Judge ousts defendant twice from Guantanamo court

The military judge presiding over the Sept. 11 war crimes tribunal at Guantanamo ejected one defendant from the courtroom twice Tuesday for speaking out of turn, adding a bit of drama to an otherwise dry pretrial motions hearing at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Ramzi Binalshibh, one of five Guantanamo prisoners charged with orchestrating the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, refused repeated warnings to stop trying to address the judge about what he claims are efforts by guards to keep him awake at night with banging sounds inside his cell.

But the judge, whose courtroom was repeatedly disrupted when the defendants were arraigned in May 2012, was having none of it. Army Col. James Pohl ordered troops to remove Binalshibh and place him in a holding cell.

Then the same scene repeated itself in the afternoon session, and the judge warned it would happen again if the defendant tried again on Wednesday. "If he is disruptive he will be escorted from the courtroom," Pohl told the lawyers for Binalshibh.

He also said he was concerned that the prisoner might shout out classified information, prompting courtroom censors to cut the sound. "I don't know what he'll say," he said.

Both removals occurred as the judge asked Binalshibh if he understood he has the right to be absent from the remainder of the pretrial motions hearing this week. The four other defendants also answered in the affirmative.

Binalshibh used the question as an opportunity to repeat claims that prison authorities use sounds and vibrations to keep him awake at night inside Camp 7, the high-security section of Guantanamo where he and the other defendants in the Sept. 11 case are held. Prosecutors say they have looked into the matter and were assured that no noises are being made.

Texas Supreme Court tackles same-sex divorce

The issues of same-sex marriage and divorce are set to go before the Texas Supreme Court.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on whether Texas can grant divorces to same-sex couples who married elsewhere.

Both cases involve same-sex couples who married legally in Massachusetts. Texas approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage in 2005.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argues that state law won't allow Texas to recognize the divorces because that would validate the marriage. The couples question whether the same-sex marriage ban applies to divorce and whether it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act because it treats same-sex couples unequally.

The Texas court is not expected to rule for several months.

Appeals court moves BP forward in settlement dispute

The April 2010 blowout of BP's Macondo well off the Louisiana coast triggered an explosion that killed 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and led to millions of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf. Shortly after the disaster, BP agreed to create a $20 billion compensation fund that was administered at first by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, led by attorney Kenneth Feinberg.

BP argued that Barbier and court-appointed claims administrator Patrick Juneau misinterpreted terms of the settlement. Plaintiffs' lawyers countered that BP undervalued the settlement and underestimated how many claimants would qualify for payments.

In the panel's majority opinion, Judge Edith Brown Clement said BP has consistently argued that the settlement's complex formula for compensating businesses was intended to cover "real economic losses, not artificial losses that appear only from the timing of cash flows."

"The interests of individuals who may be reaping windfall recoveries because of an inappropriate interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and those who could never have recovered in individual suits for failure to show causation are not outweighed by the potential loss to a company and its public shareholders of hundreds of millions of dollars of unrecoverable awards," Clement wrote.

Judge Leslie Southwick wrote a concurring opinion. Judge James Dennis wrote a partial dissent, largely disagreeing with the other two.

"Because BP has not satisfied its heavy burden of showing that a change in circumstances or law warranted the modifications it sought, the district court correctly affirmed the Administrator's decision rejecting BP's argument and actions to modify the agreement," Dennis wrote.

Ind. high court to hear eminent domain lawsuit

The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear an eminent domain case involving land in southern Indiana that a local board claimed for a planned airport runway expansion.

The state's high court recently vacated the Indiana Court of Appeals' ruling in the case involving the action by the now-defunct Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners. That board used eminent domain in 2009 to acquire property owned by resident Margaret Dreyer for a runway expansion at the Clark County Regional Airport.

Dreyer sued the board, alleging its appraisals of the property acquired through eminent domain were wrong. She won and was awarded a judgment of $865,000.

The News and Tribune reported Clark County became party to the case last year when Dreyer's motion was granted to have the "civil government of Clark County" pay the judgment. The Court of Appeals later upheld the verdict.

South Central Regional Airport Authority Attorney Greg Fifer said last week in an email that the Indiana Supreme Court could either reach the same verdict as the appellate court, or affirm the county's position that the judgment was void.

Authority President Tom Galligan said the panel, which replaced the now-defunct Board of Aviation Commissioners, is pleased with the court's decision to hear the case. He said the airport authority thought the original ruling "was not a very good ruling."

The Law Offices of David Stein - Family Law

Our office's DUI defense lawyer can help you in any tough situation. With the DC Comprehensive Impaired Driving Act of 2012 essentially doubled the minimum sentences applicable to all drinking and driving statutes imposing. Today, this DC DUI rules are one of the strictest penalties compared with most other jurisdictions. Thus it is important to hire a skilled and seasoned DC DWI lawyer or DC DUI lawyer from the outset to challenge the charges, and to defend your rights. Specifically, the statutory language states: no person shall operate or be in physical control of any vehicle in the District: (I) When the person's alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of testing is 0.08 grams or more either per 100 milliliters of blood or per 210 liters of breath or is 0.10 grams or more per 100 milliliters of urine; (II) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or any combination thereof; or (III) If under 21 years of age, when the person's blood, breath, or urine contains any measurable amount of alcohol. Accordingly, in Washington DC you can be technically charged with a DC DWI or DC DUI if you are operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of any measurable amount of alcohol or drugs. A BAC of 0.08 or more will most likely result in a DWI (driving while intoxicated) charge, the most severe, and generally referred to as “per se” intoxication. The BAC below 0.08 will result in a DUI (driving under the influence) charge, a lower included offense. Your physical appearance such as slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, performance on field sobriety tests -- all will be considered as well as chemical tests. A driver’s blood alcohol concentration or BAC can be measured by testing the driver’s blood, breath, or urine. Generally at the scene the officer will rely upon both the physical attributes as well as the reading of the breathalyzer machine. Given the severity of the mandatory minimum sentences and the general unreliability of breathalyzer machines, blood and urine tests are now more prevalent. Given the complexity of the statutory language and both stiff criminal and civil ramifications, it is essential to immediately after an arrest under this provision to contact an expert DC DUI lawyer or a DC DWI lawyer to defend your rights and to minimize your exposure to the criminal justice system. Our DC criminal defense lawyers routinely litigate complex DC DUI or DC DWI cases often times accident involved with successful results obtaining either dismissals, non-guilty verdicts or other favorable outcomes such as diversion or probation. Contact our tenacious DC DUI or DC DWI lawyers today for free face to face initial case evaluation. The Law Offices of David Stein serves to be one of the best DC DUI Lawyers and will be the strong and aggressive advocate you need when you find yourself facing severe DUI penalties.

McKennon Law Group - Disability Insurance

Disability insurance law firm, McKennon Law Group are experts at resolving long-term disability insurance claim disputes. The disputes we handle include individuals ad group policies involving the ERISA. Our attorneys have had over 25 years of experience and are the aggressive advocates in the Newport Beach, California area but also known nationally and regionally as the top disability insurance litigation firm. If you are feeling helpless because your insurance company denies your disability claim, contact one of our attorneys today and we can claim the case for you to get successful results.

Court: US can keep bin Laden photos under wraps

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.

3 guilty in Dallas-area, Houston health care fraud

Three more people have been convicted in a nearly $3 million health care fraud case involving Houston and Dallas-area companies.
Prosecutors say unlicensed doctors were recruited to treat patients at their homes and then wrongly bill Medicare.
A federal judge in Dallas on Wednesday convicted Godwin Umotong and Comfort Gates of Houston of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and health care fraud. A third person - Vagharshak Smbatyan of Grenada Hills, Calif., - was convicted of making a false statement to an agency.
All will be sentenced in July and face penalties ranging from five to 10 years per count.
Prosecutors say Umotong worked for Euless Healthcare Corp. in Hurst and Medic Healthcare Inc. of Houston. Gates worked for Medic.

Craig W. Drummond - Civil Litigation

If you are a business, corporation or entity involved in a disagreement contact Craig to discuss your rights and options. Craig has a proven track record of successfully resolving disputes on behalf of businesses and corporations, including serving as local counsel to out of state law firms, handling disputes that arise with business transacted in Las Vegas, and working with enforcement and regulatory authorities to resolve civil issues. Craig has developed strategic relationships with some of the best specialty corporate attorneys in Las Vegas to work with to ensure that the client has the best possible team to fight their case.

http://www.drummondfirm.com/civil-litigation

Ex-hedge fund manager pleads not guilty in NYC

A former hedge fund portfolio manager charged with engineering a record-setting inside trade scheme has pleaded not guilty to insider trading charges.

Authorities say Mathew Martoma persuaded a medical professor to leak secret data from an Alzheimer's disease drug trial. Investigators say it helped him earn more than a quarter-billion dollars in illegal profits.

Martoma appeared Thursday in federal court in Manhattan. He remains free on bail.

He was arrested in November at his $2 million Palm Beach County, Fla., home on securities fraud and conspiracy charges.

He is a former portfolio manager at an affiliate of a Stamford, Conn.-based firm owned by Steven A. Cohen, one of the world's richest men.

Martoma is the fourth person associated with SAC Capital to be arrested on insider trading charges in the past four years.