it clear it believes campaign finance regulation is OK.
If the State is truly concerned with accountability, the state has other means at its disposal, such as disclosure laws, to make sure that people know who is speaking, Western Tradition argued in the brief. It is inappropriate, and indeed, unconstitutional, to completely outlaw corporate political speech. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm To Collect $35M In Forfeited Bonds
Law Firm News |
2011/07/11 00:51
|
A law firm will be appointed to collect about $35 million in forfeited bonds owed to Dallas County.
District Attorney Craig Watkins said Wednesday that a law firm, to be selected later, will get to keep 25 percent of the amount collected.
A recent local newspaper review found that many of the uncollected defaulted judgments date back decades. The newspaper reports that Dallas County has been hampered by outdated computers, poor oversight and lack of coordination among departments.
Defendants post bond to get out of jail, paying bondsmen usually 10 percent of the amount set by a judge. If the person doesn’t show up for court, a warrant is issued and the bond is forfeited.
The review found many companies failed to pay Dallas County the full amount. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer defends Nevada truck firm in Amtrak crash
Law Firm News |
2011/07/11 00:50
|
A lawyer for the Nevada trucking company whose tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train, killing six people, defended the company’s safety record Thursday and said it was not at fault in two previous accidents cited in state safety records.
John Davis Trucking Co. has been cooperating with local, state and federal investigators and is as anxious as anyone to learn why the driver who died in the June 24 crash ignored flashing lights and crossing gates before skidding the length of a football field into the side of the train, Steven Jaffe of Las Vegas said.
But he said four negligence lawsuits filed against the Battle Mountain company — combined with the ongoing investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board — has kept the brothers who own the family-run business from sharing information that would help shed more light on the tragedy.
“There’s a lot more than meets the eye,” Jaffe told The Associated Press. “I think when it all comes down to it, the public is going to see a very different John Davis Trucking than was originally put out there.
“I believe the evidence will show their conduct was defensible in all of this,” he said. “I have a great deal of trust in the legal system, and if some day we go in front of a jury, I’m confident it will give us the chance to say that we did everything right.”
Federal records reviewed by the AP show the state Department of Public Safety cited the company for 16 vehicle maintenance violations over the past two years and noted it had been involved in two crashes during that period, including one in February 2010 that injured a person in Washoe County. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowers sue over apparent loan mod mishaps
Law Firm News |
2011/07/05 09:24
|
It seemed Maria Campusano's financial problems were behind her when the mortgage on her Victorian home in a Massachusetts mill town was chopped by hundreds of dollars a month.
She soon learned that her troubles had just begun.
Weeks after making her first payment under the new rate, the school district staffer began receiving past-due notices, documents showing wildly inaccurate loan balances and letters threatening foreclosure. She now fears she'll lose her home.
How can they take away what I have worked so hard for? Campusano said.
Campusano is one of two named plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging breach of contract by Bank of America NA and subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing LP.
The suit, which was filed in Los Angeles federal court because BAC is located in nearby Calabasas, is among a growing number of legal complaints accusing banks of disregarding what should be binding agreements to reduce the monthly mortgage payments of troubled borrowers.
The suits involve permanent modifications through the U.S. Treasury-administered Home Affordable Modification Program, which offers incentives to loan servicers who extend modifications, as well as so-called proprietary modifications, which banks offer independently of the government guidelines.
They represent a new wave of complaints against banks that have already weathered years of criticism for their reluctance to modify loans and for foreclosing on borrowers after offering them trial modifications. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BofA Near $8.5B Deal to Settle Big Investors' Claims
Law Firm News |
2011/06/28 22:17
|
Bank of America Corp. is close to finalizing a deal to pay $8.5 billion to settle claims by a group of investors that the bank sold them poor-quality mortgage-backed securities that went sour when the housing market tanked, according to a person familiar with the settlement talks.
The Charlotte, North Carolina, bank was continuing talks late Tuesday with the group, which includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pimco Investment Management, the world's largest bondholder, and Blackrock Financial Management. It is expected to announce an agreement as early as Wednesday, the person said on condition of anonymity because the matter was still developing.
The deal comes eight months after the group fired off a letter to Bank of America demanding that it repurchase $47 billion in mortgages that its Countrywide unit sold to them in the form of bonds. The investors have argued that Countrywide's practice of modifying loans found to have faulty paperwork or those written outside of normal underwriting standards breached signed agreements with the investors. By continuing to service bad loans rather than speeding up foreclosures, the group has claimed that Countrywide ran up servicing fees, enriching itself at the expense of investors. The New York Fed is involved because it took over assets held by American International Group Inc., which faltered under the weight of bad home loans that it insured.
Bank of America, which paid $4 billion for Countrywide in 2008, has dismissed suggestions that its handling of loan modifications and other efforts to prevent foreclosure have violated the terms of the mortgage-backed securities that the investors hold. In November, CEO Brian Moynihan said he was in day-to-day hand-to-hand combat with investors' demands. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
