|
|
|
Judge in Catholic bankruptcy recuses over church donations
Legal Topics |
2023/04/30 05:03
|
A federal judge overseeing the New Orleans Roman Catholic bankruptcy recused himself in a late-night reversal that came a week after an Associated Press report showed he donated tens of thousands of dollars to the archdiocese and consistently ruled in favor of the church in the case involving nearly 500 clergy sex abuse victims.
U.S. District Judge Greg Guidry initially announced hours after the AP report that he would stay on the case, citing the opinion of fellow federal judges that no “reasonable person” could question his impartiality. But amid mounting pressure and persistent questions, he changed course late Friday in a terse, one-page filing.
“I have decided to recuse myself from this matter in order to avoid any possible appearance of personal bias or prejudice,” Guidry wrote. The 62-year-old jurist has overseen the 3-year-old bankruptcy in an appellate role, and his recusal is likely to throw the case into disarray and trigger new hearings and appeals of every consequential ruling he’s made.
But legal experts say it was the only action to take under the circumstances, citing federal law that calls on judges to step aside in any proceeding in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
“This was a clear and blatant conflict that existed for some time,” said Joel Friedman, a longtime legal analyst in New Orleans who is now a law professor at Arizona State University. “It creates the exact problem the rules are designed to avoid, the impression to the public that he’s not an impartial decisionmaker.”
Guidry’s recusal underscores how tightly woven the church is in the city’s power structure, a coziness perhaps best exemplified when executives of the NFL’s New Orleans Saints secretly advised the archdiocese on public relations messaging at the height of its clergy abuse crisis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court denies request to lift gag order in Idaho killings
Headline Legal News |
2023/04/25 16:51
|
The Idaho Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request by 30 news organizations to lift a gag order in the criminal case of a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death.
The high court did not weigh in on whether the gag order, which prohibits attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and others involved in the case from talking to the news media, violates the First Amendment rights of a free press. Instead, the unanimous Idaho Supreme Court justices said the news organizations should have brought their request to the magistrate judge who issued the gag order.
“This Court has long respected the media’s role in our constitutional republic, and honored the promises in both the Idaho Constitution and First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” Justice Gregory Moeller wrote in the decision, going on to quote a ruling from a federal case that said responsible press coverage, “guards against the miscarriage of justice” by subjecting the court system and those who are a part of it to public scrutiny.
Still, Moeller wrote, the balancing act between the First Amendment protections afforded to the press and the Sixth Amendment fair trial rights promised to defendants has become increasingly difficult with the advent of the internet and social media.
Though those are “well-guarded rights,” Moeller said, news organizations who wish to challenge gag orders should start at the lower courts and work their way up to the state’s highest judicial bench, rather than approaching the Supreme Court first.
Bryan Kohberger, 28, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder and burglary in connection with the stabbing deaths in Moscow, Idaho. Prosecutors have yet to reveal if they intend to seek the death penalty.
The bodies of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were found on Nov. 13, 2022, at a rental home across the street from the University of Idaho campus. The slayings shocked the rural Idaho community and neighboring Pullman, Washington, where Kohberger was a graduate student studying criminology at Washington State University.
The case garnered widespread publicity, and in January Latah County Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall issued the sweeping gag order, barring attorneys, law enforcement agencies and others associated with the case from talking or writing about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rejects Turkish bank’s arguments in Iran case
Legal Topics |
2023/04/20 05:43
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Turkish bank’s main arguments for dismissing a lawsuit accusing it of helping Iran evade U.S. sanctions, but the court sent the case back for additional review.
Halkbank, a bank owned by Turkey, had argued that a federal law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, gave foreign states absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in U.S. courts. It also said federal courts don’t have jurisdiction to oversee the case.
“We disagree with Halkbank on both points,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for himself and six of his eight colleagues.
Still, Kavanaugh said the case should go back to a lower court for further review. He said the lower court “did not fully consider the various arguments regarding common-law immunity that the parties press in this Court.”
The federal government says the bank “participated in the largest-known conspiracy to evade the United States’ economic sanctions on Iran,” laundering billions of dollars worth of Iranian oil and natural gas proceeds. The government says that working with an Iranian-Turkish businessman, the bank created ways for Iran to access the funds — including shipments of gold and fake food shipments. The government says that the schemes “freed up approximately $20 billion of restricted Iranian funds.”
The businessman, Reza Zarrab, has pleaded guilty.
The case was initiated under the Trump administration but was continued by the Biden administration.
The case is Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 21-1450. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court asked to preserve abortion pill access rules
Headline Legal News |
2023/04/15 12:28
|
The Biden administration and a drug manufacturer asked the Supreme Court on Friday to preserve access to an abortion drug free from restrictions imposed by lower court rulings, while a legal fight continues.
The Justice Department and Danco Laboratories both warned of “regulatory chaos” and harm to women if the high court doesn’t block an appeals court ruling in a case from Texas that had the effect of tightening Food and Drug Administration rules under which the drug, mifepristone, can be prescribed and dispensed.
The new limits would take effect Saturday unless the court acts before then.
“This application concerns unprecedented lower court orders countermanding FDA’s scientific judgment and unleashing regulatory chaos by suspending the existing FDA-approved conditions of use for mifepristone,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote Friday, less than two days after the appellate ruling.
A lawyer for the anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations suing over mifepristone said the justices should reject the drugmaker’s and the administration’s pleas and allow the appeals court-ordered changes to take effect.
The fight over mifepristone lands at the Supreme Court less than a year after conservative justices reversed Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add value to your neglected assets - Life Insurance Policy Review
Headline Legal News |
2023/04/10 03:29
|
During a life insurance policy review, you should look at your current coverage and beneficiaries and decide if any adjustments should be made. A Life Insurance Policy Review can be incorporated into initial planning or regular reviews when significant life changes have occurred.
Factors that can impact changes to your life insurance needs can include marriage, divorce, health status changes, buying or selling a house, having children, and paying off debt. It's important to review your life insurance policy annually or more frequently to ensure your policy is set up to adequately protect your loved ones after your death.
When conducting an insurance Policy Review and presenting options that include replacing an existing insurance contract, it is important to discuss the risks and benefits. You should conduct one after any major life events involving changes to your family, health, or finances. Significant life events that impact your family, health, or finances can change how much life insurance coverage you need and who you want as your beneficiaries.
The amount of life insurance coverage you need, and who you want as your beneficiaries, depends in part on the people who count on your income to cover their expenses. If you or a loved one experiences a significant improvement or decline in health, it could increase or decrease the amount of coverage you might need. You can review your life insurance by checking the hard copy of your policy, logging into your online account with the insurer, or talking directly with an agent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Car Accidents Attorney in Sunnyvale, California
Legal Topics |
2023/04/04 10:28
|
If you have been injured in an accident, you need a personal injury attorney who is ready to fight for the compensation you deserve. At the Law Offices of Esra Jung, we have spent decades helping the hardworking people of Sunnyvale fight for justice in the face of sudden injuries. Car Accidents Attorney in Sunnyvale, CA
Our attorneys have more than 40 years of combined experience serving injured people. Our staff also have a wealth of knowledge with many years in the field. We believe in applying all that experience to do the best job possible for our clients.
No personal injury claim is a minor one to us. Our goal is to get good results quickly and to keep you informed every step of the way. If you have a concern or question about pursuing compensation for someone else’s negligence, or you are looking for an experienced personal injury attorney in Sunnyvale, call (408) 556-0300 for a free consultation or contact us online. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UN seeks court opinion on climate in win for island states
Legal Topics |
2023/04/01 00:13
|
The countries of the United Nations led by the island state of Vanuatu adopted what they called a historic resolution Wednesday calling for the U.N.‘s highest court to strengthen countries’ obligations to curb warming and protect communities from climate disaster.
The resolution was adopted by consensus and Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau called it “a win for climate justice of epic proportions.” He reeled off a string of recent disasters including back-to-back Category 4 cyclones in his own country and record-breaking Cyclone Freddy that refused to leave southeastern Africa in recent weeks. “Catastrophic and compound effects like this are growing in number,” he said.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said he hoped the opinion, when issued, would encourage nations “to take the bolder and stronger climate action that our world so desperately needs.”
Saudi Arabia and Iraq sought to soften the resolution, which was co-sponsored by some 132 countries, saying it would increase the workload of the international court.
Like many Pacific Island nations Vanuatu is at risk of rising seas engulfing swathes of the islands. Scientists say both extreme weather and sea levels have worsened because of climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The resolution asks the court to pay particular attention to the harm endured by small island states.
Youth groups bolstered the effort, citing the need to protect the planet for current and future generations.
“I don’t want to show a picture to my child one day of my island. I want my child to be able to experience the same environment and the same culture that I grew up in,” said Cynthia Houniuhi of the Solomon Islands, who is president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, a group involved in getting the resolution to the General Assembly. “The environment that sustains us is disintegrating before our eyes.”
The group’s Solomon Yeo said “young people across the world will recall the day when we were able to get the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, to bring its voice to the climate justice fight.”
While the opinion from the International court of justice would not be binding, it would encourage states “to actually go back and look at what they haven’t been doing and what they need to do” to address the climate emergency, said Nilufer Oral, director at the Center for International Law at the University of Singapore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
