A judge on Saturday sentenced the man who killed four people in a brazen courthouse escape to multiple life sentences with no chance of parole after a deadlocked jury failed to return a death sentence.
Brian Nichols, 37, was found guilty last month of murder and dozens of other counts for the March 2005 rampage that started in a downtown courthouse, led to an Atlanta neighborhood and ended with his capture the next day in a suburban county. He will likely die in prison after Superior Court Judge James Bodiford handed down the maximum sentence on each charge.
"If there was any more I could give you, I would," the judge said.
Nichols was spared capital punishment when the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision to condemn him to death row for the murders of a judge, a court reporter, a deputy and a federal agent.
After four days and more than 30 hours of deliberations, the jury was deadlocked at 9-3, with nine in favor of the death penalty and three voting for life without parole.
Nichols, who argued he was mentally insane when he carried out the killings, spoke for the first time in court on Saturday.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Man gets first NH death sentence in 49 years
A jury has issued New Hampshire's first death sentence in nearly a half-century to a man who fatally shot a police officer two years ago.
Twenty-eight year-old Michael Addison had no reaction as the Hillsborough County Superior Court jury announced its verdict after about 13 hours of deliberation.
The judge must impose the sentence and cannot change it.
New Hampshire hasn't executed anyone since 1939 and hasn't sentenced anyone to death since 1959.
Jurors unanimously agreed that Addison deserves to die for purposely shooting Officer Michael Briggs to avoid being arrested.
Twenty-eight year-old Michael Addison had no reaction as the Hillsborough County Superior Court jury announced its verdict after about 13 hours of deliberation.
The judge must impose the sentence and cannot change it.
New Hampshire hasn't executed anyone since 1939 and hasn't sentenced anyone to death since 1959.
Jurors unanimously agreed that Addison deserves to die for purposely shooting Officer Michael Briggs to avoid being arrested.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Jerry Ringler - Experienced Train Accident Attorney sends Special Message to Chatsworth Victims
Special Message for Victims of Chatsworth Metrolink Disaster
On September 12, 2008, an unprecedented tragedy occurred in Chatsworth, California when Metrolink Train #111 struck a Union Pacific freight train which was traveling on the same tracks. Our hearts go out to the victims. But this tragedy should not have happened. It happened because of human error on the part of Metrolink employees. Unfortunately, as the lawyers of RKA know well, human error by railroad engineers is not at all unique as a cause of commuter rail disasters.
Jerome L. Ringler has greater experience in representing victims of commuter rail and freight train disasters than any other lawyer in the State of California, if not the country. He has served as lead counsel in every one of the largest commuter rail disasters which have occurred in Southern California in the past 10 years.
In the Placentia Commuter Rail Disaster of 2003, Mr. Ringler was appointed by the Court as lead counsel for all of the Plaintiffs. He was requested by all of the lawyers representing individuals injured or killed in that incident to try the first case. That case resulted in the largest verdict for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ever rendered by a jury in the United States. That verdict, which was for $9 million, is detailed below in the multimedia section.
In the Burbank Commuter Rail Disaster, which also occurred in 2003, Mr. Ringler was again appointed by the Court to serve as lead counsel. In that capacity he was given the responsibility to try the entire liability (i.e., fault) case for all of the victims. In other words, every one of the dozens of lawyers who represented individual victims in that disaster trusted Mr. Ringler to try the liability phase for them, knowing that their clients would only recover if Mr. Ringler was successful. He was. In fact, Mr. Ringler not only obtained a favorable verdict for all of the plaintiffs, he obtained a $12 million verdict for his own client as well. This verdict was the largest in the State of California for a person with the type of injuries Mr. Ringler's client had suffered. This verdict is detailed below in the multimedia section.
Mr. Ringler is currently lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the Glendale Metrolink Derailment Disaster of 2005. This incident was, before September 12, 2008, the largest Metrolink disaster in history. Interestingly, in that case (which involves 11 deaths and dozens of serious injuries), Mr. Ringler has, against all odds, developed testimony proving that, even though a mentally-ill person placed a jeep across the tracks that the Metrolink train was traveling upon, human error on the part of the Metrolink engineer prevented him from stopping the train before hitting the jeep, which caused the train to derail. In other words, while the jeep certainly never should have been on the tracks, the Metrolink engineer would have been able to stop the train before ever striking the jeep had he only been paying proper attention. That case is scheduled to go to trial on June 8, 2009, with Mr. Ringler as lead counsel.
The verdicts detailed on this page all relate to railroad litigation. However, Mr. Ringler has achieved enormous, record-breaking monetary awards across California in a variety of complex areas. Those accomplishments are detailed elsewhere in this website. To see them, click here.
If you or a loved one has suffered injury or death as a result of the horrific Chatsworth Metrolink Disaster, we are available to discuss your rights with you confidentially and at no charge.
Please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Ask for Mr. Ringler,or any of his partners, at (213) 473-1900.
Train Accident Attorneys
On September 12, 2008, an unprecedented tragedy occurred in Chatsworth, California when Metrolink Train #111 struck a Union Pacific freight train which was traveling on the same tracks. Our hearts go out to the victims. But this tragedy should not have happened. It happened because of human error on the part of Metrolink employees. Unfortunately, as the lawyers of RKA know well, human error by railroad engineers is not at all unique as a cause of commuter rail disasters.
Jerome L. Ringler has greater experience in representing victims of commuter rail and freight train disasters than any other lawyer in the State of California, if not the country. He has served as lead counsel in every one of the largest commuter rail disasters which have occurred in Southern California in the past 10 years.
In the Placentia Commuter Rail Disaster of 2003, Mr. Ringler was appointed by the Court as lead counsel for all of the Plaintiffs. He was requested by all of the lawyers representing individuals injured or killed in that incident to try the first case. That case resulted in the largest verdict for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ever rendered by a jury in the United States. That verdict, which was for $9 million, is detailed below in the multimedia section.
In the Burbank Commuter Rail Disaster, which also occurred in 2003, Mr. Ringler was again appointed by the Court to serve as lead counsel. In that capacity he was given the responsibility to try the entire liability (i.e., fault) case for all of the victims. In other words, every one of the dozens of lawyers who represented individual victims in that disaster trusted Mr. Ringler to try the liability phase for them, knowing that their clients would only recover if Mr. Ringler was successful. He was. In fact, Mr. Ringler not only obtained a favorable verdict for all of the plaintiffs, he obtained a $12 million verdict for his own client as well. This verdict was the largest in the State of California for a person with the type of injuries Mr. Ringler's client had suffered. This verdict is detailed below in the multimedia section.
Mr. Ringler is currently lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the Glendale Metrolink Derailment Disaster of 2005. This incident was, before September 12, 2008, the largest Metrolink disaster in history. Interestingly, in that case (which involves 11 deaths and dozens of serious injuries), Mr. Ringler has, against all odds, developed testimony proving that, even though a mentally-ill person placed a jeep across the tracks that the Metrolink train was traveling upon, human error on the part of the Metrolink engineer prevented him from stopping the train before hitting the jeep, which caused the train to derail. In other words, while the jeep certainly never should have been on the tracks, the Metrolink engineer would have been able to stop the train before ever striking the jeep had he only been paying proper attention. That case is scheduled to go to trial on June 8, 2009, with Mr. Ringler as lead counsel.
The verdicts detailed on this page all relate to railroad litigation. However, Mr. Ringler has achieved enormous, record-breaking monetary awards across California in a variety of complex areas. Those accomplishments are detailed elsewhere in this website. To see them, click here.
If you or a loved one has suffered injury or death as a result of the horrific Chatsworth Metrolink Disaster, we are available to discuss your rights with you confidentially and at no charge.
Please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Ask for Mr. Ringler,or any of his partners, at (213) 473-1900.
Train Accident Attorneys
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tax fraud brings record fines
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance last week slapped civil penalties of $606,000 on the two convicted owners and operators of a now defunct Ridgewood tax preparation business.The fines are the largest penalties the department has ever imposed against paid tax preparers for filing fraudulent tax returns.
Briseida Christopher, 65, of Brooklyn, the owner of Gypsy Travel and Juana DeCastro of Woodhaven, a tax preparer who worked at the Gypsy Travel office pleaded guilty this past summer to felony charges relating to the preparation and filing of false income tax returns.Christopher and DeCastro were indicted in February 2007 and charged with multiple felony counts for filing fraudulent New York State personal income tax returns for clients and for themselves. They were also cited for secretly charging their client’s additional tax preparation fees - sometimes as much as $600 per client - against their refund anticipation loans.To generate false refunds, Christopher and DeCastro inflated their clients’ itemized deductions and reported false business and rental losses.
Christopher was sentenced on February 8 to time served and probation. DeCastro is scheduled to be sentenced in April. She faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail and probation.Both pleaded guilty this past summer to felony charges relating to the preparation and filing of false income tax returns.
US class action against AWB dismissed
The anti-trust suit, on behalf of a group of US farmers, alleged AWB paid bribes to the former Iraqi Government to get a monopoly on wheat sales, thus depressing world wheat prices.
But District Court Judge Gerard Lynch said the Iraq market took just over one per cent of US wheat exports, and simply could not have been a "substantial factor" affecting prices.
He said the claimed drop in US wheat prices could very well have resulted from "wholly unrelated factors".
The US farmers had been claiming US$10 million in damages. AWB says the case was ill-conceived. But there are still two other class actions against it before the US courts.
Meanwhile, in Canberra, AWB has complained to a Senate Inquiry about the new powers the Federal Government plans to give to the wheat exports regulator.
The company is to lose its monopoly on wheat exports, following the Cole Inquiry's revelations about the kickbacks to the Iraqi Government to win contracts.
AWB corporate affairs manager, Robert Hadler, told the Senate inquiry the regulator would have too much power to decide who was fit to export.
"There is a risk that we could eventually have a wheat industry ASIC, and I think we need to guard against that," he said.
But District Court Judge Gerard Lynch said the Iraq market took just over one per cent of US wheat exports, and simply could not have been a "substantial factor" affecting prices.
He said the claimed drop in US wheat prices could very well have resulted from "wholly unrelated factors".
The US farmers had been claiming US$10 million in damages. AWB says the case was ill-conceived. But there are still two other class actions against it before the US courts.
Meanwhile, in Canberra, AWB has complained to a Senate Inquiry about the new powers the Federal Government plans to give to the wheat exports regulator.
The company is to lose its monopoly on wheat exports, following the Cole Inquiry's revelations about the kickbacks to the Iraqi Government to win contracts.
AWB corporate affairs manager, Robert Hadler, told the Senate inquiry the regulator would have too much power to decide who was fit to export.
"There is a risk that we could eventually have a wheat industry ASIC, and I think we need to guard against that," he said.
Nevada court ruling preserves whistleblowing case
A ruling Thursday by the Nevada Supreme Court preserves a whistleblower's complaint against International Game Technology in a case that started with a claim that IGT filed false tax returns and owed the state up to $50 million in back taxes. The high court's unanimous opinion upholds a decision by Washoe County District Judge Connie Steinheimer that favored Jim McAndrews, who had worked on tax matters at Reno-based IGT and was fired in 2006.
McAndrews got an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court two years ago in the dispute, but followed up with a whistleblower protection complaint based on the state False Claims Act's anti-retaliation provisions.
McAndrews contends that IGT retaliated against him by suspending him with pay and barring him from IGT premises after his first complaint and eventually firing him after he lost his first Supreme Court case.
In its latest ruling, the Supreme Court rejected an argument by IGT attorneys that McAndrews couldn't win his case unless he could show that IGT "pressured him into the fraudulent activity in the first place."
While such a showing of participation is required under one state law, justices said another law section says a former employee can recover damages "simply by alleging and proving that his employer retaliated against him."
The 14-page opinion returns the case to Steinheimer's court for further action.
In the first case that was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006, McAndrews alleged that IGT and Anchor Coin Co. were involved in a joint venture and since 1997 had filed false sales and use tax returns with the state on sales and leases of slot machines and slot components. Anchor later was acquired and merged into IGT.
In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, IGT has said it was advised that it had "a good faith legal basis" for not paying the taxes, although the company might wind up owing something.
Nevada's 1999 whistleblower law gives people with inside knowledge about such cases a percentage of any amount eventually collected by the state.
McAndrews got an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court two years ago in the dispute, but followed up with a whistleblower protection complaint based on the state False Claims Act's anti-retaliation provisions.
McAndrews contends that IGT retaliated against him by suspending him with pay and barring him from IGT premises after his first complaint and eventually firing him after he lost his first Supreme Court case.
In its latest ruling, the Supreme Court rejected an argument by IGT attorneys that McAndrews couldn't win his case unless he could show that IGT "pressured him into the fraudulent activity in the first place."
While such a showing of participation is required under one state law, justices said another law section says a former employee can recover damages "simply by alleging and proving that his employer retaliated against him."
The 14-page opinion returns the case to Steinheimer's court for further action.
In the first case that was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006, McAndrews alleged that IGT and Anchor Coin Co. were involved in a joint venture and since 1997 had filed false sales and use tax returns with the state on sales and leases of slot machines and slot components. Anchor later was acquired and merged into IGT.
In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, IGT has said it was advised that it had "a good faith legal basis" for not paying the taxes, although the company might wind up owing something.
Nevada's 1999 whistleblower law gives people with inside knowledge about such cases a percentage of any amount eventually collected by the state.
US Rep. Wynn to Resign, Join Law Firm
Eight-term U.S. Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-Md.), who was defeated last month in the Democratic primary, said yesterday he will resign from Congress in June to take a job at a prominent Washington law firm with an active lobbying practice.
His decision to leave before his term ends in January prompted some residents of his district to worry that they will be left without representation for months unless Maryland holds a potentially costly special election to replace him.
Several congressional ethics experts also called it highly unusual to announce a resignation months before it takes effect, a situation that might force Wynn to recuse himself from votes.
Wynn, who for 15 years has represented the 4th Congressional District, which includes most of Prince George's County and part of Montgomery County, said in a statement that it is "time to move into another phase of my life." He indicated he will become a partner in the law firm Dickstein Shapiro. He lost in the primary by more than 20 percentage points to Donna F. Edwards, a Prince George's nonprofit executive.
Wynn would not comment beyond his statement, which did not give a reason for the timing of his resignation.
Ethics experts and watchdog groups characterized Wynn's move as potentially rife with conflicts of interest because he could be confronted with issues related to his new employer's clients while still in office.
"Typically once somebody announces their departure, they start packing their bags," said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics expert at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "It's hard to legislate when people are already thinking of you in the private sector."
Under an ethics law enacted last year, lawmakers are required to notify the House Ethics Committee soon after they begin to negotiate for a job outside Congress. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment on whether Wynn had alerted the committee.
Wynn suggested that he was leaving early in part to give Edwards the chance to join Congress early through a special election, allowing her to build seniority and get off to a "fast start in serving the citizens of our community."
However, a special election is not guaranteed. Under Maryland law, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) can choose whether to hold a special primary and general election or leave the seat empty until January, when the winner of November's general election will be sworn in. Edwards will face Republican Peter James in November in the overwhelmingly Democratic district.
His decision to leave before his term ends in January prompted some residents of his district to worry that they will be left without representation for months unless Maryland holds a potentially costly special election to replace him.
Several congressional ethics experts also called it highly unusual to announce a resignation months before it takes effect, a situation that might force Wynn to recuse himself from votes.
Wynn, who for 15 years has represented the 4th Congressional District, which includes most of Prince George's County and part of Montgomery County, said in a statement that it is "time to move into another phase of my life." He indicated he will become a partner in the law firm Dickstein Shapiro. He lost in the primary by more than 20 percentage points to Donna F. Edwards, a Prince George's nonprofit executive.
Wynn would not comment beyond his statement, which did not give a reason for the timing of his resignation.
Ethics experts and watchdog groups characterized Wynn's move as potentially rife with conflicts of interest because he could be confronted with issues related to his new employer's clients while still in office.
"Typically once somebody announces their departure, they start packing their bags," said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics expert at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "It's hard to legislate when people are already thinking of you in the private sector."
Under an ethics law enacted last year, lawmakers are required to notify the House Ethics Committee soon after they begin to negotiate for a job outside Congress. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment on whether Wynn had alerted the committee.
Wynn suggested that he was leaving early in part to give Edwards the chance to join Congress early through a special election, allowing her to build seniority and get off to a "fast start in serving the citizens of our community."
However, a special election is not guaranteed. Under Maryland law, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) can choose whether to hold a special primary and general election or leave the seat empty until January, when the winner of November's general election will be sworn in. Edwards will face Republican Peter James in November in the overwhelmingly Democratic district.
Starbucks sued in Minnesota
Another former Starbucks employee is suing over the way the coffee chain store divides up tips. Starbucks is already planning to appeal a California judge's order that it pay $100 million in tips and interest because supervisors shared in the tips given to baristas.
And on Wednesday another state lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts. Now a Minnesota lawsuit accuses Starbucks of the same thing. It says Starbucks broke a Minnesota law that prohibits employers from requiring employees to share tips. The lawsuit claims that some of those who shared in the tips were supervisors.
Starbucks says its baristas and shift supervisors share tips because they all provide the same customer service. They're all hourly employees. Starbucks says store managers do not get tips. The Minnesota case is in Washington County and seeks class-action status.
And on Wednesday another state lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts. Now a Minnesota lawsuit accuses Starbucks of the same thing. It says Starbucks broke a Minnesota law that prohibits employers from requiring employees to share tips. The lawsuit claims that some of those who shared in the tips were supervisors.
Starbucks says its baristas and shift supervisors share tips because they all provide the same customer service. They're all hourly employees. Starbucks says store managers do not get tips. The Minnesota case is in Washington County and seeks class-action status.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)