Legal Radar

NY Senate Leader and Son Facing Corruption Charges

A multi-page complaint was released by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, which charges Mr. Skelos, the highest ranking Republican Senate in the State, and his son, with two counts of extortion, two counts of conspiracy, and two counts of gratuities and bribes.

The complaint indicates a scheme of extorting business for funds to benefit Skelos’ son, with expectations that payments would greatly impact the Senator’s actions. It also claims that both the Senator and his son went through extensive lengths to hide their activity, including the use of burner mobile phones and coded languages.

The investigation is part of a wide inquiry by federal investigators into possible wrongdoing in Albany, NY, and recent charges coming months after Sheldon Silver, a Democrat and former assembly speaker, was arrested on corruption charges.

The complaint also claims an extended scheme by the Senator and his son to secure earnings from businesses with business and legislative interests in the NY state, and those who have given political contributions to the senator.

Immigration Lawsuit Receives Cold Response from Appeals Court

Joe Arpaio, an Arizona Sheriff, who filed a suit against Obama’s immigration policies were met with an icy reception early this week at the federal Court of Appeals. It appears reviving the case will be unlikely.

Arpaio filed the suit late last year, shortly after the Obama administration made the announcement of offering illegal immigrants, whose parents are permanent residents or citizens, amnesty from deportation.

He also argued that he has the right to challenge current immigration policies since the administration won’t allow the deportation of illegal criminals who wind up in his jail.

A judge last December dumped the case, indicating the sheriff didn’t possess any legal standing to take up the challenge since he wasn’t fully harmed by the current immigration policies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals within the District of Columbia Circuit brought up similar concerns on its oral arguments early Monday in Arpaio’s appeal.

The argument concentrates on whether the Sheriff has the right to force a suit, not on legal merits of his claims.

Senate Teeing Up on Bill Meant for Patent Litigation

In the previous year, the House of Representative set out strong support for patent reform, especially on measures made to cut back on patent suits. Early this year, the House brought back a bill, the Innovation Act, and just this Wednesday, the Senate backed up the bill with support from influential Senators.

The bill indicated numerous measures to slash patent lawsuits made to promote quick settlements for companies who frequently make payments instead entering legal battles that could be more costly to defend.

The bill will entail plaintiffs to make be more specific and clear. It also adds limitations to the amount to be forked by the patent-litigation holder from firms in the early stages of a suit, in order to protect defendants from “fishing” instances.

It also give courts more leeway to reward lawyer fees to the losing party of the suit as well as plaintiffs seen by a judge to have brought a suit with little or no basis.

SC to Hear Lethal Injection Arguments

Early this week, the United States Supreme Court will listen to arguments regarding Oklahoma’s lethal injection issue, which in the past few years involved the use of a midazolam, a sedative.

The issue that Justices faced early this week was whether midazolam, as a lethal injection component, is in violation of the 8th Amendment of the U.S. constitution, which prohibit carrying out “cruel and unusual” punishments.

Before, executioners would utilize two drugs ---- pentobarbital and thiopental --- both belonging under a drug class known as barbiturates. But since 2008, makers of both drugs were so worried of its association with capital punishment that they significantly slashed the supply for both drugs. This pushed some states to go for midazolam.

As an added measure, multiple states have made laws that allow the usage of other execution operations in case the drugs aren’t present.

How the court will rule in the issue may open the door for them sooner than later.

SC Weighing Right to File Lawsuit in Spokeo Case

Early this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear out a case that may make it a little easier for plaintiffs to enforce class action suits against Internet firms who are in violation of privacy laws and consumer data.

The case involves a suit against people-search website Spokeo Inc., regarding data it posted of a male from Virginia. The plaintiff, Thomas Robins, blames Spokeo for getting wrong information regarding his age, employment status, education attainment, and wealth, allowing other people to see him as being rich and educated than he really was.

Robins claims that the misinformation is hurting his employment prospects, leading him to suffer emotional, economic, and reputation injuries. A trial court earlier struck the case down, a decision overturned by the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the previous year, which handed the case the Supreme Court.

The suit is seeking a class action status and alleges violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a law regulating credits bureaus and setting standards on how consumer credit data is gathered, shared, and stored.

SC Justices Divided on Same Sex Marriage Arguments

The Supreme Court early this week appear divided on one of the biggest civil rights cases in the country’s history: whether the U.S. constitution gives gay couples the right to marriage.

Questions from the justices indicate that they were divided on the issue. Justice Anthony Kennedy has the controlling vote.

The justices seemed to have conflicting ideas over not only landing the right answer to the issue but also trying to know how to reach over it.

The justices would’ve been content being on the sidelines. But a decision made last year from a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit, ended up forcing their hand.

Early this week, a schedule for two arguments was set. The first talked about whether the U.S. constitution requires states to deploy marriage licenses to two same-sex individuals. The second debated whether states should recognize gay marriage to be carried out elsewhere.

Google Facing Age Discrimination Suit by Job Candidate

A 64-year old tech worker from Florida recently filed an age discrimination suit against the Google early this week. He claims the search engine giant passed on him during an interview due to his age.

Robert Heath indicated in his complaint that Google shot down his job application for a software engineering position back in 2011, despite his wealth of experience in General Dynamics, Compaq, and IBM.

The suit implicates Google based on its decision to not hire Heath on a phone interview, despite informing him in an e-mail that the company is carrying out the largest “hiring campaign in its history,” and telling Heath that he “would be a great candidate to work at Google.”

Kotchen & Law, currently representing Health, is after a class action suit on behalf of 40+ year old applicants who weren’t employed by the internet search engine giant.

The suit also cites a similar case (Reid v. Google), in which an ex-Google executive settled with Google for undisclosed damages.

Bonds’ Conviction on Obstruction of Justice Reversed

The obstruction of justice conviction of Barry Bonds was overturned just recently by the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled his answer before the grand jury years ago wasn’t material to the government probe on the distribution of steroids.

Bonds, a professional baseball player, was indicted in 2007 for this testimony a few years earlier before the grand jury on the illegal distribution of performance enhancement substances by the Bay Area Lab Co-Operative.

Following a trial on March 2011, a jury charged Bonds on three counts for making false statements when he said of not receiving steroids and HGH from his trainer, Greg Anderson, and denied getting injections from his trainer or associates.

Bonds was then sentenced to a 30-day home confinement, 2 years of probation, 250 hours of youth activity community service, plus a $4,000 fine.

The 9^th Circuit judge panel maintained the conviction in a vote back in 2013, but most of the court’s 28 judges who participated voted to have another judge panel to rehear the case. 

Trade Group Suing to Reverse Net Neutrality

United States Telecom Association, an industry trade group, filed a suit early this week to reverse the neutrality rules set by the government --- the first of what may lead to a tide of legal battles.

The court filing asserts the rules to be arbitrary, unpredictable, and in violation of the federal law. The current filing may be a bit short on details, but the timing is crucial. Suits filed within the first 10 publication days of the Federal Registry are submitted into a lottery that will determine where the case will take place.

The Federal Communications Commission displayed its neutrality rules on the Federal Register early this week, a big step that kicked off what may be a long and tedious legal battle between the trade groups and the government.

Industry groups will likely make a legal challenge on procedure grounds as well as questioning the authority of the FCC on reclassifying the Internet as a service of telecommunication. Tom Wheeler, the current chairman for the FCC, expects a successful defense on the case.

Ex-Blackwater Security Team Slapped with Long Sentences

Just early this week, a federal judges carried out a stiff prison sentences on 4 ex-Blackwater guards for being part of a 2007 Baghdad shooting that killed 17 Iraqis and wounded 14 others.

One of the ex-Blackwater guards, Nicholas Slatten, a sniper, was convicted of murder and received a life sentence. The remaining three, Dustin Heard, Paul Slough, and Evan Liberty, were each given a 30-year sentence for manslaughter and weaponry offenses.

Judge Royce Lamberth passed down the sentences in a proceeding, taking place in a courtroom where friends and family of the guards were present, along with a small number of relatives of the Iraqi victims.

Sentences given to guards involving weaponry charges and manslaughter were lower than what was sought after by the federal government. In carrying out the sentences, Lamberth said he weighed the seriousness of the crimes committed and the clean records of the accused.

Attorneys for the guards intend to make an appeal.