| PAPER CHASE ARCHIVE |   |
| Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective. |  |
|
 |
|
|
 Legal news from Wednesday, October 03, 2007 |
|
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 |
New Turkish president urges amendment of law against insulting 'Turkishness'
Mike Rosen-Molina at 6:15 PM ET
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Pakistan ex-PM Bhutto denies Musharraf promise to drop corruption charges
Mike Rosen-Molina at 4:58 PM ET
[JURIST] Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto [BBC profile] said Wednesday that reported Pakistani promises to drop pending corruption charges [JURIST report] against her amount to "disinformation" and indicated that talks with President Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] on a possible power-sharing agreement have broken down. Pakistani officials said Tuesday they had agreed to drop [JURIST report] charges against Bhutto, a move that would permit her to enter the country for personal talks between her Pakistani People's Party [party website] and Musharraf. Musharraf is seeking Bhutto's endorsement as he faces a controversial re-election October 6.
Musharraf's re-election bid has been widely criticized for violating a constitutional ban on holding dual roles as president and army chief; 85 opposition members of parliament resigned Tuesday in protest. Legal challenges [JURIST report] to Musharraf's candidacy remain, although one Supreme Court judge has already recused himself from the latest proceedings, a development that is expect to delay further hearings. VOA has more. BBC News has additional coverage.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
ACLU appeals domestic wiretap challenge to US Supreme Court
Gabriel Haboubi at 3:57 PM ET
[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed a certiorari petition [PDF text] Wednesday asking the US Supreme Court [official website] to hear a challenge of the government's domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive] that was rejected [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] by the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals [official website] in July. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include attorneys, advocacy groups, scholars, and journalists who said that they could not effectively communicate with sources and clients out of fear that their conversations were being monitored by the National Security Agency [official website]. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the case because none of the plaintiffs could prove that their conversations had been monitored.
In their cert. petition, the ACLU asked [press release] the Supreme Court to determine whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring the lawsuit. In addition, the ACLU questioned the legality of the government's surveillance activities in general. The Supreme Court will decide whether to approve or deny the petition later this year. Reuters has more.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Indonesia high court upholds limits on polygamy
Gabriel Haboubi at 3:23 PM ET
[JURIST] The Constitutional Court of Indonesia [official website] Wednesday upheld marriage laws limiting polygamy [press release, in Indonesian], despite teachings in the predominantly Islamic country's largest religion allowing men to take up to four wives. Under Indonesian law [Emory Law backgrounder], a man can only take a second wife if his first wife gives permission, or if his first wife is disabled or unable to have children. The Indonesian businessman who brought the case argued to the court that these limitations effectively prevented polygamy and that the law violated his religious freedoms.
The court ruled that the marriage laws were enacted to protect the basic rights of wives of polygamous men, and that they did not violate the constitution or the tenets of Islam. Under Islamic teachings, a man can take up to four wives as long as the women are "treated fairly." Reuters has more. AP has additional coverage.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Supreme Court hears NY trial judge selection, money laundering cases
Caitlin Price at 3:04 PM ET
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Wednesday in New York Board of Elections v. Torres [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 06-766, to consider whether the procedure by which the state of New York currently selects its trial judges violates the First Amendment rights of both candidates and voters. State election officials joined both the Democratic and Republican parties to appeal a Second Circuit decision [PDF text; JURIST report] which found the state practice [NY Election Law s. 6-106, PDF] of selecting trial court judicial candidates through nominations at political conventions rather than through primaries to be unconstitutional. The district court in the case ruled that the system resulted in only friends of political powers having their names placed on the ballots. During arguments, Justices Scalia and Souter each expressed doubt that the practice in fact violated the First Amendment. AP has more.
The Court also heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] in United States v. Santos [LII case backgrounder; merit briefs], 06-1005, in which it considered the definition of proceeds, a previously undefined term, in relation to illegal money laundering schemes under 18 USC 1956 [text]. The Seventh Circuit ruled [PDF text] in favor of the defendants accused of money laundering, finding that the government did not present a compelling reason to interpret the definition of proceeds as "mean net income" rather than gross receipts.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Tax exclusion for married couples applies to domestic partners: California court
Gabriel Haboubi at 2:28 PM ET
[JURIST] A California appeals court ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that domestic partners, like married couples, can inherit real estate from one another without an increase in property taxes. The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento [official website] found that the California Legislature and the state Board of Equalization [official websites] were within the bounds of the California Constitution [text] when they made regulatory and legislative changes that added transfers between domestic partners to a list of property transfers exempted from tax increases. Previously, the exemptions only applied when the transfer was between husbands and wives at death or divorce, or transfers to children or grandchildren. The lawsuit was brought by assessors who claimed that the definition of "change of ownership" was a part of the constitution, and that the limited exemptions could not be expanded.
In 2005, California's Third District Court of Appeals upheld [JURIST report] California's domestic partnership law [text]. Last year, the state's First District Court of Appeals upheld [JURIST report] the state's ban on gay marriage [Proposition 22 text]. In June, the California Assembly passed a bill restoring gender neutral language to the state's marriage laws, although it is possible that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [official website] will veto it. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Leahy flags issues of 'concern' in letter to AG nominee Mukasey
Caitlin Price at 1:00 PM ET
[JURIST] US Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official website] listed what he described as topics of "concern" to be addressed in the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings for former federal judge and US Attorney General nominee Michael B. Mukasey [WH factsheet; PBWT profile] in a Tuesday letter [press release and text] to Mukasey. Leahy encouraged Mukasey to directly answer questions which have been avoided by the White House and to commit to restoring political independence to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website]. He also said he would seek Mukasey's opinion on controversial issues including the US Attorney firings scandal [JURIST news archive], the investigation of alleged election crimes, the executive abuse of secrecy and expansion of power, and his willingness to share materials related to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [text; JURIST news archive] investigations. Leahy also inquired into Mukasey's close relationship with presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani [official profile] and whether he would recuse himself from matters related to Giuliani. Leahy and Mukasey are scheduled to meet next week, with confirmation hearings to begin later this month. Mukasey submitted a traditional nominees' questionnaire [PDF text] to the Judiciary committee late Tuesday. CNN has more.
Last month Mukasey told Leahy in a private meeting [JURIST report] that as attorney general he would forbid DOJ employees from discussing sensitive cases with outside agencies, the White House or Congress without his authorization. Leahy said at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting that he was pleased with Mukasey's "attitude," retreating from earlier statements that he would hold up Mukasey's nomination until the Bush administration hands over key information about its domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive]. President George W. Bush formally nominated [JURIST report] Mukasey to replace former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [JURIST news archive] September 17. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have generally reacted favorably [JURIST report] to the nomination, expressing tentative bipartisan support for a quick confirmation process.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Wal-Mart ordered to pay additional $62M in Pennsylvania class action
Brett Murphy at 12:47 PM ET
[JURIST] The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas [official website] ruled in favor of a class of Pennsylvania Wal-mart workers on Wednesday, awarding the employees an additional $62.3 million under a state law which demands that pay not be withheld for over 30 days. Last year, the class won a $78.47 million verdict [JURIST report] against Wal-mart [corporate website; JURIST news archive] that awarded damages for work during rest breaks and off-the-clock labor. In holding for the plaintiffs, the judge said Wednesday that the fringe benefits and wage supplements of all employees, whether top executives or hourly workers, are protected under the law.
Observers have suggested that Wal-Mart may have to reconsider its defense strategy in similar future actions in the wake of this judgment as well as a 2005 $172 million damage award against the company [Jenner & Block client advisory, PDF] in a California employment suit. Other similar class actions have arisen in Minnesota, New Jersey, and other states. Wal-Mart's current strategy is to deny that it engages in the alleged wrongful practice. AP has more.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Chinese lawyer alleges abuse for representing clients against government
Brett Murphy at 11:37 AM ET
[JURIST] Chinese lawyer Li Heping was captured and abused by unknown assailants for representing clients lodging complaints against the government of China [JURIST news archive], Li told AP Wednesday. Li said he was abducted by a group of men, forced into a car, and beaten with batons for hours in the basement of an unknown building. His attackers allegedly told him that he was "making trouble in Beijing" by representing clients against the government.
Rights groups have recently slammed China [JURIST report] for not keeping its promises to improve human rights and press freedom in preparation for the 2008 Olympics [official website]. Last week, Chinese lawyer and outspoken critic of the Chinese government Gao Zhisheng [JURIST news archive] was again arrested [JURIST report], this time for writing a letter to the US Congress asking the US to help the human rights situation in his home country. In August, Reporters Without Borders [advocacy website] demonstrated in Beijing in protest of the continued detention of nearly 100 journalists and activists. AP has more.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Guantanamo review tribunal refuses to reconsider Khadr ruling
Brett Murphy at 11:14 AM ET
[JURIST] The US Court of Military Commission Review [DOD materials] has denied a motion by Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr [JURIST news archive] to reconsider its decision to send Khadr's case back to a military tribunal. The appeals court ruled [PDF text; JURIST report] last month that charges against Khadr should be reinstated, after a military commission judge dropped the charges [JURIST report] in June. Col. Peter Brownback reasoned that the court had no jurisdiction because a Guantanamo Combatant Status Review Tribunal [DOD materials] had found that Khadr was an "enemy combatant," but not an "unlawful enemy combatant" under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [PDF text]. The appeals court overturned Brownback's decision and directed him to hear evidence concerning, and ultimately decide, Khadr's "unlawful enemy combatant" status. Khadr's lawyers asked the Court of Military Commission Review to reconsider its decision [JURIST report], but the court refused Tuesday.
Khadr was detained in Afghanistan in 2002 after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed one US soldier and wounded another while fighting with the Taliban. He was only 15 at the time. After earlier proceedings against him were effectively quashed by the US Supreme Court's rejection of presidentially-established military commissions as unconstitutional, he was formally recharged [charge sheet, PDF; JURIST report] in April under the new Military Commissions Act with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism, as well as spying. AFP has more.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Settlement reached in Sept. 11 negligence lawsuit
Brett Murphy at 10:59 AM ET
[JURIST] Five families whose relatives died in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks [JURIST news archive] have reached a settlement agreement with American Airlines, Boeing, and a passenger screening company in the families' negligence lawsuit, lawyers said Tuesday. The families decided to bring an individual action against the companies instead of accepting money from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund [official website]. The settlement must still be approved by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who is presiding over Sept. 11 litigation [NYSD materials].
A total of 95 plaintiffs have refused the settlements offered by the federal compensation fund, which distributed over $7 billion in public funds to families and victims injured in the attacks in exchange for the victims to forfeit their right to bring claims in court. AP has more.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
UN council criticizes Myanmar rights abuses
Brett Murphy at 10:19 AM ET
[JURIST] The UN Human Rights Council [official website] passed a motion Tuesday criticizing Myanmar for its recent crackdown on peaceful protests in the country. The motion came on the same day that Myanmar arrested at least eight truckloads of people [Reuters report] in Rangooon during a middle of the night roundup. The UN rights council motion calls for the immediate release of such prisoners, as well as all others arrested for their involvement in peaceful protests. According to the Council's statement [text]:The Council also urged the Government of Myanmar to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, to end impunity and to investigate and bring to justice perpetrators of human rights violations. It urged the Government to release without delay those arrested and detained as a result of the recent repression of peaceful protests, as well as to release all political detainees in Myanmar, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The Council further urged Myanmar to engage urgently in a national dialogue with all parties with a view to achieving genuine national reconciliation, democratization and the establishment of the rule of law. Japan has also condemned Myanmar's actions, with Tokyo police officials saying Wednesday that Japan will attempt to prosecute Myanmar troops [ABC Australia report] for the killing of a Japanese journalist during protests in September.
A UN special envoy to Myanmar met with opposition leader and democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi [JURIST news archive] and with top Myanmar military leader Senior General Than Shwe [BBC profile] during separate meetings Tuesday to discuss the rising political crisis in Myanmar. The Myanmar government began a crackdown against protesters [JURIST report] last week, arresting hundreds of Buddhist monks demonstrating against human rights abuses by the military government. Government authorities have also raided several Buddhist monasteries, detaining monks [JURIST report] the junta believed to be leading the demonstrations. At least 10 people have been killed by government soldiers shooting into crowds; protests subsided over the weekend as troops effectively locked down Myanmar's major cities. While the junta government reports only 10 deaths, dissident groups claim that 200 people have been executed and 6,000 detained. Recent reports by the UK Daily Mail indicate that the executions of protesters in fact number in the thousands [CBC report], and that security forces have been ordered to carry out the massacre of monks in Myanmar. AFP has more. The UN News Service has additional coverage.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
US civilian defense contractors on trial for Abu Ghraib abuses
Brett Murphy at 9:57 AM ET
[JURIST] Two American military contractors go on trial Wednesday for their alleged involvement in the torture of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison [JURIST news archive]. The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights brought a racketeering lawsuit [JURIST report; CCR materials] in 2004 against two civilian defense contractors, Titan and CACI International [corporate websites], accusing the companies of conspiring to torture, rape and kill Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Titan provided translators to the US Army and CACI provided interrogators. Both companies are expected to file a motion to dismiss at the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, arguing that there is no jurisdiction. AFP has more.
Photographs [JURIST report] of US interrogators abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib surfaced in April 2004 and substantiated allegations of abuse at the facility. The scandal damaged the US Army's and government's reputations across the world, especially in the Middle East. On Monday, Former US Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick [BBC profile] was released on parole [JURIST report] from a military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he was incarcerated for three years after pleading guilty [JURIST report] to abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Frederick, who admitted to punching and stomping on detainees as well as forcing them to masturbate in photographs and threatening electrocution, claims the Army hierarchy created an environment of abuse and, in some cases, ordered the specific tactics used. Former Abu Ghraib commander Janis Karpinski has alleged [JURIST report] that former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [official profile] personally ordered "making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... [and] playing music at full volume" at Abu Ghraib. The White House has denied [JURIST report] that President Bush had knowledge of the abuse before the publication of the photographs, despite allegations to the contrary by retired US Army Major General Antonio Taguba [NPR profile], who investigated [report, PDF] the abuse in 2004.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
Texas appeals court halts lethal injection execution
Brett Murphy at 9:30 AM ET
[JURIST] The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has stayed the lethal injection execution of an inmate who was scheduled to be put to death Wednesday, giving state officials 30 days to answer questions about whether lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The US Supreme Court last week stayed the execution [JURIST report] of another Texas inmate, days after Texas executed a convicted murder despite the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Baze v. Rees (07-5439) [docket; cert. petition], a case reviewing whether lethal injection in unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The Texas court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that the execution of Heliberto Chi [TDCJ materials; docket information] should be put on hold, and a lawyer with the Texas Defender Service said that it is unlikely that any executions will occur in Texas until the Court of Criminal Appeals makes a final ruling on the issue. An additional four executions are currently scheduled to take place in the next several months.
Texas, like many other states, uses a controversial three-drug mixture [DPIC backgrounder] of an anesthetic, a muscle paralyzer and a substance to stop the heart. The Kentucky Supreme Court [official website] ruled in the Baze case that the state's current method of lethal injection, the same method Texas uses, does not violate the constitution [JURIST report] because the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment "does not require a complete absence of pain." Several constitutional challenges [JURIST news archive] to the procedure have arisen across the country, arguing that the first drug fails to make the inmate fully unconscious, thereby making the inmate suffer excruciating pain when the heart-stopping drug is injected. The New York Times has more. The Houston Chronicle has local coverage.
Link |
e-mail report | suggest story |
how to subscribe |
JURIST news archive | © JURIST
| For a one-stop snapshot of the latest legal news that matters, with breaking documents, new legal videos, live law-related webcasts, commentary by expert law professors and more - all updated through the day in real time, with no ads and no registration barriers - visit JURIST's homepage and check back often... |
|
|
|
Comment: 
