Juris Patrol

Yes on Prop. 17 Campaign Sues No on 17 Campaign for False and Misleading Statements in Ballot Arguments and Rebuttals

2010-02-26T17:32:57Z

No on 17 intentionally trying to mislead voters. 'Parade of Horribles' Listed by Opponents in their Ballot Statements are Result of Current Auto Insurance Regulations, Not Prop. 17

Yes on 17, Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates, a coalition of consumers, businesses, senior organizations, taxpayer advocates and insurers, filed a lawsuit today in Sacramento Superior Court to force Proposition 17 opponents to make changes to their ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals and correct the patently false and misleading statements contained therein.

Proposition 17 on the June 8, 2010, California statewide ballot simply makes an existing persistency or "continuous coverage" discount portable, allowing customers to take it with them if they change insurance companies. Prop. 17 will mean more competition and choice in the auto insurance marketplace and will result in lower rates for drivers.

Prop 17 does not create a new discount. Thus any reductions in premiums or increases for those who are uninsured and do not maintain coverage are the result of current auto insurance regulations, not Prop 17.

Despite this, opponents of Prop 17 are intentionally misleading voters by repeatedly stating Proposition 17 creates new penalties. Statements to this effect appear throughout opponents' ballot arguments and rebuttals and are false and misleading. The "parade of horribles" cited in No on 17's ballot arguments are, in fact, already happening today, and exist under current regulations.

Ballot arguments and rebuttals appear in the Official Voter Information Guide compiled by the California Secretary of State and are distributed to every voter in California. Election law (Elec. Code Section 9092, Gov. Code Section 88006) states that information in the voter guide must not contain "false and misleading" statements.

Opponents' ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals are available on the Secretary of State's website at www.sos.ca.gov.

"Proposition 17 simply allows responsible drivers who already qualify for a continuous coverage discount to take that discount with them if they change insurance companies. It does not create a new discount," said Kirk West, former president of the California Chamber of Commerce and co-chair of Californians for Fair Insurance rates (Cal-FAIR).

West continued: "Throughout this campaign, opponents have misled and attempted to confuse voters. Their ballot arguments and rebuttals are more of the same statements. As authors of Proposition 103, they understand that the so-called "penalties" they speak of are attributable to current law and not to Prop. 17. Yet they are hiding behind false and misleading statements because they are afraid to acknowledge taking an anti-consumer position on Prop. 17 by opposing a measure that will result in more competition and more choice for more than 80% of California drivers who would benefit under Prop. 17."

Today, more than 80% of drivers maintain auto insurance and qualify for the persistency or continuous coverage discount, but can only get that discount from their current insurer. Thus, if a driver wants to switch to a new insurance company, he or she loses the discount and has to pay more.

Opponents' primary allegation against Prop. 17, made in a variety of ways in the ballot arguments and rebuttals, is that if Prop. 17 is passed and the continuous coverage discount is made portable, drivers seeking insurance who do not continuously maintain insurance coverage will pay more.

In fact, because the persistency or continuous coverage discount is being offered today, drivers who do not maintain continuous insurance coverage are today paying more to offset price reductions for those who do get the discount.

In other words, any reductions in premiums for drivers who qualify for the persistency discount, or the increase in premium for those who do not maintain continuous coverage, are products of existing regulations - not Proposition 17.

Moreover, Proposition 17 adds new provisions to existing law that require insurers to offer the persistency discount even after lapses of coverage for up to 90 days for any reason other than nonpayment and for military service overseas; and Proposition 17 expressly does not limit an insurer's ability to offer additional grace periods for lapses. Current law offers none of these protections. As a result, repeated statements in the ballot arguments by opponents that Proposition 17 will increase rates for motorists are false and misleading. Any such increases are the result of existing law, not Proposition 17.

March 15, 2010, is the statutory deadline by which all June 2010 ballot argument challenges must be resolved. Prior to the deadline, Yes on 17 and No on 17 will meet in Sacramento Superior Court for oral argument in front of the judge assigned to this case. Since the suit was filed today no court date or judge has been assigned. There will be no ruling prior to oral argument. In past cases, the presiding judge has ruled from the bench immediately after oral arguments.

Background on ballot arguments and rebuttals in California

In ballot proposition campaigns in California, both the Yes side and No campaigns submit ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals for publication in the Official Voter Information Guide prepared by the California Secretary of State's Office.

Ballot arguments are submitted first. The Secretary of State then exchanges the arguments so each side can prepare a rebuttal to the main arguments for and against the proposition.

Rebuttals are in turn submitted, and then made available for public review along with the rest of the Official Voter Information Guide.

Proponents and opponents review ballot arguments and rebuttals and decide if they meet the California standard. If they do not meet the standard and contain false and misleading statements, lawsuits are permitted to ensure voters are not misled.

Ballot argument/rebuttal submission and litigation takes place months in advance of Election Day to allow time for potential litigation, printing and mailing the Voter Guide.

SOURCE Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates

United Security Bancshares, Inc. Announces Settlement of Fidelity Insurance Claim

2010-02-24T17:29:55Z

United Security Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq: USBI) today announced that, along with its banking subsidiary First United Security Bank and Acceptance Loan Company, Inc., a finance company operated by the bank (collectively referred to as the "USB Companies"), it has entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims alleged against the defendants named in the lawsuit styled Acceptance Loan Company Inc., First United Security Bank and United Security Bancshares, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of Clarke County, Alabama on December 18, 2009, Case No. 16-CV-2009-900168.00.

The USB Companies filed the lawsuit to seek recovery under a fidelity insurance policy and bond issued by The Cincinnati Insurance Company, which policy provides coverage for losses due to the dishonest or fraudulent conduct of employees of the USB Companies. Acceptance Loan Company, Inc. originally submitted a claim under the policy in connection with the loan irregularities discovered during the second quarter of 2007 resulting from the fraudulent conduct of certain ALC employees.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, The Cincinnati Insurance Company agreed to pay to the USB Companies the sum of $4,150,000. In exchange, the USB Companies agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, each of the defendants from the lawsuit and to release the defendants from all claims asserted or that may have been asserted against the defendants in the lawsuit. The parties will be responsible for their own attorneys' fees and costs arising from the lawsuit, with the costs of mediation in the proceeding to be shared equally by the USB Companies and The Cincinnati Insurance Company.

"We are very pleased with the settlement agreement that was reached with the insurance company," said Terry Phillips, President and Chief Executive Officer of United Security Bancshares, Inc. "USBI has been very aggressive in pursuing all available recovery in connection with the ALC losses and thus far has been successful in doing so."

The settlement agreement concludes the lawsuit. The USB Companies entered into the settlement agreement to avoid the expense and uncertainty of future litigation of the claims alleged in the lawsuit.

United Security Bancshares, Inc. is bank holding company that operates nineteen banking offices in Alabama through First United Security Bank. In addition, the Company's operations include Acceptance Loan Company, Inc., a consumer loan company, and FUSB Reinsurance, Inc., an underwriter of credit life and credit accident and health insurance policies sold to the bank's and ALC's consumer loan customers. The Company's stock is traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol "USBI."

SOURCE United Security Bancshares, Inc.

Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Immediate Expansion of Toyota Recalls

2010-02-05T19:30:44Z

The law firm of McCuneWright, LLP has filed for a preliminary injunction in United States District Court, Central District of California seeking an immediate order requiring Toyota to expand the Sudden Unintended Acceleration recalls.

McCuneWright, which filed the first and leading class action lawsuit against Toyota to force the automaker to remedy the sudden unintended acceleration defects in all affected makes and models, is asking the court to issue a specific order requiring Toyota to provide a brake over-ride system on all Toyota models equipped with Electronic Throttle Control System -- intelligent ("ETCS-i") that have experienced significant numbers of sudden acceleration events.

The brake override system is a failsafe system that enables the onboard computer to detect when both the throttle and the brake are being activated simultaneously, recognize that there is an error in the signals it is receiving, and immediately return the throttle to idle. It is an important failsafe system used by other vehicle manufacturers to keep a sudden unintended acceleration event from turning into a runaway vehicle with resulting crashes, injuries, and deaths.

Toyota has recently announced that it will install this important safety device on all new Toyota and Lexus vehicles. In its November 26, 2009, recall, Toyota also announced that it would retroactively install this important safety device on just six existing models and further limited the recall to only recent model years -- 2007 -- 2010 Toyota Camry, 2005 -- 2010 Toyota Avalon, 2007 -- 2010 Lexus ES 350, 2007 2010 Lexus GS 350, 2006 -- 2010 Lexus IS 250, and 2006 2010 Lexus IS 350.

The preliminary injunction motion asserts that by limiting this brake over-ride system recall to recent model years for just six vehicle models, Toyota has left more than 75 percent of the affected models and model years out of this important recall.

"Toyota cannot justify limiting this important recall to models and model years that include less than 25 percent of the reported sudden acceleration problems," says Richard McCune, a partner at McCuneWright, LLP. "Toyota has identified an important solution to this problem and it has a duty to its customers and to public safety the apply it to all the Toyota vehicles. Toyota shouldn't wait until there's another deadly crash."

On November 5, 2009, McCuneWright filed the first and leading class action on sudden unintended acceleration, Choi, et. al. v. Toyota Motor Company, et. al. CV 09-08143 AHM (FMOx), in United States District Court, Central District of California. The preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits can be found on the Court's website or is available at www.mccunewright.com/toyota.

SOURCE McCuneWright, LLP

Atricure to Pay U.S. $3.76 Million to Resolve Medicare Fraud Allegations

2010-02-02T19:29:05Z

Atricure Inc., a medical device manufacturer, has agreed to pay the United States $3.76 million to resolve civil claims in connection with the alleged promotion of its surgical ablation devices, the Justice Department announced today. Surgical ablation devices use focused energy to create controlled lesions or scar tissue on a patient's heart or other organs.

The settlement resolves allegations that the West Chester, Ohio-based company marketed its medical devices to treat atrial fibrillation (the most common cardiac arrhythmia or abnormal heart rhythm), a use that is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Atricure also allegedly promoted expensive heart surgery using the company's devices when less invasive alternatives were appropriate, advised hospitals to up-code surgical procedures using the company's devices to inflate Medicare reimbursement, and paid kickbacks to health care providers to use its devices. The United States asserted that by engaging in this conduct, Atricure knowingly violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims in violation of the False Claims Act.

"This settlement reflects our commitment to enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and protect Medicare from the improper marketing practices of Atricure and other medical device manufacturers," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. "We will continue to work with our partners at the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General's Office and the FDA Office of Chief Counsel to preserve the integrity of our public health programs."

The allegations were made against Atricure in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private citizens, called "relators," to bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment. The relator will receive a total of $625,000 as the statutory share of the current settlement.

"The misuse of medical devices has the potential of exposing patients to dangerous procedures and taxpayers to payment of unwarranted claims against Medicare," said Tim Johnson, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. "This settlement demonstrates the government's commitment to maintaining safe and affordable health care for its citizens."

Assistant Attorney General West noted that the settlement with Atricure resulted from a coordinated effort by the Justice Department's Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, and the FDA Office of Chief Counsel.

This settlement is part of the government's emphasis on combating health care fraud. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover approximately $2.2 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department's total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 have topped $3 billion.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

Five Indicted in Auto Theft Conspiracy that Allegedly Netted More than 80 Vehicles Worth in Excess of $1 Million

2010-01-14T20:38:01Z

Tommy L. Thompson, Jr., 48, of Indianapolis, Christopher Wells, 45, of Indianapolis, Francis W. Coleman, 41, of Laurel, Md., Carl E. McCreary, 48, of Frisco City, Ala., and Fred D. Bear, Jr., 39, of Avon, Ind., were indicted in connection with an auto theft ring that allegedly stole more than 80 vehicles valued in excess of $1 million dollars. This indictment follows their arrests on Dec. 28, 2009 on a complaint filed in district court.

This indictment is the result of a seven-months long investigation by the U.S. Secret Service and the Indiana State Police with assistance by the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Greenfield Police Department, Shelbyville Police Department, Lawrence Police Department, Muncie Police Department, Greensburg Police Department, Fishers Police Department, Clarksville Police Department, Kokomo Police Department, Brownsburg Police Department, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and the Alabama Department of Safety and Alabama Bureau of Investigation.

The indictment alleges that in June 2006, Christopher Wells and Francis Coleman entered into an agreement to steal motor vehicles and use counterfeit motor vehicle titles and counterfeit vehicle identification numbers to fool state title authorities into thinking the stolen vehicles were not stolen, and could be legally sold. Wells and Coleman were purportedly joined by Thompson and McCreary in or about April 2007, and all four participated until their arrest on Dec. 29, 2009. Bear allegedly participated from March 2008 through September 2009. In furtherance of this scheme, the defendants utilized the U.S. Postal Service and Federal Express to send and receive the counterfeit documents.

According to the indictment, Coleman, Wells, Thompson and others would steal motor vehicles from both within and outside of the Southern District of Indiana. They would then locate vehicles of an identical make and model in Canada and copy those vehicles' vehicle identification number (VIN). Coleman would create counterfeit Washington, D.C., or North Carolina motor vehicle titles and VIN stickers bearing the Canadian vehicles' information. Coleman would then either drive or ship the counterfeit documents to Wells in Indianapolis, where Wells, Thompson and others would clone the vehicles. After the vehicles were cloned, either Bear or McCreary would receive the vehicles for sale.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Bradley P. Shepard, who is prosecuting the case for the government, all are charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and each faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Thompson remains in custody and the remaining defendants are on pre-trial release.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Colorado Man Arrested for Removing and Replacing Labels on Gatorade Bottles

2010-01-13T20:43:06Z

Jason Eric Kay, age 38, of Longmont, Colo., was arrested this afternoon without incident on charges of misbranding and altering food labels with intent to cause serious injury to the business of any person, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA OCI) announced. Kay will be held overnight in custody. He will likely make his initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Denver tomorrow.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, on Jan. 8, 2010, FDA OCI was notified by PepsiCo North America that the company had received multiple complaints from the public involving the re-labeling/tampering of 1 quart Tropical-Mango Flavored Gatorade bottles. The tampered bottles contained unauthorized labels depicting in part, a photograph of professional golfer Tiger Woods and his wife Elin Woods on one side, and the word "unfaithful" on the other side. PepsiCo through its wholly owned subsidiary, manufactures Gatorade. The company had not authorized the labeling of their product in this manner. The company further advised that the bar code on the label was fully functional and none of the bottles appeared to have been opened. Each bottle appeared to be individually numbered. Bottles were removed by personnel at Safeway and King Soopers stores in Erie, Boulder, Broomfield and Longmont, Colo.

"The consumer must have confidence that the labeling on the products they purchase has not been changed or altered in any way so that the information about the product is accurate," said U.S. Attorney David Gaouette. "Once a label is illegally changed, all of the information on that label is put into question."

Kay is charged with:

1. The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that is adulterated or misbranded which carries a penalty of not more than 1 year incarceration and not more than a $100,000 fine.

2. The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to food, if such act is done while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded carries a penalty of not more than 1 year incarceration and not more than a $100,000 fine.

3. With intent to cause serious injury to the business of any person, tainting a consumer product or rendering materially false or misleading the labeling of, or container for, a consumer product which affects interstate or foreign commerce, which carries a penalty of not more than 3 years' incarceration, a not more than a $250,000 fine.

This case was investigated by the Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Pena.

A criminal complaint is a probable cause charging document. Anyone accused of committing a federal felony crime has a Constitutional right to be indicted by a federal grand jury.

These charges are only allegations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

HNBA: A Disturbing Trend in Law School Diversity Portends Serious Implications for U.S. Society

2010-01-11T20:47:09Z

A joint project of the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) and the Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic at the Columbia University School of Law has resulted in data that shows a disturbing trend in law school diversity. See http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/salt.

While the results are not surprising, the project underscores that efforts to enhance diversity in law school enrollment have not been effective. Until such time as the trend is reversed, the quality of legal education in the U.S. will remain impaired, as will access to the U.S. legal and justice system for many Americans.

In general, the data produced by the joint project show that while law school enrollment from 1993 to 2008 increased by close to 3,000 new admissions, admissions by African-Americans and Mexican-Americans decreased by 7.5% and 11.7%, respectively. The issue is not a matter of qualifications, as the data indicate that the LSAT scores and GPAs of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans have markedly improved over the same period. Equally disturbing are data that indicate that the number of applications from African-American and Mexican-American students has remained steady from 1990 to 2008.

"Particularly significant results of the study are the data that show that African-Americans and Mexican-Americans have much higher shut-out admission rates than Caucasian students. So not only are admissions relatively decreasing for African-Americans and Mexican-Americans, they are more likely than not to get shut out of all the law schools to which they apply," said HNBA National President Roman D. Hernandez. "We knew these data have existed, but this latest review involving 2008 data is discouraging to say the least. There is no finger pointing here. We all need to work harder and our law schools need to reexamine admissions criteria. The HNBA has addressed law schools accreditation standards criteria before, and we are going to revisit that issue," said Hernandez.

10 Las Vegas Men Indicted for Falsifying Vehicle Emissions Tests

2010-01-08T20:53:34Z

A federal grand jury in Las Vegas today returned indictments against 10 Nevada-certified emissions testers for falsifying vehicle emissions test reports, the Justice Department announced.

Each defendant faces one felony Clean Air Act count for falsifying reports between November 2007 and May 2009. The number of falsifications varied by defendant, with some defendants having falsified approximately 250 records, while others falsified more than double that figure. One defendant is alleged to have falsified over 700 reports.

The individuals indicted include:

Eduardo Franco, 30

Alexander Wayne Worster, 27

William Joseph McCown, 48

Joseph DeMatteo, 52

David Eugene Nelson, 46

Louis Engene Demeo, 50

Adolpho Silva-Contreras, 47

Peter Escudero, 47

Wadji Waked, 24

Gary Smith, 47

Escudero resides in Pahrump, Nev. All other individuals are from Clark County, Nev.

The 10 defendants are alleged to have engaged in a practice known as "clean scanning" vehicles. The scheme involved entering the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for a vehicle that would not pass the emissions test into the computerized system, then connecting a different vehicle the testers knew would pass the test. These falsifications were allegedly performed for anywhere from $10 to $100 over and above the usual emissions testing fee.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Clean Air Act, requires the state of Nevada to conduct vehicle emissions testing in certain areas because the areas exceed national standards for carbon monoxide and ozone. Las Vegas is currently required to perform emissions testing.

To obtain a registration renewal, vehicle owners bring the vehicles to a licensed inspection station for testing. The emissions inspector logs into a computer to activate the system by using a unique password issued to the emissions inspector. The emissions inspector manually inputs the vehicle's VIN to identify the tested vehicle, then connects the vehicle for model year 1996 and later to an onboard diagnostics port connected to an analyzer. The analyzer downloads data from the vehicle's computer, analyzes the data and provides a "pass" or "fail" result. The pass or fail result and vehicle identification data are reported on the Vehicle Inspection Report. It is a crime to knowingly alter or conceal any record or other document required to be maintained by the Clean Air Act.

"Falsifications of vehicle emissions testing, such as those alleged in the indictments unsealed today, are serious matters and we intend to use all of our enforcement tools to stop this harmful practice. These actions undermine a system that is designed to reduce air pollutants including smog and provide better air quality for the citizens of Nevada," said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division.

"The residents of Nevada deserve to know that the vast majority of licensed vehicle emission inspectors are not corrupt and are not circumventing emission testing procedures," said U.S. Attorney Bogden. "These indictments should serve as a clear warning to offenders that the Department of Justice will prosecute you if you make fraudulent statements and reports concerning compliance with the federal Clean Air Act."

"Lying about car emissions means dirtier air, which is especially of concern in areas like Las Vegas that are already experiencing air quality problems," said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at EPA. "We will take aggressive action to ensure communities have clean air."

The maximum penalty for the felony violations contained in the indictments includes up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

The case was investigated by the EPA, Criminal Investigation Division; and the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles Compliance Enforcement Division. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Nevada and the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section.

U.S. District Court Issues Injunction Against Chicago Transit Authority

2010-01-08T17:26:01Z

Judge Rules Chicago Transit Authority Cannot Ban Computer and Video Game Ads

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) a preliminary injunction in its suit against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), the ESA said today. The case, which the ESA filed in July 2009, challenges CTA's prohibition of certain computer and video game advertisements as a violation of the guarantees of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In her opinion, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer stated, "...the advertisements the CTA wishes to ban promote expression that has constitutional value and implicates core First Amendment concerns."

"This ruling is a win for Chicago's citizens, the video game industry and, above all, the First Amendment," said Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the ESA, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers. "It is our hope that the CTA sees the futility of pursuing this case further. To do so will waste taxpayer money and government resources. Chicago deserves better and we look forward to bringing this matter to an end."

ESA argued that CTA's Ordinance 008-147, which took effect in January 2009, unfairly targeted the entertainment software industry by prohibiting any advertisement that "markets or identifies a video or computer game rated 'Mature 17+' (M) or 'Adults Only 18+' (AO)." The ESA further contended the ordinance unconstitutionally "restricts speech in a public forum that is otherwise open to all speakers without a compelling interest for doing so." In addition, the ESA's complaint stated that the ordinance impermissibly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and ignores less restrictive means of achieving the supposed ends of the ordinance. The court ruled that the ESA was likely to succeed on the merits of these claims at trial and, therefore, blocked enforcement of the ordinance until the case could be finally resolved.

The ESA also contended that the CTA's ordinance is unnecessary because game-related marketing is already subject to the Entertainment Software Rating Board's Advertising Review Council, which strictly regulates computer and video game advertisements that are seen by the general public. The Entertainment Software Rating Board assigns computer and video games ratings and content descriptors, which are both displayed on advertisements for those games.

The Entertainment Software Association is the U.S. association dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of companies publishing interactive games for video game consoles, handheld devices, personal computers, and the Internet. The ESA offers services to interactive entertainment software publishers including a global anti-piracy program, owning the E3 Expo, business and consumer research, federal and state government relations, First Amendment and intellectual property protection efforts.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Indicted for Attempted Bombing of Flight 253 on Christmas Day

2010-01-06T21:01:28Z

The Justice Department announced that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian national, was charged today in a six-count criminal indictment returned in the Eastern District of Michigan for his alleged role in the attempted Christmas day bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to Detroit.

Count one of the indictment charges Abdulmutallab with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, which carries a penalty of up to life in prison. Count two of the indictment charges him with attempted murder within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Count three of the indictment charges him with willful attempt to destroy or wreck an aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

Count four of the indictment charges Abdulmutallab with willfully placing a destructive device on an aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which was likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft. This violation carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Count five of the indictment charges him with use of a firearm/destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence, which carries a consecutive mandatory 30 years in prison. Count six of the indictment charges the defendant with possession of a firearm/destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence, which carries a consecutive mandatory 30 years in prison

"The charges that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab faces could imprison him for life," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "This investigation is fast-paced, global and ongoing, and it has already yielded valuable intelligence that we will follow wherever it leads. Anyone we find responsible for this alleged attack will be brought to justice using every tool -- military or judicial -- available to our government."

"The attempted murder of 289 innocent people merits the most serious charges available, and that's what we have charged in this indictment," said U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

According to the indictment, Northwest Airlines flight 253 carried 279 passengers and 11 crewmembers. Abdulmutallab allegedly boarded Northwest Airlines flight 253 in Amsterdam on Dec. 25, 2009 carrying a concealed bomb. The bomb components included Pentaerythritol (also known as PETN, a high explosive), as well as Triacetone Triperoxide (also known as TATP, a high explosive), and other ingredients.

The bomb was concealed in the defendant's clothing and was designed to allow him to detonate it at a time of his choosing, thereby causing an explosion aboard flight 253, according to the indictment. Shortly prior to landing at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Abdulmutallab detonated the bomb, causing a fire on board flight 253.

According to an affidavit filed in support of a criminal complaint, Abdulmutallab was subdued and restrained by the passengers and flight crew after detonating the bomb. The airplane landed shortly thereafter, and he was taken into custody by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. Abdulmutallab required medical treatment, and was transported to the University of Michigan Medical Center after the plane landed.

This prosecution is being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, with assistance from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department's National Security Division.

The investigation is being conducted by the Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is led by the FBI and includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Air Marshal Service, and other law enforcement agencies. Additional assistance has been provided by the Transportation Security Administration, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Wayne County Airport police, as well as international law enforcement partners.

The public is reminded that an indictment contains mere allegations and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

Minnesota Hospital to Pay U.S. to Resolve Allegations of False Claims Involving Unnecessary Admissions

2010-01-04T21:07:05Z

Wheaton Community Hospital, the City of Wheaton, Minn. and Dr. Stanley Gallagher (collectively WCH) have agreed to pay $846,461 to settle allegations that their hospital admission practices violated the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced today.

This settlement resolves allegations that WCH knowingly made false claims to Medicare for unreasonable and unnecessary hospital admissions. Specifically, the government contended that, from 1998 to 2004, WCH admitted some patients and kept others admitted to acute care when doing so was not medically necessary. The defendants then billed Medicare for the cost of these hospital admissions.

"Hospitals and doctors have a responsibility to provide patients with reasonable and necessary care. When they neglect those obligations, patients and taxpayers suffer," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Division.

The allegations against WCH arose from a lawsuit filed in federal court in Minnesota under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private individuals to file civil actions on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. Dr. Steven Radjenovich, the whisteblower in this case, formerly practiced at Wheaton Community Hospital with Dr. Gallagher. Dr. Radjenovich will receive $203,150 as his share of the settlement with WCH.

Assistant Attorney General West thanked the Justice Department's Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General for their efforts in handling this investigation and settlement.

Criminal Record Inc. Announces Fastest and Most In-Depth Criminal Records System Available

2010-01-01T21:19:04Z

Criminal Record Inc. has today announced today the deployment of the fastest and most in-depth criminal records indexing system in the United States

The creators claim it can rival any system produced by the Government for locating offenders and potential offenders.

Today Criminal Record has announced the deployment of powerful new programming, databases and hardware that make conducting a criminal records search anywhere in the United States a much more accurate and painless process.

For years conducting background checks has been problematic in the sense that not every record was covered and quality of data varied greatly in quality plus scope from company to company.

The new system announced by Criminal Record today (code named Raptor) is using a new type of artificial intelligence to collect and parse information from over 3000 U.S. counties and 98 Federal Districts. The new system is then taking that information and attaching it to Social Security Numbers, Dates of Birth, Relatives, Address Histories, Previous Jobs and public records to provider individuals with a much more complete overview.

This application has been in beta for the last 5 months and has preformed beautifully. It is now being released to the general public, private corporations and Government Agencies.

Because this application is web based and can be located at http://www.criminalrecord.net there is no need for a user to download and install software. This solves speed problems along with allowing users to conduct preliminary searches on other individuals in a purely private manner.

Top Five Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of 2009 Announced

2009-12-30T21:22:12Z

The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) announced today the top five vote getters of its 1st Annual Most Ridiculous Lawsuit of the Year Poll. Nominees were drawn from the monthly Most Ridiculous Lawsuit poll winners, chosen by visitors to FacesofLawsuitAbuse.org, a public awareness campaign Web site that aims to show how abusive lawsuits affect small businesses and average families in very real ways.

"While ridiculous lawsuits may be easy fodder for late-night television hosts, they are no laughing matter for the defendants targeted," said ILR President Lisa Rickard.

The top five Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of 2009 are:

5. Neighbor sues woman for smoking in her own home;

4. Double-murderer sues to claim his victims' classic Chevy pickup;

3. Holocaust denier sues Auschwitz survivor, alleging memoir contains "fantastical tales;"

2. Tourist sues hotel, claiming swimming pool got daughter pregnant;

1. Illegal immigrants sue rancher who stopped them on his property at gunpoint and turned them over to the Border Patrol.

Links to the news stories about these lawsuits can be found at: http://facesoflawsuitabuse.org/polls-archive/.

Throughout the year, the monthly and annual polls collectively received more than 50,000 votes.

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative, political, judicial, and educational activities at the national, state, and local levels.

The Prompt Recovery of a Child Under the Hague Convention Failed in Brazil

2009-12-28T21:24:50Z

When David Goldman applied for the return of his son from Brazil under the Hague Convention for Abducted Children he surely could not have imagined the five-year ordeal that would unfold. On December 23, 2009, two days before Christmas, a federal court in Rio ordered the stepfamily to return Sean Goldman to his father by 9:00 a.m. The stepfamily says that they will no longer fight and it looks like Sean Goldman will finally be returned to his only living parent.

Above: Flags at Hague Convention

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides for the prompt return of children. Under article 11, if a court decision is not made within six weeks, the court can be required to explain the delay. In the case of Sean Goldman, the mother flew to Brazil in 2004 for what was to be a two-week vacation. She then announced to father, David Goldman, that she would be getting a divorce and would not be returning. In a strange twist, the mother died in childbirth and Sean Goldman was left in the care of his stepfather, who refused to return custody to David Goldman. According to court records, David Goldman filed his application for the return of his son within 50 days of being informed that he would not return. The courts in Brazil did not finally determine the matter until five years later.

Mark Gouras, an attorney with the law firm of Gouras & Amis P.L.L.C. is an expert in the area of international child abductions. Mr. Gouras says, "It is not supposed to be this way under the Hague Convention. The whole point of the Hague Convention is to quickly determine which jurisdiction is the habitual residence and to promptly return that child to that jurisdiction. The Hague Convention specifically states that it is not supposed to be a custody battle. What happened to Mr. Goldman is the exact opposite of what should have happened under the Hague Convention. While the child will ultimately be returned, I can only describe the process of returning this child under the Hague Convention to be a failure."

Brazil became a signatory to the Hague Convention on Parental Abductions on December 1, 2003. In the U.S. State Department's April, 2009 Compliance Report to Congress, Brazil is listed as one of seven countries that are not in compliance with the Hague Convention. "The Hague Convention has been a tremendous tool in the recovery of children abducted by one of the parents, but the whole system envisioned by the treaty breaks down if the court won't promptly return the child," according to Mr. Gouras.

Florida Man Pleads Guilty to Traveling to the Philippines for Sex Tourism

2009-12-22T21:30:58Z

Donald Mathias of Davie, Fla., pleaded guilty today to engaging in sex tourism in the Philippines, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jeffrey H. Sloman and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Secretary John Morton.

Mathias, 64, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge William Peter Dimitrouleas in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., to four counts of traveling in foreign commerce and engaging in illicit sexual conduct. He was indicted on those charges on Oct. 27, 2009.

As part of his plea agreement, Mathias admitted that from 2005 until December 2008, he communicated and arranged with the mother of two minor females located in the Philippines, to travel to the Philippines and engage in sexual conduct with the minors. During this time, Mathias and the mother exchanged hundreds of e-mails regarding sexual activity between Mathias and the minor females, recording those sexual acts with a video camera and making payments to the mother in exchange for the sexual acts.

Mathias admitted that he traveled to the Philippines in April 2007 and again in December 2007, engaged in sexual conduct with the minors on those trips and recorded those acts with a video camera. Mathias also admitted that he made the minors sign a contract in December 2007, requiring the minors to be his sex slaves. Money transfer and e-mail records showed that Mathias sent thousands of dollars to the mother between 2005 and December 2008. Mathias also admitted that he traveled to the Philippines in December 2008 to engage in sexual conduct with the minors again. However, Filipino law enforcement detained Mathias and he was not successful in meeting the minors. On Oct. 14, 2009, the defendant was arrested by U.S. law enforcement in Miami.

As part of the plea agreement, the defendant and the government both agreed to recommend a sentence of 20 years in prison and a lifetime period of supervised release. The defendant also agreed to pay $200,000 in restitution to the victims of his crimes located in the Philippines, and agreed to transfer his real property to the United States in order to satisfy the restitution.

Sentencing has been set for March 2, 2010. At sentencing, Mathias faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, up to a $250,000 fine and the possibility of a lifetime period of supervised release.

This case was investigated by ICE's Office of Investigations in Miami and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, with assistance from the Philippines Department of Justice. This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Anitha Ibrahim of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Marlene Rodriguez of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.