PAPER CHASE Digest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!



Friday, April 30, 2010

DOJ opens criminal investigation into Goldman Sachs: report
Jonathan Cohen at 3:23 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Law enforcement officials on Thursday told the Wall Street Journal [media website] that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] is opening a criminal investigation [WSJ report] of Goldman, Sachs & Co. [corporate website] for possible securities fraud in mortgage trading. Two weeks ago, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website; JURIST news archive] filed civil charges [JURIST report; WSJ backgrounder] against Goldman Sachs. While the SEC referred the case to the DOJ, the criminal case will focus on different evidence. It is not certain yet whether criminal charges will be filed against Goldman Sachs.

The German government announced [JURIST report] that it was considering legal action against Goldman Sachs just two days after the SEC filed a civil suit [complaint, PDF] against the bank. The SEC complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website], alleges that Goldman made misleading statements and omissions to investors in early 2007 in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 [text, PDF] and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [text, PDF]. Goldman's alleged conduct in marketing collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) [Investopedia backgrounder] to investors lies at the core of the controversy. Goldman responded [press release] to the allegations by denying all wrongdoing. The SEC is seeking "injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and other appropriate and necessary equitable relief from both defendants," remedies considered appropriate in securities fraud cases.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Khadr boycotts preliminary hearing over mistreatment allegations
Hillary Stemple at 3:11 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Canadian Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Omar Khadr [DOD materials; JURIST news archive] on Friday refused for the second straight day to attend preliminary hearings relating to his pending murder and terrorism charges [JURIST report], claiming he is being mistreated by military guards. On Thursday, Khadr refused to attend the proceedings, stating [WP report] that the blackout goggles required by military protocol were aggravating an eye conditions which needed medical attention. Khadr did appear for hearings on Thursday afternoon after Judge Patrick Parrish indicated he would be brought by force if he did not present himself willingly. Khadr did not attend Friday's hearings after refusing to submit to a search prior to being transported. He contends that the search was meant to intimidate and humiliate him. Parrish indicated that he would not question security protocols and ruled that Friday's proceedings would continue without Khadr because he had voluntarily chosen not to attend. This week's hearings are being held in order to determine if statements made by Khadr during his interrogation should be suppressed [JURIST report]. They are to be the last preliminary hearings before his US military commission [JURIST news archive] trial in July.

Khadr's lawyers filed an emergency motion [JURIST report] in February in the Federal Court of Canada [official website] challenging the decision of the Canadian government not to seek his repatriation from the United States [JURIST report]. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled [JURIST report] in January that the government was not obligated to seek Khadr's return to Canada despite having violated his rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text]. Khadr has allegedly admitted to throwing a hand grenade [JURIST report] that killed a US soldier in Afghanistan.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


US prosecutors charge 2 New York residents with providing material support to al Qaeda
Jonathan Cohen at 2:33 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US government on Friday charged [indictment, PDF] two Brooklyn men with conspiracy to provide material support [18 USC § 2339B materials] to al Qaeda [GlobalSecurity backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. The two men allegedly received at least $50,000 for providing al Qaeda with "computer advice and assistance, services, and currency," among other acts, between November 2007 and March 2010. The charges were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website]. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] has been advocating using the criminal justice system as a counter-terrorism tool [DOJ backgrounder].

In March, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Martin Scheinin [official website] urged [JURIST report] the Obama administration to hold civilian trials for accused 9/11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [JURIST news archives]. The week before that, lawmakers introduced [JURIST report] a bill [text, PDF] that would require the military interrogation and trial of those taken into US custody who are suspected of links to terrorism. While the Obama administration is keeping the option of military commissions [JURIST news archives] open, JURIST contributing editor Jordan Paust [academic profile] has discussed the option of courts-martial as another option [JURIST op-ed] for prosecuting members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Germany high court rules Google images do not violate copyright laws
Hillary Stemple at 1:04 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Germany's Federal Court of Justice [official website, in German] ruled Thursday that the use of thumbnail preview images pulled from websites by Google [corporate website; JURIST news archive] is not a violation of copyright law. The original lawsuit was brought against Google by an artist who had images of her work pulled from her website and displayed on Google's image search index without her express permission. The court stated [press release, in German] that because the plaintiff had not used adequate protections on her website to block Google from pulling the data in question, she was implicitly agreeing to the use of her images by other websites. The court also indicated that in light of last month's ruling [JURIST report] at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] that, even if they had found that Google's use of the images constituted a violation of copyright law, Google would only have been liable for damages if someone posted the artist's images without her consent. Managing counsel for Google Germany, Arnd Haller, said [blog post] that with the court's ruling "News websites on the Internet, online providers of pictures and posters, artists, photographers, designers and many more who depend on the web for their livelihoods can go on using the service as a significant distribution platform."

The German copyright case was one of several pending against Google. Earlier this month, several visual artist organizations in the US filed a class action suit [JURIST report] alleging copyright infringement resulting from the company's book scanning project [Google books]. Last month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] urged a federal court to reject [JURIST report] the proposed class action settlements [Authors Guild backgrounder] in a separate copyright suit [case materials] between text authors and Google due to copyright and antitrust concerns. In February, a federal judge heard arguments [JURIST report] on the proposed settlement but did not indicate when a ruling can be expected.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


US House approves Puerto Rico status referendum bill
Dwyer Arce at 12:15 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] voted 223-169 [roll call] Thursday to approve legislation calling for a referendum on the status of Puerto Rico [BBC backgrounder]. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act [HR 2499 text, PDF] was introduced by Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi (D) [official website], Puerto Rico's nonvoting delegate to the House, and had 181 co-sponsors, including nearly 60 Republicans. The bill would establish a two-step referendum, the first of which would ask voters in Puerto Rico whether they wanted to change the status of the island. If the option to change the island's status won, a second referendum would be held, giving voters the option of statehood, independence, "sovereignty in association with the United States," or maintaining the present status. Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno (R) [official website, in Spanish], along with the leaders of the territorial legislature, have expressed their support [CNS report] for the bill and eventual statehood. Representative Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) [official website] described the bill [press release] as "disgraceful," and "designed to push the statehood agenda, regardless of whether that agenda is ... popular among the people." The vote would be non-binding, and any change to Puerto Rico's status would still require Congressional approval [AP report]. The bill still requires approval of the US Senate.

In 2008, the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico [campaign website, in Spanish], a pro-statehood party whose members primarily affiliate with the US Republican Party, won local elections by a wide margin, winning the offices of governor and resident commissioner and an absolute majority in the territorial legislature. In 2007, The UN Special Committee on Decolonization [official website] called on the US [press release] to quickly resolve the island's political status and release political prisoners. Puerto Ricans last voted on the status of the island in 1998 [results], with the "None of the Above" option winning 50.3 percent, statehood garnering 46.5 percent of the vote, and independence only 2.5 percent. Referendums were also held in 1993 and 1967 [results], in which maintaining the current political status won over statehood, and independence placed at a distant third. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated US territory, and its current political status was adopted in 1952, after Congress approved the Puerto Rican Constitution [text]. The constitution established the island as a US commonwealth, causing the UN General Assembly to remove [Resolution 748 text, PDF] the island's categorization as a "non-self governing territory." Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since the 1917, and the island has been under US control since 1898.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Cambodia genocide court denies bail for 3 former Khmer Rouge officials
Zach Zagger at 11:25 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Pre-Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website] on Friday dismissed appeals [press release] by three former Khmer Rouge [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] officials to block the extension of their provisional detention. The three prisoners, Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary, and Khieu Samphan [judgments, PDF], were arrested in November 2007 and originally held in one-year provisional detention, which has been extended twice for all three of them. They face charges [Bangkok Post report] of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, murder, torture, and religious persecution, but the cases are still under investigation. The Pre-Trial chamber found in each case that "there is sufficient additional evidence in the case file to demonstrate that the case has progressed expeditiously" and that further detention while the investigation continues is reasonable given the "gravity and nature of the crimes" charged.

Ieng Sary [Trial Watch profile; JURIST news archive] was foreign minister during the Khmer Rouge regime, while his wife Ieng Thirith [Trial Watch profile; case materials] served as social affairs minister. Khieu Samphan [Trial Watch profile; JURIST news archive] was the head of state. Others have been charged in connection to Khmer Rouge, including former deputy leader and chief ideologist Nuon Chea [JURIST report]. In December, the ECCC heard final arguments [JURIST report] in its first trial, that of Kaing Guek Eav [Trial Watch profile; JURIST news archive], also known as "Duch." Kaing was the first of eight [JURIST report] ex-Khmer Rouge officials to be tried before the ECCC. The Khmer Rouge is generally held responsible for the genocide of an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians [PPU backgrounder] who died between 1975 and 1979.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


France justice ministry rejects Noriega request to be treated as POW
Zach Zagger at 10:34 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The French Justice Ministry on Thursday denied a request from former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] to be treated as a prisoner of war (POW). Noriega currently awaits trial in France on money laundering charges. Justice Ministry spokesperson Guillaume Didier said that Noriega will not be treated as a POW [AFP report] because the charges are based on breaches of common law not related to military service. Being treated as a POW would entitle Noriega to special treatment under the Geneva Convention [ICRC backgrounder], but Guillaume says conditions of French prisons are consistent with the requirements of the Geneva Conventions regardless. Noriega was already sentenced in absentia [Reuters report] to 10 years in jail by a French court in 1999, but under French law is entitled to a new trial.

Earlier this week, Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli [official profile, in Spanish] said that his government will seek the Noriega's extradition [JURIST report] to face charges of human rights violations in Panama. Also this week, a French judge ruled that Noriega must remain in custody [JURIST report] until his trial. Noriega arrived in France Tuesday morning after being extradited [JURIST report] from the US, where he had served a 17-year sentence on drug charges. He had fought extradition [JURIST report] from the US since 2007. Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to reconsider [JURIST report] Noriega's petition to stop the extradition process. The US State Department had indicated that it was satisfied that France will treat Noriega as a POW [JURIST report] if Noriega was extradited to that country.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Former Pennsylvania judge pleads guilty in juvenile sentencing scandal
Michael Kraemer at 10:23 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Former Pennsylvania judge Michael Conahan pleaded guilty Thursday on charges of accepting more than $2.6 million in kickbacks for sentencing teenagers to two private juvenile detention facilities in which he had a financial interest. The former president judge of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas [official website] pleaded guilty [Philadelphia Inquirer report] to one count of racketeering conspiracy, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years. Conahan also faces a fine of no more than $250,000 and disbarment. He will be sentenced by Judge Edwin Kosik of the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania [official website], who previously rejected [NYT report] joint plea agreements [text, PDF] from Conahan and former judge Mark Ciavarella Jr., finding that plea bargaining to honest services fraud and tax evasion charges demonstrated that the men did not accept responsibility and that the disbarment and 87-month prison sentences were too lenient [JURIST op-ed]. An attorney for Ciavarella said that he plans to go to trial.

As part of an ongoing public corruption investigation, US Attorney Dennis Pfannenschmidt announced earlier this month that a twenty-eighth person has been charged [press release] with soliciting and receiving bribes and gratuities in connection with the scandal. Luzerne County District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll [official website] agreed in January to drop efforts to retry 46 juveniles whose original convictions were overturned [JURIST reports] because they had been issued by a judge indicted on federal corruption charges for an alleged kickback scheme. This decision ended all efforts at retrying any of the convicted juveniles, who will now have their juvenile records cleared. The Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center [advocacy website] issued a statement [press release] applauding the decision, indicating that "justice has finally been attained" for the juveniles. In October, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania [official website] overturned about 6,500 convictions handed down by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, but gave prosecutors permission to seek retrial of more than 100 youths who were still under court supervision. Conahan and Ciavarella were indicted in September, following a withdrawal of the guilty pleas [JURIST reports] they entered in February 2009.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Federal judge dismisses suit over order to remove headscarf in court
Jaclyn Belczyk at 9:49 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan [official website] on Thursday dismissed [opinion and order, PDF] a lawsuit against a Michigan judge who ordered a Muslim woman to remove her headscarf [JURIST news archive] in court. The suit [complaint, PDF] was filed in August by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) [advocacy website] on behalf of Raneen Albaghdady against Judge William Callahan of the Wayne County Circuit Court. Callahan has a policy against hats in his courtroom, and when he asked Albaghdady to remove her headscarf, or hijab, she did so without objection. Judge Marianne Battani ruled:

This is not a situation where a government actor required removal of a hijab after the wearer asserted her First Amendment rights. There simply is no evidence that Callahan would have required the removal of a head covering if he had known of its religious significance. Although an individual present in the courtroom stated it was a scarf, no one mentioned it was a hijab. No one mentioned that removal would violate Albaghdady's religious beliefs. Plaintiffs lacks standing given the facts and circumstances upon which Albaghdady bases her claims. Because Plaintiffs lack standing, the Court dismisses this action in its entirety.

CAIR is considering filing an appeal [Detroit News report].

In August, the Michigan Supreme Court [official website] issued an order [text, PDF] permitting lower courts to use "reasonable control" over the appearance of those who arrive in court, effectively allowing judges to ban certain religious clothing [JURIST report]. The court amended the Michigan Rules of Evidence [text, PDF], motivated by the 2006 case of Ginnah Muhammad. Muhammad had filed a suit in a Michigan small claims court where she was asked by Judge Paul Paruk to remove her niqab [JURIST news archive], a form of veil, so he could gauge her veracity. Muhammad refused, saying she would not take off her veil in front of a male judge, and her case was dismissed. Muhammad filed a federal lawsuit over the incident that was eventually dismissed [JURIST reports] in 2008. Also in 2008, a Muslim woman in Georgia was arrested and ordered to serve 10 days in jail [JURIST report] for contempt of court after she refused to remove her headscarf, upon entering a security checkpoint in an Atlanta courtroom.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Hawaii House approves same-sex civil unions
Jaclyn Belczyk at 8:47 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Hawaii House of Representatives [official website] voted 31-20 Thursday to approve legislation [HB 444 text, PDF] allowing same-sex civil unions [JURIST news archive]. The act would confer upon homosexual and heterosexual couples rights and benefits equal to those afforded married couples in the state. The bill was approved [JURIST report] by the Senate [official website] in January, but the House vote was postponed indefinitely [JURIST report]. The bill will now go before Governor Linda Lingle (R) [official website], who has not yet indicated [Honolulu Advertiser report] whether she will sign it into law. She has until July 6 to reach a decision.

The state of Hawaii has been at the forefront of the gay rights movement since the 1990s [timeline]. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court [official website] ruled [case backgrounder] that the state must show a compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage, but, in 1998, Hawaiian voters approved an amendment to the state constitution to reserve for the state legislature the authority to define marriage. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, and Washington DC [JURIST reports], pending Congressional inaction. Same-sex civil unions are currently recognized in Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, and Nevada [JURIST reports].



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Lawsuits challenge Arizona immigration law
Jaclyn Belczyk at 4:34 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Two lawsuits were filed Tuesday challenging Arizona's new immigration law, which makes it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant and requires police to question anyone whose immigration status appears suspect. Arizona police officer Martin Escobar filed suit [complaint text] in the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website], alleging that SB 1070 [materials] is unconstitutional and could hamper police investigations. A second suit was filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (CONLAMIC) [advocacy website], which argues that the legislation is preempted by federal law. Also Thursday, several advocacy groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) [advocacy websites] formally announced their intention to challenge [press release] the bill.

The bill, signed into law [JURIST report] last week by Governor Jan Brewer, has caused intense controversy. Earlier this week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, Spanish] strongly criticized [JURIST report] Arizona's new immigration law, claiming that the measure opens the door to intolerance and hatred. US President Barack Obama has also criticized the law [JURIST report], calling for federal immigration reform. Under the law, it is designated a crime [AP report] to be in the country illegally, and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Belgium lower house approves burqa ban
Jaclyn Belczyk at 3:30 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Belgian House of Representatives [official website, in French] on Thursday voted 136-0 to approve a bill that would ban the Islamic burqa [JURIST news archive] and other full face veils in public. The proposed legislation [materials, in French] applies to areas "accessible to the public" or areas meant for "public use or to provide public services." Violators could face a penalty of up to seven days in jail or a fine of 15 to 25 euros. Proponents argue that the legislation is necessary both as a security measure and to prevent women from being forced to wear the garments. Opponents have said that the bill restricts freedom of expression. The measure must now go before the Senate [official website, in French]. If approved, Belgium would become the first European nation to impose a nationwide restriction on traditional face-covering veils.

France, which has Europe's largest Muslim population, has also been pressing for a ban on the burqa. Last week, a spokesperson for French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French; BBC profile] said that the president is in favor of a complete public ban on the burqa and other full face veils and will be submitting a bill to parliament in May. Last month, the French Council of State advised the French government against a complete ban [JURIST report] on full Islamic veils because it risks violating the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. France already has a partial ban that prevents public officials from wearing veils while operating in their official capacity and also prohibits veils in public schools. Also last month, lawmakers in Quebec introduced a bill [Star report] that would ban women from wearing full face veils from public services, which garnered support from members of the Muslim Canadian Congress who argue that the law would not violate human rights [JURIST comment] and would promote the ideals of a free and democratic society.



Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


'); echo "\n"; ?>
LATEST OP-ED

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LOCATIONS OF LATEST READERS

ET

'); echo "\n"; ?>
Powered by MapStats | refresh

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

TODAY'S ANCHOR SCHEDULE



'); echo "\n"; ?>


CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@pitt.edu