News Archives | Page 92 of 95

Archive for News – Page 92

$10 Million Civil Lawsuit Filed Against Nick Gordon

Posted by Jen Petersen

· July 28, 2015

The details surrounding the Bobbi Kristina Brown case are shocking. If you have not followed the Bobbi Kristina Brown saga very closely due to its depressing nature, it is now worth paying attention to based sheerly on its new-found legal component. Nick Gordon, Bobbi Kristina Brown’s significant other, was recently served with a $10 million civil lawsuit at a Longwood, Florida Starbucks. The domestic violence lawsuit was filed on behalf of Bobbi Kristina Brown. Bobbi Kristina, 22, is the late Whitney Houston’s only daughter. Her father is former nineteen nineties pop and R&B sensation, Bobby Brown.

The civil lawsuit served upon Gordon, 25, alleges that he committed an array of violent acts against Bobbi Kristina before she was found unconscious in a bathtub. She was recently transferred to an Atlanta hospice due to her worsening condition. Bedelia Hargrove is currently acting as court-appointed conservator. She filed the domestic violence lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court last month.

The civil lawsuit will likely be an uphill battle due to the fact that Gordon has hired some savvy superstar attorneys to help him in the upcoming legal clash. He has recruited acclaimed defense attorney Joe Habachy, who will act as Gordon’s lead lawyer. Rounding out Gordon’s legal team is attorney Jose Baez. Baez who is most famous for his role as Casey Anthony’s lead defense attorney. Gordon will also tap into the legal knowledge of private investigator TJ Ward. Ward is notable for his work on the highly publicized Natalee Holloway disappearance case.

While the brunt of the civil lawsuit alleges that Gordon is guilty of domestic violence against Bobbi Kristina, it also attacks Gordon’s character. Gordon is not currently facing criminal charges yet the suit raises suspicions of foul play. It states that Bobbi Kristina coordinated an urgent meeting with an unnamed individual on January 31 to confide that Gordon was “not the man she thought he was”. Later on that same day, Bobbi Kristina was found face down in a bathtub with a swollen mouth and a missing tooth.

UPDATE: Bobbi Kristina Brown, died at age 22, on Sunday, July 26, 2015. She never regained consciousness to explain what happened to her. More to come.

Categories : News

Tags : Bobbi Kristina Brown, civil lawsuit, domestic violence lawsuit

Conspiracy in Academia: Big Money behind Alzheimer’s Research

Posted by Jen Petersen

· July 23, 2015

When you hear of massive conspiracies aimed at purloining the latest data and information from leading national institutions, the imagination understandably trends towards envisioning secret foreign agents slipping through dark alleys in search of their dead-drop spots to relay critical information. Rarely however, do those thoughts conjure up images of the nation’s leading medical academics plotting to pilfer cutting-edge technology, scientific talent, and millions of dollars in research funding. Yet, that is exactly what Regents for UC San Diego allege in a conspiracy lawsuit leveled against rival University of Southern California (USC), and the nation’s leading Alzheimer’s disease researcher, Paul Aisen.

Alzheimer’s Research Data Goes AWOL

The court documents filed in San Diego County Superior Court, UC Regents charge that Aisen, along with eight of his fellow UC San Diego colleagues conspired to remove data and assets with them when they accepted new positions at UC’s new Alzheimer’s facility based in San Diego. The suit alleges that Aisen, slated to head up the new institute, conspired to commit illegal acts including various computer crimes, contract interference, and actively engaged in a civil conspiracy to deny UC San Diego access to Alzheimer’s data resulting from the project.

According to the complaint, this action placed UC San Diego at risk of losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in private and governmental funding, and the university is requesting an unspecified amount from the defendants in a jury trial. At the heart of the motivation, the suit notes that Aisen’s actions were aimed at supplanting his former employer’s position in the field of Alzheimer’s studies.

Big Money and Big Stakes

While advanced educational institutions are notorious for poaching promising faculty-members from one another, the lawsuit accuses Aisen of making false or misleading statements to his team to induce them to follow him to the new USC institute. Additionally, Aisen intimated that the study’s major funder, The National Institute on Aging, which is underwriting the study to the tune of $55 million, would accompany him to the new research facility. The National Institute on Aging denies that funding moved with Aisen and his team.

For its part, USC denies any wrongdoing and regrets the UC San Diego decision to instigate the suit against Aisen and his team, citing the long held tradition of academic recruitment in which both institutions work collaboratively together during any transition.

Categories : News

Tags : alzheimers lawsuit, conspiracy lawsuit

Navigating Forest Trail Politics

Posted by Jen Petersen

· July 21, 2015

Battles over land use are not new in the American West. Indeed, not counting the obvious examples documented between pioneers and Native Americans, at various times, our western heritage has witnessed conflicts exploding between all manners of groups.

Cattle barons and sheep ranchers fought over foraging areas, gold miners and farmers disputed water allocations between their two respective industries, and loggers and fishermen battled over erosion conditions in forest streams as each group attempted to dominate the environment in a seeming zero-sum game that could only see one victor to cite just a few.

Seemingly, the echoes of those battles continue to this day in the recreational realm as a new contest of wills has shaped up in the Evergreen State over who should have access to the off-road trails of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

Washington Lawsuit Halts Forest Service Off-Road Plan

The United States Forest Department’s decision to open up six routes available to wheeled ATVs (WATV), has sparked a lawsuit aimed at baring street-ready, all-terrain vehicles from the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Under Washington law, WATVs are ATVs modified and designed to be street legal. As such, these vehicles are equipped with state issued license plates, and drivers must conform to all licensing requirements while complying with all applicable road rules.

The move, which would have opened up 350-miles of forest roads to WATV use, is opposed by an array of environmental groups including the Alpine Lakes Protection Society, Sierra Club, and the Kittitas Audubon Society. Their suit alleges that the federal forest department violated not only the National Environmental Policy Act, but they also bypassed their own Travel Management Rule before more a proper, comprehensive, public process has occurred.

Potential Impact of Increased Trail Usage

The forest service action is designed to link new WATV routes to existing ATV trail usage, which has the potential of dramatically increasing traffic that has the real possibility of degrading the quality of existing habitat through overuse, and impairing the other recreational uses of other outdoor enthusiasts.

While forest officials claim that the proposed routes honors the forestry service’s goal of providing public access to as wide a group of people as possible. For their part, the early opening of the park routes without proper environmental impact studies upset environmentalists.

Categories : News

Tags : washington law, washington lawsuit

Federal Judge Rules Against 9-11 Terrorist Serving a Life Sentence

Posted by Jen Petersen

· July 16, 2015

One of the men convicted of participating in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center in New York City and damaged the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., had a lawsuit dismissed in U.S. Federal Court recently. The decision resulted from a procedural problem; the judge not making any commentary on the substance of the charges made by the former Osama bin Laden associate.

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-Lagrange, of Oklahoma City, decided that 47-year old Zacarias Moussaoui did not properly file a petition for federal relief of legal grievances. According to court records, Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen, failed to pay the required $400 fee to have his case heard. Furthermore, the judge noted that he could have requested a hardship waiver of the amount, which he failed to do as well. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim.

The main portion of the Al-Qaeda terrorist’s lawsuit was a request to present further evidence in his case. His claim is that there is a Saudi Prince with ties to the “9-11” terrorist incidents. The two of them, he says, spent time at the University of Oklahoma earlier in 2001 undergoing aviation training. Airplanes were the weapons used on that fateful September morning.

The Saudi Arabian government issued a response to the charges via its lawyers. They deny without obfuscation any involvement in the illegal actions against the United States and its people.

Additions to the terrorist lawsuit requested a cease and desist order against the warden of Moussaoui’s maximum security Colorado prison. The inmate says the warden habitually harasses him. He also wanted to sue President Barack Obama for obstruction of justice. In another part of the petition Moussaoui hopes to testify in a lawsuit filed by families of the 9-11 victims against Saudi Arabia but says Mr. Obama refuses to allow it to happen.

Zacarias Moussaoui received a life sentence in prison in return for a guilty plea. By his own admission, Moussaoui´s role was to pilot an airplane into the White House. He began serving the prison term in 2005 and has been adamant in his claims that the Saudi Royal family helped fund the terrorist activity led by Osama bin Laden.

Categories : News

Tags : 9-11 lawsuit, al-qaede terrorist lawsuit, terrorist lawsuit

Moore Christian Church Settles Sexual Misconduct Case

Posted by Jen Petersen

· July 9, 2015

Lawsuit settlement cases are no longer news in these litigious times of crowded court dockets and rising legal fees. As such, news about the latest lawsuit settlement payment rarely raises an eyebrow among a desensitized public used to such reporting, but a recent $260,000 settlement in Norman, Oklahoma’s Cleveland County District Court provides the victim of a local sexual abuse case closure in the aftermath of an egregious sexual misconduct case.

The allegations and resultant criminal probe witnessed the closing of Moore Christian School in light of the accusations first leveled in February 2012 against school science teacher, Gregory Alan Saul Sr.

Pattern of Misconduct

According to court records, the complaints of the unidentified victim triggered the arrest of the former Moore Church teacher after she went to her guardian to report the abuse that reportedly continued from August 2011 to January 2012. The girl’s guardian sued Eastern Avenue Missionary Baptist Church, which operated Moore Christian School, along with all of the governing members of the church and the school’s superintendent in 2012.

A subsequent 2014 decision tossed the guardian’s legal case, but a later Appellate Court ruling overturned that legal opinion on appeal this past January.

The suit alleges that the school and church leaders were negligent in their hiring, retention, and supervision of Saul, 64, who purportedly groomed the then 13-year old girl for sex over a lengthy period of time during school hours, and after class on at least five occasions when he met the girl off campus. Charging documents note that Saul had given the young teenager a promise ring before asking her to marry him and move to Mexico.

Terms of Settlements

In an effort to avoid further litigation, Eastern Avenue Missionary Baptist Church’s insurer, Church Mutual Insurance Company, opted to settle out of court for $260,000 on condition that the payment not to be construed as an admission of guilt in the matter. The judge approved the monetary agreement on June 9, 2015.

The $260,000 award is to be split as follows:

$113,048—structured arrangement to benefit the victim
$29,461.82—to cover the expenses of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority
$117,489—legal fees and litigation costs

In a related development, Saul fled Oklahoma jurisdiction following a no-show to a status conference in January 2014. He was captured by Texan officials and had been fighting extradition back to the Sooner State. That fight ended July 1, 2015 when the San Antonio, Texas Court of Appeals who ruled on that day that Saul should be sent back to face justice in Oklahoma.

Categories : News

Tags : lawsuit settlement cases, lawsuit settlement payment

Washington State: Leading the Way with Innovative LLLT Program

Posted by Jen Petersen

· July 2, 2015

Civil justice issues are a common problem for many Americans. From dealing with family issues such as divorce and child custody to responding to lawsuits, the complexities involve issues normally requiring the assistance of a lawyer. However, according to various studies, 80 to 90 percent of those in low-income brackets facing civil legal problems never receive that essential legal assistance. In fact, Risa Kaufman, a Columbia law professor, calls the lack of access to legal assistance a “human rights crisis.”

Washington State’s Limited License Legal Technicians Concept

In a bold and creative attempt to address this issue, Washington is the first state in the nation to introduce an innovative solution. Called the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) program, this legislation borrows a concept from the medical profession. When the medical community faced a similar crisis in the 1970’s, additional provider roles were created. Now, providers such as Nurse practitioners commonly help ensure broader access to health care by taking on many of the basic procedures normally performed by an M.D. ARNP’s operate independently and efficiently to clear out the backlog of more common medical issues in many practices and areas.

Similarly, the LLLT helps clients with a number of routine but vital legal needs. They can assist clients in conducting legal research, filing court documents, and responding to legal filings from others. According to the executive director of the Washington State Bar Association, Paula Littlewood, “(The LLLT program) will save time and heartache. It’s groundbreaking.

Addressing a Growing Problem

Accessing affordable legal assistance is an increasingly challenging problem for the poor and those with limited to moderate incomes. The hourly rates for lawyers are often out of reach for those of moderate means. Additionally, the traditional resources for these families, primarily legal aid offices, are losing funding, limiting services, and closing in many areas.

To counter this trend, the Washington state created the limited license legal technician profession. The program is currently only available in the area of family law, but is expected to expand to other areas of law in the future. An individual pursuing this license must have a paralegal degree from an ABA approved law school, unless the prospective LLLT qualifies under the limited time waiver. The waiver allows those with substantial legal experience a time limited opportunity to apply for the LLLT program based on their work history.

Additionally, a LLLT must complete roughly a year of special classes at an approved university or community college and take a licensing exam. Upon passing and completing at least 3,000 hours of substantive law related work experience supervised by a lawyer (the 3,000 hours must be within 3 years before or after passing the exam), they are able to work independently with clients. By saving potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal education costs, these LLLTs are able to charge significantly lower fees for their work.

The concept of the LLLT program has created a lot of discussion among the legal community – both negative and positive. Despite the expected resistance, the American Bar Association itself recommended in the final report of its 2014 Task Force on the Future of Legal Education, that states consider licensing “persons other than holders of a JD to deliver limited legal services.” The entire concept is now under review by the ABA’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services.

The success of this program is being followed closely by many in California, New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado, and other states. Seen as a potentially trans-formative way to provide necessary legal assistance, this program may spread rapidly throughout the country.

Categories : News

Tags : family law lawyer, LLLT program

Federal Judge Dismisses Gun-Carry Lawsuit Brought By Former D.C. Correctional Officers

Posted by Jen Petersen

· June 25, 2015

What is the Basis of the Gun-Carry Lawsuit?

This lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of four retired officers from the Washington D.C. Department of Corrections, Ronald DuBerry, Robert L. Smith, Harold Bennette, and Maurice Curtis. The suit alleges that the four corrections officers were unfairly denied documentation necessary to obtain permission from licensing agencies to carry firearms as a right bestowed on them by the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA).

LEOSA, which became a federal law in 2004 when it was signed by then President George W. Bush, was created to grant “qualified retired law enforcement officers” the right to carry a firearm at any time without having to apply for a state license.

The four plaintiffs asserted that the ability to carry firearms is a necessity due to threats they have received from former inmates they encountered. In order to qualify for LEOSA, retired officers must have certified documentation from their former employer confirming their prior qualified law enforcement experience. The D.C. Department of Corrections has conversely affirmed that corrections officers do not qualify for the statute due to their lack of both official law enforcement status and authority to arrest.

What was the Judge’s Ruling?

Although U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras dismissed the suit, he did so on the basis of a technicality and did not directly address the question at the heart of the lawsuit. According to the Washington Times, Judge Contreras issued a 36-page opinion noting that the four officers incorrectly asserted their right to be certified, instead of declaring their right to carry as a matter of federal law. The Judge suggested that the officers should continue their pursuit through alternate channels, such as the D.C. Superior Court or through administrative measures.

Is the Lawsuit Dead?

Attorney Aaron Page, representing the four officers, said in a statement that his clients plan to follow the advice of Judge Contreras and continue their case via appeals and contacting D.C. lawmakers. The retired officers continue to assert that they are being denied a right they have earned as former law enforcement officers, and will seek remedy through any available Avenue.

Categories : News

Tags : federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, gun-carry lawsuit

Settlement Agreed Upon in Lawsuit Against Lakewood Police Department

Posted by Jen Petersen

· June 23, 2015

Brian Wurts, a former Lakewood officer and police union president has settled in a federal lawsuit following allegations that he was fired because of his involvement in the union, for being outspoken against officials, and for his sexual orientation.

The department never gave an official public reason for his termination, stating instead that it was “a personnel matter”. The department’s attorney claims that he lost his job for failure to act. The department that fired him unofficially claimed that they did so because of the case against former officer Skeeter Manos, who was arrested for stealing memorial funds set aside for families of officers slain in 2009.

They claim that Wurts knew of Manos’ actions and did not take action against him. Manos makes no such claims. Wurts claims he knew nothing of Manos’ actions and that the department was looking for a reason to dismiss him.

He was officially fired in December 2012, after an administrative leave during which he was investigated by his own department. The FBI investigated him and cleared him of this crime when they did their initial investigations against Manos, who pleaded guilty and received just under three years in prison.

Wrongful termination suits for sexual orientation are on the rise, and whether or not this was the Lakewood Police Department’s motivation, the case will set a precedent for future employers considering terminating an employee because of their sexual orientation or any other aspect of their personality that does not affect the job.

Brian Wurts has made waves in his department in several ways. While under investigation it was discovered that he had sex, while on duty, with a fellow officer. The department does not list this a the reason for dismissal. He has also spoken up for Manos during his investigation in his role as union president. Whether it was his sexual orientation, behavior on the job, or outspoken role as union president, he made some enemies high up in the department. When the information all came to light in the lawsuit, it seemed better for some to settle.

The lawsuit settlement payment that Brian Wurts received was $150,000, he has not been available for comment after the settlement of his wrongful termination lawsuit. The city counter sued in this case, but their claims were dismissed as a part of the settlement.

Categories : News

Tags : lawsuit settlement payment, wrongful termination lawsuit

BNSF Sued for Alleged Cold Train Contract Breach

Posted by Jen Petersen

· June 18, 2015

In recent Bellingham news, former executives of the now defunct Cold Train express produce service from Washington to Chicago have sued BNSF Railway in U.S. District Court in Spokane for a sum in excess of $41 million. This lawsuit suggests an alleged breach of contract for the 72 hour service guarantee for delivery of produce from the Northwest to Chicago.

In the lawsuit filed on April 7, 2015, the former executives allege that BNSF turned their business into a train wreck when BNSF gave preference to oil and coal trains destined for the Pacific Northwest. In the lawsuit, Cold Train maintained that, in reliance on its agreement with BNSF, it ordered more refrigerated rail cars and even entered into an agreement with a purchaser to buy the company. According to The Capital Press, Cold Train claims a $31.7 million loss on the sale of the company along with an additional $6 million in damages for the contracts on the additional refrigerated cars.

The former Cold Train executives say that everything changed when BNSF changed its service guarantee from a 72 hour transit time to 125 hours. Although not yet having been served with the lawsuit, BNSF commented on it and related that indeed it did experience service issues during the winter of 2013 due energy demand coupled with severe winter weather.

Before the service guarantee change, Cold Train had experienced strong growth. After the 72 hour service guarantee contract was entered into, delivery of the refrigerated containers was on time 92 percent of the time. Cold Train claims that figure was reduced to less than five percent of the time by 2014. Its former executives maintain that BNSF was making so much money shipping coal and oil, that it didn’t have sufficient space for the Cold Train containers.

Cold train was in business from April of 2010 until August of 2014. It grew from 300 to over 700 refrigerated containers and was expected to grow to 1,000 carrying Washington apples, produce and frozen foods to Chicago. These products were arriving to eastern destinations faster and fresher. It isn’t known if the case will reach trial. Lawsuit settlement cases are a large segment of the litigation process.

Categories : News

Tags : Bellingham news, lawsuit settlement cases

Ex-Wife Sues “Monsters in the Morning” Host in Defamation Lawsuit Backed by High-Profile Lawyer Gloria Allred

Posted by Jen Petersen

· June 16, 2015

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but what if her high-profile husband violated her right to privacy? In a new defamation lawsuit, Samantha Boomer, ex-wife of Orlando-based “Monsters in the Morning” radio host, Russ Rollins, alleges bullying and invasion of privacy in their bitter breakup.

The suit stems from an elaborate hoax in which the popular broadcaster misled his audience into thinking he was served divorce papers live on the air, eliciting passionate listener reactions. You can watch the original video HERE. The iHeartMedia personality assumed the dramatic prank was all fun and games, but now, famed celebrity human rights lawyer Gloria Allred is involved. In a news conference, Allred announced her client’s merciless taunting, proclaiming her a victim of bullying both online and in her Florida community.

In the age of social media, cyber bullying, is on the tip of Americans’ tongues. After the stunt, Boomer claims she was tormented in online forums like the comments section of this Barstool Sports article (NSFW), which has since been disabled. Writers of the website openly shamed Boomer, inciting recent feminist backlash. Supported by Allred, she alleges emotional distress perpetuated by the video and listeners’ hateful comments, calling for Rollins and his employer to pay up. The case raises tricky questions regarding social media responsibility, the blending of real-life controversy and entertainment, and what constitutes legal liability when a person’s reputation is on the line.

“Monsters in the Morning” is known for its bawdy humor, but in hindsight, Rollins’ stunt seems an obvious recipe for disaster–despite his successful ploy for ratings. He and Boomer have a storied history of make-ups and break-ups, and the feuding spouses recently underwent a lengthy divorce settlement. Revelations of Rollins’ alleged violence against his ex-wife, some seven instances of domestic abuse, make his on-air actions a bit precarious.

In light of Boomer’s lawsuit, the radio station is now backpedaling, issuing a public statement apologizing for Rollins “incorrectly” stating his wife had ordered papers to be served during the broadcast. Central Florida’s news affiliate WFTV 9 has been leading reports on the controversy since February, but as of Monday, the talk show comedian refused to further comment.

What do you think: did the prank go too far?

Categories : News

Tags : defamation lawsuit, invasion of privacy

Archive for News – Page 92

Washington State’s Limited License Legal Technicians Concept

Addressing a Growing Problem

Latest News