|
Post by Critique on Feb 13, 2007 2:33:10 GMT -5
March 27, 2003 June Maxam, who has published the North Country Gazette in Chestertown, New York, since 1981, is serving a nine-month sentence in the Warren County Jail after a state appellate court in January rejected her appeal of felony convictions for falsely accusing her neighbors, Donald and Eleanor Lambert, of harassment. "The record reveals that defendant has had a long and tortured relationship with the Lamberts, as well as just about every elected official and police agency in her community," the court wrote in its decision. "Defendant claims that all of these people have demonstrated animus toward her because she has criticized them in a local newspaper that she intermittently publishes." But Maxam maintains that her news coverage of officials in Chestertown and of the Warren County Sheriff lead them to seek retribution against her. "I feel total frustration and dissolution with the criminal justice system," Maxam said March 27 from jail. "To think that those in power can abuse the power of their position to manipulate the system to use it against their critics." In a more than 3,000-word story submitted by Maxam in February to Martinelli Publications, a group of weekly newspapers in Westchester County New York, she described the experiences that led up to her convictions. The publisher who printed her story agrees that Maxam's coverage of corruption "made her enemies." "Why should she spend 100 days in jail?" asked Ralph Martinelli, publisher of Martinelli Publications in Yonkers New York. "We ran her whole story because it rang of such truth." "I think she has a story to tell," Martinelli said. "As a member of the press, we tried to help her the best we could, [ . . . ] to bring this to the public's attention. It did have an impact down here. People couldn't believe that this kind of stuff could happen in this day and age in America." Since 1985, Maxam wrote, she has had run-ins with county and city officials. After Maxam ran a 15-part series in 1992 investigating the Warren County Sheriff, "members of the sheriff's department intimidated my advertisers to stop them from advertising, the newsstand dealers were told not to distribute the newspaper," Maxam wrote. By 1994, Maxam said, her opponents had "effectively shut down the newspaper by cutting off my revenues." After that time, Maxam continued to publish occasionally using donations to pay for printing the newspaper. Her troubles continued to escalate. Maxam wrote that in 1997, she was harassed by the Lamberts, who had an association with Town Justice E. Wendell Ross. "Lamberts had long teamed with Ross and my opponents apparently aggrieved by my reporting on a zoning issue involving them," she wrote. Maxam filed harassment complaints against Eleanor Lambert, who Maxam said had taken photos of Maxam's parent's house. Eleanor Lambert maintains that Maxam was photographing her. "One morning in August, 1998, eight police officers came after me, two state police investigators, two sheriff's department investigators, two uniformed state troopers and two uniformed sheriff's deputies, one on overtime, to charge ME with harassment of Eleanor Lambert," Maxam wrote. In July 2000, Maxam was convicted of two counts of filing false harassment charges and sentenced to nine months in jail, according to court documents. Because a date was incorrect on one of the complaints filed by Maxam against Lambert, it was considered a falsified document. Maxam said the error was a typographical mistake. "I served 80 days of those charges before I was released on a stay. In December, 2000, I was forced to a six-day trial on the harassment charges after the town justice refused to give my retained attorney a 48-hour adjournment," she wrote. In a March 17 letter to Martinelli, Maxam said: "I have done 18 days of the 100 remaining in my ridiculous sentence for telling the truth. [ . . . ] It's a scary situation to know what the government can do to its critics." Maxam is eligible for early release in May. According to Maxam, her attorney, Theresa Suozzi, earlier this week filed a motion challenging the sheriff's authority to bring the charges in the first place. According to a report in The (Glen Falls) Post-Star, a daily newspaper, Maxam also faces nine months in county jail for harassing the Lamberts, which she is appealing. She also faces misdemeanor charges for allegedly hindering police efforts to serve her court papers and allegedly resisting arrest. www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0327maxamj.html
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Feb 13, 2007 2:33:10 GMT -5
March 27, 2003 June Maxam, who has published the North Country Gazette in Chestertown, New York, since 1981, is serving a nine-month sentence in the Warren County Jail after a state appellate court in January rejected her appeal of felony convictions for falsely accusing her neighbors, Donald and Eleanor Lambert, of harassment. "The record reveals that defendant has had a long and tortured relationship with the Lamberts, as well as just about every elected official and police agency in her community," the court wrote in its decision. "Defendant claims that all of these people have demonstrated animus toward her because she has criticized them in a local newspaper that she intermittently publishes." But Maxam maintains that her news coverage of officials in Chestertown and of the Warren County Sheriff lead them to seek retribution against her. "I feel total frustration and dissolution with the criminal justice system," Maxam said March 27 from jail. "To think that those in power can abuse the power of their position to manipulate the system to use it against their critics." In a more than 3,000-word story submitted by Maxam in February to Martinelli Publications, a group of weekly newspapers in Westchester County New York, she described the experiences that led up to her convictions. The publisher who printed her story agrees that Maxam's coverage of corruption "made her enemies." "Why should she spend 100 days in jail?" asked Ralph Martinelli, publisher of Martinelli Publications in Yonkers New York. "We ran her whole story because it rang of such truth." "I think she has a story to tell," Martinelli said. "As a member of the press, we tried to help her the best we could, [ . . . ] to bring this to the public's attention. It did have an impact down here. People couldn't believe that this kind of stuff could happen in this day and age in America." Since 1985, Maxam wrote, she has had run-ins with county and city officials. After Maxam ran a 15-part series in 1992 investigating the Warren County Sheriff, "members of the sheriff's department intimidated my advertisers to stop them from advertising, the newsstand dealers were told not to distribute the newspaper," Maxam wrote. By 1994, Maxam said, her opponents had "effectively shut down the newspaper by cutting off my revenues." After that time, Maxam continued to publish occasionally using donations to pay for printing the newspaper. Her troubles continued to escalate. Maxam wrote that in 1997, she was harassed by the Lamberts, who had an association with Town Justice E. Wendell Ross. "Lamberts had long teamed with Ross and my opponents apparently aggrieved by my reporting on a zoning issue involving them," she wrote. Maxam filed harassment complaints against Eleanor Lambert, who Maxam said had taken photos of Maxam's parent's house. Eleanor Lambert maintains that Maxam was photographing her. "One morning in August, 1998, eight police officers came after me, two state police investigators, two sheriff's department investigators, two uniformed state troopers and two uniformed sheriff's deputies, one on overtime, to charge ME with harassment of Eleanor Lambert," Maxam wrote. In July 2000, Maxam was convicted of two counts of filing false harassment charges and sentenced to nine months in jail, according to court documents. Because a date was incorrect on one of the complaints filed by Maxam against Lambert, it was considered a falsified document. Maxam said the error was a typographical mistake. "I served 80 days of those charges before I was released on a stay. In December, 2000, I was forced to a six-day trial on the harassment charges after the town justice refused to give my retained attorney a 48-hour adjournment," she wrote. In a March 17 letter to Martinelli, Maxam said: "I have done 18 days of the 100 remaining in my ridiculous sentence for telling the truth. [ . . . ] It's a scary situation to know what the government can do to its critics." Maxam is eligible for early release in May. According to Maxam, her attorney, Theresa Suozzi, earlier this week filed a motion challenging the sheriff's authority to bring the charges in the first place. According to a report in The (Glen Falls) Post-Star, a daily newspaper, Maxam also faces nine months in county jail for harassing the Lamberts, which she is appealing. She also faces misdemeanor charges for allegedly hindering police efforts to serve her court papers and allegedly resisting arrest. www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0327maxamj.html
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 11, 2007 13:42:28 GMT -5
December 28, 2006 BY LARRY MARGASAK WASHINGTON -- The inspectors general entrusted to unearth waste, fraud and abuse in federal agencies are increasingly under attack, as the top government officials they scrutinize try to erode the watchdogs' independence and authority. During 2006, several inspectors general felt the wrath of government bosses or their supporters in Congress after investigations cited agencies for poor performance, excessive spending or wasted money. For instance: The top official of the government's property and supply agency compared its inspector general to a terrorist, hoping to chill audits of General Services Administration regional offices and private businesses. Directors of the government's legal aid program discussed firing their inspector general, who investigated how top officials lavishly spent tax dollars for limousine services, ritzy hotels and $14 "Death by Chocolate" desserts. Administration-friendly Republicans in Congress tried to do away with the special inspector general for Iraq, who repeatedly exposed examples of administration waste that cost billions of dollars. Among the contractors criticized was Halliburton Corp., once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. The Pentagon has been making its inspector general use lawyers picked by the defense secretary instead of independently hired attorneys. "It's hard to believe that the government is serious about policing itself when it's whacking the people who are actually minding the store," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a nonpartisan group that tracks government waste and fraud. "These people are our security officers who help guard tens of billions of dollars. It's ridiculous to prevent them from doing their jobs." Sean Kevelighan, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the Bush administration counts on "independent and unbiased views" of the watchdogs and is willing to intervene in any disputes. "If and when there are times where intervention is necessary, the administration will do so to ensure all the parties are educated about one another's roles and the importance of maintaining a productive relationship -- and a healthy respect for the responsibilities of all involved," he added. When GSA Inspector General Brian Miller's team intensively audited the agency's regional offices, he ran into strong resistance from agency administrator Lurita Doan. A business owner, Doan suggested some auditing functions be taken away from the watchdog and given to small businesses. "There are two kinds of terrorism in the U.S.: the external kind and internally, the IGs have terrorized the regional administrators," she told Miller and his staff on Aug. 18. The quotes are from a participant's meeting notes obtained by the Associated Press. Miller aide Robert Samuels attended the meeting and confirmed the comments, as did another attendee. Doan declined comment. The jobs of two watchdogs had to be rescued by Congress. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, inserted language in a defense bill to close down the Iraq inspector general by the end of 2007. That inspector general, Stuart Bowen Jr., has conducted several high-profile investigations of how the Bush administration has spent money during Iraqi reconstruction. He found dramatic examples of missing weapons, wasted billions and excessive overhead costs by Halliburton. Hunter said he agreed that Bowen's office had been useful but that a termination date was needed so that normal oversight functions could be returned to the Defense and State departments. Democrats and key Republicans rebelled and saved Bowen's job. "It is inconceivable that we would remove this aggressive oversight while the American taxpayer is still spending billions of dollars on Iraq reconstruction projects," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said. Legal Services Corp. Inspector General Kirt West rankled top managers of the federal legal aid program for the poor when he investigated lavish executive expenditures. The agency's board of directors discussed firing him in early 2006. West "should know that he's got to ... shape up or we will ship him out," board vice chairman Lillian BeVier said, according to one meeting transcript. Three members of Congress intervened to save West's job. Congress and the Bush administration also have left open one of the most critical watchdog jobs -- the Pentagon inspector general's post. The job has been vacant for 16 months, even as billions of dollars are spent each month in Iraq and Afghanistan. www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1167284868253540.xml&coll=1
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 11, 2007 13:42:28 GMT -5
December 28, 2006 BY LARRY MARGASAK WASHINGTON -- The inspectors general entrusted to unearth waste, fraud and abuse in federal agencies are increasingly under attack, as the top government officials they scrutinize try to erode the watchdogs' independence and authority. During 2006, several inspectors general felt the wrath of government bosses or their supporters in Congress after investigations cited agencies for poor performance, excessive spending or wasted money. For instance: The top official of the government's property and supply agency compared its inspector general to a terrorist, hoping to chill audits of General Services Administration regional offices and private businesses. Directors of the government's legal aid program discussed firing their inspector general, who investigated how top officials lavishly spent tax dollars for limousine services, ritzy hotels and $14 "Death by Chocolate" desserts. Administration-friendly Republicans in Congress tried to do away with the special inspector general for Iraq, who repeatedly exposed examples of administration waste that cost billions of dollars. Among the contractors criticized was Halliburton Corp., once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. The Pentagon has been making its inspector general use lawyers picked by the defense secretary instead of independently hired attorneys. "It's hard to believe that the government is serious about policing itself when it's whacking the people who are actually minding the store," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a nonpartisan group that tracks government waste and fraud. "These people are our security officers who help guard tens of billions of dollars. It's ridiculous to prevent them from doing their jobs." Sean Kevelighan, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the Bush administration counts on "independent and unbiased views" of the watchdogs and is willing to intervene in any disputes. "If and when there are times where intervention is necessary, the administration will do so to ensure all the parties are educated about one another's roles and the importance of maintaining a productive relationship -- and a healthy respect for the responsibilities of all involved," he added. When GSA Inspector General Brian Miller's team intensively audited the agency's regional offices, he ran into strong resistance from agency administrator Lurita Doan. A business owner, Doan suggested some auditing functions be taken away from the watchdog and given to small businesses. "There are two kinds of terrorism in the U.S.: the external kind and internally, the IGs have terrorized the regional administrators," she told Miller and his staff on Aug. 18. The quotes are from a participant's meeting notes obtained by the Associated Press. Miller aide Robert Samuels attended the meeting and confirmed the comments, as did another attendee. Doan declined comment. The jobs of two watchdogs had to be rescued by Congress. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, inserted language in a defense bill to close down the Iraq inspector general by the end of 2007. That inspector general, Stuart Bowen Jr., has conducted several high-profile investigations of how the Bush administration has spent money during Iraqi reconstruction. He found dramatic examples of missing weapons, wasted billions and excessive overhead costs by Halliburton. Hunter said he agreed that Bowen's office had been useful but that a termination date was needed so that normal oversight functions could be returned to the Defense and State departments. Democrats and key Republicans rebelled and saved Bowen's job. "It is inconceivable that we would remove this aggressive oversight while the American taxpayer is still spending billions of dollars on Iraq reconstruction projects," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said. Legal Services Corp. Inspector General Kirt West rankled top managers of the federal legal aid program for the poor when he investigated lavish executive expenditures. The agency's board of directors discussed firing him in early 2006. West "should know that he's got to ... shape up or we will ship him out," board vice chairman Lillian BeVier said, according to one meeting transcript. Three members of Congress intervened to save West's job. Congress and the Bush administration also have left open one of the most critical watchdog jobs -- the Pentagon inspector general's post. The job has been vacant for 16 months, even as billions of dollars are spent each month in Iraq and Afghanistan. www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1167284868253540.xml&coll=1
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Mar 2, 2007 1:19:46 GMT -5
March 1, 2007 An alien from Mexico was sentenced in Maryland to a 10-year term for impregnating the 12-year-old daughter of a family with whom he was living, with 8 1/2 years suspended by the judge. Noberto Vasquez-Fuentes, 21, was sentenced under a plea agreement that included a guilty plea to second-degree rape of the girl with whom he had sex on five occasions in September 2005. Prosecutors said the girl became pregnant but did not give birth and declined to say whether it was due to an abortion or miscarriage. The girl believed she and Vasquez-Fuentes were in love, said Assistant State's Attorney Kathleen Rogers. Assistant Public Defender William Davis, attorney for Vasquez-Fuentes, suggested "a cultural difference" may have kept his client from realizing his actions were wrong. "He did have feelings for her," Davis told the Annapolis Capital. Prosecutors agreed to the reduced sentence imposed by Circuit Court Judge Ronald A. Silkworth because the girl's family did not want the girl to testify and because of "possible weaknesses in the case." www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54502
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Mar 2, 2007 1:19:46 GMT -5
March 1, 2007 An alien from Mexico was sentenced in Maryland to a 10-year term for impregnating the 12-year-old daughter of a family with whom he was living, with 8 1/2 years suspended by the judge. Noberto Vasquez-Fuentes, 21, was sentenced under a plea agreement that included a guilty plea to second-degree rape of the girl with whom he had sex on five occasions in September 2005. Prosecutors said the girl became pregnant but did not give birth and declined to say whether it was due to an abortion or miscarriage. The girl believed she and Vasquez-Fuentes were in love, said Assistant State's Attorney Kathleen Rogers. Assistant Public Defender William Davis, attorney for Vasquez-Fuentes, suggested "a cultural difference" may have kept his client from realizing his actions were wrong. "He did have feelings for her," Davis told the Annapolis Capital. Prosecutors agreed to the reduced sentence imposed by Circuit Court Judge Ronald A. Silkworth because the girl's family did not want the girl to testify and because of "possible weaknesses in the case." www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54502
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Feb 20, 2007 19:38:48 GMT -5
February 13, 2007 By EMMA PEREZ-TREVIÑO February 13, 2007 — Brownsville Municipal Judge Ben Neece was stabbed Monday morning in his left forearm in a domestic disturbance at his home, said Cameron County Chief Deputy Gus Reyna. Both Neece and his wife face potential charges in the case. “It looks horrible,” the 51-year-old Neece said. “I’m freaked out and need time to recuperate and think about this whole thing.” Warrants of arrest have not been issued as investigations continue, Reyna said. Neece, who has served as municipal judge since 1984, was treated for a stab wound to his left forearm and released from Brownsville Surgical Hospital. Immediately and pending further inquiries, his wife, 39-year-old Jaqueline Cooke Neece could face a charge of aggravated assault, a first degree felony offense carrying a prison term upon conviction of five to 99 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine, Reyna said. Also, Judge Neece could face a charge of assault, a Class A misdemeanor offense, which carries a one-year jail term and a fine up to $4,000, Reyna said. “We are still working the case,” he said. “They are both victims. We have not been able to talk to her. The investigation is still ongoing. “Until we gather all the information and obtain statements from both, we will make a determination if we will obtain warrants for arrest or submit the case to a grand jury,” Reyna said. “We will discuss this with the District Attorney (Armando Villalobos).” Sheriff investigators have not located Neece’s wife for further investigation into the stabbing, Reyna said. Deputies responded to a call from Valley Regional Medical Center early Monday regarding a stabbed subject, Reyna said. Deputies contacted Judge Neece who was bleeding from the left forearm and had a laceration on his left toe. Reyna said Neece said his wife had stabbed him with a kitchen knife after an argument at their home at the 100 block of Sally Lane. Reyna said Neece said the argument happened at about 6 a.m. “He admitted that he slapped her on the face and pushed her away from him with his feet and that his wife reacted by stabbing him on the left forearm with a kitchen knife,” Reyna said. Reyna said that upon processing the crime scene, deputies located 7.8 grams of marijuana on the bed where Neece had been laying when he was stabbed.Drug charges also could be pending, Reyna said. Reyna said that Neece drove himself to Valley Regional Medical Center. “I’m sure they did blood work,” Reyna said. “We’ll find out if he was intoxicated or under the influence of a substance at a later date.” Neece left Valley Regional in his hospital robe. “I was there for two hours, and they wouldn’t treat me,” Neece said. “I was like, ‘Man, how long do they leave a man who was stabbed. I went to a nearby hospital.” www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_comments.php?id=75182_0_10_0_C
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Feb 20, 2007 19:38:48 GMT -5
February 13, 2007 By EMMA PEREZ-TREVIÑO February 13, 2007 — Brownsville Municipal Judge Ben Neece was stabbed Monday morning in his left forearm in a domestic disturbance at his home, said Cameron County Chief Deputy Gus Reyna. Both Neece and his wife face potential charges in the case. “It looks horrible,” the 51-year-old Neece said. “I’m freaked out and need time to recuperate and think about this whole thing.” Warrants of arrest have not been issued as investigations continue, Reyna said. Neece, who has served as municipal judge since 1984, was treated for a stab wound to his left forearm and released from Brownsville Surgical Hospital. Immediately and pending further inquiries, his wife, 39-year-old Jaqueline Cooke Neece could face a charge of aggravated assault, a first degree felony offense carrying a prison term upon conviction of five to 99 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine, Reyna said. Also, Judge Neece could face a charge of assault, a Class A misdemeanor offense, which carries a one-year jail term and a fine up to $4,000, Reyna said. “We are still working the case,” he said. “They are both victims. We have not been able to talk to her. The investigation is still ongoing. “Until we gather all the information and obtain statements from both, we will make a determination if we will obtain warrants for arrest or submit the case to a grand jury,” Reyna said. “We will discuss this with the District Attorney (Armando Villalobos).” Sheriff investigators have not located Neece’s wife for further investigation into the stabbing, Reyna said. Deputies responded to a call from Valley Regional Medical Center early Monday regarding a stabbed subject, Reyna said. Deputies contacted Judge Neece who was bleeding from the left forearm and had a laceration on his left toe. Reyna said Neece said his wife had stabbed him with a kitchen knife after an argument at their home at the 100 block of Sally Lane. Reyna said Neece said the argument happened at about 6 a.m. “He admitted that he slapped her on the face and pushed her away from him with his feet and that his wife reacted by stabbing him on the left forearm with a kitchen knife,” Reyna said. Reyna said that upon processing the crime scene, deputies located 7.8 grams of marijuana on the bed where Neece had been laying when he was stabbed.Drug charges also could be pending, Reyna said. Reyna said that Neece drove himself to Valley Regional Medical Center. “I’m sure they did blood work,” Reyna said. “We’ll find out if he was intoxicated or under the influence of a substance at a later date.” Neece left Valley Regional in his hospital robe. “I was there for two hours, and they wouldn’t treat me,” Neece said. “I was like, ‘Man, how long do they leave a man who was stabbed. I went to a nearby hospital.” www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_comments.php?id=75182_0_10_0_C
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Feb 20, 2007 19:06:13 GMT -5
February 20, 2007 LOS ANGELES – Former Orange County Superior Court Judge Ronald C. Kline collapsed in court today when U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall indicated she would sentence him to 27 months in federal prison on charges of possessing child pornography. Kline, who lost his job in 2002, became wobbly-legged as he stood at a podium, then fell backward into defense attorney Paul Meyer's arms. He was placed on a bench and paramedics were summoned. Kline, 66, was accused of possessing child pornography. Today's hearing ended nearly six years of legal wrangling that saw Kline charged at one point in both state and federal courts. But the state case was later dismissed because it was beyond the statute of limitations. The federal prosecution was threatened in 2003 when a judge at one point suppressed most of the evidence. But that evidence was reinstated and the prosecution was allowed to continue. In December 2005, Kline stifled tears when he pleaded guilty to four counts of child pornography for images found on his computer in his Irvine home. Kline admitted that he stored more than 100 sexually explicit photos of young boys on the computer and on several discs. His collection was discovered when a Canadian computer whiz hacked into his computer and downloaded the images and a lurid diary detailing Kline's fascination with young boys. www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1585206.php
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Feb 20, 2007 19:06:13 GMT -5
February 20, 2007 LOS ANGELES – Former Orange County Superior Court Judge Ronald C. Kline collapsed in court today when U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall indicated she would sentence him to 27 months in federal prison on charges of possessing child pornography. Kline, who lost his job in 2002, became wobbly-legged as he stood at a podium, then fell backward into defense attorney Paul Meyer's arms. He was placed on a bench and paramedics were summoned. Kline, 66, was accused of possessing child pornography. Today's hearing ended nearly six years of legal wrangling that saw Kline charged at one point in both state and federal courts. But the state case was later dismissed because it was beyond the statute of limitations. The federal prosecution was threatened in 2003 when a judge at one point suppressed most of the evidence. But that evidence was reinstated and the prosecution was allowed to continue. In December 2005, Kline stifled tears when he pleaded guilty to four counts of child pornography for images found on his computer in his Irvine home. Kline admitted that he stored more than 100 sexually explicit photos of young boys on the computer and on several discs. His collection was discovered when a Canadian computer whiz hacked into his computer and downloaded the images and a lurid diary detailing Kline's fascination with young boys. www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1585206.php
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Feb 3, 2007 1:57:08 GMT -5
(Rego Park-WABC, February 2, 2007) - An off-duty New York City cop is charged with driving drunk and causing a head-on collision with another car in Queens. Now, the driver of that car is in critical condition with severe head injuries. The accident happened Thursday night on Woodhaven Boulevard in Rego Park. The victim is at Elmhurst Hospital and that's where Eyewitness News reporter Jim Dolan is with the story. There will be a lot of questions to answer here -- like why an off-duty officer was never given a sobriety test after the accident. It was a horrifying accident when an alleged DWI driver turned into 23-year-old Nickossi Mathurin's lane and violently collided. Brian Mathurin, Father: "Two detectives came to the hospital and told me that your son was in an accident last night.." Collin Britton and brother-in-law, Brian Mathurin, are now struggling with their emotions. Mr. Mathurin's wife just passed away, and now his son, Nickossi Mathurin is fighting for his life with severe head injuries. Arrested at the hospital was 41-year-old John Duggan, a New York Police detective and a 20-year veteran of the force. He is charged with driving while intoxicated, but no test was ever done to prove he was drunk. It all happened around 11 p.m. Thursday night on Woodhaven Boulevard. The officer was apparently making a left hand turn on the northbound side when his SUV collided with Nickossi's car, heading south on Woodhaven Blvd. and Furmanville Avenue. Nickossi's uncle says that he worked as a highway inspector and was heading home from work. Sources tell Eyewitness News that the police officer was never given a sobriety test at the scene, and in fact, a judge prevented the police from taking a blood sample to determine if he had been drinking before the accident. Nonetheless, he has been charged with DWI. But the question now is can he get a conviction?abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4997947
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Feb 3, 2007 1:57:08 GMT -5
(Rego Park-WABC, February 2, 2007) - An off-duty New York City cop is charged with driving drunk and causing a head-on collision with another car in Queens. Now, the driver of that car is in critical condition with severe head injuries. The accident happened Thursday night on Woodhaven Boulevard in Rego Park. The victim is at Elmhurst Hospital and that's where Eyewitness News reporter Jim Dolan is with the story. There will be a lot of questions to answer here -- like why an off-duty officer was never given a sobriety test after the accident. It was a horrifying accident when an alleged DWI driver turned into 23-year-old Nickossi Mathurin's lane and violently collided. Brian Mathurin, Father: "Two detectives came to the hospital and told me that your son was in an accident last night.." Collin Britton and brother-in-law, Brian Mathurin, are now struggling with their emotions. Mr. Mathurin's wife just passed away, and now his son, Nickossi Mathurin is fighting for his life with severe head injuries. Arrested at the hospital was 41-year-old John Duggan, a New York Police detective and a 20-year veteran of the force. He is charged with driving while intoxicated, but no test was ever done to prove he was drunk. It all happened around 11 p.m. Thursday night on Woodhaven Boulevard. The officer was apparently making a left hand turn on the northbound side when his SUV collided with Nickossi's car, heading south on Woodhaven Blvd. and Furmanville Avenue. Nickossi's uncle says that he worked as a highway inspector and was heading home from work. Sources tell Eyewitness News that the police officer was never given a sobriety test at the scene, and in fact, a judge prevented the police from taking a blood sample to determine if he had been drinking before the accident. Nonetheless, he has been charged with DWI. But the question now is can he get a conviction?abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4997947
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Feb 2, 2007 23:11:32 GMT -5
Jan. 30, 2007 LOS ANGELES — An immigration judge who previously denied a gay man's asylum bid on the grounds that he could conceal his sexual orientation if he returned to his native Mexico reversed the decision today. In allowing Jorge Sota Vega to remain in the United States, Judge John D. Taylor said that gays should not be required to dress or act a certain way to avoid persecution and that Vega's lawyers proved he would be at risk if he were deported to Mexico. Vega's case attracted attention from national gay rights groups when Taylor denied his application and said that Vega could live safely in Mexico because he did not look gay and could hide the fact that he was. "It seemed to us this is a real double standard," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal. "Courts don't deny asylum to someone based on their political beliefs by saying, 'If you just didn't tell other people what you believed, you would be fine.'" Vega, 38, lived in Tuxpan and Guadalajara before he fled to the United States. He said in his 2004 asylum bid that he was beaten by police and told by authorities in Mexico he would be killed. Now a New York resident, Vega appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The San Francisco-based court sent the case back to immigration court last year. www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/4513006.html
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Feb 2, 2007 23:11:32 GMT -5
Jan. 30, 2007 LOS ANGELES — An immigration judge who previously denied a gay man's asylum bid on the grounds that he could conceal his sexual orientation if he returned to his native Mexico reversed the decision today. In allowing Jorge Sota Vega to remain in the United States, Judge John D. Taylor said that gays should not be required to dress or act a certain way to avoid persecution and that Vega's lawyers proved he would be at risk if he were deported to Mexico. Vega's case attracted attention from national gay rights groups when Taylor denied his application and said that Vega could live safely in Mexico because he did not look gay and could hide the fact that he was. "It seemed to us this is a real double standard," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal. "Courts don't deny asylum to someone based on their political beliefs by saying, 'If you just didn't tell other people what you believed, you would be fine.'" Vega, 38, lived in Tuxpan and Guadalajara before he fled to the United States. He said in his 2004 asylum bid that he was beaten by police and told by authorities in Mexico he would be killed. Now a New York resident, Vega appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The San Francisco-based court sent the case back to immigration court last year. www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/4513006.html
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 19, 2007 3:03:28 GMT -5
Jan 12, 2007 LITTLE ROCK (AP) -- A man not the father of a child must still pay child support that a court said he owed the mother before he took a paternity test, the state Supreme Court says. The court said Thursday that Anthony L. Parker must catch up on his child-support payments to that point, as the "acknowledged father of the child" until then, even though the test showed he was not, in fact, the father. The ruling reversed a decision by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary Spencer McGowan and sent the case back to her to determine the amount Parker must pay. The decision, written by Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin, said state law and prior court cases make it clear that an "acknowledged father" cannot be relieved of past-due child support. State law only speaks to a man's future child-support obligations once that person has been found through testing not to be a child's father. Associate Justice Robert L. Brown said in a concurring opinion that the court was "legislating by inference." Brown urged the state Legislature to clarify the law. In the case, the state Office of Child Support Enforcement filed a paternity complaint against Parker on April 18, 2002, but Parker did not respond. McGowan entered a judgment of paternity June 20, 2002, and ordered Parker to pay $24 a week in child support and $4,446 in past-due support. Parker did not pay the money, and the state agency filed a contempt motion against him March 7, 2003. But Parker did not appear for a court hearing on the motion, and the judge issued a pick-up order for him. Before Parker was arrested in March 2005, the state garnished his wages from June 2004 through February 2005. Parker asked for a paternity test and was found not to be the father. The state agency continued to pursue past-due support, but McGowan denied the request Feb. 28, 2006. "To force a man to pay the state ... payments made to a woman for a child that is not his violates all precepts of common law as to who is responsible for supporting a child," McGowan wrote. hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AR_CHILD_SUPPORT_LAW_AROL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-01-11-14-03-10
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 19, 2007 3:03:28 GMT -5
Jan 12, 2007 LITTLE ROCK (AP) -- A man not the father of a child must still pay child support that a court said he owed the mother before he took a paternity test, the state Supreme Court says. The court said Thursday that Anthony L. Parker must catch up on his child-support payments to that point, as the "acknowledged father of the child" until then, even though the test showed he was not, in fact, the father. The ruling reversed a decision by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary Spencer McGowan and sent the case back to her to determine the amount Parker must pay. The decision, written by Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin, said state law and prior court cases make it clear that an "acknowledged father" cannot be relieved of past-due child support. State law only speaks to a man's future child-support obligations once that person has been found through testing not to be a child's father. Associate Justice Robert L. Brown said in a concurring opinion that the court was "legislating by inference." Brown urged the state Legislature to clarify the law. In the case, the state Office of Child Support Enforcement filed a paternity complaint against Parker on April 18, 2002, but Parker did not respond. McGowan entered a judgment of paternity June 20, 2002, and ordered Parker to pay $24 a week in child support and $4,446 in past-due support. Parker did not pay the money, and the state agency filed a contempt motion against him March 7, 2003. But Parker did not appear for a court hearing on the motion, and the judge issued a pick-up order for him. Before Parker was arrested in March 2005, the state garnished his wages from June 2004 through February 2005. Parker asked for a paternity test and was found not to be the father. The state agency continued to pursue past-due support, but McGowan denied the request Feb. 28, 2006. "To force a man to pay the state ... payments made to a woman for a child that is not his violates all precepts of common law as to who is responsible for supporting a child," McGowan wrote. hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AR_CHILD_SUPPORT_LAW_AROL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-01-11-14-03-10
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 19, 2007 2:55:05 GMT -5
January 19, 2007 RALEIGH (AP) - District Court Judge James Ethridge is still drawing his six-digit salary from the state payroll, even though he no longer has a law license and can't hear cases. Judge Ethridge didn't resign after the State Bar revoked his law license in October. Unless an oversight panel or the state Legislature takes action, the state may be paying Judge Ethridge's annual salary of $101,376 until his term ends in December 2008. Meanwhile, records show that taxpayers have paid $9,300 - not to mention mileage and meal reimbursements - to hire substitute judges to cover Judge Ethridge's seat, which deals with a busy caseload of criminal, domestic and child custody disputes in Johnston, Harnett and Lee counties. "We don't have a road map of how to proceed in a situation like this," said Paul Ross, executive secretary for the state's Judicial Standards Commission, the disciplinary board for judges. "No one anticipated something like this. You just don't think judges are going to get disbarred." The State Bar revoked Judge Ethridge's license last year after determining he was dishonest and deceitful when he took the home and $14,000 life savings of an elderly, senile woman while he was a lawyer in 2001. Judge Ethridge was elected as a judge in 2004, after practicing law for 28 years. There are only two ways to oust a duly-elected judge in North Carolina. The Judicial Standards Commission can remove Judge Ethridge, but Mr. Ross said the group can't weigh in on mistakes Judge Ethridge made before taking the bench. Otherwise, the state Legislature can impeach him. The General Assembly, according to Article IV Judicial, section 17, paragraph 2, can censure and remove a judge from office for "willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute." State Rep. Leo Daughtry, a Republican from Johnston County, defended Judge Ethridge's character in front of the State Bar but said he will consider impeaching him. "It's not fair to the people," Rep. Daughtry said. "We're entitled to the seat and we ought to have someone in that seat." State Rep. David Lewis said he had no immediate comment on Judge Ethridge's case. But he said he would look into the matter. Judge Ethridge's attorney, Alan Schneider, said the former judge hasn't decided whether he will resign. Judge Ethridge has appealed the State Bar's decision, though his punishment remains until the state Court of Appeals addresses his complaint. That process could drag out for more than a year. www.dunndailyrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=83882&TM=40889.88
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 19, 2007 2:55:05 GMT -5
January 19, 2007 RALEIGH (AP) - District Court Judge James Ethridge is still drawing his six-digit salary from the state payroll, even though he no longer has a law license and can't hear cases. Judge Ethridge didn't resign after the State Bar revoked his law license in October. Unless an oversight panel or the state Legislature takes action, the state may be paying Judge Ethridge's annual salary of $101,376 until his term ends in December 2008. Meanwhile, records show that taxpayers have paid $9,300 - not to mention mileage and meal reimbursements - to hire substitute judges to cover Judge Ethridge's seat, which deals with a busy caseload of criminal, domestic and child custody disputes in Johnston, Harnett and Lee counties. "We don't have a road map of how to proceed in a situation like this," said Paul Ross, executive secretary for the state's Judicial Standards Commission, the disciplinary board for judges. "No one anticipated something like this. You just don't think judges are going to get disbarred." The State Bar revoked Judge Ethridge's license last year after determining he was dishonest and deceitful when he took the home and $14,000 life savings of an elderly, senile woman while he was a lawyer in 2001. Judge Ethridge was elected as a judge in 2004, after practicing law for 28 years. There are only two ways to oust a duly-elected judge in North Carolina. The Judicial Standards Commission can remove Judge Ethridge, but Mr. Ross said the group can't weigh in on mistakes Judge Ethridge made before taking the bench. Otherwise, the state Legislature can impeach him. The General Assembly, according to Article IV Judicial, section 17, paragraph 2, can censure and remove a judge from office for "willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute." State Rep. Leo Daughtry, a Republican from Johnston County, defended Judge Ethridge's character in front of the State Bar but said he will consider impeaching him. "It's not fair to the people," Rep. Daughtry said. "We're entitled to the seat and we ought to have someone in that seat." State Rep. David Lewis said he had no immediate comment on Judge Ethridge's case. But he said he would look into the matter. Judge Ethridge's attorney, Alan Schneider, said the former judge hasn't decided whether he will resign. Judge Ethridge has appealed the State Bar's decision, though his punishment remains until the state Court of Appeals addresses his complaint. That process could drag out for more than a year. www.dunndailyrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=83882&TM=40889.88
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 17, 2007 4:06:52 GMT -5
January 15, 2007 BY BRIAN DICKERSON In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison. "We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion." "Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code. No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship. Murphy's opinion received little notice when it was handed down. But it has since elicited reactions ranging from disbelief to mischievous giggling in Michigan's gossipy legal community. The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony." Charlevoix Circuit Judge Richard Pajtas sentenced Lloyd Waltonen to up to four years in prison after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of delivering a controlled substance. But Pajtas threw out the sexual assault charge against Waltonen, citing the cocktail waitress' testimony that she had willingly consented to the sex-for-drugs arrangement. Charlevoix prosecuting attorney John Jarema said he decided to appeal after police discovered evidence that Waltonen may have struck drugs-for-sex deals with several other women. Cox's office, which handled the appeal on the prosecutor's behalf, insisted that the waitress' consent was irrelevant. All that mattered, the attorney general argued in a brief demanding that the charge be reinstated, was that the pair had sex "under circumstances involving the commission of another felony" -- the delivery of the Oxycontin pills. The Attorney General's Office got a whole lot more than it bargained for. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor in Waltonen's case needed only to prove that the Oxycontin delivery and the consensual sex were related. But Murphy and his colleagues went further, ruling that a first-degree CSC charge could be justified when consensual sex occurred in conjunction with any felony, not just a drug sale. The judges said they recognized their ruling could have sweeping consequences, "considering the voluminous number of felonious acts that can be found in the penal code." Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery -- although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971. Some judges and lawyers suggested that the Court of Appeals' reference to prosecuting adulterers was a sly slap at Cox, noting that it was his office that pressed for the expansive definition of criminal sexual conduct the appellate judges so reluctantly embraced in their Nov. 7 ruling. Murphy didn't return my calls Friday. But Chief Court of Appeals Judge William Whitbeck, who signed the opinion along with Murphy and Judge Michael Smolenski, said that Cox's confessed adultery never came up during their discussions of the case. "I never thought of it, and I'm confident that it was not something Judge Murphy or Judge Smolenski had in mind," Whitbeck told me Friday. But he chuckled uncomfortably when I asked if the hypothetical described in Murphy's opinion couldn't be cited as justification for bringing first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges against the attorney general. "Well, yeah," he said. Cox's spokesman, Rusty Hills, bristled at the suggestion that Cox or anyone else in his circumstances could face prosecution. "To even ask about this borders on the nutty," Hills told me in a phone interview Saturday. "Nobody connects the attorney general with this -- N-O-B-O-D-Y -- and anybody who thinks otherwise is hallucinogenic." Hills said Sunday that Cox did not want to comment. The Court of Appeals opinion could also be interpreted as a tweak to the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must enforce statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences. In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result. But Michigan's Supreme Court majority has held that it is for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide when the absurdity threshold has been breached. Whitbeck noted that Murphy's opinion questions whether state lawmakers really meant to authorize the prosecution of adulterers for consensual relationships. "We encourage the Legislature to take a second look at the statutory language if they are troubled by our ruling," he wrote. Hills declined to say whether the Attorney General's Office would press for legislative amendments to make it clear that only violent felonies involving an unwilling victim could trigger a first-degree CSC charge. "This is so bizarre that it doesn't even merit a response," he said. Meanwhile, Waltonen has asked the state Supreme Court for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling. He still hasn't been tried on the criminal sexual conduct charge. His attorney said a CSC conviction could add dozens of years to Waltonen's current prison sentence. Justices will decide later this year whether to review the Court of Appeals' decision to reinstate the CSC charge. freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 17, 2007 4:06:52 GMT -5
January 15, 2007 BY BRIAN DICKERSON In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison. "We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion." "Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code. No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship. Murphy's opinion received little notice when it was handed down. But it has since elicited reactions ranging from disbelief to mischievous giggling in Michigan's gossipy legal community. The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony." Charlevoix Circuit Judge Richard Pajtas sentenced Lloyd Waltonen to up to four years in prison after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of delivering a controlled substance. But Pajtas threw out the sexual assault charge against Waltonen, citing the cocktail waitress' testimony that she had willingly consented to the sex-for-drugs arrangement. Charlevoix prosecuting attorney John Jarema said he decided to appeal after police discovered evidence that Waltonen may have struck drugs-for-sex deals with several other women. Cox's office, which handled the appeal on the prosecutor's behalf, insisted that the waitress' consent was irrelevant. All that mattered, the attorney general argued in a brief demanding that the charge be reinstated, was that the pair had sex "under circumstances involving the commission of another felony" -- the delivery of the Oxycontin pills. The Attorney General's Office got a whole lot more than it bargained for. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor in Waltonen's case needed only to prove that the Oxycontin delivery and the consensual sex were related. But Murphy and his colleagues went further, ruling that a first-degree CSC charge could be justified when consensual sex occurred in conjunction with any felony, not just a drug sale. The judges said they recognized their ruling could have sweeping consequences, "considering the voluminous number of felonious acts that can be found in the penal code." Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery -- although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971. Some judges and lawyers suggested that the Court of Appeals' reference to prosecuting adulterers was a sly slap at Cox, noting that it was his office that pressed for the expansive definition of criminal sexual conduct the appellate judges so reluctantly embraced in their Nov. 7 ruling. Murphy didn't return my calls Friday. But Chief Court of Appeals Judge William Whitbeck, who signed the opinion along with Murphy and Judge Michael Smolenski, said that Cox's confessed adultery never came up during their discussions of the case. "I never thought of it, and I'm confident that it was not something Judge Murphy or Judge Smolenski had in mind," Whitbeck told me Friday. But he chuckled uncomfortably when I asked if the hypothetical described in Murphy's opinion couldn't be cited as justification for bringing first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges against the attorney general. "Well, yeah," he said. Cox's spokesman, Rusty Hills, bristled at the suggestion that Cox or anyone else in his circumstances could face prosecution. "To even ask about this borders on the nutty," Hills told me in a phone interview Saturday. "Nobody connects the attorney general with this -- N-O-B-O-D-Y -- and anybody who thinks otherwise is hallucinogenic." Hills said Sunday that Cox did not want to comment. The Court of Appeals opinion could also be interpreted as a tweak to the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must enforce statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences. In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result. But Michigan's Supreme Court majority has held that it is for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide when the absurdity threshold has been breached. Whitbeck noted that Murphy's opinion questions whether state lawmakers really meant to authorize the prosecution of adulterers for consensual relationships. "We encourage the Legislature to take a second look at the statutory language if they are troubled by our ruling," he wrote. Hills declined to say whether the Attorney General's Office would press for legislative amendments to make it clear that only violent felonies involving an unwilling victim could trigger a first-degree CSC charge. "This is so bizarre that it doesn't even merit a response," he said. Meanwhile, Waltonen has asked the state Supreme Court for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling. He still hasn't been tried on the criminal sexual conduct charge. His attorney said a CSC conviction could add dozens of years to Waltonen's current prison sentence. Justices will decide later this year whether to review the Court of Appeals' decision to reinstate the CSC charge. freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333
|
|