The Supreme Court Justices of the United States are John G. Roberts (Chief Justice), John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor. UPI/Gary Fabiano/PoolUPI/Gary Fabiano/Pool

The high court in a 7-2 judgment reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered “sexually dangerous.”

“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.

Five federal prisoners had brought the case. Lead challenger Graydon Comstock was six days before he was to finish a sentence in November 2006 for possession of child pornography when he was certified by the attorney general as “sexually dangerous.” Since then Comstock has been confined at a federal prison in North Carolina

President George W. Bush in 2006 signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.

The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered “sexually dangerous.”

Stephen Breyer

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress’ ability to control the release of dangerous prisoners stems from its broad power under the Constitution to enact laws governing prisons. He added that Congress has long been involved in mental health care for federal prisoners, including their civil commitment.

Most broadly, the court said the power to confine inmates whose sentences have ended arises from Congress’ authority in the Constitution to make laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its powers.

Breyer noted that the law has been applied to only a small fraction of prisoners. He referred to a statement by Solicitor General Elena Kagan at January oral arguments that 105 individuals have been subject to the law, out of more than 188,000 federal inmates.

Elena Kagan

Kagan had argued that the federal government was trying to fill a gap left by the states. “The federal government has mentally ill, seriously dangerous persons in its custody,” Kagan had argued. “It knows that those persons, if released, will commit serious sexual offenses, and it knows too that states are not often in a position to deal with those dangers.”

Kagan was appealing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, that said Congress had overstepped its power in the 2006 law authorizing civil commitment of certain prisoners.

But “we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact” this law, Breyer said.

Dissenting Monday were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Clarence Thomas

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying Congress can only pass laws that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution “expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power,” Thomas said.

Thomas was joined in part on his dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Chief Justice John Roberts last year granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice’s order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration’s appeal.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.

State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.

Initially, the law firm contemplated filing a possible Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the Transocean Deepwater Horizon explosion that took place on April 20, 2010. A TRO is filed for many reasons – one of which would be to preserve evidence or not to cause spoliation of evidence…

Since an ongoing investigation of great magnitude is already being conducted by The Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service on possible causes of the explosion, the law firm of Gordon, Elias & Seely, LLP, state that it is foolish to either stop or interfere in this ongoing investigation and filing a TRO would only be done for sensationalism.

Men suffered great fear and mental anguish

So far, based upon the investigation of Gordon, Elias & Seely, LLP, they have determined that there were a series of explosions prior to the main explosion. This means that the people that may have died in the main explosion suffered great, great fear and mental anguish. This further means that the families of these great workers that gave their lives to Transocean have a very large monetary Jones Act claim for what is called conscious pain and suffering. These are very important facts that apparently have been attempted to be suppressed by Transocean and British Petroleum (BP) that will be revealed in the Coast Guard investigation.

Workers are remembered

At 11 am, April, 26,2010, the rigs in the Gulf ceased work, heads bowed, and the whistles blew in remembrance of those who worked on the rig.

Transocean Deepwater Horizon sinking into The Gulf Of Mexico on April 22, 2010

Todd Elias, a Houston maritime lawyer, who is representing Tracy Kleppinger, the wife of worker Karl Kleppinger Jr. of Natchez, Miss., said his client was told by rig owner Transocean Ltd. that her husband Karl Kleppinger, Jr is considered deceased. Attorney, Steve Gordon, said the company has sent grievers to be with Tracy Kleppinger. 

“Right now we’re trying to find anybody who has any information, anybody who might have seen him and what happened,” said R. Todd Elias, the family’s attorney. “The family would like to have some information about what happened to him, and so far Transocean isn’t telling us anything. They just tell us they don’t know.”

In response, the law firm of Gordon, Elias and Seely LLP., has filed a wrongful death lawsuit Friday afternoon in Harris County, Texas, against Transocean and BP, which leased the rig.

Carolyn Kemp, the grandmother of missing worker Wyatt Kemp of Jonesville, La., also said today that Kemp’s family had been informed that he was dead.

At a news conference Friday afternoon, a vice president of Transocean, Adrian Rose, confirmed that the company has been calling next of kin but denied that loved ones have been told the workers are deceased.

“We can’t be definitive yet, not until search and rescue efforts are completed,” Rose said.

The U.S. Coast Guard said Friday it has suspended the active search for 11 missing crew members of the Transocean Ltd.

None of the 11 missing crew have been found and remain missing to this date.

On April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon sank to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico

Blue Nile loses 60.1 Million Claim against Yehuda Diamond Company

Yehuda Diamond, based in New York, has earned widespread industry and consumer loyalty for its successful competition with Blue Nile and other online jewelers, favoring consumers not only with lower prices but also with unsurpassed expert face-to-face service and full Federal Trade Commission-compliant disclosure…

The suit [No. C-07-2017 TSZ], brought by Blue Nile and heard last month in U.S. District Court for the  Western District of Washington, involved Blue Nile’s efforts to prevent Yehuda Diamond from comparing the  price and appearance of its clarity enhanced diamonds to those natural untreated diamonds sold by Blue Nile.

Yehuda Diamond has consistently contended, even before Blue Nile filed the lawsuit against it in December 2007, that Yehuda Diamond’s price comparisons are in the best interest of consumers.  After 4-1/2 hours of deliberations, the jury agreed, dismissing both Blue Nile’s federal and state claims that Yehuda Diamond had engaged in false or misleading advertising.

Blue Nile, which has brought multiple lawsuits against smaller competitors over the past decade, had petitioned the jury to award it exemplary damages of $60,161,834.64, based on alleged actual damages of $20,053,944.88.

“This is a momentous victory for all consumers and for free-market competition,” says Dror Yehuda, president of Yehuda Diamonds.

“In essence, the jury told Blue Nile that it can’t use its massive size and legal muscle to prevent consumers from learning about lower-priced, quality alternatives to Blue Nile diamonds,” explains Mr. Yehuda.  “In recent years, Blue Nile has preferred to fight its competitors in the courtroom than in the marketplace.”

Mr. Yehuda said that given the jury’s rulings in support of Yehuda Diamond, he has asked his attorneys to petition the judge in the case, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, to require Blue Nile to pay Yehuda Diamond’s legal fees. Yehuda Diamond is represented by Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP, a Manhattan-based law firm.

Related searches:
Patent & trademark attorneys

Administrator mistake costs PepsiCo $1.26 Billion in default judgment

Charles Joyce and James Voigt sued PepsiCo in April plus two of its distributors, alleging they had misappropriated trade secrets from confidential discussions the plaintiffs had with the distributors in 1981 about selling purified water. The information was illicitly passed to PepsiCo, which used it to develop and sell Aquafina bottled water, the plaintiffs allege in the case filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County before Judge Jacqueline Erwin.
…

In court documents, PepsiCo argues it was improperly served with the Wisconsin lawsuit in North Carolina, but also asks the court to excuse the corporate bureaucracy that buried a legal document for weeks. While plaintiffs say they served the lawsuit in June on PepsiCo’s registered agent in North Carolina, where the company is incorporated, PepsiCo says its law department at the company’s Purchase, N.Y.-based headquarters was not notified until September.

“The bottom line is there was a defect in the process for us, but also for” the plaintiffs, said PepsiCo spokesman Joe Jacuzzi, who called the case “highly dubious.”

In seeking to dismiss the case, PepsiCo argues that the statute of limitations should preclude the lawsuit, brought 15 years after the company started selling Aquafina and more than two decades after the alleged confidential talks. Moreover, “the $1.26 billion judgment that has been entered is unprecedented in size and justice requires that PepsiCo have a chance to defend itself,” the company said.

The lead plaintiffs lawyer, David Van Dyke of Chicago-based Cassiday Schade, said Wisconsin courts have been “pretty clear that they don’t like” vacating default judgments. “There is a possibly that a judge may say we’re going to litigate the damages aspect of it,” Van Dyke said. Read full story

Complaint lodged against Bernie Madoff in New York Supreme Court by California Law Firm

Attorneys who interviewed Madoff in jail in July used information obtained from him to file a series of claims against major banks and accountancy firms, in an action that also throws light on Madoff’s life behind bars…

The 272-page complaint was lodged with the New York Supreme Court by the Californian law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

According to the document submitted to the court: “Madoff now shares a cell with a 21-year-old inmate convicted of drug crimes. Madoff sleeps in the lower bunk and he eats pizza cooked by an inmate convicted of child molestation.”

The document describes how Madoff’s recreation time “consists of walking around the prison track at night”.

“He now spends time with former Colombo crime family boss Carmine Persico and Jonathan Pollard, who was convicted of spying for Israel,” the complaint said. “Most of his fellow inmates are in prison for drug crimes or sex crimes and Madoff will spend the rest of his life in prison with them.”

The legal action was brought by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on behalf of Jay Wexler, a New York resident who invested in Rye Select Broad Market Prime Fund, a fund managed by Tremont Group, the hedge fund business of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance.

Pfizer found guity of criminal fraud

Pfizer pleaded guilty to a felony crime for “…for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead.”  Read more from the actual DOJ documents.

The feds relied heavily on evidence from a half-dozen whistleblowers  who give testimony that eventually proved  Pfizer fraudulently marketed Bextra.  This settlement is  the largest health fraud settlement in U.S. history.

What Pfizer did was ask the FDA for the approval of Bextra to be used for several diseases and conditions, but the FDA refused those approvals. Pfizer then went ahead anyway and off-label marketed the drugs for those diseases and conditions.

The key whistleblower was  West Point grad John Kopchinski, who was hired by Pfizer as a sales rep when he left the Army in 1992. Kopchinski, 45,  was fired by the company in 2003.

Kopchinsk was talking with lawyers by then about evidence he had accumulated on how Pfizer was marketing  Bextra, a painkiller withdrawn from the market in 2005 amid safety concerns…

When Kopchinski was asked about blowing the whistle he said,  “You have to live with yourself when you look at yourself in the mirror,” he told us in a telephone interview.

According to the DOJ following statement:

Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs — Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug — and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.

“Six whistleblowers will receive payments totaling more than $102 million from the federal share of the civil recovery,” says the DOJ.

Along with this admission of guilt for committing a felony crime, Pfizer is paying well over $1 billion in criminal fines, plus another $1 billion or so to resolve civil allegations against its fraudulent marketing practices. In all, the multi-billion dollar health fraud settlement is the largest in the history of the DOJ.

Related searches:

Find a Lawyer
Food and Drugs lawyers
Whistleblower Attorneys-Lawyers

Tivo Logo

TiVo Inc. has sued AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. for patent infringement, regarding the ability to pause and rewind live TV.

TiVo Inc. (Nasdaq: TIVO) today filed complaints in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas against AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. for infringement of the following three TiVo patents U.S. Patent Nos. 6,233,389 B1 (”Multimedia Time Warping System”), 7,529,465 B2 (”System for Time Shifting Multimedia Content Streams”), and 7,493,015 B1 (”Automatic Playback Overshoot Correction System”). The complaints seek damages for past infringement and a permanent injunction, similar to that issued by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas against DISH/EchoStar…

TiVo CEO Tom Rogers said, “There are multichannel operators who compete with us through the unauthorized use of our intellectual property,” He added that while there were talks, “business agreements have not been reached.”

AT&T declined to comment. Verizon said it hasn’t seen the lawsuit yet and can’t comment.

TiVo received a setback Wednesday in a similar patent lawsuit against Dish Network Corp. and sister firm EchoStar Corp. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the re-examination of TiVo’s patent that’s the subject of litigation may continue.

TiVo had asked the agency to vacate Dish’s request to look anew at the patents.

TiVo sued Dish in 2004, alleging that Dish infringed on its DVR technology. Dish lost. While the case was on appeal, Dish designed a modified software that it downloaded to customers’ DVRs. But TiVo said the workaround software still infringed on its patent and asked the district court for a permanent injunction. TiVo prevailed but Dish appealed the ruling.

Find patent attorneys and information at Locate a Lawyer.