|
|
|
More than 3,000 fake Gibson guitars seized at Los Angeles port
Attorney News |
2024/12/02 04:08
|
More than 3,000 fake Gibson electric guitars shipped from Asia were seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at the Los Angeles-Long Beach Seaport, authorities said.
Had the guitars been authentic, they would have been worth $18 million, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a statement. The agency said Gibson confirmed the guitars that were intercepted were counterfeit.
Gibson, founded in 1894 and based in Nashville, Tennessee, has the top market share in premium electric guitars and all its guitars are handcrafted in Nashville and Bozeman, Montana.
“These fraudulent guitars may look and feel legitimate for unsuspecting consumers buying them from third party online sources, street markets, unauthorized retailers, and person-to-person transactions,” said Cheryl M. Davies, CBP director of field operations in Los Angeles. “As we approach the busy Holiday shopping season, consumers should pay attention on where they are buying these goods and how much they are paying, and if is too good to be true it probably is.”
Gibson guitars have been such a fixture in music history that rock-and-roll visionary Chuck Berry was laid to rest with his instrument, blues musician B.B. King affectionately named his “Lucille,” and rock guitarist Eric Clapton borrowed one from George Harrison to play the solo on the Beatles’ song “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.”
“This is really emotional and personal for us not only because of the protection of our players, but because of our Gibson team at large, including the artisans at our craftories in Nashville, TN and Bozeman, MT, who are generations of American families that have dedicated their entire lives to handcrafting Gibson instruments,” Beth Heidt, chief marketing officer at Gibson, said in a statement.
Authorities announced the seizure Tuesday but didn’t say when the guitars were taken, which country they came from, or who made them.
The investigation involving the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is ongoing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire courts hear 2 cases on transgender girls playing girls sports
Attorney News |
2024/11/22 14:27
|
Two New Hampshire fathers who were barred from school district events for wearing pink wristbands marked “XX” to represent female chromosomes insisted at a federal court hearing Thursday that they didn’t set out to harass or otherwise target a transgender soccer player at the game they attended.
But a judge hearing the case suggested the message the parents sent may matter more than their intentions.
Kyle Fellers and Anthony Foote sued the Bow school district after being banned from school grounds for wearing the wristbands at their daughters’ soccer game in September. The no-trespass orders have since expired, but a judge is deciding whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to wear the wristbands and carry signs at upcoming school events, including basketball games, swim meets and a music concert, while the case proceeds.
Testifying at Thursday’s hearing, both men said that they did not view the wristbands as a protest against Parker Tirrell, a transgender girl on the opposing team, but rather as a show of support for their daughters and their teammates. U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe questioned whether there is a meaningful distinction and whether their intentions matter.
“Sometimes the message you think you’re sending might not be the message that is being sent,” he said.
McAuliffe asked Foote whether it occurred to him that a transgender person might interpret the pink XX wristbands as an attempt to invalidate their existence.
“If he’s a trans female, pink might be a color he likes,” Foote said.
McAuliffe also noted that while both plaintiffs said they had no problem with transgender people outside the issue of sports, they repeatedly referred to the athlete in question as a boy.
“You seem to go out of your way to suggest there’s no such thing as a trans girl,” McAuliffe said. Foote disagreed, saying it was “like learning a new language” to refer to transgender people.
In a separate courtroom earlier Thursday, another judge held a hearing on a lawsuit brought by Parker Tirrell and another student challenging the state law that bans transgender athletes in grades 5 to 12 from teams that align with their gender identity. It requires schools to designate all teams as either girls, boys or coed, with eligibility determined based on students’ birth certificates “or other evidence.”
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Landya McCafferty ruled earlier this year that the teens can try out for and play on girls school sports teams. The order only applies to those two individuals for now as they seek to overturn the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act on behalf of all transgender girl students in New Hampshire.
Lawyers for the teens said in court Thursday they hoped the matter could go to trial and be resolved before the start of the next school year in September. They said the teens’ school districts and others in the state have asked for guidance regarding the statute. Lawyers for the state said they needed more time to prepare.
Judge Talesha Saint-Marc suggested the timing of the trial was ambitious and asked that both sides talk further about scheduling. Gov. Chris Sununu, who signed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act into law in July, has said it “ensures fairness and safety in women’s sports by maintaining integrity and competitive balance in athletic competitions.” About half of states have adopted similar measures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial panel recommends suspending Montana’s AG from practicing law for 90 days
Attorney News |
2024/10/24 21:15
|
A state judicial panel is recommending that Montana’s Republican attorney general be suspended from practicing law for 90 days for openly defying court orders and repeatedly attacking the integrity of justices in his defense of a law permitting the state’s Republican governor to directly fill judicial vacancies.
The law at issue was part of a nationwide GOP effort to forge a more conservative judiciary and was eventually upheld by Montana’s Supreme Court.
Both sides have up to 30 days to object to Wednesday’s recommendation by the five-member Commission on Practice and another 30 days to respond to objections before the Supreme Court hands down its decision. Five of Montana’s seven justices filed motions Thursday to recuse themselves from ruling on the punishment, meaning they would likely be replaced by state District Court judges.
If Austin Knudsen’s license is suspended it could affect his ability to do his job as attorney general, officials said. The state Constitution requires the attorney general to be “an attorney in good standing admitted to practice law in Montana who has engaged in the active practice thereof for at least five years before election.”
Department of Justice spokeswoman Emilee Cantrell said the office disagrees with the recommended punishment and intends to file an objection. The office instead supports a 2022 special counsel investigation recommendation that suggested “this could have been handled privately, avoiding a politically charged disagreement.” The judicial panel had rejected that recommendation.
In its findings, the panel said there was no doubt actions by the attorney general’s office “repeatedly, consistently and undeniably,” violated professional conduct rules and are “arguably deserving of the most serious consequences.”
They also dismissed a suggestion that holding Knudsen “accountable for his conduct may have further consequences,” because its only focus was on whether his conduct violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct.
In court filings, Knudsen’s office had accused state Supreme Court justices of judicial misconduct, corruption, self-dealing, “actual impropriety,” and having a conflict of interest.
The judicial panel noted that Knudsen acknowledged during a hearing earlier this month that a lot of things should have been done differently in representing the Legislature over the extent of its subpoena powers.
“If I had this to do over, I probably would not have allowed language like this — so sharp — to be used,” Knudsen testified. However, the panel also noted that Knudsen repeatedly refused to admit that any of his actions or language in court filings violated professional conduct rules.
The issue dates back to 2021 when the Legislature was working on a law to eliminate the Judicial Nomination Commission, which screened judicial applicants.
Lawmakers learned a Supreme Court administrator used state computers to survey judges about the legislation on behalf of the Montana Judges Association.
After the court administrator said she had deleted emails related to the survey, the Legislature subpoenaed the Department of Administration, which includes the state’s IT department, and received 5,000 of the administrator’s emails by the next day. The court administrator didn’t learn about the subpoena until after the emails had been turned over to the Legislature in April 2021.
The Supreme Court temporarily quashed the subpoena that same month — an order the attorney general’s office said it “does not recognize” — and in July 2021 ordered the emails be returned immediately. The attorney general’s office didn’t return the emails until March and April of 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Knudsen’s office defied the court order without seeking a stay, something the panel called “beyond the pale.”
This isn’t the only controversy marking Knudsen’s nearly four years in office. He is seeking reelection.
He was accused of pressuring a Helena hospital over its refusal to administer a parasite drug to a COVID-19 patient and his office also sided with a man who made an armed threat over a pandemic mask mandate. He tried to block three constitutional initiatives from the November ballot, recruited a token opponent for the June primary so he could raise more money, and was sued after forcing the head of the Montana Highway Patrol to resign. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Korean court acquits former police chief over deadly crowd crush
Attorney News |
2024/10/17 13:23
|
A South Korean court found the former police chief of the country’s capital and two other officers not guilty over a botched response to a Halloween crowd crush that killed nearly 160 people in 2022.
The verdict by the Seoul Western District Court drew angry responses from grieving relatives and their advocates, who accused the court of refusing to hold high-level officials accountable for an incident that was largely blamed on a lack of disaster planning and an inadequate emergency response.
Kim Kwang-ho, former chief of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, was the most senior police officer among more than 20 police and government officials indicted over the crush in Itaewon, a popular nightlife district in Seoul. Prosecutors had sought a five-year prison term for Kim.
An investigation led by the National Police Agency found that police and local officials failed to plan effective crowd control measures even though they expected more than 100,000 people to gather for Halloween events in Itaewon.
The investigators found that Seoul police assigned just 137 officers to Itaewon on the day of the crush. Police also ignored hotline calls placed by pedestrians who warned of swelling crowds before the surge turned deadly. Once people began getting crushed in an alley near Hamilton Hotel, police failed to establish control over the site and allow paramedics to reach the injured in time.
Some experts have called the crush a “manmade disaster” that could have been prevented with relatively simple steps like employing more police and public workers to monitor bottleneck points, enforcing one-way walking lanes, and blocking narrow pathways.
The Seoul court acquitted Kim of professional negligence, saying that prosecutors failed to prove that he had violated his duties or to establish a connection between his conduct and the high toll of deaths and injuries. The court also acquitted two lower-ranking police officers who faced similar charges.
The court stated that while Kim received status updates from various departments in his agency and the Yongsan police station about the situation in Itaewon before the crush on Oct. 29, 2022, this information would not have been sufficient for him to recognize the possibility of an incident of such magnitude.
The court also noted that Kim had instructed various police stations in Seoul, including Yongsan, to establish plans to maintain safety during Halloween celebrations.
“Based solely on evidence submitted by prosecutors, it’s insufficient to conclude that the defendants’ professional negligence and its relationship to the occurrence or escalation of this incident are fully established beyond reasonable doubt,” the court said in a statement. Relatives of the victims embraced and cried outside the court after the verdict was announced.
“This court just granted immunity to the police for whenever these kinds of incidents happen again!” one of them shouted. Others scuffled with security as they tried to approach Kim’s car as he left the court.
Itaewon Disaster Bereaved Families, a group representing the victims, said the ruling was “dishonest” and “impossible to understand” and called for prosecutors to appeal.
“We strongly condemn that the main officials of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, who ignored their duties for prevention, preparation and response despite anticipating that a large crowd would develop, and who have been denying their responsibility until now, are being given a free pass,” the group said.
The same court last month sentenced the former chief of Yongsan police station, Lee Im-jae, to three years in prison and convicted two of his colleagues of professional negligence resulting in death, citing their failure to properly prepare for the crowd and respond to the crush.
The court acquitted Park Hee-young, head of the Yongsan ward office, and three other ward officials, saying that they had no legal authority to control or break up crowds.
Lee and another Yongsan police official who received a one-year sentence appealed the ruling earlier this month. The other police official had received a suspended sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Rep. George Santos pleads guilty in federal fraud case
Attorney News |
2024/08/20 15:57
|
George Santos, the former New York congressman who spun lies into a brief political career, pleaded guilty Monday to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, acknowledging that he allowed his ambitions to cloud his judgment.
Santos, 36, is likely to spend at least six years in prison and owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution. His federal fraud case, which led to his expulsion from Congress, was just weeks away from going to trial.
“I betrayed the trust of my constituents and supporters. I deeply regret my conduct,” the New York Republican said, his voice trembling as he entered the plea in a Long Island courtroom.
Santos, 36, said he accepted responsibility for his crimes and intends to make amends. He faces more than six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines and owes at least $370,000 in restitution.
Senior Federal Judge Joanna Seybert scheduled sentencing for Feb. 7.
Santos was indicted on felony charges that he stole from political donors, used campaign contributions to pay for personal expenses, lied to Congress about his wealth and collected unemployment benefits while actually working.
Santos was expelled from the U.S. House after an ethics investigation found “overwhelming evidence” that he had broken the law and exploited his public position for his own profit.
The case has been set to go to trial in early September. If that had happened, federal prosecutors said Monday that they were prepared to call some 40 witnesses, including members of Santos’ campaign, employers and family members.
Santos was once touted as a rising political star after he flipped the suburban district that covers the affluent North Shore of Long Island and a slice of the New York City borough of Queens in 2022.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims
Attorney News |
2024/06/22 15:25
|
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence.
In their first Second Amendment case since they expanded gun rights in 2022, the justices ruled 8-1 in favor of a 1994 ban on firearms for people under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners. The justices reversed a ruling from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that had struck down the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the law uses “common sense” and applies only “after a judge determines that an individual poses a credible threat” of physical violence.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the major 2022 Bruen ruling in a New York case, dissented.
President Joe Biden, who has been critical of previous high-court rulings on guns, abortion and other hot-button issues, praised the outcome.
“No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun,” Biden said in a statement. “As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades.”
Last week, the court overturned a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessories used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. The court ruled that the Justice Department exceeded its authority in imposing that ban.
Friday’s case stemmed directly from the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in June 2022. A Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was accused of hitting his girlfriend during an argument in a parking lot and later threatening to shoot her.
At arguments in November, some justices voiced concern that a ruling for Rahimi could also jeopardize the background check system that the Biden administration said has stopped more than 75,000 gun sales in the past 25 years based on domestic violence protective orders.
The case also had been closely watched for its potential to affect cases in which other gun ownership laws have been called into question, including in the high-profile prosecution of Hunter Biden. Biden’s son was convicted of lying on a form to buy a firearm while he was addicted to drugs. His lawyers have signaled they will appeal.
A decision to strike down the domestic violence gun law might have signaled the court’s skepticism of the other laws as well. But Friday’s decision did not suggest that the court would necessarily uphold those law either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court gives homeowners another chance in escrow dispute
Attorney News |
2024/06/02 15:42
|
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave homeowners another chance to force Bank of America and other large banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts.
The court unanimously threw out an appeals court ruling in favor of Bank of America, which has refused to pay interest on money it collects to pay borrowers’ insurance and property tax bills. New York requires banks to pay at 2% interest on escrowed funds.
Thirteen other states have similar laws: California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin.
A federal judge initially ruled in favor of the borrowers, but the federal appeals court in New York granted Bank of America’s request to dismiss the suits, arguing that the federal law governing national banks does not permit such state-by-state regulation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the Supreme Court that the appeals court did not perform the kind of nuanced analysis required by federal law and prior Supreme Court decisions to determine if a state law must give way to a federal statute.
In particular, Kavanaugh noted that the Dodd-Frank Act, enacted after the 2008 financial crisis, made clear that not all state banking laws are pre-empted.
Jonathan Taylor, who argued the case for the homeowners, said in an email that the decision is a victory for consumers because it “vindicates Congress’ determination in Dodd-Frank to rein in the kind of aggressive preemption of state consumer-financial laws that helped lead to the financial crisis.”
Bank of America did not immediately comment on the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
