A Jordanian criminal court says it has postponed a verdict in the case of a powerful former intelligence chief on trial for alleged embezzlement of public funds, money laundering and abuse of office.
Presiding judge Nashaat Akhras told Mohammed al-Dahabi in court Sunday that his verdict will be pronounced Nov. 11, without giving a reason.
Al-Dahabi ran the General Intelligence Department between 2005 and 2008.
He faces up to 15 years in jail if convicted.
He was arrested in February, when inspectors from the Central Bank of Jordan suspected transactions worth millions of dollars had gone through his bank account.
The rare case against such a high profile official is meant to show Jordan's seriousness in efforts to tackle graft and corruption — a demand voiced in recent street protests.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
CROSSCOR Valuations & Forensics Inc
Located in Orange County and serving clients throughout Los Angeles County and Southern California since 2003, CROSSCOR Valuations & Forensics Inc. has helped lawyers in the family law and business law fields. Specializing in expert witness testimony, business valuations and forensic accounting, we are unlike any traditional CPA firm.
Our attorneys can help you in understanding accounting and financial issues in a simplified manner. This way, both attorneys and non-accountants can understand the process easier. We are experienced and knowledgeable professionals who are skilled in litigation and non-litigation support in the practices of family law, business law, and general civil law.
If you are looking for an expert witness testimony, business valuations, forensic accounting, help in economic damages, family law support, divorce support, litigation support, arbitration support, or mediation support you can count on us to provide you with the highest quality of legal representation. We are unlike any other law firm and more than a traditional accountant and we can help you. CROSSCOR Valuations & Forensic Inc. is a great alternative to other business valuation and forensic account firms.
We specialize in
Business Valuations
Forensic Accounting
Economic Damages
Family Law Support
Divorce Support
Litigation Support
Non-Litigation Support
Arbitration Support
Mediation Support
Choosing an attorney to work with you is a difficult and important decision. Our firm assures you that we will work tirelessly with your case and want you to have confidence in our experts that we have the experience to know how to get results. We give each client personal time and pay attention to the detail so we can testify properly. You also want the assurance that your expert is responsive and accessible even on nights and weekends, especially when time is a constraint. While there are other choices, we believe that we are the best choice. Hire us and you will not be disappointed. To schedule an appointment to discuss your legal needs, call us at 949.264.1455. Visit us for more information at http://www.crosscor.com/why-us
Friday, June 15, 2012
Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorneys - Maier Gutierrez Ayon, PLLC
If you or a family member has been in an accident, we can help. If one of your employees was involved in an accident and your company is facing a lawsuit, we can help. We have a track record of successfully litigating personal injury and product liability cases for our clients. We have significant experience with these types of cases, ranging from quick, favorable resolutions to taking cases all the way through trial and appeal.
Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC concentrates on personal injury and wrongful death. The group combines experience and sophistication in liability litigation law and can handle all aspects for their clients. Their significant experience with these type of cases range from quick, favorable resolutions to taking cases all the way through trial and appeal. Visit www.mgalaw.com for more information.
Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC concentrates on personal injury and wrongful death. The group combines experience and sophistication in liability litigation law and can handle all aspects for their clients. Their significant experience with these type of cases range from quick, favorable resolutions to taking cases all the way through trial and appeal. Visit www.mgalaw.com for more information.
New York SEC Attorneys - Herskovits Law
Employment claims brought by securities industry participants involve issues unique to the securities industry. Having represented broker-dealers and registered representatives, we have substantial experience with both sides of these disputes and have prosecuted or defended claims for Form U5 expungement, unpaid deferred compensation (including Restricted Stock Units), enforcement of employee forgivable loans (EFL), broker-dealer raiding, unpaid bonuses or commissions, and wrongful termination.
Over the past five years, Robert Herskovits has successfully prosecuted a significant number of EFL cases brought on behalf of Jefferies & Company, Inc. and smaller broker-dealers. As a small law firm, we remain free from many of the conflicts associated with larger firms, and have defended a multitude of EFL cases brought by various broker-dealers. When defending an EFL case, we structure a defense designed to achieve a resolution with a significant discount to the Note's unpaid balance.
Herskovits Law has expertise in both prosecuting and defending claims for securities industry participants involved in issues in the securities industry. Having represented numerous employees, their reputation for effective advocacy by advancing their clients' interests from the outset of each case has been acknowledged in the New York Securities Industry. See www.herskovitslaw.com.
Over the past five years, Robert Herskovits has successfully prosecuted a significant number of EFL cases brought on behalf of Jefferies & Company, Inc. and smaller broker-dealers. As a small law firm, we remain free from many of the conflicts associated with larger firms, and have defended a multitude of EFL cases brought by various broker-dealers. When defending an EFL case, we structure a defense designed to achieve a resolution with a significant discount to the Note's unpaid balance.
Herskovits Law has expertise in both prosecuting and defending claims for securities industry participants involved in issues in the securities industry. Having represented numerous employees, their reputation for effective advocacy by advancing their clients' interests from the outset of each case has been acknowledged in the New York Securities Industry. See www.herskovitslaw.com.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers
Driving without a license, whether it is suspended or cancelled, can have some serious consequences including criminal conviction, further length of disqualifying your licence, hefty fees, and in some cases, imprisonment. Driving while suspended is driving a motor vehicle on a public road when your licence is suspended by the RTA or by Police.
Driving while cancelled is driving a motor vehicle on a public road after your licence has been cancelled by the RTA. Driving while unlicensed is driving a motor vehicle on a public road without ever having held a valid NSW driver licence or when the licence was expired. All penalties can increase or decrease depending on the situation, however, offences for driving without a legal licence can have the potential for big consequences. Don't get stuck in a messy situation, our attorneys at Sydney Lawyers can help you!
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, their attorneys are experts in driving cases, including driving without a valid licence. Our criminal lawyers have an in-depth knowledge of the driving laws including the defences of 'honest and reasonable mistake' and 'necessity'. With an outstanding team of attorneys to work with, your case will be aggressively defended by a representative and will help fight for your licence qualifications, your reputation and your free. Call us today at (02) 9261 8881 to schedule an appointment or visit us at http://www.criminallaw.com.au/driving-without-a-license for more information.
Driving while cancelled is driving a motor vehicle on a public road after your licence has been cancelled by the RTA. Driving while unlicensed is driving a motor vehicle on a public road without ever having held a valid NSW driver licence or when the licence was expired. All penalties can increase or decrease depending on the situation, however, offences for driving without a legal licence can have the potential for big consequences. Don't get stuck in a messy situation, our attorneys at Sydney Lawyers can help you!
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, their attorneys are experts in driving cases, including driving without a valid licence. Our criminal lawyers have an in-depth knowledge of the driving laws including the defences of 'honest and reasonable mistake' and 'necessity'. With an outstanding team of attorneys to work with, your case will be aggressively defended by a representative and will help fight for your licence qualifications, your reputation and your free. Call us today at (02) 9261 8881 to schedule an appointment or visit us at http://www.criminallaw.com.au/driving-without-a-license for more information.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
High court protects Secret Service agents
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that two Secret Service agents are shielded from a lawsuit filed by a man they arrested after a confrontation with then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
The 8-0 decision comes in a case that began with the arrest of Steven Howards following a chance encounter with Cheney at a shopping center in Colorado in 2006. Howards claimed he was arrested because he expressed his anti-war views.
The agents and the Obama administration asked the court for broad protection against claims of retaliatory arrests. The justices did not grant that wish.
But Justice Clarence Thomas said in his opinion for the court that the agents could not be sued in this instance because of uncertainty about the state of the law concerning such arrests.
The decision reversed a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to allow Howards' lawsuit to go forward.
Howards, of Golden, Colo., was detained by Cheney's security detail after he told Cheney of his opposition to the war in Iraq. Howards also touched Cheney on the shoulder, then denied doing so under questioning. The appeals court said the inconsistency gave the agents reason to arrest Howards.
The 8-0 decision comes in a case that began with the arrest of Steven Howards following a chance encounter with Cheney at a shopping center in Colorado in 2006. Howards claimed he was arrested because he expressed his anti-war views.
The agents and the Obama administration asked the court for broad protection against claims of retaliatory arrests. The justices did not grant that wish.
But Justice Clarence Thomas said in his opinion for the court that the agents could not be sued in this instance because of uncertainty about the state of the law concerning such arrests.
The decision reversed a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to allow Howards' lawsuit to go forward.
Howards, of Golden, Colo., was detained by Cheney's security detail after he told Cheney of his opposition to the war in Iraq. Howards also touched Cheney on the shoulder, then denied doing so under questioning. The appeals court said the inconsistency gave the agents reason to arrest Howards.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Court turns away PR congressional vote lawsuit
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from residents of Puerto Rico seeking to gain a voting representative in Congress.
The high court turned away the appeal from Gregorio Igartua and other Puerto Ricans on Monday.
Territorial status grants residents of Puerto Rico U.S. citizenship, but they pay no federal income taxes and cannot vote in presidential elections. Their congressional representative also cannot vote in Congress.
A federal judge threw out the lawsuit, and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying that since Puerto Rico was not a state, it could not have a voting member of Congress.
The high court turned away the appeal from Gregorio Igartua and other Puerto Ricans on Monday.
Territorial status grants residents of Puerto Rico U.S. citizenship, but they pay no federal income taxes and cannot vote in presidential elections. Their congressional representative also cannot vote in Congress.
A federal judge threw out the lawsuit, and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying that since Puerto Rico was not a state, it could not have a voting member of Congress.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Ariz Supreme Court bars candidate from running
The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed a ruling that barred a
woman from running for a city council seat because she doesn't speak
English proficiently.
The state's highest court ruled that Alejandrina Cabrera's name shouldn't appear on the March 13 election ballot in San Luis but didn't list a reason for the decision. A full written ruling is expected at a later date, according to an Arizona Supreme Court spokeswoman.
The case brought widespread attention to the southern Arizona border city after Mayor Juan Carlos Escamilla filed a court action asking for a determination of whether Cabrera has the English skills necessary to serve a four-year term.
State law requires elected officials to know English, but Cabrera's attorneys claimed the law doesn't define proficiency in the language.
John Minore, an attorney for Cabrera, said his office is looking at ways to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cabrera's lawyers previously said the action against their client was politically motivated because of her efforts to recall Escamilla. Cabrera began circulating petitions to recall the mayor in April after the council hiked utility rates and approved the layoffs of 12 city employees as part of spending cuts.
The state's highest court ruled that Alejandrina Cabrera's name shouldn't appear on the March 13 election ballot in San Luis but didn't list a reason for the decision. A full written ruling is expected at a later date, according to an Arizona Supreme Court spokeswoman.
The case brought widespread attention to the southern Arizona border city after Mayor Juan Carlos Escamilla filed a court action asking for a determination of whether Cabrera has the English skills necessary to serve a four-year term.
State law requires elected officials to know English, but Cabrera's attorneys claimed the law doesn't define proficiency in the language.
John Minore, an attorney for Cabrera, said his office is looking at ways to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cabrera's lawyers previously said the action against their client was politically motivated because of her efforts to recall Escamilla. Cabrera began circulating petitions to recall the mayor in April after the council hiked utility rates and approved the layoffs of 12 city employees as part of spending cuts.
Famed Spain judge convicted of misusing authority
The Spanish judge celebrated for pursuing international human rights
cases was convicted of overstepping his jurisdiction in a domestic
corruption probe Thursday and barred from the bench for 11 years,
completing a spectacular fall from grace for one of Spain's most
prominent people.
A seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court convicted Baltasar Garzon unanimously. He is 56, so the punishment could effectively end his career in Spain.
Garzon acted arbitrarily in ordering jailhouse wiretaps of detainees talking to their lawyers, the court said, adding that his actions "these days are only found in totalitarian regimes."
Ironically, Garzon is best known for indicting a totalitarian ruler, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, in 1998, and trying to put him on trial in Madrid for crimes against humanity.
Garzon acted under the principle of universal jurisdiction — the idea that some crimes are so heinous they can be prosecuted anywhere. He and colleagues at the National Court went on to champion this doctrine and try to apply it to abuses in such far-flung places as Rwanda and Tibet. Garzon also indicted terror mastermind Osama bin Laden in 2003 over the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.
A seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court convicted Baltasar Garzon unanimously. He is 56, so the punishment could effectively end his career in Spain.
Garzon acted arbitrarily in ordering jailhouse wiretaps of detainees talking to their lawyers, the court said, adding that his actions "these days are only found in totalitarian regimes."
Ironically, Garzon is best known for indicting a totalitarian ruler, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, in 1998, and trying to put him on trial in Madrid for crimes against humanity.
Garzon acted under the principle of universal jurisdiction — the idea that some crimes are so heinous they can be prosecuted anywhere. He and colleagues at the National Court went on to champion this doctrine and try to apply it to abuses in such far-flung places as Rwanda and Tibet. Garzon also indicted terror mastermind Osama bin Laden in 2003 over the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Ohio taking death penalty case to US Supreme Court
Ohio's governor and attorney general said Sunday the state is asking the
U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling that Ohio's protocol for carrying out
the death penalty is constitutional.
Gov. John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement that the state wants the high court to reverse a federal appeals court decision to delay the Wednesday execution of Charles Lorraine.
Lorraine was condemned to death in the 1986 slaying of an elderly Trumbull County couple. But the federal appeals court said Friday his execution should be delayed to review changes Ohio has made in carrying out the death penalty.
Lorraine argued that Ohio broke its promise to adhere strictly to its execution procedures. But the state said that deviations from the procedures during the last execution were minor and that an inmate's rights would not be violated by changes, such as which official announces the start and finish times of an injection.
Gov. John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement that the state wants the high court to reverse a federal appeals court decision to delay the Wednesday execution of Charles Lorraine.
Lorraine was condemned to death in the 1986 slaying of an elderly Trumbull County couple. But the federal appeals court said Friday his execution should be delayed to review changes Ohio has made in carrying out the death penalty.
Lorraine argued that Ohio broke its promise to adhere strictly to its execution procedures. But the state said that deviations from the procedures during the last execution were minor and that an inmate's rights would not be violated by changes, such as which official announces the start and finish times of an injection.
Court Upholds Burlington Man's Murder Conviction
The Iowa Supreme Court has overturned an appeals court ruling that threw
out the conviction of a Burlington man in his ex-wife's death.
The court ruled Friday that even if the trial court erred in refusing to let a physical therapist testify, the error was harmless in light of the "overwhelming evidence" of guilt.
Dennis Richards was convicted of murder and arson after authorities found Cyd Richards strangled to death in a burning house in 2009.
The appeals court reversed the conviction because the trial court excluded testimony from a physical therapist who would have suggested Richards wasn't strong enough to strangle his ex-wife. A new trial was ordered.
The attorney general's office sought the Supreme Court review.
The court ruled Friday that even if the trial court erred in refusing to let a physical therapist testify, the error was harmless in light of the "overwhelming evidence" of guilt.
Dennis Richards was convicted of murder and arson after authorities found Cyd Richards strangled to death in a burning house in 2009.
The appeals court reversed the conviction because the trial court excluded testimony from a physical therapist who would have suggested Richards wasn't strong enough to strangle his ex-wife. A new trial was ordered.
The attorney general's office sought the Supreme Court review.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Netflix, Inc. common stock during the period between
December 20, 2010 and October 24, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/netflix. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Netflix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix is a subscription service that streams television shows and movies over the Internet, and in the United States subscribers can have DVDs delivered to their homes.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and its contracts with content providers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Netflix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011. While Netflix stock was inflated (partially by Netflix buying back its own stock), Company insiders were selling 388,661 shares of their own Netflix stock for proceeds of $90.2 million.
On September 15, 2011, Netflix updated its third quarter 2011 guidance and revealed that it had lost a million subscribers due to its recently announced price increases becoming effective. On this news, Netflix stock fell nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share. On September 19, 2011, the Company announced that, in an effort to offset skyrocketing costs and rapidly defecting customers, the Company would begin charging separately for its two services and had raised prices as much as 60%. Netflix stock dropped to $130 per share on this news. Then, on October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its third quarter 2011 shareholder letter, which reported a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers. The subsequently filed Form 10-Q revealed that Netflix’s obligations for content over the coming years had skyrocketed to $3.5 billion, with $2.8 billion due within three years. These disclosures caused Netflix stock to collapse from $118.84 per share on October 24, 2011 to $80.86 per share on October 27, 2011, a 32% decline in three days and a 73% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the Company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the Company for 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Netflix common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/netflix. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Netflix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix is a subscription service that streams television shows and movies over the Internet, and in the United States subscribers can have DVDs delivered to their homes.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and its contracts with content providers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Netflix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011. While Netflix stock was inflated (partially by Netflix buying back its own stock), Company insiders were selling 388,661 shares of their own Netflix stock for proceeds of $90.2 million.
On September 15, 2011, Netflix updated its third quarter 2011 guidance and revealed that it had lost a million subscribers due to its recently announced price increases becoming effective. On this news, Netflix stock fell nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share. On September 19, 2011, the Company announced that, in an effort to offset skyrocketing costs and rapidly defecting customers, the Company would begin charging separately for its two services and had raised prices as much as 60%. Netflix stock dropped to $130 per share on this news. Then, on October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its third quarter 2011 shareholder letter, which reported a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers. The subsequently filed Form 10-Q revealed that Netflix’s obligations for content over the coming years had skyrocketed to $3.5 billion, with $2.8 billion due within three years. These disclosures caused Netflix stock to collapse from $118.84 per share on October 24, 2011 to $80.86 per share on October 27, 2011, a 32% decline in three days and a 73% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the Company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the Company for 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Netflix common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
Perry appeals judge's ruling on Va. primary ballot
Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Sunday appealed a federal judge's refusal to
add him and three other candidates to Virginia's Republican presidential
primary ballot.
In a filing with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Perry's attorneys requested that the court order his name be placed on the ballot, or order that ballots not be printed or mailed before his appeal is considered.
Perry sued last month after failing to submit enough signatures to get on the Mach 6 ballot. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman joined Perry's lawsuit after also failing to qualify.
Only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul qualified for the primary ballot.
Virginia requires candidates to obtain the signatures of 10,000 registered voters, including 400 from each of the state's 11 congressional districts, to get on the ballot. State law also allows only Virginia residents to circulate petitions.
In a filing with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Perry's attorneys requested that the court order his name be placed on the ballot, or order that ballots not be printed or mailed before his appeal is considered.
Perry sued last month after failing to submit enough signatures to get on the Mach 6 ballot. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman joined Perry's lawsuit after also failing to qualify.
Only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul qualified for the primary ballot.
Virginia requires candidates to obtain the signatures of 10,000 registered voters, including 400 from each of the state's 11 congressional districts, to get on the ballot. State law also allows only Virginia residents to circulate petitions.
Court upholds firing of deputy who claimed racism
A federal appeals court has upheld the firing of an Indiana sheriff's
deputy who accused the department of racism in part because detectives
watched excerpts from the movie "Blazing Saddles" in his presence.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Warrick County Sheriff's Deputy Kevin Harris' 2007 firing for insubordination was legal. Harris was let go during a standard one-year probationary period.
Harris claimed white officers on probation received better treatment despite their performance problems. Harris also claimed other deputies gave him racially tinged nicknames modeled after African-American TV characters, according to court documents.
A federal judge in Indianapolis, however, ruled there wasn't enough evidence to show discrimination, and the appeals court agreed.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Warrick County Sheriff's Deputy Kevin Harris' 2007 firing for insubordination was legal. Harris was let go during a standard one-year probationary period.
Harris claimed white officers on probation received better treatment despite their performance problems. Harris also claimed other deputies gave him racially tinged nicknames modeled after African-American TV characters, according to court documents.
A federal judge in Indianapolis, however, ruled there wasn't enough evidence to show discrimination, and the appeals court agreed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)