A federal appeals court is backing the U.S. government’s decision not to release photos and video taken of Osama bin Laden during and after a raid in which the terrorist leader was killed by U.S. commandos.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia turned down an appeal Tuesday from Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, which had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the images.
The court said that the CIA properly withheld publication of the images. The court concluded that the photos used to conduct facial recognition analysis of bin Laden could reveal classified intelligence methods — and that images of bin Laden’s burial at sea could trigger violence against American citizens.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
High court poised to upend civil rights policies
Has the nation lived down its history of racism and should the law become colorblind?
Addressing two pivotal legal issues, one on affirmative action and a second on voting rights, a divided Supreme Court is poised to answer those questions.
In one case, the issue is whether race preferences in university admissions undermine equal opportunity more than they promote the benefits of racial diversity. Just this past week, justices signaled their interest in scrutinizing affirmative action very intensely, expanding their review as well to a Michigan law passed by voters that bars "preferential treatment" to students based on race. Separately in a second case, the court must decide whether race relations - in the South, particularly - have improved to the point that federal laws protecting minority voting rights are no longer warranted.
The questions are apt as the United States closes in on a demographic tipping point, when nonwhites will become a majority of the nation's population for the first time. That dramatic shift is expected to be reached within the next generation, and how the Supreme Court rules could go a long way in determining what civil rights and equality mean in an America long divided by race.
The court's five conservative justices seem ready to declare a new post-racial moment, pointing to increased levels of voter registration and turnout among blacks to show that the South has changed. Lower federal courts just in the past year had seen things differently, blunting voter ID laws and other election restrictions passed by GOP-controlled legislatures in South Carolina, Texas and Florida, which they saw as discriminatory.
Addressing two pivotal legal issues, one on affirmative action and a second on voting rights, a divided Supreme Court is poised to answer those questions.
In one case, the issue is whether race preferences in university admissions undermine equal opportunity more than they promote the benefits of racial diversity. Just this past week, justices signaled their interest in scrutinizing affirmative action very intensely, expanding their review as well to a Michigan law passed by voters that bars "preferential treatment" to students based on race. Separately in a second case, the court must decide whether race relations - in the South, particularly - have improved to the point that federal laws protecting minority voting rights are no longer warranted.
The questions are apt as the United States closes in on a demographic tipping point, when nonwhites will become a majority of the nation's population for the first time. That dramatic shift is expected to be reached within the next generation, and how the Supreme Court rules could go a long way in determining what civil rights and equality mean in an America long divided by race.
The court's five conservative justices seem ready to declare a new post-racial moment, pointing to increased levels of voter registration and turnout among blacks to show that the South has changed. Lower federal courts just in the past year had seen things differently, blunting voter ID laws and other election restrictions passed by GOP-controlled legislatures in South Carolina, Texas and Florida, which they saw as discriminatory.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Law Offices of Robert W. Jackson - Automobile Accidents
A car accident is one of the most common types of personal injuries. A car accident occurs when a road vehicle collides with another moving vehicle, a parked vehicle, pedestrian, road debris, or objects. Motor vehicle accidents can involve all types of automobiles including: everyday cars, commercial trucks, semi or tractor trailer trucks, delivery automobiles, motorcycles or passenger vans. Many times, these collisions involve multiple parties and can get complicated if you do not act quickly. The process can take long and involve weeks of investigation to find contributing factors to figure out who was at fault. Contributing factors may include but are not limited to: vehicle design, road design, driver distraction, driving while intoxicated, and driving speed.
Insurance companies may take advantage of you when they know you are in a vulnerable position. They could use what you say against you and take it out of context. Don't make the mistake of talking to an insurance company before seeking the help of a personal injury lawyer. We are able to assist you if you were injured or have lost a family member in a car accident.
http://www.jacksontriallawyers.com/index.php/california/car-accidents
Insurance companies may take advantage of you when they know you are in a vulnerable position. They could use what you say against you and take it out of context. Don't make the mistake of talking to an insurance company before seeking the help of a personal injury lawyer. We are able to assist you if you were injured or have lost a family member in a car accident.
http://www.jacksontriallawyers.com/index.php/california/car-accidents
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Judge: Sexual assault suspect insane, not guilty
A Stamford man whose tongue was partially bitten off as he tried to rape a woman has been found not guilty by a Connecticut judge ruling he was insane at the time of the assault.
The Stamford Advocate reports that Superior Court Judge Richard Comerford said prosecutors proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 48-year-old Gerard Landon sexually assaulted a woman at a church in June 2011.
He says Landon has psychiatric problems dating to 1988 and has been diagnosed with Schizophreniform disorder.
Landon's lawyer, public defender Howard Ehring, said Comerford made the right decision.
A Stamford psychiatrist testified that Landon had not been taking anti-psychotic medications.
Comerford said Landon, who is jailed, must be confined by the state commissioner of mental health for further evaluation.
The Stamford Advocate reports that Superior Court Judge Richard Comerford said prosecutors proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 48-year-old Gerard Landon sexually assaulted a woman at a church in June 2011.
He says Landon has psychiatric problems dating to 1988 and has been diagnosed with Schizophreniform disorder.
Landon's lawyer, public defender Howard Ehring, said Comerford made the right decision.
A Stamford psychiatrist testified that Landon had not been taking anti-psychotic medications.
Comerford said Landon, who is jailed, must be confined by the state commissioner of mental health for further evaluation.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Court allows hearings in Nevada abortion case
The Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a judge's hearings into the health risks of a mentally impaired woman's pregnancy.
The court's unanimous ruling allowed Washoe County District Judge Egan Walker to resume the evidentiary hearings Tuesday morning in a case that has drawn the attention of national anti-abortion groups.
The 32-year-old woman's parental guardians asked the court Friday to halt the hearings, saying Walker lacks the authority to terminate the pregnancy of their daughter, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old.
They claim they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions, and they want their daughter to carry the baby to term in line with their Catholic religious beliefs.
But the high court sided with Walker, saying he has the authority to monitor the woman's welfare and hold the hearings.
Justices noted the guardians failed to file an annual report regarding their daughter's condition and their performance of duties as required by state law. They also said the court obtained information about concerns over the woman's medical condition.
"The purpose of the evidentiary hearings at this time is merely to obtain information in order to make well-reasoned and informed decisions regarding the ward's medical care," justices wrote. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion."
Attorney Jason Guinasso, who represents the guardians, was tied up in Tuesday's hearing and unavailable for immediate comment, according to his secretary.
Guinasso has said he's aware of only one similar case in the country. It involved a Massachusetts judge who ordered a mentally ill 31-year-old woman to have an abortion and to be sterilized against her wishes. The state Appeals Court overturned the decision Jan. 17.
The Nevada couple said that while the pregnancy poses health risks to their daughter and the baby, medical experts back them in their decision to continue the pregnancy. The woman suffers from epilepsy and is on medication.
The court's unanimous ruling allowed Washoe County District Judge Egan Walker to resume the evidentiary hearings Tuesday morning in a case that has drawn the attention of national anti-abortion groups.
The 32-year-old woman's parental guardians asked the court Friday to halt the hearings, saying Walker lacks the authority to terminate the pregnancy of their daughter, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old.
They claim they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions, and they want their daughter to carry the baby to term in line with their Catholic religious beliefs.
But the high court sided with Walker, saying he has the authority to monitor the woman's welfare and hold the hearings.
Justices noted the guardians failed to file an annual report regarding their daughter's condition and their performance of duties as required by state law. They also said the court obtained information about concerns over the woman's medical condition.
"The purpose of the evidentiary hearings at this time is merely to obtain information in order to make well-reasoned and informed decisions regarding the ward's medical care," justices wrote. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion."
Attorney Jason Guinasso, who represents the guardians, was tied up in Tuesday's hearing and unavailable for immediate comment, according to his secretary.
Guinasso has said he's aware of only one similar case in the country. It involved a Massachusetts judge who ordered a mentally ill 31-year-old woman to have an abortion and to be sterilized against her wishes. The state Appeals Court overturned the decision Jan. 17.
The Nevada couple said that while the pregnancy poses health risks to their daughter and the baby, medical experts back them in their decision to continue the pregnancy. The woman suffers from epilepsy and is on medication.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
New York Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
Certain injuries are referred to as "catastrophic" because they are permanent and life-altering. Victims of catastrophic injuries and their families often face the daunting prospect of arranging for long-term medical care for the permanently injured or disabled person. Given the long-term nature of these injuries, the proper evaluation and handling of catastrophic injury claims is crucial. Sometimes these catastrophic injuries may result in death, complicating the situation even more. Death is never an easy matter and can affect the lives of many closely related family and friends.
The Reinartz Law Firm has experience investigating, litigating, and managing the complexities of catastrophic injury claims, especially those caused by negligence, defective products, automobile accidents, and construction and industrial accidents. We are not only able to evaluate medical records and related documentation to determine the full value of a claim, but are also adept at evaluating the technical aspects of the event, product, or procedure that caused the injury. This allows us to prepare a thorough case, and seek compensation that will provide future financial support to the catastrophically injured person.
The law limits the time in which you may bring a claim for a catastrophic injury. After suffering from a serious injury or losing a loved one, seeking an injury lawyer may be your opportunity to get justice for the emotional and financial burden you have to go through. Call today to discuss your case with an experienced West New York catastrophic injury lawyer. Visit us on the web http://www.reinartzlaw.com/practice-areas/catastrophic-injuries
The Reinartz Law Firm has experience investigating, litigating, and managing the complexities of catastrophic injury claims, especially those caused by negligence, defective products, automobile accidents, and construction and industrial accidents. We are not only able to evaluate medical records and related documentation to determine the full value of a claim, but are also adept at evaluating the technical aspects of the event, product, or procedure that caused the injury. This allows us to prepare a thorough case, and seek compensation that will provide future financial support to the catastrophically injured person.
The law limits the time in which you may bring a claim for a catastrophic injury. After suffering from a serious injury or losing a loved one, seeking an injury lawyer may be your opportunity to get justice for the emotional and financial burden you have to go through. Call today to discuss your case with an experienced West New York catastrophic injury lawyer. Visit us on the web http://www.reinartzlaw.com/practice-areas/catastrophic-injuries
Monday, August 6, 2012
Court delayed for woman in W. Pa. shelter scam
A court date has been delayed for a woman charged with staying at a western Pennsylvania shelter for battered women under false pretenses.
Online court records show the trial of 33-year-old Amy Slanina, which had been scheduled to begin Monday has been pushed back to Sept. 6 when she's scheduled to enter an unspecified plea to one or more of the charges she faces.
Slanina's attorney and Armstrong County prosecutors haven't returned calls for comment.
Kittanning police charged Slanina, whose last known address was in Marysville, Ohio, with theft by deception and other charges for living at the shelter in December after falsely claiming to be the abused wife of a Pittsburgh police officer.
Police say Slanina also conned an Idaho couple into believing she was pregnant during phone calls from the shelter, but determined that wasn't a crime.
Online court records show the trial of 33-year-old Amy Slanina, which had been scheduled to begin Monday has been pushed back to Sept. 6 when she's scheduled to enter an unspecified plea to one or more of the charges she faces.
Slanina's attorney and Armstrong County prosecutors haven't returned calls for comment.
Kittanning police charged Slanina, whose last known address was in Marysville, Ohio, with theft by deception and other charges for living at the shelter in December after falsely claiming to be the abused wife of a Pittsburgh police officer.
Police say Slanina also conned an Idaho couple into believing she was pregnant during phone calls from the shelter, but determined that wasn't a crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)