Friday, September 30, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
BP reneges on settlement deal with Gulf Coast Cities and then says Sue us..see if we care!
BP -Poster Child for why caps on punitive damages are a bad idea
These guys not only have no shame, no honor, no ethics, but they are stupid too. Many times I am ask about punitive damages and why caps on damages are a bad idea. Well after hurricane Katrina and Snakefarm and Allsnake's conduct, a few people got it. After the Barons of Wall street destroyed the economy, put millions out of job, and basically guaranteed that our children will have a lower standard of living than we have, and still made billions, and do today...a few more got it. If these bastards don't make you mad and want to hit them with a trillion dollar verdict, you deserve all the bad things that await you. (Bad Karma dude.)
This is as raw a case for punitive damages you will ever see. They are clearly using their economic power to toy with and screw smaller American cities. Does this remind you Tea Party people of anything...maybe? Hint: it happen in the 1770's.
They obviously don't think they will be punished so they are acting like the 800 lb gorilla they are. And these guys get billions in US government contracts? We are basically using our tax dollars to get some foreign jackass to screw with us. What a county! Even the Russians threw these idiots out! With the caps on damages now the most they could be forced to pay is less than 25 million. That is 5 cents to you and me. Think about it, what if the max speeding ticket was 5 dollars and they were not allowed to report it to your insurance company. Would you drive faster? What if you were not allowed to discipline your kids at all other than maybe a two minute time out? What would they act like? Little angels still? They are acting like this because they can, it is that simple.
These boys need a spanking, a really big one. Only way to spank a big multinational corporation is big punitive damages.
Jackson County cities say BP reneging on agreement to pay for water-related projects
OCEAN SPRINGS, Mississippi -- The four Jackson County cities are threatening to sue BP for what they say is the company's reneging on a settlement deal.
Representatives from Gautier, Moss Point, Pascagoula, and Ocean Springs were at a news conference Thursday morning at the Ocean Springs City Hall where the failed agreement was discussed.
Robert Wilkinson, an attorney representing the cities in the settlement, said BP agreed in April to the cities moving forward with developing water-related projects instead of cash payments.
In response to the threat of the lawsuit, Ray Melick, a BP spokesman in Mississippi, said, "BP does not comment on pending litigation."
The settlement proposal between the cities and BP was in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that started on April 20, 2010, with an explosion and fire on an oil rig. The incident killed 11 workers, and the federal government has estimated about 4.9 million barrels of oil gushed into the Gulf until July 15 when the wellhead was capped.
"We are here today to express our outrage that BP has slammed the door in our face after well over a year of negotiations in good faith in order to settle claims from these cities," said Ocean Springs Mayor Connie Moran.
"These claims would be projects to bring water-related access to the public to restore confidence. Here is the opportunity to make it right."
Wilkinson said the cities had assembled about $50 million in projects. The suggestion about projects arose in a July 2010 meeting with BP attorneys over damages from the oil spill.
"At that first meeting back in July of 2010, attorneys from BP suggested instead of talking about settlements with case, a settlement may be along the lines of projects," Wilkinson said.
The cities received approval for the project deal from state Attorney General Jim Hood and Trudy Fisher, Natural Resources Damage Assessment trustee, he [Wilkinson] said.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Churches sue to stop Alabama Immigration law
Unjust law to create Gestapo state
This is really an interesting suit. These religious leaders are suing the state of Alabama for passing a law that criminalizes helping the poor. Can you see them leading away your church leaders and the little old ladies that volunteer to work in the soup kitchens to jail to charge them with aiding and abetting illegal aliens? I am proud that both my former and present churches have joined in this lawsuit.
Clergy Sues To Stop Alabama's Immigration Law
Enlarge Jay Reeves/AP In June, marchers protested Alabama's new law cracking down on illegal immigration. The state's United Methodist, Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches have sued, arguing the law that's set to take effect Sept. 1 violates their religious freedom.
Jay Reeves/AP
In June, marchers protested Alabama's new law cracking down on illegal immigration. The state's United Methodist, Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches have sued, arguing the law that's set to take effect Sept. 1 violates their religious freedom.
The Justice Department and civil rights groups are suing to stop what's considered to be the toughest illegal immigration crackdown coming out of the states.
But the law is also being challenged from a Bible Belt institution.
'It Goes Against Tenets Of Our Christian Faith'
At First United Methodist Church in downtown Birmingham, clergy from around the city take turns leading a prayer service called in response to the new immigration law.
Episcopal priest Herman Afanador, Baptist pastor Amanda Duckworth, and Methodist minister Melissa Self Patrick are part of a growing chorus of critics who say the Alabama law goes too far, criminalizing all kinds of contact with undocumented residents. It's illegal, for example, to knowingly enter into a contract with, to rent to, to harbor or to transport illegal immigrants.
You cannot tell a church that if there's a man hungry out there, a family hungry out there, that they can't feed them just because they don't have a green card. That's not Christian.
The state's United Methodist, Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches have sued, arguing it violates their religious freedom.
Patrick, who runs the inner-city ministry of the United Methodist church in Birmingham, says being a good Samaritan could now be illegal.
"This new legislation goes against the tenets of our Christian faith — to welcome the stranger, to offer hospitality to anyone," she says.Some here see the issue through the lens of Alabama's history, including Lawton Higgs, 71, a retired Methodist minister.
"And I'm a recovering racist, transformed by the great fruits of the civil rights movement in this city," he says.
Higgs says he and his church were on the wrong side of that moral battle in the '60s, so he is pleased to see the churches entering the fray now. He likens Alabama's immigration law to Jim Crow — legislating second-class status for illegal immigrants.
"This is an expression of the same — what was called the white Southern redeemers," he says.
'This Is An Issue Of Right And Wrong'
But supporters say that's not a fair way to look at the immigration crackdown.
"It's not about racism; it is just about citizen rights," says Shawn Shelton, who runs a Christian soccer league in Birmingham. Shelton says the current situation hurts out-of-work Alabamians, and immigrants who came here through legal avenues. He says the church lawsuit is off-base.
You can't do things to help people remain in the state illegally.
On Birmingham talk radio station WAPI this week, one of the bill's sponsors, state Sen. Scott Beason, disputed claims that the law will hinder Christian ministry.
"You can't do things to help people remain in the state illegally," he says. "And that's a little different than going out and picking some kids up for vacation Bible school."
A provision to exempt churches was removed for fear it would create a loophole for labor smugglers to claim they were on the way to revival. That's left a lot of ministers to navigate difficult terrain with their congregations.
Understanding Both Sides
On Tuesday nights, member Brian Williams leads a prayer group at the Elkmont United Methodist church in North Alabama. The Rev. Robert Lancaster says the average-size congregation runs between 95 and 100 on Sunday morning. He calls it "very evangelical, traditional, conservative congregation by far."
Related NPR Stories
States Take Steps To Curtail Illegal Immigration
New state laws are joining a federal effort to restrict undocumented immigrant labor.As he and Lancaster chat, Williams admits that news of the immigration lawsuit brought by his denomination and others comes as a surprise.
"I was not aware of that. I'm ashamed but I wasn't," he says. "I haven't exactly made that common knowledge. Because this is a very conservative congregation, and from the comments I've heard, I would say at least half this congregation — if not more — support the new law. So [it's] not a discussion that I really want to have at this point."
Williams says he supports the new law, especially in a time of economic uncertainty and state budget woes.
"There can't continue to be a huge influx and a tax on the system that comes out of my paycheck because we can't sustain it," he says.
Still, Lancaster understands why the United Methodist Bishop sued.
"You cannot tell a church that if there's a man hungry out there, a family hungry out there, that they can't feed them just because they don't have a green card," he says. "That's not Christian."
The churches may get clarification on the law after a Wednesday hearing in Birmingham federal court. A U.S. district judge is considering whether to stop the law from going into effect Sept. 1, while all the legal challenges are sorted out.
I am also very proud of the Cathlic Church's stance on this matter as explained below.
Ten reasons why Alabama immigration law is unjust, unconstitutional
By Mario T. García
Created Jun 16, 2011
by Mario T. García [1] on Jun. 16, 2011
- NCR Today [2]
The state of Alabama has passed a draconian and unjust immigration law, HB 56, that goes even beyond Arizona’s notorious HB 1070, which a federal court has ruled for the most part unconstitutional.
Alabama joins several other states such as Georgia that have also recently passed anti-immigrant laws aimed at undocumented workers and their families. But, at the moment, the Alabama law surpasses all of these others in its viciousness and callous disregard not only for constitutional rights but human rights and a sense of human justice.
The Constitution? I can just hear my right-wing critics raising their blood pressure. Yes, the Constitution! The Constitution protects not only the rights of U.S. citizens but also all “persons” living within the country, even the undocumented.
Here are some of the key provisions of the Alabama law and some of the problems with them.
We all need scapegoats for what is making us scared or insecure. But blaming all of our problems or many of them on immigrants is not right or just. How about focusing on the unjustness of employers, businesses, and industries not paying good and living wages in order for most Americans to not only care for themselves but in the process sustain the economy by their consumption.
It is the greed of employers that is the cause of much of our economic problems. Using immigrants as punching bags won’t deal with our fundamental problems of economic inequity in this country.
Alabama joins several other states such as Georgia that have also recently passed anti-immigrant laws aimed at undocumented workers and their families. But, at the moment, the Alabama law surpasses all of these others in its viciousness and callous disregard not only for constitutional rights but human rights and a sense of human justice.
The Constitution? I can just hear my right-wing critics raising their blood pressure. Yes, the Constitution! The Constitution protects not only the rights of U.S. citizens but also all “persons” living within the country, even the undocumented.
Here are some of the key provisions of the Alabama law and some of the problems with them.
- It requires local police in stopping anyone that they suspect may be breaking the law to inquire about their citizenship status. The problem here is that the police will engage in racial profiling in that in most cases they are going to make citizenship inquiries only for those who look “Latino.”
- It outlaws undocumented workers from receiving any state or local public benefits. This is already the case in most if not all states and so it’s a redundant provision but what it fails to note is that the undocumented through sales taxes and indirectly paying property taxes if they are renters are helping to fund these services even if they can’t benefit from them. Moreover, where is the sense of humanity in helping our fellow human beings if they are in need? Where is the Catholic/Christian human sensitivity? Are the undocumented not also created in the likeness of God?
- It bars the undocumented from enrolling in or attending public colleges. This would unfairly affect, for example, many children of undocumented immigrants who through no fault of their own have no documents but who have lived almost all of their lives in this country. For all practical effects, they are Americans. In addition, many adult undocumented immigrants enroll in community colleges in order to learn English so that they can better integrate in our society. So much for those who argue that undocumented immigrants and other Latino immigrants do not want to become part of us. Moreover, by enrolling in these schools they are helping to sustain them as well through their tuition payments.
- It prohibits the undocumented from applying for or soliciting work. The right to work to sustain oneself and one’s family is a human right and one recognized by the Catholic Church. Alabama argues that the undocumented take jobs from real Americans. However, the fact -- well documented -- is that most Americans including African-Americans and U.S. born Latinos will not do the hard and dirty work that undocumented immigrants perform such as farm labor and food processing that pay very low wages with no benefits. It the Alabama law is aimed at dealing with unemployment it is a bogus law.
- It forbids the harboring and transport of undocumented immigrants. This if fine as it applies to human smugglers but it is too broad so that any U.S. citizen driving their undocumented domestics or baby sitters can be prosecuted under this law. It would also unjustly prosecute Catholic and other clergy who help feed and care for the undocumented. Again, where is the sense of human kindness?
- It outlaws renting property to the undocumented. Yet the right to shelter is a human right. Do we not remember the search by Mary and Joseph for shelter?
- It makes it illegal for anyone to “knowingly” hiring an undocumented worker. This is already federal law and therefore redundant but the “knowingly” clause is in reality a hypocrisy that allows employers including probably Alabama legislators to hire the undocumented by the claim that they “thought” or had “checked” that these workers were legal.
- It makes it a discriminatory practice to fire or decline to hire a legal resident when an illegal is on the payroll. Again, very few Americans will do the work that the undocumented do because, for example, they can get more money through unemployment compensation that through the meager wages paid in these “undocumented jobs.” It is also a status issue. Americans don’t want to do “undocumented immigrant jobs.”
- It requires a citizenship check for people registering to vote. This is an anti-democratic measure that will only serve to intimidate many legal Latinos and others from registering to vote because it is they who will be the most scrutinized and so racial profiling will be involved. Moreover, how do you prove that you are a U.S. citizen? A driver’s license? That’s not proof of citizenship. How many of us carry our birth certificate with us and even if Latinos did some “birthers” might still challenge the authenticity of their documents. On driver’s licenses, it is ironic that Alabama in fact is a state that allows the undocumented to apply for drivers licenses.
- Most disturbing is that the law requires school officials in the public schools to determine whether students are undocumented immigrants or not. While undocumented would not be banned from the schools, the schools would still need to report the number of students that they suspect are undocumented. This is simply an intimidation measure aimed at discouraging undocumented parents from sending their children not born in the U.S. to school. It also unfairly makes teachers into immigrant officials and by so doing injure the trust that is needed between teachers and students in the learning process. And how in practical terms will school officials be able to determine the legal status of their students? Driver’s licenses? For kindergartners? Who are they kidding?
We all need scapegoats for what is making us scared or insecure. But blaming all of our problems or many of them on immigrants is not right or just. How about focusing on the unjustness of employers, businesses, and industries not paying good and living wages in order for most Americans to not only care for themselves but in the process sustain the economy by their consumption.
It is the greed of employers that is the cause of much of our economic problems. Using immigrants as punching bags won’t deal with our fundamental problems of economic inequity in this country.
Source URL: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/ten-reasons-why-alabama-immigration-law-unjust-unconstitutional
Hopefully, I will be proud to be a Lawyer when a Judge or panel of Judges throws all this out on Constitional grounds. Not based upon the rights of the illegals which FOx News will most certainly proclaim but the infridgment upon the rights of law abiding American citizens, just like you and me.
Federal judge halts Alabama immigration law
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
9:13 p.m. Monday, August 29, 2011
A federal judge on Monday temporarily halted Alabama's tough new law targeting illegal immigration, just two months after another federal judge in Atlanta halted a similar law here.
The news from Alabama prompted people on both sides of the debate over illegal immigration here to offer their predictions on what could happen to Georgia's law, also called House Bill 87.
Alabama’s law, which mirrors parts of Georgia’s statute , was scheduled to take effect Thursday. But Chief U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Blackburna Republican appointee nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, issued an order Monday, halting the law until Sept. 29.
In issuing her order, Blackburn did not rule on the merits of the legal challenges, saying she needed more time to do so. She said she will issue her decision by Sept. 28. That didn’t stop people here from speculating on what her ruling could mean for Georgia.
Charles Kuck, a local immigration attorney who is fighting Georgia’s law in court, sees the judge’s ruling as a positive development. He and other opponents of Georgia’s law argue it intrudes on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration.
“In one of the most conservative states in the U.S., one of its most conservative judges put a temporary hold on the Alabama anti-immigration law,” he said. “Judges do not do this lightly. Here we see yet another federal judge realize what state legislators refuse to see: There is a limit to what a state can do on immigration enforcement, and that limit is found in the U.S. Constitution.”
On the other side, state Sen. Jack Murphy, a Republican from Cumming and one of the chief supporters of Georgia’s new law, said he wasn’t convinced the judge’s ruling would have any effect here. At the same time, he said he is optimistic Georgia will ultimately prevail in court.
“I am not sure that what [the judge] is doing in Alabama is going to affect us at all,” Murphy said. “I think our chances are still very good and that we will be successful on our appeal on that.”
The Justice Department filed suit this month to block Alabama’s law, arguing it is preempted by federal law. Blackburn heard oral arguments last week. Last year, the Justice Department used a similar legal argument to block parts of Arizona's law.
Civil and immigrant rights groups are suing to block Georgia’s law, arguing it is unconstitutional. Like Arizona’s and Alabama’s laws, Georgia’s statute would punish people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants and empower police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects. In June, a federal judge in Atlanta temporarily halted these two provisions in Georgia’s law pending the outcome of the court case.
Georgia is asking a federal appeals court in Atlanta to reverse that judge’s decision, arguing the law is needed to help protect the state’s taxpayer-funded resources. In a brief filed with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals this month, the state Attorney General’s Office said Georgia and Atlanta-area counties are spending tens of millions of dollars incarcerating illegal immigrants and providing them with Medicaid benefits at a time of lean budgets.
A spokesman for Gov. Nathan Deal on Monday called Georgia’s law “an effective, constitutional way to decrease illegal immigration.”
“Now, federal courts are slapping the hands of states trying to enforce the law of the land," said Brian Robinson, a spokesman for Deal. "It's mind-boggling that in these tight budget times, the administration is spending money suing states for trying to protect taxpayers. The federal government should be working with us, not against us."
Critics of Georgia’s law said they read nothing new in the state’s arguments this month.
They also questioned the state’s cost estimates and said immigrants significantly contribute to Georgia by working in many of its key industries, spending money here and paying sales taxes.
A federal judge on Monday temporarily halted Alabama's tough new law targeting illegal immigration, just two months after another federal judge in Atlanta halted a similar law here.
The news from Alabama prompted people on both sides of the debate over illegal immigration here to offer their predictions on what could happen to Georgia's law, also called House Bill 87.
Alabama’s law, which mirrors parts of Georgia’s statute , was scheduled to take effect Thursday. But Chief U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Blackburna Republican appointee nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, issued an order Monday, halting the law until Sept. 29.
In issuing her order, Blackburn did not rule on the merits of the legal challenges, saying she needed more time to do so. She said she will issue her decision by Sept. 28. That didn’t stop people here from speculating on what her ruling could mean for Georgia.
Charles Kuck, a local immigration attorney who is fighting Georgia’s law in court, sees the judge’s ruling as a positive development. He and other opponents of Georgia’s law argue it intrudes on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration.
“In one of the most conservative states in the U.S., one of its most conservative judges put a temporary hold on the Alabama anti-immigration law,” he said. “Judges do not do this lightly. Here we see yet another federal judge realize what state legislators refuse to see: There is a limit to what a state can do on immigration enforcement, and that limit is found in the U.S. Constitution.”
On the other side, state Sen. Jack Murphy, a Republican from Cumming and one of the chief supporters of Georgia’s new law, said he wasn’t convinced the judge’s ruling would have any effect here. At the same time, he said he is optimistic Georgia will ultimately prevail in court.
“I am not sure that what [the judge] is doing in Alabama is going to affect us at all,” Murphy said. “I think our chances are still very good and that we will be successful on our appeal on that.”
The Justice Department filed suit this month to block Alabama’s law, arguing it is preempted by federal law. Blackburn heard oral arguments last week. Last year, the Justice Department used a similar legal argument to block parts of Arizona's law.
Civil and immigrant rights groups are suing to block Georgia’s law, arguing it is unconstitutional. Like Arizona’s and Alabama’s laws, Georgia’s statute would punish people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants and empower police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects. In June, a federal judge in Atlanta temporarily halted these two provisions in Georgia’s law pending the outcome of the court case.
Georgia is asking a federal appeals court in Atlanta to reverse that judge’s decision, arguing the law is needed to help protect the state’s taxpayer-funded resources. In a brief filed with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals this month, the state Attorney General’s Office said Georgia and Atlanta-area counties are spending tens of millions of dollars incarcerating illegal immigrants and providing them with Medicaid benefits at a time of lean budgets.
A spokesman for Gov. Nathan Deal on Monday called Georgia’s law “an effective, constitutional way to decrease illegal immigration.”
“Now, federal courts are slapping the hands of states trying to enforce the law of the land," said Brian Robinson, a spokesman for Deal. "It's mind-boggling that in these tight budget times, the administration is spending money suing states for trying to protect taxpayers. The federal government should be working with us, not against us."
Critics of Georgia’s law said they read nothing new in the state’s arguments this month.
They also questioned the state’s cost estimates and said immigrants significantly contribute to Georgia by working in many of its key industries, spending money here and paying sales taxes.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
I Kid you not, now ATT sues to stop arbitations..Have they no shame
In case you don't get the incredible irony or rank hypocrisy here, this is the same bunch of Jackasses that argued last fall that all antitrust cases could only be tried in Arbitration in ATT vs Concepcion (in which they convinced the "gang of five" in the Supreme Court that they were immune from litigation and could only be sued in individual Arbitration's where they pick the judge and win 98% of the time. )But when they are sued in that exact manner ans ask to arbitrate in dozens of arbitration's just like they told the Supreme Court in the Spring, they say no you can't do that either. So what they really want now is clear, complete and utter immunity from everything criminal and civil. Bring back the old kings! Shred the constitution. I am sure they are once again counting on the "gang of five" in the Supreme Court to find a way that they can have their cake and eat it too. I have full faith they will do just that. They rarely miss a chance to give Corporate America exactly what they want regardless of how much it cost everyone else. This is the problem with Big Business and arbitrations, as the big billboards used to say in Alabama they are "licenses to steal." Maybe AT&T should spend more money on their crappy service and awful coverage and less on sueing thier customers.
AT&T sues customers who seek to block T-Mobile deal
8/17/2011 COMMENTS (0)
NEW YORK, Aug 17 (Reuters) - AT&T is turning to the federal courts to thwart an effort led by law firm Bursor & Fisher to derail AT&T's $39 billion takeover bid for T-Mobile.In eight lawsuits filed last week, AT&T accused Bursor & Fisher and a second plaintiffs' firm, Faruqi & Faruqi, of trying to pressure AT&T into "an extortionate settlement" by encouraging AT&T customers to file multiple claims against the merger.
Bursor & Fisher launched a "Fight the Merger" campaign in July, saying the megadeal would violate federal antitrust law and restrict competition. So far, Bursor & Fisher has filed 26 arbitration demands and more than 900 notices of dispute on behalf of AT&T customers who oppose the merger.
In the lawsuits filed last week, AT&T argued that the claims, brought under antitrust law, could not be decided in arbitration. AT&T accused the firms of "taking a thousand bites at the apple" in hopes of finding one arbitrator willing to block the merger.
The suits are a dramatic turnaround for AT&T, which just last November argued strongly in favor of arbitration in the Supreme Court case, AT&T v. Concepcion. There, customers had sued AT&T for allegedly advertising discounted cell phones, but charging sales tax on the full price. The Supreme Court sided with AT&T in April, finding that customers who signed phone contracts containing mandatory arbitration clauses waived their right to bring a class action lawsuit against the company. Customers, the court held, had to resolve their disputes with the company in arbitration.By filing close to a thousand individual arbitration claims, Bursor & Fisher is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling, AT&T's lawyers said in the eight complaints, which were filed in federal courts across the country.
The complaints point to specific language from customer contracts, which state that customers can only bring claims in their "individual capacity" and "not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding."
CLASS-WIDE RELIEF
AT&T argued that although the arbitrations were filed by individual customers, they are not seeking damages for any personal harm they suffered. Rather, they're seeking an injunction to block a $39 billion merger that will affect more than 120 million wireless customers, one complaint said.
"Our arbitration agreement prohibits any form of class-wide relief. The Supreme Court upheld that," AT&T's lawyer, Andrew Pincus, told Reuters. Pincus, of Mayer Brown, also argued the Concepcion case before the Supreme Court.
Scott Bursor, the lawyer behind the "Fight the Merger" campaign, said the American Arbitration Association has already overruled AT&T's objections and moved forward with the arbitration process. "AT&T's filing of these lawsuits appears to be an act of desperation, since AT&T now realizes it faces substantial likelihood that one or more of these arbitrations will stop the takeover from happening," he said in an email, describing the company's legal arguments as "frivolous."
Richard Brunell, the director of legal advocacy at the American Antitrust Institute, described AT&T's legal action as "ironic," given AT&T's prior arguments in the Concepcion case. The problem with the lawsuits, he said, is that AT&T would also prevent customers from filing a lawsuit in federal court. "So their preferred position is that consumers not be able to bring class actions anywhere, which divests consumers of their right to challenge anticompetitive conduct."
But Pincus argued that a single arbitrator should not be able to make a decision that affects "the whole world," pre-empting official reviews by the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice and numerous state regulators. Arbitration is not the appropriate venue for an "extremely complicated" analysis of relevant markets, potential effects of the merger on competition and prices and possible enhancements of technological innovation, the complaint said.
Michael Hausfeld, a lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in unrelated antitrust arbitrations, said he knew of no merger that has ever been blocked by an arbitration filed by an individual customer. A pending Department of Justice investigation would likely prevent arbitration proceedings from moving forward, he said.
A representative lawsuit is AT&T Mobility v. Gonnello et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-5636.
For AT&T: Anthony Diana, Andrew Pincus, Evan Tager, Archis Parasharami and Kevin Ranlett of Mayer Brown.
For Gonnello et al: Scott Bursor of Bursor & Fisher.
(Reporting by Terry Baynes)
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Cash for Kids judge sold kids to priavte prison Are You kidding me?
Someone please kill this guy in prison...
'Cash for kids' judge took $1m kickback from private jail builder to lock children up
By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 7:25 PM on 21st February 2011
A former judge has been convicted of taking a $1million kickback from the builder of a juvenile jail in the notorious ‘cash for kids’ scandal.
Mark Ciavarella sent hundreds of children and teenagers to the private prison for minor crimes after being given the money by the company which ran it.
Some of the children jailed were as young as 10 and at least one killed themselves because the excessive sentences ruined their lives.
'Cash for kids' judge took $1m kickback from private jail builder to lock children up
By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 7:25 PM on 21st February 2011
Mark Ciavarella sent hundreds of children and teenagers to the private prison for minor crimes after being given the money by the company which ran it.
Some of the children jailed were as young as 10 and at least one killed themselves because the excessive sentences ruined their lives.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Ford gets caught lying again...
The question really is after getting caught time and time again why is no one in Jail? It is past time for the Department of Justice to get involved here and put some of these lying bastards in Jail. How many people have to die before we do something? Is a family member of yours next?
Judge Finds Ford Fraudulently Concealed Electronic Causes of Unintended Acceleration
The Senior Judge of the Florida’s Fifth Judicial Circuit has set aside a jury verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company, blasting the automaker for defrauding the court and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by claiming that it knew of no other cause of unintended acceleration than driver error and for concealing years of testing that showed that electromagnetic interference was a frequent root cause of UA in Ford vehicles.
In his withering decision, Senior Judge William T. Swigert of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Sumter County, Florida ordered a new trial in which the jury would only consider compensatory and punitive damages in Stimpson v. Ford. The post-trial order is a victory for Attorney Thomas J. Murray, of Murray & Murray based in Sandusky, Ohio, who represented the Stimpson family.
The case concerned an October 28, 2003 crash which left Peggy Stimpson permanently paralyzed. Her husband alleged that he was unable to stop the couple’s 1991 Ford Aerostar, when it suddenly accelerated from their carport as he put the van into gear. The Aerostar hurtled more than 100 feet, and crashed into a utility pole.
In his 51-page decision, Judge Swigert excoriated Ford for systematically concealing a long history, stretching back to the 1970s, of studying the problem of electromagnetic interference and unintended acceleration, working to resolve it, but nonetheless finding many instances of it in the real world. Swigert enumerated each step Ford took in achieving a high level of corporate malfeasance – among them, lying to NHTSA, systematically destroying field technical reports that identified electromagnetic interference with the cruise control servo as a cause of unintended acceleration and misleading its own experts, who have repeatedly testified in other cases that driver error had to be the cause of such events.
“The proofs introduced at trial include various patents owned by Ford showing that electronic malfunctions in the cruise control system can cause sudden, unintended acceleration, in addition to reports from Ford’s engineers, including SIRs and CQIS reports, diagnosing sudden acceleration as a problem with the cruise control system. Ford’s Ishikawa engineering diagram likewise shows that EMI is a cause of sudden unintended acceleration.”
Swigert’s decision also rapped Ford’s Counsel J. Randolph Bibb for accusing the Stimpson’s attorney of lying and withholding the results of expert witness tests conducted to show what caused the tire marks left by the Stimpson’s Aerostar as it rocketed out of the carport. Both sides agreed that testimony regarding the tests would not be introduced, since they had not been recorded. But at trial, Ford’s attorney brought them up in a cross-examination and in his closing arguments, suggesting that the results had been withheld from the jury because they were unfavorable to the Stimpsons’ theory of the case.
We will recount the history of Ford’s concealment in all of its ignominious detail in a future blog post, and its implications for the much-relied-upon conclusions of the1989 An Examination of Sudden Acceleration, known within NHTSA as “The Silver Book.” Manufacturers, such as Ford, have been waving this tome in front of juries in UA cases, as proof positive of driver error. Judge Swigert, weighing it against Ford’s knowledge of electronic causes of unintended acceleration, as sketched by the internal documents and Ford employee testimony that the plaintiffs introduced at trial, was not impressed. He found it was based on false information and untested assumptions, for which no empirical evidence existed.
Stimpson V. Ford: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Decision
Stimpson V. Ford: Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgement, Partial Final Judgement in Favor of Plaintiffs on Liability, and Order Conditionally Granting New Trial.
In his withering decision, Senior Judge William T. Swigert of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Sumter County, Florida ordered a new trial in which the jury would only consider compensatory and punitive damages in Stimpson v. Ford. The post-trial order is a victory for Attorney Thomas J. Murray, of Murray & Murray based in Sandusky, Ohio, who represented the Stimpson family.
The case concerned an October 28, 2003 crash which left Peggy Stimpson permanently paralyzed. Her husband alleged that he was unable to stop the couple’s 1991 Ford Aerostar, when it suddenly accelerated from their carport as he put the van into gear. The Aerostar hurtled more than 100 feet, and crashed into a utility pole.
In his 51-page decision, Judge Swigert excoriated Ford for systematically concealing a long history, stretching back to the 1970s, of studying the problem of electromagnetic interference and unintended acceleration, working to resolve it, but nonetheless finding many instances of it in the real world. Swigert enumerated each step Ford took in achieving a high level of corporate malfeasance – among them, lying to NHTSA, systematically destroying field technical reports that identified electromagnetic interference with the cruise control servo as a cause of unintended acceleration and misleading its own experts, who have repeatedly testified in other cases that driver error had to be the cause of such events.
“The proofs introduced at trial include various patents owned by Ford showing that electronic malfunctions in the cruise control system can cause sudden, unintended acceleration, in addition to reports from Ford’s engineers, including SIRs and CQIS reports, diagnosing sudden acceleration as a problem with the cruise control system. Ford’s Ishikawa engineering diagram likewise shows that EMI is a cause of sudden unintended acceleration.”
Swigert’s decision also rapped Ford’s Counsel J. Randolph Bibb for accusing the Stimpson’s attorney of lying and withholding the results of expert witness tests conducted to show what caused the tire marks left by the Stimpson’s Aerostar as it rocketed out of the carport. Both sides agreed that testimony regarding the tests would not be introduced, since they had not been recorded. But at trial, Ford’s attorney brought them up in a cross-examination and in his closing arguments, suggesting that the results had been withheld from the jury because they were unfavorable to the Stimpsons’ theory of the case.
We will recount the history of Ford’s concealment in all of its ignominious detail in a future blog post, and its implications for the much-relied-upon conclusions of the1989 An Examination of Sudden Acceleration, known within NHTSA as “The Silver Book.” Manufacturers, such as Ford, have been waving this tome in front of juries in UA cases, as proof positive of driver error. Judge Swigert, weighing it against Ford’s knowledge of electronic causes of unintended acceleration, as sketched by the internal documents and Ford employee testimony that the plaintiffs introduced at trial, was not impressed. He found it was based on false information and untested assumptions, for which no empirical evidence existed.
Stimpson V. Ford: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Decision
Stimpson V. Ford: Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgement, Partial Final Judgement in Favor of Plaintiffs on Liability, and Order Conditionally Granting New Trial.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)