The LAW & LAWYERS Blog

President-elect Barack Obama’s advisers are creating a proposal to ship dozens (maybe hundreds) of Guantanamo-Bay prisoners to the United States to face criminal trials.

Obama has opposed the imprisonment of the terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, calling it a “sad chapter in American history”. He made a campaign promise to close the prison and said that the United States is generally equipped to handle the legal proceedings; however, he has offered few details on what he planned to do.

Under the proposed plans, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted through the U.S. criminal court system.

The detainees who have cases that are entangled in classified information may see their cases before a new court designed to handle sensitive cases involving national security.

These plans were disclosed to the Associated Press in anonymity because the plans aren’t final. Stay tuned to Total Lawyers for information as it develops.

Related Article: The Election and the Supreme Court

On election day in California, voters were asked to decided whether same-sex marriages should remain legit. The results are in and 52 percent of them voted that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Opponents filed a legal challenge today with California’s Supreme Court to keep the ban from taking effect. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Equality California and consisted of six same-sex couples who didn’t marry before the election but want to marry.

Lawyers for same sex-couples said they’ll argue that the anti-gay-marriage law was an illegal revision to the constitution, saying that it doesn’t provide for equal protection guarantee.

Elizabeth Gill, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, told reporters that “A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions to the Constitution.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Do you believe you’ve been wronged? If you’re thinking about filing a lawsuit, consider talking to a lawyer today. Total Lawyers has a wide network of lawyers ready to listen to you.

The people have spoken. Here’s some of the latest state law updates:

• California voters have decided to ban same-sex marriage with 52 percent voting to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. The CA State Attorney said those who have already been married in the state will retain their validity; however, legal challenges are possible. They join 27 other states that have already banned same-sex marriage.

• Florida and Arizona voters also voted to ban same-sex marriage, with 62 percent and 56 percent voting to limit marriage to heterosexuals.

• Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

• South Dakota and Colorado voters rejected curtailing abortion rights.

• Michigan constituents voted to allow the use of medical marijuana.

• Nebraska voted to end race and gender-based affirmative action.

Total Lawyers stays ontop of the law. If you have questions regarding the law, or if you are considering filing a lawsuit, talk to one of our sponsored lawyers today. Check out TotalLawyers.com for more information.

On Friday, a Philadelphia federal judge threw out a complaint that was filed by a lawyer claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) wasn’t a legal U.S. citizen. the lawyer was aiming to get Obama taken off the Nov. 4 ballot.

Phillip J. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and was actually a citizen of Indonesia and was therefore ineligible to be the president of the United States.

On Sept. 24, Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) asked the judge to dismiss his complaint, calling his allegations “ridiculous” and “patently false”. They further said the Berg had “no standing” to challenge the qualifications of any presidential candidate because he didn’t show the requisit harm to himself.

Berg had earlier requested a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22, which was denied by the same judge; however, the judge didn’t rule on the merits of this lawsuit until last week.

On Friday the judge agreed with Obama and the DNC. In a 34-page document, the judge wrote that Berg’s accusations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to award standing to any voter.

The judge further said the Berg’s claim and tactics were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion”.

Berg had argued that Obama’s Democratic nomination kept people from voting for Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), for whom Berg had backed in the primary elections.

The judge said Berg’s arguments “ventured into the unreasonable”.

The FACTS

Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. He is a U.S. citizen.

In an effort to squash the rumors, the campaign posted a documents issued by the state of Hawaii on its Web site to confirm his birth on American soil.

Berg alleged that the document was a forgery.

The nonpartisan Web site, FactCheck.org examined the original documents and ruled it legitimate.

In addition, a Aug. 13, 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama’s birth there on Aug. 4.

Additional Resources:

–The Presidential Candidates on the Economy

–Obama Talks about Credit Card Debt and Bankruptcy

–Presidential Candidates on the Housing Crisis

–2008 Presidential Election: A Look at the Foreclosure Crisis, Taxes & Retirement

Last week President Bush signed into law a bill that allows new offices in the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI to investigate unsolved racially motivated killings, such as the unsolved case of Emmett Till, for which the act was named.

The Emmett Till Act will target cases related to murders that occurred before 1970 and has suspects that are still alive. So far, there are already 26 cases “in various stages of investigation” according to Alvin Sykes, a self-educated victims’ rights advocate who helped push the bill with U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Atlanta).

Other Total Lawyers Articles:

• Lack of Privacy Could Hurt An Inmate’s Case

• Appeals Panel Saves American Girl From Deportation

A divided Washington State Supreme Court ruled that victims of domestic violence will have certain job protections if they’re forced to take time off work to look after themselves or their families.

The case at hand involved a federal lawsuit filed by a woman against her employer. She alleged that in 2003, her company demoted her after she returned from taking two weeks off to deal with issues relating to domestic violence.

She said she was forced to take the time off because her then-husband beat her and her child so badly that the child had to be hospitalized and she had to attend court proceedings and move her family into a protective shelter.

Her personal injury lawyer said she was later fired because she protested her demotion. The company said they fired her for falsifying her timecard.

The Supreme Court justices ruled that “the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government have repeatedly declared that it is the public policy of this state to prevent domestic violence by encouraging … victims to escape violent situations, protect children from abuse, report domestic violence to law enforcement, and assist efforts to hold their abusers accountable.”

Last year when the case was pending, the state passed a law that provides “reasonable leave” for domestic violence victims (and victims of sexual assault and stalking) so they can seek medical treatment, social services, shelter and help from the police.

Baltimore defendants and criminal defense lawyers are opting for their day in court—even in minor cases, according to a recent Baltimore Sun article.

As a result of swamped courts, prosecutors are often left to offer more lenient plea deals or dismiss the case altogether.

Criminal defense lawyers are also requesting jury trials because they know that the idea of repeated court appearances sometimes deter witnesses from showing up and, as a result, their defendant’s case gets dismissed.

For a related article, check out Old Law Prevents Rapists from Prosecution.

Yesterday a federal judge ordered the Bush administration to release 17 Guantánamo Bay detainees.

“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention,” Judge Ricardo M. Urbina said.

The men, who are members of the Uighur Muslim minority in western China, have been imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay since 2002.

The ruling came after 7 years of legal disputes over the Bush administration’s detention policies and is the first of its kind.

Urbina said the men had never fought against the United States and were not a security threat, rejecting the Bush administrations claims that he lacked power to order the men free to the United States. The government made numerous requests that he stay his order to allow an immediate appeal.

The judge ordered the men to come to the courtroom and told them he would release them in the care of supporters in the United States. This comes to a relief for the 17 men, because their lawyers argued that they would be persecuted or killed if they were ordered to return to China.

The Bush administration finally gave up in trying to prove that the 17 men were enemy combatants (which is the classification it uses to detain people at the prison where 255 other people are being held), but has vigorously fought to keep them from being released in the United States. They argue that they’re a national security threat because the men allegedly received weapon training in suspected Taliban-controlled regions at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America.

The administration is planning to file an emergency application for a stay through the federal appeals court. The White House press secretary said, “if allowed to stand, [this ruling] could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country.”

The Bush administration has exhaustingly argued that the executive branch of government has the power to continue its detention policies because it’s a time of war.

Federal courts all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court have questioned the Bush administration’s authority claims and, in several cases like this one, have rejected their allegations of supremacy.

Related Articles:

• Mexican Children Denied Human Dignity
• Court Throws Out Federal Law Allowing Government to Commit Sex Offenders Upon Release From Prison

A notorious 81-year-old lawyer who went to jail for blinding his lover with lye has found himself in hot water again—and he took another fellow criminal defense lawyer down with him.

The lawyer, who was disbarred after the felony conviction, has been using a Queens, NY criminal defense lawyer as a “front man” so he could continue to practice law.

The criminal defense attorney was subsequently disbarred for his actions, as the state appeals court ruled that “[The aiding defense lawyer] afforded so little regard to his law license as to allow a disbarred felon to use his name freely on court papers and to advertise himself as his paralegal.”

Related Total Lawyers articles:
• The 6th Amendment, a Miami Lawyer & A Columbian Drug Lord
• Judge Allows Police Raid Of Defense Attorney’s Office

In a small Mississippi town, a prosecuting attorney called his witness, an elderly woman, to the stand to examine her, according to a blog post. Here’s a transcription of their conversation:

Prosecutor: “Mrs. Jones, do you know me?”

Grandma Jones: “Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I’ve known you since you were a little boy, and frankly, you’ve been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you’re a big shot when you haven’t the brains to realize you’ll never amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you.”

Stunned prosecutor, fumbling, pointed to the defense lawyer and said: “Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?”

Grandma Jones: “Why yes, I do. I’ve known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster too. He’s lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can’t build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him.”

Judge then asked both lawyers to approach the bench and said: “If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I’ll send you both to the electric chair.”

Other interesting law articles from Total Lawyers:

• Judge Allows Police Raid of Defense Attorney’s Office
• Court Rules In Gay Discrimination Case