Troy Davis sits on Death Row in Georgia, and he may well be executed by the State of Georgia ... which to someone like me, sitting here in Texas, isn't that big of a news event. Sorry, but you know what I mean. I'm in TEXAS.
Except here's the thing: Troy Davis may well be innocent, and he's asking for a new trial -- with the U.S. Supreme Court putting off a decision on granting writ until next fall.
7/08/2009
7/06/2009
Judge Samuel Kent Resigned Again
Well, when the Senate guys showed up to serve a summons on Judge Samuel Kent, there in prison, he had something for them, too. A short little note that said he resigned effective the end of June.
Nixed that prior resignation letter where he resigned in 2010.
So, now I'm wondering two things: will Congress blow off the impeachment proceedings since he's quit? Will they do something else - just because some are pretty angry at Judge Kent's "strategies", much less the actual bad acts he's admitted to as part of his plea bargain?
Nixed that prior resignation letter where he resigned in 2010.
So, now I'm wondering two things: will Congress blow off the impeachment proceedings since he's quit? Will they do something else - just because some are pretty angry at Judge Kent's "strategies", much less the actual bad acts he's admitted to as part of his plea bargain?
7/05/2009
Sarah Palin Suit Against the Media for Defamation: WOW
Wow. Sarah Palin's attorneys have put several news organizations (and at least one blogger) on notice that a suit for defamation might be forthcoming if things continue on certain stories regarding the "real" reasons that Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska.
Here's a copy of the lawyer letter if you want to read it.
Now, I find this fascinating. Because, if it's correct -- as the Lt. Gov. has said -- that Gov. Palin has resigned because spending $2,000,000 of Alaskan tax dollars and $500,000 of her family's own cash in defending against ethics challenges (which have proven to be meritless) was the line in the sand ... well.
If I were her attorney, I could see advising her that one of her options would be to sue for defamation, to get some of that money back. If you're defamed, there's legal recourse for the damages you have sustained.
It Wouldn't Cost That Much
Just think of it. IF Palin sues all these media outlets, most of the discovery has already been done because of the investigations that have already transpired, and she's got their published words to use in her prima facie case.
The defamation suit, at this juncture, wouldn't cost her that much. And, if I'm reading things right today, they may already have proven most everything up. Fascinating.
Sarah Palin quitting her government spot and now suing as a private citizen for defamation? Wow. As a lawyer, I think I love this idea. This is brilliant.
Wondering About the Defenses if Truth's Not Among Them
Wondering about defenses now. Are there immunities when you're reporting about a government official? Where do those immunities, if any, stand once the resignation has been given? And, are there really immunities if it is true that you are printing info that you know, or should know thru due diligence to be untrue, even if a government official is involved? Does falsehood get a free pass here? Hmmmmm.
Would the State of Alaska Have A Suit for Damages Too?
And, hey: could the State of Alaska find a cause of action here, too? Get some of that $2 million back as damages? Have to ponder that one. Cuz I bet if I were an Alaskan, and I just heard that $2 million tally, I'd sure be happy to have some of that money put back in the coffers. Especially in this economy.
Very, very interesting.
Here's a copy of the lawyer letter if you want to read it.
Now, I find this fascinating. Because, if it's correct -- as the Lt. Gov. has said -- that Gov. Palin has resigned because spending $2,000,000 of Alaskan tax dollars and $500,000 of her family's own cash in defending against ethics challenges (which have proven to be meritless) was the line in the sand ... well.
If I were her attorney, I could see advising her that one of her options would be to sue for defamation, to get some of that money back. If you're defamed, there's legal recourse for the damages you have sustained.
It Wouldn't Cost That Much
Just think of it. IF Palin sues all these media outlets, most of the discovery has already been done because of the investigations that have already transpired, and she's got their published words to use in her prima facie case.
The defamation suit, at this juncture, wouldn't cost her that much. And, if I'm reading things right today, they may already have proven most everything up. Fascinating.
Sarah Palin quitting her government spot and now suing as a private citizen for defamation? Wow. As a lawyer, I think I love this idea. This is brilliant.
Wondering About the Defenses if Truth's Not Among Them
Wondering about defenses now. Are there immunities when you're reporting about a government official? Where do those immunities, if any, stand once the resignation has been given? And, are there really immunities if it is true that you are printing info that you know, or should know thru due diligence to be untrue, even if a government official is involved? Does falsehood get a free pass here? Hmmmmm.
Would the State of Alaska Have A Suit for Damages Too?
And, hey: could the State of Alaska find a cause of action here, too? Get some of that $2 million back as damages? Have to ponder that one. Cuz I bet if I were an Alaskan, and I just heard that $2 million tally, I'd sure be happy to have some of that money put back in the coffers. Especially in this economy.
Very, very interesting.
6/28/2009
Michael Jackson's Death - What About the Life Insurance Policies?
There's more and more chatter online and off regarding Michael Jackson and his surprising and untimely death. Talk about his huge amount of debt, talk about what's been done to protect the children's inheritance, talk about his drug use, and talk about the leeches that hung around him.
I've read about the London tour involving 50 gigs, when Michael Jackson was originally told there would be only 10. I've read about his nixing an offer to be paid over $2 million to entertain at the party of some Russian rich guy.
But, as a lawyer, here's what I know and I'm not hearing a thing on this issue: life insurance policies exist outside the Estate of Michael Jackson; they are contracts that pay directly to the beneficiary of the policy.
Why aren't we hearing about life insurance policies in all this talk?
I find it very, very curious that we're not hearing anything about these policies and I'm betting that there are several out there. I'm betting SONY had one on him. I'm betting the London promoters had one. I'm HOPING there is one or more in place for his children.
If MJ was too frail or ill to perform in London, then it's scary to think that life insurance might have made him more valuable dead than alive.
And, I'm also wondering that if the nasty rumors are true, that MJ was so ill and so frail that he could not have performed in London, then what impact those life insurance policies have upon a motive in his death. If there are significant policies out there, MJ may have been worth more death than alive and someone should be investigating this concern.
Complications: suicide (and there's been talk of that) would exempt the payout by the life insurance carrier -- unless enough time had passed since the policies had been created (for example, a policy may pay provide benefits on a suicide if the policy has been in effect for over 2 years at the time of death). And, if the insurance carrier found that the beneficiary contributed the death, then they would not pay out benefits.
Where are the insurance carriers' teams of investigators?
So, why aren't we hearing about this life insurance policies? And, why aren't we hearing about the investigators for the insurance companies being involved in the current investigation? Are they being that subtle, or are there no policies?
I've read about the London tour involving 50 gigs, when Michael Jackson was originally told there would be only 10. I've read about his nixing an offer to be paid over $2 million to entertain at the party of some Russian rich guy.
But, as a lawyer, here's what I know and I'm not hearing a thing on this issue: life insurance policies exist outside the Estate of Michael Jackson; they are contracts that pay directly to the beneficiary of the policy.
Why aren't we hearing about life insurance policies in all this talk?
I find it very, very curious that we're not hearing anything about these policies and I'm betting that there are several out there. I'm betting SONY had one on him. I'm betting the London promoters had one. I'm HOPING there is one or more in place for his children.
If MJ was too frail or ill to perform in London, then it's scary to think that life insurance might have made him more valuable dead than alive.
And, I'm also wondering that if the nasty rumors are true, that MJ was so ill and so frail that he could not have performed in London, then what impact those life insurance policies have upon a motive in his death. If there are significant policies out there, MJ may have been worth more death than alive and someone should be investigating this concern.
Complications: suicide (and there's been talk of that) would exempt the payout by the life insurance carrier -- unless enough time had passed since the policies had been created (for example, a policy may pay provide benefits on a suicide if the policy has been in effect for over 2 years at the time of death). And, if the insurance carrier found that the beneficiary contributed the death, then they would not pay out benefits.
Where are the insurance carriers' teams of investigators?
So, why aren't we hearing about this life insurance policies? And, why aren't we hearing about the investigators for the insurance companies being involved in the current investigation? Are they being that subtle, or are there no policies?
5/28/2009
Fifth Circuit Approves Judge Kent's Impeachment and Denies His Disability Claim
Wow. Okay.
First, the backstory. Judge Kent's going to jail for 33 months for sexual assault.
Galveston Federal District Judge Samuel Kent becomes the first federal judge in US History to be formally accused of sex crimes, and he ends up taking a plea on obstruction of justice charges on the eve of trial last February.
Sentencing was this month, and Kent got 33 months in prison for his sexual assaults on two former courthouse employees, and he must turn himself in to the authorities on or before June 15th.
That was bad enough. Then came his claims of disability.
After first denying any wrongdoing, and looking forward to his day in court, only to cop a plea, Judge Kent (through his attorney, Dick DeGuerin) next argued that he suffers from a mental health disability that justified his continued receipt of his judicial salary (as well as other benefits) -- a monthly amount I've seen ranging between $160,000 and $180,000 in various newstories. (I haven't taken the time to go research this myself, but his salary and benefits are public record.)
(Why this disability argument? Because Judge Kent isn't even 60 yet, and he's too young under the law to flat out retire and get benefits. If he doesn't qualify for a disability, he gets squat.)
Back at the ranch .... The first argument that I heard was that the disability had something to do with anxiety or depression. I wondered about that, thinking that most anyone in Judge Kent's position would be anxious and depressed ... but did this count as sufficient disability to merit the benefits?
Guess others were wondering this, too, because I then heard about a second argument. Judge Kent suffered from bipolar disorder, and this would be the basis of his request for disability benefits.
Well, now. That's interesting. It was also interesting to me how there was not any discussion of any bipolar disorder during the coverage regarding the sexually sordid allegations and subsequent charges against Judge Kent prior to the taking of the plea.
An Undiagnosed Bipolar Federal Judge on the Bench? What are the ramifications?
And, what would be the impact of a federal judge rendering substantive decisions from the bench, while suffering from an untreated bipolar condition? Wow. I could almost hear the wheels of appellate attorneys spinning ....
Fifth Circuit's Chief Justice Edith Jones Makes the Call
Well, now there seems to be an end to this road. The road has been cleared for Judge Kent's impeachment and the Fifth Circuit has shut the door on this disability business.
The answer is no. No disability benefits for Judge Samuel Kent.
Here's Chief Justice Edith Jones' letter to Defense Counsel Dick DeGuerin, where the disability benefits are formally denied.
Here's the Judicial Council for the Fifth Circuit's actual decision regarding the impeachment, signed by Chief Justice Edith Jones, if you would like to read it.
For more details, read the National Law Journal coverage of today's events by Tony Mauro.
First, the backstory. Judge Kent's going to jail for 33 months for sexual assault.
Galveston Federal District Judge Samuel Kent becomes the first federal judge in US History to be formally accused of sex crimes, and he ends up taking a plea on obstruction of justice charges on the eve of trial last February.
Sentencing was this month, and Kent got 33 months in prison for his sexual assaults on two former courthouse employees, and he must turn himself in to the authorities on or before June 15th.
That was bad enough. Then came his claims of disability.
After first denying any wrongdoing, and looking forward to his day in court, only to cop a plea, Judge Kent (through his attorney, Dick DeGuerin) next argued that he suffers from a mental health disability that justified his continued receipt of his judicial salary (as well as other benefits) -- a monthly amount I've seen ranging between $160,000 and $180,000 in various newstories. (I haven't taken the time to go research this myself, but his salary and benefits are public record.)
(Why this disability argument? Because Judge Kent isn't even 60 yet, and he's too young under the law to flat out retire and get benefits. If he doesn't qualify for a disability, he gets squat.)
Back at the ranch .... The first argument that I heard was that the disability had something to do with anxiety or depression. I wondered about that, thinking that most anyone in Judge Kent's position would be anxious and depressed ... but did this count as sufficient disability to merit the benefits?
Guess others were wondering this, too, because I then heard about a second argument. Judge Kent suffered from bipolar disorder, and this would be the basis of his request for disability benefits.
Well, now. That's interesting. It was also interesting to me how there was not any discussion of any bipolar disorder during the coverage regarding the sexually sordid allegations and subsequent charges against Judge Kent prior to the taking of the plea.
An Undiagnosed Bipolar Federal Judge on the Bench? What are the ramifications?
And, what would be the impact of a federal judge rendering substantive decisions from the bench, while suffering from an untreated bipolar condition? Wow. I could almost hear the wheels of appellate attorneys spinning ....
Fifth Circuit's Chief Justice Edith Jones Makes the Call
Well, now there seems to be an end to this road. The road has been cleared for Judge Kent's impeachment and the Fifth Circuit has shut the door on this disability business.
The answer is no. No disability benefits for Judge Samuel Kent.
Here's Chief Justice Edith Jones' letter to Defense Counsel Dick DeGuerin, where the disability benefits are formally denied.
Here's the Judicial Council for the Fifth Circuit's actual decision regarding the impeachment, signed by Chief Justice Edith Jones, if you would like to read it.
For more details, read the National Law Journal coverage of today's events by Tony Mauro.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)