Launching a case that legal analysts expect to be dominated by arguments over the defendant's sanity, Colorado prosecutors plan to file formal charges Monday against James Eagan Holmes, the former neuroscience student accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 others at an Aurora movie theater.
Attorneys will also argue over a defense motion to find out who leaked information to the news media about a package the 24-year-old former neuroscience graduate student allegedly sent to his psychiatrist at the University of Colorado Denver.
Authorities seized the package July 23, three days after the shooting, after finding it in the mailroom of the medical campus where Holmes studied. Several media outlets reported that it contained a notebook with descriptions of an attack, but Arapahoe County District Attorney Carol Chambers said in court papers that the parcel hadn't been opened by the time the "inaccurate" news reports appeared.
Investigators said Holmes began stockpiling gear for his assault four months ago and bought his weapons in May and June, well before the shooting spree just after midnight during a showing of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises." He was arrested by police outside the theater.
Analysts said that means it's likely there's only one main point of legal dispute between prosecutors and the defense.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
UnitedHealth plans to keep overhaul elements
Insurer UnitedHealth Group Inc. sees some parts of the health care overhaul as sound medicine and plans to keep them regardless of whether the law survives an upcoming Supreme Court ruling.
The nation's largest health insurer said Monday that it will still cover preventive care like immunizations without charging a co-payment, which is the fee usually paid at the doctor's office, and it will continue other popular, initial provisions of the law.
The overhaul, which aims to provide coverage for millions of uninsured people, started unfolding in 2010 after health insurers fought bitterly to block its passage. Challenges to the law from states and other groups opposed to it wound their way through the court system to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the law's constitutionality in March.
The court is expected to issue a ruling later this month that could strike down the entire law or parts of it or uphold it.
Despite deep divisions about President Barack Obama's law, UnitedHealth's announcement underscores the staying power of some of its reforms.
The nation's largest health insurer said Monday that it will still cover preventive care like immunizations without charging a co-payment, which is the fee usually paid at the doctor's office, and it will continue other popular, initial provisions of the law.
The overhaul, which aims to provide coverage for millions of uninsured people, started unfolding in 2010 after health insurers fought bitterly to block its passage. Challenges to the law from states and other groups opposed to it wound their way through the court system to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the law's constitutionality in March.
The court is expected to issue a ruling later this month that could strike down the entire law or parts of it or uphold it.
Despite deep divisions about President Barack Obama's law, UnitedHealth's announcement underscores the staying power of some of its reforms.
Friday, May 25, 2012
5 suspects charged in Ohio bomb plot due in court
Five men suspected of plotting to bomb a highway bridge in northeast Ohio are due back in court.
A federal magistrate judge in Cleveland scheduled a preliminary hearing Monday for the five, who are described by the government as self-proclaimed anarchists. They were indicted on three counts each.
The court also must take up the question of setting bond for the suspects. The government wants them locked up pending trial.
The FBI says the five were arrested last week after setting the codes for what they thought would be an explosion to destroy a bridge south of Cleveland. But the bomb was a fake arranged by an FBI informant.
One defense attorney calls it a case of entrapment, with the informant guiding the way.
A federal magistrate judge in Cleveland scheduled a preliminary hearing Monday for the five, who are described by the government as self-proclaimed anarchists. They were indicted on three counts each.
The court also must take up the question of setting bond for the suspects. The government wants them locked up pending trial.
The FBI says the five were arrested last week after setting the codes for what they thought would be an explosion to destroy a bridge south of Cleveland. But the bomb was a fake arranged by an FBI informant.
One defense attorney calls it a case of entrapment, with the informant guiding the way.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
The Law Offices of Dennis R. Wheeler
On our law firm scouting every month we have found a recommended attorney for bankruptcy matters.
San Francisco Bankruptcy Information
To learn more about filing for bankruptcy and debt relief in the Bay Area, click on the links below.
* Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
* Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
* What are the differences between Chapter 7 and 13?
* What are the benefits of bankruptcy?
* What are the costs of filing bankruptcy?
* Will I lose my property if I file for bankruptcy?
* Does bankruptcy ruin my credit?
Consult an Experienced Bay Area Bankruptcy Attorney
If you are experiencing financial difficulties, we encourage you to investigate all options, including bankruptcy. Please call 415-865-0212 today to schedule a free no-obligation initial consultation with a experienced bankruptcy lawyer in San Francisco.
San Francisco Bankruptcy Information
To learn more about filing for bankruptcy and debt relief in the Bay Area, click on the links below.
* Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
* Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
* What are the differences between Chapter 7 and 13?
* What are the benefits of bankruptcy?
* What are the costs of filing bankruptcy?
* Will I lose my property if I file for bankruptcy?
* Does bankruptcy ruin my credit?
Consult an Experienced Bay Area Bankruptcy Attorney
If you are experiencing financial difficulties, we encourage you to investigate all options, including bankruptcy. Please call 415-865-0212 today to schedule a free no-obligation initial consultation with a experienced bankruptcy lawyer in San Francisco.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The Shuman Investigates Ormat Technologies Inc.
The Shuman Law Firm today announced that it is investigating
potential breaches of fiduciary duty by certain officers and directors
at Ormat Technologies Inc.
The investigation concerns whether the Company's directors and officers caused the Company to issue materially false and/or misleading financial statements. These statements eventually resulted in the Company restating its financial results.
On February 24, 2010, Ormat disclosed that the Board of Directors and Audit Committee of the Company, upon recommendation of management and after discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, had concluded that the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008 required restatement and should no longer be relied upon. The Company restated its results because it improperly capitalized costs incurred in connection with the exploration and development of certain properties that it did not plan to develop. Upon this news, the price of Ormat stock declined more than 12.81% over the three days following the disclosure of this announcement.
If you currently own shares of Ormat and are interested in discussing your rights as an Ormat shareholder, or have information relating to this investigation, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at 866-974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.
The investigation concerns whether the Company's directors and officers caused the Company to issue materially false and/or misleading financial statements. These statements eventually resulted in the Company restating its financial results.
On February 24, 2010, Ormat disclosed that the Board of Directors and Audit Committee of the Company, upon recommendation of management and after discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, had concluded that the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008 required restatement and should no longer be relied upon. The Company restated its results because it improperly capitalized costs incurred in connection with the exploration and development of certain properties that it did not plan to develop. Upon this news, the price of Ormat stock declined more than 12.81% over the three days following the disclosure of this announcement.
If you currently own shares of Ormat and are interested in discussing your rights as an Ormat shareholder, or have information relating to this investigation, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at 866-974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.
Leading law firm named for Goldman Sachs defence
Top Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell is to take the lead
in representing Goldman Sachs against the formal investigation brought
by the Financial Services Authority.
The investment bank had already retained Sullivan & Cromwell to defend it against fraud allegations brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and today said the legal giant would at least for now be taking charge of the FSA case.
Goldman has a long-term relationship with Sullivan & Cromwell. Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman trader named as a defendant in the SEC's civil suit, is being represented by Allen & Overy.
The investment bank had already retained Sullivan & Cromwell to defend it against fraud allegations brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and today said the legal giant would at least for now be taking charge of the FSA case.
Goldman has a long-term relationship with Sullivan & Cromwell. Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman trader named as a defendant in the SEC's civil suit, is being represented by Allen & Overy.
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Alabama, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walter Energy,
Inc. between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, inclusive (the
“Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Walter Energy produces and exports metallurgical coal for electric
utility and industrial customers in the United States.
The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and financial prospects, including that: (1) the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced the Company’s coal production; (2) the Company’s commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter, at first quarter sales prices, would result in a material adverse effect on Walter Energy’s second-quarter average sales prices and operating results; (3) the Company was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (4), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s business and financial prospects during the Class Period.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Walter Energy common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status.
www.glancylaw.com
The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and financial prospects, including that: (1) the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced the Company’s coal production; (2) the Company’s commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter, at first quarter sales prices, would result in a material adverse effect on Walter Energy’s second-quarter average sales prices and operating results; (3) the Company was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (4), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s business and financial prospects during the Class Period.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Walter Energy common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status.
www.glancylaw.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Costner sculpture dispute heads to SD high court
The South Dakota Supreme Court will hear a case involving Hollywood actor Kevin Costner and some bronze sculptures of bison and American Indians.
Justices will review a judge's decision last summer that Costner did not breach a contract with South Dakota artist Peggy Detmers by placing the sculptures at his Tatanka attraction near Deadwood in 2006. Detmers challenged the ruling, and oral arguments are set for March 19 in Vermillion, the Rapid City Journal reported.
Costner filmed much of his Academy-Award-winning movie "Dances with Wolves" in South Dakota. He commissioned the sculptures in the early 1990s for his planned Dunbar resort in South Dakota's Black Hills that still has not been built.
Costner paid Detmers $300,000 for the 17 sculptures. Detmers said she spent more than six years creating the artwork and gave Costner a price break because she anticipated selling smaller sculptures at the resort.
Circuit Judge Randall Macy ruled last July that Detmers indicated her approval of the Tatanka location by participating in the development of the site, the placing of the sculptures there and the opening ceremony. The Tatanka site houses the sculptures and a visitor center.
Justices will review a judge's decision last summer that Costner did not breach a contract with South Dakota artist Peggy Detmers by placing the sculptures at his Tatanka attraction near Deadwood in 2006. Detmers challenged the ruling, and oral arguments are set for March 19 in Vermillion, the Rapid City Journal reported.
Costner filmed much of his Academy-Award-winning movie "Dances with Wolves" in South Dakota. He commissioned the sculptures in the early 1990s for his planned Dunbar resort in South Dakota's Black Hills that still has not been built.
Costner paid Detmers $300,000 for the 17 sculptures. Detmers said she spent more than six years creating the artwork and gave Costner a price break because she anticipated selling smaller sculptures at the resort.
Circuit Judge Randall Macy ruled last July that Detmers indicated her approval of the Tatanka location by participating in the development of the site, the placing of the sculptures there and the opening ceremony. The Tatanka site houses the sculptures and a visitor center.
The Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. today announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of SAIC, Inc. during the period between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011, and is seeking to recover investors' damages from violations of federal securities laws.
To join the SAIC class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com, or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jon Horne, toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email or pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against SAIC and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the Company's true financial and business condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over a multi-year period, SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project -- an initiative associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system; (2) as a result of these overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (3) SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and risks to the Company's reputation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; and (5) the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading.
To join the SAIC class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com, or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jon Horne, toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email or pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against SAIC and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the Company's true financial and business condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over a multi-year period, SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project -- an initiative associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system; (2) as a result of these overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (3) SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and risks to the Company's reputation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; and (5) the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading.
Court: California can force inmates to submit DNA
A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people arrested for felonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement’s interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.
The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.
The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.
The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state’s DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.
The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 “hits’’ connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.
Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn’t any more intrusive than fingerprinting.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement’s interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.
The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.
The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.
The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state’s DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.
The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 “hits’’ connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.
Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn’t any more intrusive than fingerprinting.
Appeals court tosses Armenian payments law
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a novel and controversial California law that allowed descendants of 1.5 million Armenians who perished in Turkey nearly a century ago to file claims against life insurance companies accused of reneging on policies.
The move came when a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously tossed out a class action lawsuit filed against Munich Re after two of its subsidiaries refused to pay claims.
The ruling, written by Judge Susan Graber, said the California law trampled on U.S. foreign policy — the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
The California Legislature labeled the Armenian deaths as genocide, a term the Turkish government vehemently argued was wrongly applied during a time of civil unrest in the country.
The court noted the issue is so fraught with politics that President Obama studiously avoided using the word genocide during a commemorative speech in April 2010 noting the Armenian deaths.
The tortured legal saga began in 2000 when the California Legislature passed a law enabling Armenian heirs to file claims with insurance companies for policies sold around the turn of the 20th century. It gave the heirs until 2010 to file lawsuits over unpaid insurance benefits.
The move came when a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously tossed out a class action lawsuit filed against Munich Re after two of its subsidiaries refused to pay claims.
The ruling, written by Judge Susan Graber, said the California law trampled on U.S. foreign policy — the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
The California Legislature labeled the Armenian deaths as genocide, a term the Turkish government vehemently argued was wrongly applied during a time of civil unrest in the country.
The court noted the issue is so fraught with politics that President Obama studiously avoided using the word genocide during a commemorative speech in April 2010 noting the Armenian deaths.
The tortured legal saga began in 2000 when the California Legislature passed a law enabling Armenian heirs to file claims with insurance companies for policies sold around the turn of the 20th century. It gave the heirs until 2010 to file lawsuits over unpaid insurance benefits.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)