Monday, April 30, 2012
FEDERAL JUDGE, "LIKE SO MANY OTHERS", FILES CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY
California federal district court judge Otis Wright II, of California's federal central district, has filed for Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy protection.
Bankruptcy is the federal remedy for debtors to cope with overwhelming debt, and it is governed and operated under Title 11 of the U.S. Code. Chapter 7 bankruptcy is commonly called "straight" bankruptcy.
[see, pp. 52-56, "Bankruptcy Fundamentals", Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets, by Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse (2011)]
U.S. District Court judges earn about $174,000 a year.
Judge Wright, a George W. Bush appointee who was confirmed in 2007, has filed for personal bankruptcy, a rare thing for a federal judge. A trustee plans to put Judge Wright's house in Rancho Palos Verdes in Los Angeles County on the market, in a bid to generate funds for creditors, according to documents filed recently in Central California bankruptcy court. The asking price: about $1.2 million.
Judge Wright listed assets of $833,426 and liabilities of $895,292 at the time of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing late last year. He said in the filing that he owed about $800,000. He and his wife, Evelyn, a self-employed social worker, had accumulated more than $70,000 in credit-card debt, including $12,740 on a Nordstrom card, according to the filing.
A lawyer for the couple said the judge drained his retirement funds to pay off a large lump of debt before filing for bankruptcy. "What he did was everything he could to pay his creditors," the attorney said of the judge. "But like so many others, he's under water."
[WSJ, Monday, April 30, 2012, p. B5]
"10 THINGS MY COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER NEVER TOLD ME, BUT I LEARNED ANYWAY"
1. Extra-curriculum activities in college are very important in your life. These include sororities, fraternities, sports, etc. They are important for your development because they involve your association with people.
2. College graduation is a great day! Enjoy it. But, some of your worst days are still ahead of you.
3. Be determined to not make the world worse than it is. Use your learned talents for good, not bad.
4. If you marry, marry someone smarter than you are.
5. Remember that not everything in life is a competition.
6. Read obituaries. They are actually short biographies of interesting people.
7. Your parents want what is Good for you, not necessarily what is Best for you. They usually mean you well, though.
8. Do not make your life decisions based solely on who is paying you (i.e., your employer). There is more out there.
9. Take nothing for granted. We are all living on borrowed time.
10. Try to be a Good Person, not necessarily a great person. Being great at anything involves a combination of a number of things, including luck. You can be good on your own.
[Excerpted and Amended from: "10 Things Your Commencement Speaker Won't Tell You", WSJ, Sunday, April 28, 2012, p. C3; and "10 1/2 Things No Commencement Speaker Has Ever Said", by Charles Wheelan, W.W. Norton & Co.]
2. College graduation is a great day! Enjoy it. But, some of your worst days are still ahead of you.
3. Be determined to not make the world worse than it is. Use your learned talents for good, not bad.
4. If you marry, marry someone smarter than you are.
5. Remember that not everything in life is a competition.
6. Read obituaries. They are actually short biographies of interesting people.
7. Your parents want what is Good for you, not necessarily what is Best for you. They usually mean you well, though.
8. Do not make your life decisions based solely on who is paying you (i.e., your employer). There is more out there.
9. Take nothing for granted. We are all living on borrowed time.
10. Try to be a Good Person, not necessarily a great person. Being great at anything involves a combination of a number of things, including luck. You can be good on your own.
[Excerpted and Amended from: "10 Things Your Commencement Speaker Won't Tell You", WSJ, Sunday, April 28, 2012, p. C3; and "10 1/2 Things No Commencement Speaker Has Ever Said", by Charles Wheelan, W.W. Norton & Co.]
Friday, April 27, 2012
TAX/LEGAL UPDATE: IRS LOSES Tax-Shelter Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the Internal Revenue Service in a tax-shelter case.
The case involved a 1999 sale of a Salisbury, N.C., heating oil and concrete business, Home Concrete & Supply LLC. The transaction totaled about $10.6 million, according to court records. But the tax shelter enabled the partnership holding the oil business to report a gain of just $69,000 from the sale.
The business was advised on the tax shelter by Jenkens & Gilchrist LP, a Texas law firm that eventually shut down after an IRS investigation into its tax-shelter practice.
The IRS waited too long— more than three years—to challenge taxpayers' filings that used a "Son of BOSS" tax shelter, the court ruled. The court's ruling didn't address the legality of the tax shelter.
The decision could benefit dozens of taxpayers who used the shelter and cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, perhaps as much as $1 billion.
Son of BOSS was a term Treasury officials coined to describe a variety of tax shelters that sought to wipe out taxes on capital gains from the sale of a business or other appreciated asset, for example, by artificially inflating the cost of an asset to make the profit from its sale appear smaller.
All resembled an earlier shelter marketed as "BOSS," short for "bond and option sales strategy." The Son of BOSS transaction was marketed in various forms by advisers at some accounting and law firms beginning in the late 1990s. Several thousand taxpayers likely used the shelter before the Treasury and Congress took steps to block its tax benefits, beginning in 2000.
While the IRS and Treasury were moving against Son of BOSS shelters as early as 2000, individual deals could be difficult to detect, and the IRS obtained much of its information through lengthy investigations of promoters. By the time the IRS got around to auditing individual taxpayers, the three-year statute of limitations for assessing back taxes often was running out, lawyers said.
The IRS argued in a number of cases that a six-year statute of limitations should apply. The six-year statute typically applies in cases in which the taxpayer has omitted income.
Many taxpayers ultimately resolved the cases through settlements that allowed them to pay back taxes and some penalties. But other taxpayers fought back in court. They argued that the six-year statute of limitations shouldn't apply, because Son of BOSS didn't involve omission of income. In Wednesday's 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, saying the IRS overstepped in using the six-year statute of limitations.
[WSJ, Thurs., 4-26-2012, p. CB]
The case involved a 1999 sale of a Salisbury, N.C., heating oil and concrete business, Home Concrete & Supply LLC. The transaction totaled about $10.6 million, according to court records. But the tax shelter enabled the partnership holding the oil business to report a gain of just $69,000 from the sale.
The business was advised on the tax shelter by Jenkens & Gilchrist LP, a Texas law firm that eventually shut down after an IRS investigation into its tax-shelter practice.
The IRS waited too long— more than three years—to challenge taxpayers' filings that used a "Son of BOSS" tax shelter, the court ruled. The court's ruling didn't address the legality of the tax shelter.
The decision could benefit dozens of taxpayers who used the shelter and cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, perhaps as much as $1 billion.
Son of BOSS was a term Treasury officials coined to describe a variety of tax shelters that sought to wipe out taxes on capital gains from the sale of a business or other appreciated asset, for example, by artificially inflating the cost of an asset to make the profit from its sale appear smaller.
All resembled an earlier shelter marketed as "BOSS," short for "bond and option sales strategy." The Son of BOSS transaction was marketed in various forms by advisers at some accounting and law firms beginning in the late 1990s. Several thousand taxpayers likely used the shelter before the Treasury and Congress took steps to block its tax benefits, beginning in 2000.
While the IRS and Treasury were moving against Son of BOSS shelters as early as 2000, individual deals could be difficult to detect, and the IRS obtained much of its information through lengthy investigations of promoters. By the time the IRS got around to auditing individual taxpayers, the three-year statute of limitations for assessing back taxes often was running out, lawyers said.
The IRS argued in a number of cases that a six-year statute of limitations should apply. The six-year statute typically applies in cases in which the taxpayer has omitted income.
Many taxpayers ultimately resolved the cases through settlements that allowed them to pay back taxes and some penalties. But other taxpayers fought back in court. They argued that the six-year statute of limitations shouldn't apply, because Son of BOSS didn't involve omission of income. In Wednesday's 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, saying the IRS overstepped in using the six-year statute of limitations.
[WSJ, Thurs., 4-26-2012, p. CB]
Thursday, April 26, 2012
FBI Warning: NEW BANKING SCAM
Crafty criminals are aiming to steal one of the most valuable pieces of your personal property: your banking information.
In a new warning, the Federal Bureau of Investigation warns account holders of a new spam email scheme that involves a type of malware called "Gameover." The scheme involves fake emails from the National Automated Clearing House Association, the Federal Reserve or the FDIC. These messages attempt to trick recipients into clicking on a link to resolve some type of issue with their accounts or a recent ACH transaction. Once you click on the link, Gameover takes over your computer, and thieves can steal usernames, passwords and your money.
The FBI also warns the thieves' hacking capabilities can navigate around common user authentication methods banks use to verify your identity, which is certainly a cause for concern. Those additional authentication steps -- often personal questions, birth dates or other pieces of private information -- are meant to provide some extra security padding.
While phishing scams are nothing new to the world of online banking, this type of warning serves as a reminder of just how susceptible account holders can be to malicious attacks. As more account holders begin to jump on the mobile banking bandwagon, it's important to remember that a smartphone essentially acts as another computer. While this additional connection to the Internet is convenient, it also serves as another outlet where your information can be compromised.
Here are a few crucial steps to take to avoid falling victim to this type of Internet crime:
In a new warning, the Federal Bureau of Investigation warns account holders of a new spam email scheme that involves a type of malware called "Gameover." The scheme involves fake emails from the National Automated Clearing House Association, the Federal Reserve or the FDIC. These messages attempt to trick recipients into clicking on a link to resolve some type of issue with their accounts or a recent ACH transaction. Once you click on the link, Gameover takes over your computer, and thieves can steal usernames, passwords and your money.
The FBI also warns the thieves' hacking capabilities can navigate around common user authentication methods banks use to verify your identity, which is certainly a cause for concern. Those additional authentication steps -- often personal questions, birth dates or other pieces of private information -- are meant to provide some extra security padding.
While phishing scams are nothing new to the world of online banking, this type of warning serves as a reminder of just how susceptible account holders can be to malicious attacks. As more account holders begin to jump on the mobile banking bandwagon, it's important to remember that a smartphone essentially acts as another computer. While this additional connection to the Internet is convenient, it also serves as another outlet where your information can be compromised.
Here are a few crucial steps to take to avoid falling victim to this type of Internet crime:
- Keep your computer and mobile device updated with the newest versions of anti-virus software.
- If you have any doubts about an email sender's authenticity, do not click on any embedded links.
- Remember, banks never request any personal information via email.
- Be vigilant about checking your account balances. The sooner you notice and report any type of fraudulent activity, the more likely you'll be able to be reimbursed for any missing funds.
Cartagena, Colombia "Person of the Week": Dania Londono Saurez
110446
Dania Londono Saurez.
Colombia, South America.
City: Cartegena (The city of angels).
Age: 26 (I am just the right age).
Birth Date: 12/21/1985
Weight: 128lb, 58kg. Just the right weight.
Height: 5'2", 157 cm (in stiletto heels, 5'6").
Measurements: 34-28-39. How do you like me now?
Measurements (cm): 87-71-100
Eye Color: Black (as night).
Hair Color: Black (this week).
Marital Status: Single (for now).
Children: 1 - boy, 7. Mi Vida.
Religion: Christian (Catholic). Devout, no doubt!
Smoker: No. Nada.
Drinker: Si. Thank you!
Education: College (of life). Been there, done that.
Company: Private (property). If you have the money, I have the time.
Job Title: Cosmetologist ("I am an escort --- not a prostitute").
Sports: Swimming (in all sorts of things). Night life in Cartagena.
Hobbies: Cooking, films, Secret Service Agents.
Self Description: "I am a simple woman, with many values and I love the respect, honesty and sincerity." Seriously!
Comments: "I want a romantic man with good intentions, loving and very respectful." And $800.00 in cash!
[See, www.anorak.co.uk/319718; 4/25/2012] Amended.
Dania Londono Saurez.
Colombia, South America.
City: Cartegena (The city of angels).
Age: 26 (I am just the right age).
Birth Date: 12/21/1985
Weight: 128lb, 58kg. Just the right weight.
Height: 5'2", 157 cm (in stiletto heels, 5'6").
Measurements: 34-28-39. How do you like me now?
Measurements (cm): 87-71-100
Eye Color: Black (as night).
Hair Color: Black (this week).
Marital Status: Single (for now).
Children: 1 - boy, 7. Mi Vida.
Religion: Christian (Catholic). Devout, no doubt!
Smoker: No. Nada.
Drinker: Si. Thank you!
Education: College (of life). Been there, done that.
Company: Private (property). If you have the money, I have the time.
Job Title: Cosmetologist ("I am an escort --- not a prostitute").
Sports: Swimming (in all sorts of things). Night life in Cartagena.
Hobbies: Cooking, films, Secret Service Agents.
Self Description: "I am a simple woman, with many values and I love the respect, honesty and sincerity." Seriously!
Comments: "I want a romantic man with good intentions, loving and very respectful." And $800.00 in cash!
[See, www.anorak.co.uk/319718; 4/25/2012] Amended.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
DEBT COLLECTORS STALK HOSPITALS
Accretive Health, one of the U.S.'s largest medical debt collection companies, is being faulted by the Minnesota Attorney General for excessive tactics against patients in hospitals.
The debt collector is accused of hiding in wait in emergency rooms, surgery convalescing rooms after surgery, and stalking patients elsewhere in hospitals to collect on debts and payments before treatment.
This revelation of Accretive's tactics by the Minnesota Attorney General on Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 raises concerns and alarms that such questionable actions and practices have become common at hospitals throughout the nation.
The tactics, like embedding debt collectors as employees in emergency rooms and demanding that patients pay before receiving treatment, were outlined in hundreds of company documents released by the attorney general. And they cast a spotlight on the increasingly desperate strategies among hospitals to recoup payments as their unpaid debts mount.
To patients, the debt collectors may look indistinguishable from hospital employees, may demand they pay outstanding bills and may discourage them from seeking emergency care at all, even using scripts like those in collection boiler rooms, according to the documents and employees interviewed by The New York Times.
In some cases, the company’s workers had access to health information while persuading patients to pay overdue bills, possibly in violation of federal privacy laws, the documents indicate.
The attorney general, Lori Swanson, also said that Accretive employees may have broken the law by not clearly identifying themselves as debt collectors.
Accretive Health has contracts not only with two hospitals cited in Minnesota but also with some of the largest hospital systems in the country, including Henry Ford Health System in Michigan and Intermountain Healthcare in Utah.
As hospitals struggle under a glut of unpaid bills, they are reaching out to companies like Accretive that specialize in collecting medical bills.
Hospitals have long hired outside collection agencies to pursue patients after they have left hospital facilities. But financial pressures are altering the collection landscape so that they are now letting collection firms in the front door, according to Don May, the policy adviser for the American Hospital Association, a trade group.
To achieve promised savings, hospitals turn over the management of their front-line staffing — like patient registration and scheduling — and their back-office collection activities.
Concerns are mounting that the cozy working relationships will undercut patient care and threaten privacy, said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy coalition. “The mission of these companies is in direct opposition to the supposed mission of these hospitals.”
Still, hospitals are in a bind. The more than 5,000 community hospitals in the United States provided $39.3 billion in uncompensated care — predominately unpaid patient debts or charity care — in 2010, up 16 percent from 2007, the hospital association estimated.
Accretive is one of the few companies specializing in hospital debt collection that is publicly traded. Last year, it reported $29.2 million in profit, up 130 percent from a year earlier.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/business/debt-collector-is-faulted-for-tough-tactics-in-hospitals.html]
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
SECRET SERVICE SCANDAL: Dania Suarez "Honey Trap" Update
Dania Duarez, the 24-year old Colombian female prostitute who was a major figure in the April 20th, 2012 Secret Service scandal at the Caribe Hotel in Cartagena, Colombia has fled the city.
The Cartagena "Honey Trap" is now back at her home on an island just off the coast of mainland Colombia.
It may be of interest to note that another alleged thriving business in Colombia is the mail-order bride industry.
[WSJ, 4/24/2012, "The Morning with Gordon Deal"]
The Cartagena "Honey Trap" is now back at her home on an island just off the coast of mainland Colombia.
It may be of interest to note that another alleged thriving business in Colombia is the mail-order bride industry.
[WSJ, 4/24/2012, "The Morning with Gordon Deal"]
Monday, April 23, 2012
DEATH PENALTY OVERTURNED: North Carolina's Racial Justice Act
North Carolina's "Racial Justice Act of 2009" has been used successfully to overturn a death penalty sentence.
On Friday, April 20th, 2012, a Cumberland County, North Carolina judge, the Honorable Gregory A. Weeks, issued a landmark ruling that overturned inmate Marcus Reymond Robinson's death sentence after deciding that Robinson's race (African-American) played a "significant factor" in his trial's jury-selection process.
The ruling could set a precedent for what happens with North Carolina's 156 other condemned (death penalty) prisoners, almost all of whom have challenged their sentences on racial-bias grounds --- including approximately 60 who are white.
The decision marked the first test of a state law requiring a judge to change a capital sentence to life without parole if race is determined to have been a "significant factor" in a death sentence.
The Racial Justice Act was signed into law in 2009 by a Democratic legislature and governor, over strong Republican objection. The law came about after the convictions of several black men, all of whom ended up on death row, were overturned after errors in their cases were brought to light.
Friday's decision came in the case of Marcus Reymond Robinson, who was convicted in 1994 of murdering a white 17-year-old during a robbery. The Judge was tasked with determining whether race played an improper role in jury selection at Mr. Robinson's trial 18 years ago.
The judge, who has 23 years on the bench, vacated Mr. Robinson's death sentence and resentenced him to life in prison without parole.
The state indicated it would appeal the decision.
During a hearing in February, attorneys for Mr. Robinson cited a study by researchers at Michigan State University to show that North Carolina prosecutors struck prospective black jurors from juries far more frequently than white jurors. As he announced his decision Friday, Judge Weeks said the Michigan State study was a "valid, highly reliable study."
The state had argued that the study was flawed, and offered affidavits from prosecutors stating that their dismissals of prospective black jurors could be otherwise explained.
The judge wasn't persuaded, though, saying that "the state has failed to rebut the evidence presented."
Legal experts said the case was likely to have an impact across the country. "This puts prosecutors on notice that they will be held accountable if they strike a juror based on race," said Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a University of Dayton associate professor who studies juries.
Lawyers for Mr. Robinson said after the ruling that they wouldn't be surprised if other states enact similar bias laws.
"If North Carolina can do it, there is no reason other places can't do it," said Tye Hunter, a member of Mr. Robinson's legal team who is the executive director of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation.
The only other state that currently has a similar law is Kentucky, but defense lawyers there haven't used it much because they must show strong evidence of discrimination in an individual case and are barred from basing claims solely on statistics.
The Judge, who took about two months to announce his decision, said in court Friday that North Carolina "prosecutors intentionally discriminated" against potential black jurors during jury selection historically and in the Robinson case.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304331204577355791150009980.html]
Friday, April 20, 2012
Storied Law Firm Pitches Plan for Rescue
Leaders of New York law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP are considering a novel rescue plan that would put the firm into bankruptcy protection but might be its best hope at preserving value at a prestigious firm that this year has been hemorrhaging talent.
Amid a wave of partner exits, Dewey's leaders in recent days have reached out to law-firm peers with a fresh proposition, said people familiar with the situation. The partners have discussed filing a "prepackaged" bankruptcy plan that would allow a merger partner to take on the firm free of its mounting debts and substantial unfunded pension obligations, these people said.
Asked about such a scenario, a spokesman for Dewey said: "The firm does not comment on speculation."
A merger, if it happened, would mark a striking turn for a firm that became one of the largest in New York five years ago with the linkup of two storied firms. Dewey Ballantine, founded in 1909, was for years run by former New York governor and presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae began in 1929 and developed extensive experience in insurance and energy work. With 1,300 attorneys in 12 countries, and projected annual revenue of around $1 billion, the resulting Dewey & LeBoeuf sought to wrestle corporate work away from the elite Wall Street firms that dominate that market.
The firm aggressively recruited star lawyers and their big books of business but was hampered by sagging demand for legal services in the wake of the financial crisis. This year saw a stream of partner departures, rooted in compensation promises made to some lawyers recruited by the firm that cut into money available to pay others.
While a number of large law firms have foundered over the past decade, Dewey & LeBoeuf is the largest to so publicly enter what legal experts have said is a danger zone—when speculation about the firm's future can trigger a partner exodus.
Among potential partners for the merger-and-bankruptcy plan being floated, Dewey has made overtures to New York-based Shearman & Sterling LLP; Greenberg Traurig LLP, which has roots in Miami; and Pittsburgh-based Reed Smith LP, these people said.
A Greenberg Traurig spokeswoman said: "We have a great deal of respect for Dewey LeBoeuf and their quality lawyers. It would be inappropriate for us to comment on market rumors." At Shearman & Sterling, a spokesman said the firm "isn't in discussions with Dewey & LeBoeuf concerning a merger." Reed Smith wasn't immediately available for comment.
The merger idea being discussed is just one among possible outcomes for Dewey. The firm could restructure itself with a leaner footprint, shedding less-profitable practices and lawyers. Partners could also vote to dissolve the firm, something the leadership has said isn't on the table.
For Dewey, one value of the merger-and-bankruptcy plan would be to avoid a liquidation, which is an outcome that would make recovering accounts receivable and yet-unbilled legal time much more difficult, those familiar with the situation said.
Under the plan, the firm would file for bankruptcy, which would freeze most debts owed to trade creditors and employees, as well as payouts to pension holders.
The remainder of the firm—currently estimated at 250 partners and a total of 1,000 lawyers—would then fold into the merger partner. The hope is that enough of the "old Dewey" could be preserved to enable a robust collection of debts from clients, these people said. The acquiring firm would pay little or nothing up front, but would likely be expected to cover ongoing operating costs as the bankruptcy case proceeded.
Law-firm bankruptcies are difficult to manage because creditors typically seek "clawbacks" from partners who leave for new firms and take along clients. In hoping to contain such a problem, Dewey is considering a feature that would in effect give clawback waivers to attorneys who stay with the surviving firm. Should those attorneys work for a number of years, for instance, Dewey might agree to absolve them of any future clawback claims.
The key part for Dewey will be holding on to its most valuable attorneys, so it can maintain itself as an attractive asset for a suitor. This has proved difficult for the firm, which has already lost at least 67 partners amid internal fights over money. The firm has said many who left were asked to go, and said the departures won't hurt the firm's profitability.
By 2010, Dewey ranked 29th out of the nation's top 100 law firms in gross revenue, according to the American Lawyer magazine. The publication had initially ranked the firm at No. 22, with $910 million in revenue. The magazine revised those numbers, along with 2011 figures, downward by about 16% after The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets reported that 2011 earnings were lower than the firm had reported. The firm disputed the changes and has said it stands by its numbers.
To lure noted lawyers when it was pursuing its ambitious growth plan, the firm made promises to dozens of partners of a certain amount of money each year—instead of a certain percentage of profits. Cracks in that strategy began to show earlier this year when profits didn't meet expectations.
Money to meet guarantees came out of pay other partners had been promised, according to ex-partners and a partner still at the firm, who said Dewey has been issuing the equivalent of IOUs to some partners for years. Many partners, including some with lucrative guarantees, had much of their compensation deferred because there wasn't enough money to honor commitments, according to current and former lawyers.
In a memo to partners last month, the firm's leaders said revenue for the first two months of 2012 was up 28%, and billings up 13%, from a year earlier. Dewey has handled some high-profile work this year, advising the Los Angeles Dodgers in its recent sale and representing Dell in its $1.2 billion purchase of device-maker SonicWall.
A low-cost acquisition of Dewey could have an appeal for opportunistic firms. Dewey's lawyers have a reputation for excellence, and a number of law firms are eyeing profitable practices and offices here and abroad.
Dewey has prominent clients and a number of well-respected practices, including bankruptcy and its once-core insurance and energy practices. Recent defections have decimated the insurance group—something firm management has said won't affect profitability.
Among places where Dewey has offices, "Russia's attractive because it offers access to an important emerging market," said Kent Zimmermann, a legal consultant in Chicago. "France is particularly attractive because of the concentration of multinational companies there that spend heavily on outside legal services. The Middle East is a hub for sovereign wealth-related transactions and important for the energy industry."
Usually, when a business is contemplating a prepackaged bankruptcy, this means it has proposed the plan to creditors and they have voted to approve it. Ex-partners have said Dewey owes about $150 million from a 2010 bond offering and also has a $100 million revolving line of credit from a syndicate of banks. It is unclear how much the firm owes on that credit line. Last month, a person familiar with the matter said roughly $33 million had been drawn, though the numbers change periodically.
[WSJ, Friday, 04/20/2012, p. A1]
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Legal Update: U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Lawsuits for Victims of Torture
On Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided by unanimous vote that foreign groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) cannot be sued under the Torture Victim Protection Act (of 1991), a federal law intended to protect Americans who are tortured overseas.
The lawsuit was filed in 2005 by relatives of Mr. Azzam Rahim, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was tortured and killed during a 1995 visit to the West Bank, allegedly by Palestinian security forces.
Another, and more fundamental, issue the Court may be deciding in a couple of years or less will be whether the Alien Tort Claims Act applies to international-law violations that have occurred overseas.
[WSJ, Thursday, 04/19/2012, p. A3]
The lawsuit was filed in 2005 by relatives of Mr. Azzam Rahim, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was tortured and killed during a 1995 visit to the West Bank, allegedly by Palestinian security forces.
Another, and more fundamental, issue the Court may be deciding in a couple of years or less will be whether the Alien Tort Claims Act applies to international-law violations that have occurred overseas.
[WSJ, Thursday, 04/19/2012, p. A3]
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Legal Update: U.S. Supreme Court Rules Former Employee Can Sue Church for Harassment
A former music director at a Maryland church can sue her former church employer for sexual harassment, but not retaliation, rules the U.S. Supreme Court, declining to hear appeals in the case from the Maryland Court of Appeals.
In the Maryland appeals court below, the Maryland Court of Appeals had ruled that sexual harassment is not a matter of church ministry and therefore not barred by the "ministerial exception".
The plaintiff in the case, former church music director Mary Linklater, is now eligible to pursue the $1.35 million judgment she received in her first trial.
[The Daily Record, Tuesday, 4-17-2012]
In the Maryland appeals court below, the Maryland Court of Appeals had ruled that sexual harassment is not a matter of church ministry and therefore not barred by the "ministerial exception".
The plaintiff in the case, former church music director Mary Linklater, is now eligible to pursue the $1.35 million judgment she received in her first trial.
[The Daily Record, Tuesday, 4-17-2012]
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
FBI PROBLEMS WITH FORENSIC EVIDENCE CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM: FBI LAB NOT "CSI"
The FBI Lab is not the "CSI" Lab on television!
For many years serious concerns have been raised about the quality and trustworthiness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) forensic (laboratory) work on criminal case investigations.
Now it has become apparent that Justice Department prosecutors have been aware of the FBI's flawed laboratory (forensic) work, and have failed to inform criminal defendants and their defense attorneys of these flaws and failures.
If there was any doubt before, it has now become clear that the FBI forensic work is not as trustworthy as the fictitious "CSI" forensic work featured on popular television shows and movies.
DOJ officials started reviewing the cases in the 1990s after reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI lab was producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials. Instead of releasing those findings, they made them available only to the prosecutors in the affected cases, according to documents and interviews with dozens of officials.
In addition, the Justice Department reviewed only a limited number of cases and focused on the work of one scientist at the FBI lab, despite warnings that problems were far more widespread and could affect potentially thousands of cases in federal, state and local courts.
As a result, hundreds of defendants Nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects.
In one Texas case, Benjamin Herbert Boyle was executed in 1997, more than a year after the Justice Department began its review. Boyle would not have been eligible for the death penalty without the FBI’s flawed work, according to a prosecutor’s memo.
The case of a Maryland man serving a life sentence for a 1981 double killing is another in which federal and local law enforcement officials knew of forensic problems but never told the defendant. Attorneys for the man, John Norman Huffington, say they learned of potentially exculpatory Justice Department findings from The Washington Post. They are seeking a new trial.
Justice Department officials said that they met their legal and constitutional obligations when they learned of specific errors, that they alerted prosecutors and were not required to inform defendants directly.
The review was performed by a task force created during an inspector general’s investigation of misconduct at the FBI crime lab in the 1990s. The inquiry took nine years, ending in 2004, records show, but the findings were never made public.
[The Washington Post, 4-17-2012, p. A1]
For many years serious concerns have been raised about the quality and trustworthiness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) forensic (laboratory) work on criminal case investigations.
Now it has become apparent that Justice Department prosecutors have been aware of the FBI's flawed laboratory (forensic) work, and have failed to inform criminal defendants and their defense attorneys of these flaws and failures.
If there was any doubt before, it has now become clear that the FBI forensic work is not as trustworthy as the fictitious "CSI" forensic work featured on popular television shows and movies.
DOJ officials started reviewing the cases in the 1990s after reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI lab was producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials. Instead of releasing those findings, they made them available only to the prosecutors in the affected cases, according to documents and interviews with dozens of officials.
In addition, the Justice Department reviewed only a limited number of cases and focused on the work of one scientist at the FBI lab, despite warnings that problems were far more widespread and could affect potentially thousands of cases in federal, state and local courts.
As a result, hundreds of defendants Nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects.
In one Texas case, Benjamin Herbert Boyle was executed in 1997, more than a year after the Justice Department began its review. Boyle would not have been eligible for the death penalty without the FBI’s flawed work, according to a prosecutor’s memo.
The case of a Maryland man serving a life sentence for a 1981 double killing is another in which federal and local law enforcement officials knew of forensic problems but never told the defendant. Attorneys for the man, John Norman Huffington, say they learned of potentially exculpatory Justice Department findings from The Washington Post. They are seeking a new trial.
Justice Department officials said that they met their legal and constitutional obligations when they learned of specific errors, that they alerted prosecutors and were not required to inform defendants directly.
The review was performed by a task force created during an inspector general’s investigation of misconduct at the FBI crime lab in the 1990s. The inquiry took nine years, ending in 2004, records show, but the findings were never made public.
[The Washington Post, 4-17-2012, p. A1]
Monday, April 16, 2012
"Biggest Lawyers Grab Fee Bounty"
The priciest lawyers in the U.S. are getting even more expensive, but those at the opposite end are getting left behind.
Partners in the top 25% of hourly billers boosted their average price to $873 an hour last year, up 4.9% from 2010, according to a report being published Monday.
The country's lowest-billing partners struggled to keep pace with inflation, meanwhile. Partners in the bottom 25% charged an average of $204 last year, up just 1.3%, according to the report by TyMetrix Inc., a legal software and analytics company, and Corporate Executive Board Co., a business research and advisory firm. The study examined billing rates at more than 4,000 firms.
On the whole, lawyers last year pushed through the biggest overall annual rate increase, 5.1%, since the recession, when many firms froze prices or scaled back increases to keep clients happy.
The slow growth at the low end shows that clients who pushed back on legal bills during the economic downturn are continuing to hold the line, especially on routine matters, including bulk contract work or compiling documents for patent claims. And that disparity between who can raise prices—and who can't—spotlights a growing segmentation in the $100 billion corporate legal market.
At the very highest end, alternative fee structures can push effective billing rates to several thousand dollars an hour.
"There are a large number of lawyers today who find themselves in the uncomfortable position of being, for lack of a better phrase, commodity service providers," said Ken Grady, deputy general counsel at footwear company Wolverine World Wide Inc. "You don't see a lot of big rate increases being asked for in those areas, and that's not something they expect to get."
At the top, though, where clients have always been willing to pay top dollar for high-stakes litigation, mergers or other sophisticated legal work, the increase means more lawyers are joining the $1,000-an-hour club.
"The market just sort of gives people permission to jump over that line," said Julie Peck, vice president of strategy and market development at TyMetrix.
Practices commanding such hefty prices include high-end bankruptcy, tax and corporate work, according to Valeo Partners, a consulting firm that maintains a database of legal rates pulled from court filings and other public information.
Lawyers billing $1,000 an hour this year include Ira Dizengoff, a financial restructuring partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Andrew Goldman, vice chairman of the bankruptcy practice at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, according to Valeo's data. So did litigator Peter Calamari of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. Akin Gump, Wilmer Hale and Mr. Calamari declined to comment.
That said, higher rates don't necessarily mean higher profits, which also depend on the volume of work. Firms also don't always collect the full amount that they bill. And some firms are simply making up for ground lost when they kept rates flat in 2009 or 2010.
At the lower end, less-expensive alternatives such as legal outsourcing firms and contract lawyers have made it harder for lawyers to justify rate increases.
"I'm really seeing pretty much everybody across the board, big and small, trying to raise their rates. The small ones are not as successful," said Lewis Steverson, general counsel for Motorola Solutions Inc., MSI -0.41% which makes two-way radios and other communications products for public-safety agencies. "We get more push-back from the big firms."
Rates have always varied widely, even among partners at the firms on the top rungs of the profession. And most lawyers customize their rates depending on the client or the task.
"There is a relatively small pool of people that can offer top-end advice," said Jeffrey Stone, co-chairman of McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
High-billing partners in the 12 law firms with the most revenue as ranked by American Lawyer magazine charge between $250 and $400 an hour more than low-billing partners at the same firm, according to Valeo. For example, the top publicly disclosed rate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP was $1,095, compared with a bottom rate of $790.
Legal experts expect prices to push even higher.
Average hourly billing rates are up 7.1% for partners at the top 12 firms, which include Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP, White & Case LLP and DLA Piper, Valeo says.
"Our rate structure reflects the real costs and competitive environment in each market and practice," said Greenberg Traurig Chief Executive Richard Rosenbaum. "Collaboration allows us to use that structure to deliver both quality and unique value to each client." The other firms either declined to comment or didn't respond to requests for comment.
Before the recession, many law firms relied on annual rate increases of up to 8% to fuel profit growth. The pace of such increases dropped sharply between 2008 and 2009 and has been inching back up since.
For some firms, that is plenty. Barnes & Thornburg LLP, a firm with more than 500 lawyers with roots in Indiana, didn't get resistance from clients when it increased rates last year by 4% to 5%, said Tracy Larsen, co-chairman of the firm's corporate practice.
The average partner rate at his office in Grand Rapids, Mich., is about $446 an hour—respectable, but not eye-popping, and lower than firms of similar size in New York or California.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304818404577346033823556086.html]
Partners in the top 25% of hourly billers boosted their average price to $873 an hour last year, up 4.9% from 2010, according to a report being published Monday.
The country's lowest-billing partners struggled to keep pace with inflation, meanwhile. Partners in the bottom 25% charged an average of $204 last year, up just 1.3%, according to the report by TyMetrix Inc., a legal software and analytics company, and Corporate Executive Board Co., a business research and advisory firm. The study examined billing rates at more than 4,000 firms.
On the whole, lawyers last year pushed through the biggest overall annual rate increase, 5.1%, since the recession, when many firms froze prices or scaled back increases to keep clients happy.
The slow growth at the low end shows that clients who pushed back on legal bills during the economic downturn are continuing to hold the line, especially on routine matters, including bulk contract work or compiling documents for patent claims. And that disparity between who can raise prices—and who can't—spotlights a growing segmentation in the $100 billion corporate legal market.
At the very highest end, alternative fee structures can push effective billing rates to several thousand dollars an hour.
"There are a large number of lawyers today who find themselves in the uncomfortable position of being, for lack of a better phrase, commodity service providers," said Ken Grady, deputy general counsel at footwear company Wolverine World Wide Inc. "You don't see a lot of big rate increases being asked for in those areas, and that's not something they expect to get."
At the top, though, where clients have always been willing to pay top dollar for high-stakes litigation, mergers or other sophisticated legal work, the increase means more lawyers are joining the $1,000-an-hour club.
"The market just sort of gives people permission to jump over that line," said Julie Peck, vice president of strategy and market development at TyMetrix.
Practices commanding such hefty prices include high-end bankruptcy, tax and corporate work, according to Valeo Partners, a consulting firm that maintains a database of legal rates pulled from court filings and other public information.
Lawyers billing $1,000 an hour this year include Ira Dizengoff, a financial restructuring partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Andrew Goldman, vice chairman of the bankruptcy practice at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, according to Valeo's data. So did litigator Peter Calamari of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. Akin Gump, Wilmer Hale and Mr. Calamari declined to comment.
That said, higher rates don't necessarily mean higher profits, which also depend on the volume of work. Firms also don't always collect the full amount that they bill. And some firms are simply making up for ground lost when they kept rates flat in 2009 or 2010.
At the lower end, less-expensive alternatives such as legal outsourcing firms and contract lawyers have made it harder for lawyers to justify rate increases.
"I'm really seeing pretty much everybody across the board, big and small, trying to raise their rates. The small ones are not as successful," said Lewis Steverson, general counsel for Motorola Solutions Inc., MSI -0.41% which makes two-way radios and other communications products for public-safety agencies. "We get more push-back from the big firms."
Rates have always varied widely, even among partners at the firms on the top rungs of the profession. And most lawyers customize their rates depending on the client or the task.
"There is a relatively small pool of people that can offer top-end advice," said Jeffrey Stone, co-chairman of McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
High-billing partners in the 12 law firms with the most revenue as ranked by American Lawyer magazine charge between $250 and $400 an hour more than low-billing partners at the same firm, according to Valeo. For example, the top publicly disclosed rate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP was $1,095, compared with a bottom rate of $790.
Legal experts expect prices to push even higher.
Average hourly billing rates are up 7.1% for partners at the top 12 firms, which include Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP, White & Case LLP and DLA Piper, Valeo says.
"Our rate structure reflects the real costs and competitive environment in each market and practice," said Greenberg Traurig Chief Executive Richard Rosenbaum. "Collaboration allows us to use that structure to deliver both quality and unique value to each client." The other firms either declined to comment or didn't respond to requests for comment.
Before the recession, many law firms relied on annual rate increases of up to 8% to fuel profit growth. The pace of such increases dropped sharply between 2008 and 2009 and has been inching back up since.
For some firms, that is plenty. Barnes & Thornburg LLP, a firm with more than 500 lawyers with roots in Indiana, didn't get resistance from clients when it increased rates last year by 4% to 5%, said Tracy Larsen, co-chairman of the firm's corporate practice.
The average partner rate at his office in Grand Rapids, Mich., is about $446 an hour—respectable, but not eye-popping, and lower than firms of similar size in New York or California.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304818404577346033823556086.html]
Friday, April 13, 2012
U.S. Government Settles With American Indian Tribes for $1 Billion
The Federal government has agreed to pay $1 billion to dozens of Blackfeet, Santee Sioux, and Ute Mountain Ute American Indian tribes to settle charges and natural resources held and/or managed on the tribes' behalf. Some of these natural resources include timber, limestone, oil and gas.
The settlements announced on Wednesday, April 11th, 2012, by the Justice Department and the Interior Department jointly, award the $1 Billion in funds to 41 American Indian tribes. Some of the settled claims date back 100 years and are the result of nearly two years of negotiation with the Obama Administration.
More than 70 American Indian tribes remain in litigation with the U.S. over these issues.
The settlements will be paid from the Federal government's "Judgment Fund", which is the government's special fund used specifically to pay settlements and judgments entered against the U.S. Government.
[WSJ, Thursday, 4/12/2012, p. A3]
The settlements announced on Wednesday, April 11th, 2012, by the Justice Department and the Interior Department jointly, award the $1 Billion in funds to 41 American Indian tribes. Some of the settled claims date back 100 years and are the result of nearly two years of negotiation with the Obama Administration.
More than 70 American Indian tribes remain in litigation with the U.S. over these issues.
The settlements will be paid from the Federal government's "Judgment Fund", which is the government's special fund used specifically to pay settlements and judgments entered against the U.S. Government.
[WSJ, Thursday, 4/12/2012, p. A3]
Legal Update: Antitrust Conspiracy Charges Filed Against Apple and eBook Publishers
On Wednesday, April 11th, 2012, the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, filed a civil antitrust conspiracy lawsuit against Apple Inc. and 5 of the nation's largest publishers, accusing them of conspiring to raise prices in the fast-growing e-book business.
The U.S. government alleges in the civil suit that, among other things, CEOs of the publishing companies met regularly in private dining rooms of upscale Manhattan restaurants to discuss how to respond to steep discounting of their e-books by Amazon.com Inc., a practice they disliked. The executives also called and emailed each other to craft a solution to what one of them called "the wretched $9.99 price point," the suit said.
The five publishers and Apple hatched an arrangement that lifted the price of many best-selling e-books to $12.99 or $14.99, according to the suit. The publishers then banded together to impose that model on Amazon, the government alleged.
"As a result of this alleged conspiracy, we believe that consumers paid millions of dollars more for some of the most popular titles," said Attorney General Eric Holder.
[WSJ, Thursday, 4-14-2012, p. A1]
The U.S. government alleges in the civil suit that, among other things, CEOs of the publishing companies met regularly in private dining rooms of upscale Manhattan restaurants to discuss how to respond to steep discounting of their e-books by Amazon.com Inc., a practice they disliked. The executives also called and emailed each other to craft a solution to what one of them called "the wretched $9.99 price point," the suit said.
The five publishers and Apple hatched an arrangement that lifted the price of many best-selling e-books to $12.99 or $14.99, according to the suit. The publishers then banded together to impose that model on Amazon, the government alleged.
"As a result of this alleged conspiracy, we believe that consumers paid millions of dollars more for some of the most popular titles," said Attorney General Eric Holder.
[WSJ, Thursday, 4-14-2012, p. A1]
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Legal Update: Zimmerman faces murder charges in Martin's shooting.
A special prosecutor said the Florida neighborhood-watch volunteer who killed the unarmed teen would be indicted on a charge of second-degree murder. Zimmerman turned himself in and was in custody, the prosecutor said. His lawyer said he will plead not guilty. Holder pledged a thorough probe to see if U.S. civil-rights charges are warranted.
The case has brought scrutiny to the Stand Your Ground law, which authorities relied on in deciding not to arrest the shooter.
[WSJ, 04/12/2012, page A2]
The case has brought scrutiny to the Stand Your Ground law, which authorities relied on in deciding not to arrest the shooter.
[WSJ, 04/12/2012, page A2]
Monday, April 9, 2012
For Google, All Eyes on 'Costs Per Click'
When Google Inc. reports earnings on Thursday, many pundits might pick right up where they left off one quarter ago: With concerns about prices advertisers are paying to get attention in the Internet giant's dominant search engine.
Google, of Mountain View, Calif., issued a fourth-quarter report in January that largely fell flat on Wall Street, as profit came in well below expectations. During a subsequent conference call, executives were peppered with questions about an 8% decline in prices paid by advertisers during the period every time a user clicked on their ads.
In particular, analysts wanted to know if growing use of Google on mobile devices—where so-called costs per click can be lower—played a role. At one point, Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette half-joked that he would take any question not about costs per click.
But critics are unlikely to let the issue go. A report published last month by Marin Software underlines some reasons for concern. It showed that the percentage of clicks that Google sees on paid-search ads in mobile devices will grow sharply this year—to 25%, though prices paid for those clicks will stay lower than on desktop computers.
Increased demand is a good thing for Google, but it also means the company must make up for declining prices with more volume.
"As you shift from PC to mobile, there're just so many more clicks," said Anthony DiClemente, an analyst covering Google for Barclays. "That has broad ramifications for the pricing and volume of Google's fundamental business."
Search remains far and away Google's core business, despite its forays into areas including social networking and mobile software. As Google is pulled alongside its peers further into mobile devices such as phones and tablets, it must continue to make its economics work for shareholders.
In January, Google executives said there had been a number of reasons for the decline in prices paid for clicks, noting that more clicks on Google ads is a good thing, even if it does lower prices for advertisers.
"More clicking," Mr. Pichette reasoned, is "actually a pretty healthy environment."
Google also is expected to shed some light Thursday on things other than its core search business, such as the Google+ social network that it unveiled last summer. Chief Executive Larry Page already has dropped some related news, writing in an open letter posted on his Google+ page Thursday that the social network now has "well over 100 million users." That compares with 90 million Google+ users disclosed by the CEO when the company posted earnings in January.
In October, the company said it had about 40 million users.
Overall, analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expect Google to report $8.1 billion in net revenue for the first quarter, and adjusted earnings per share of $9.64. That compares to $6.5 billion in net revenue, and $8.08 per share in the same period last year.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577327663334421188.html]
Google, of Mountain View, Calif., issued a fourth-quarter report in January that largely fell flat on Wall Street, as profit came in well below expectations. During a subsequent conference call, executives were peppered with questions about an 8% decline in prices paid by advertisers during the period every time a user clicked on their ads.
In particular, analysts wanted to know if growing use of Google on mobile devices—where so-called costs per click can be lower—played a role. At one point, Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette half-joked that he would take any question not about costs per click.
But critics are unlikely to let the issue go. A report published last month by Marin Software underlines some reasons for concern. It showed that the percentage of clicks that Google sees on paid-search ads in mobile devices will grow sharply this year—to 25%, though prices paid for those clicks will stay lower than on desktop computers.
Increased demand is a good thing for Google, but it also means the company must make up for declining prices with more volume.
"As you shift from PC to mobile, there're just so many more clicks," said Anthony DiClemente, an analyst covering Google for Barclays. "That has broad ramifications for the pricing and volume of Google's fundamental business."
Search remains far and away Google's core business, despite its forays into areas including social networking and mobile software. As Google is pulled alongside its peers further into mobile devices such as phones and tablets, it must continue to make its economics work for shareholders.
In January, Google executives said there had been a number of reasons for the decline in prices paid for clicks, noting that more clicks on Google ads is a good thing, even if it does lower prices for advertisers.
"More clicking," Mr. Pichette reasoned, is "actually a pretty healthy environment."
Google also is expected to shed some light Thursday on things other than its core search business, such as the Google+ social network that it unveiled last summer. Chief Executive Larry Page already has dropped some related news, writing in an open letter posted on his Google+ page Thursday that the social network now has "well over 100 million users." That compares with 90 million Google+ users disclosed by the CEO when the company posted earnings in January.
In October, the company said it had about 40 million users.
Overall, analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expect Google to report $8.1 billion in net revenue for the first quarter, and adjusted earnings per share of $9.64. That compares to $6.5 billion in net revenue, and $8.08 per share in the same period last year.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577327663334421188.html]
Friday, April 6, 2012
IMMIGRATION UPDATE: Alabama Seeks to Change Immigration Law
On Thursday, April 5th, 2012, Alabama state legislators introduced a new bill to amend Alabama's controversial "anti-illegal immigration" law: The law has, since its enactment last year, managed to generate tremendous opposition from Alabama businesses as well as agricultural and civil rights groups.
Under the existing 2010 anti-illegal immigration law, which took effect last September, Alabama police are required to check the legal status of individuals they stop whom they suspect of being in the country illegally. But under the revised bill, police would be required to perform such a check only if the individual receives a traffic citation or is arrested.
The bill also modifies a provision - which was blocked by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals - that calls for public schools to check the immigration status of students.
Under proposed changes, school would no longer face that obligation, and instead, the state Department of Education would have to estimate the fiscal impact of educating illegal immigrants. "Under no circumstance does the Legislature intend to deny anyone the opportunity to receive a free public education," the bill reads.
Among other changes: A requirement people show proof they are lawfully in the country would be limited to those seeking driver's licenses, vehicle tags and business licenses.
[WSJ, Friday, April 6th, 2012]
Under the existing 2010 anti-illegal immigration law, which took effect last September, Alabama police are required to check the legal status of individuals they stop whom they suspect of being in the country illegally. But under the revised bill, police would be required to perform such a check only if the individual receives a traffic citation or is arrested.
The bill also modifies a provision - which was blocked by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals - that calls for public schools to check the immigration status of students.
Under proposed changes, school would no longer face that obligation, and instead, the state Department of Education would have to estimate the fiscal impact of educating illegal immigrants. "Under no circumstance does the Legislature intend to deny anyone the opportunity to receive a free public education," the bill reads.
Among other changes: A requirement people show proof they are lawfully in the country would be limited to those seeking driver's licenses, vehicle tags and business licenses.
[WSJ, Friday, April 6th, 2012]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)