Williby's Lawsuits Blog proudly presents its “featured and advertised attorney(s)” advertisement sections. From YouTube to Williby's Lawsuits Blog, our “featured and advertised attorneys” serve clients throughout the United States and the World. In addition to counseling clients who are, experiencing legal difficulty, have general legal questions, or are participating in litigation, our featured and advertised attorneys have extensive experience at all levels of federal and state trial, appellate and Supreme courts. Click here to follow us @ Twitter! (Visit our sister site Corrupt Justice™ as well!) NYC Folds!
July 27, 2010
New York (WLSB) -- New York City will pay more than $7 million to settle a civil lawsuit brought by the estate of a man killed by police outside a Queens' nightclub in 2006 and by his two friends, who were seriously wounded, a spokeswoman for the city's Law Department said Tuesday. The estate of Sean Bell, who was killed in the shooting, will receive $3.25 million, Joseph Guzman receive $3 million and Trent Benefield will get $900,000, said Kate Ahlers. "The city regrets the loss of life in this tragic case, and we share our deepest condolences with the Bell family," Michael Cardozo, attorney for the New York City Law Department. "We hope that all parties can find some measure of closure by this settlement." Bell, Guzman and Benefield were shot after an altercation with plainclothes detectives outside the Queens nightclub where Bell's bachelor party was held on the night before his wedding. Bell died at the scene, and Guzman and Benefield were seriously wounded.Accounts of the incident varied. Undercover officers, who were investigating the club regarding prostitution allegations, said they identified themselves as police, but witnesses and the wounded men said they did not. Police said they believed at least one of the men had a gun, but no gun was found. And one of the officers said the Bell, instead of obeying his command to stop, hit him with his vehicle. The incident quickly became a touchstone for those who believe police -- in New York and elsewhere -- have a record of excessive force, particularly against black men. Bell, 23, was African-American, as were the two men wounded and two of the three police officers. The officers fired 50 shots in just a few seconds. The shooting sparked street protests, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg called it "inexplicable" and "unacceptable," saying "it sounds to me like excessive force was used."
In March 2007, three of the police officers were indicted on multiple charges.
Detectives Gescard Isnora, Marc Cooper and Michael Oliver -- who fired his gun 31 times that night, pausing to reload his weapon -- were acquitted of all charges in April 2008 Justice Arthur Cooperman of New York State Supreme Court said inconsistent testimony and other problems "had the effect of eviscerating the credibility" of key prosecution witnesses, and that some testimony "just didn't make sense." "The police response with respect to each defendant was not proved to be criminal -- i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums," Cooperman said, according to a transcript released by his office.
Citing insufficient evidence, the Department of Justice announced in February that it would not pursue federal civil rights charges against police officers involved. The department issued a statement saying that after a "careful and thorough" review, there is not enough evidence to prove that New York Police Department detectives "acted willfully" when they opened fire on Bell and his friends. In May, Rev. Al Sharpton led a large protest in response to the Department of Justice decision. Sharpton and Bell's fiancee and parents were among more than 200 people arrested in New York City. Sharpton responded to Tuesday's decision in a written statement. "This in no way mitigates or repairs the permanent damage done to them and the pain it has caused them forever nor does it diminish the outrage in the community," Sharpton said. "We will always pursue justice for the family of Sean Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield."
Oakland Settles ... Again!
July 21, 2010
OAKLAND — The Oakland City Council voted Tuesday night to pay $6.5 million in two search warrant cases from 2008 that claimed several Oakland police officers falsified sworn affidavits resulting in illegal raids on homes in East and West Oakland. The two federal civil rights lawsuits, representing 104 people, stemmed from allegations that a number of officers had misstated facts in sworn affidavits over a period of several years to Alameda County judges, indicating they had tested substances bought on the street to determine if they were drugs even though no test was ever conducted on the substances. The sworn statements were then used by judges to issue search warrants on homes and apartments which, in many instances, resulted in the arrest of residents in a variety of felony crimes. Most of the criminal cases that resulted from the illegal searches were dismissed. Four police officers were subsequently fired. Attorneys and the union representing the officers who were fired argued that the problems were caused by a lack of training and not intentional misconduct by the officers. But an internal investigation found otherwise. In the settlement, $2 million will come from city coffers, and the remaining $4.5 million will be paid by the city's insurance carrier, city officials said. Oakland attorneys who represented the plaintiffs, issued a statement Wednesday saying the settlement is "another move in the right direction in improving the quality of policing in Oakland and building trust between the police and the community." "There has been change, but we still have a long way to go," one of the attorneys said.24 Hour Unfitness!
July 18, 2010
A civil rights group filed a class-action lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of workers at 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc., claiming the San Ramon-based company's workers have been victims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and gender. The Alameda County Superior Court lawsuit claims the largest privately owned U.S. fitness chain has systematically discriminated against minority and female workers regarding promotions to management jobs and equal pay, violating the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Business and Profession Code. The suit demands that 24 Hour Fitness end its alleged discriminatory practices and provide back pay and damages to the employees who say they were treated unfairly.The company issued a statement saying it's "deeply committed to providing a work environment that is free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation. "24 Hour Fitness makes its hiring and promotional decisions without regard to race, national origin, gender or any other protected basis," it said. "We firmly deny the allegations made in the complaint and we expect to prevail when all the facts are heard." The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Oakland law firm of Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson represent the plaintiffs. "I am a competitor and I strive to be my best, but at 24 Hour Fitness that is not recognized," lead plaintiff Raoul Fulcher, who says he was passed over for promotions because he's African-American, said in a Legal Defense and Education Fund news release.
An attorney for the plaintiffs who was the nation's top civil rights prosecutor as an assistant attorney general during the Clinton administration, said the company "promises customers a family fitness environment" but "does not treat its minority and women employees as part of the family. Qualified, experienced minorities and women work lower-level jobs, but don't get a chance at management jobs. Breaking the promise of equal opportunity is against the law." 24 Hour Fitness serves more than 3.5 million members in more than 400 clubs nationwide, of which about 200 employ more than 10,000 people in California; it has more than 20 sites in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
Abuse of Process!
July 18, 2010
As millions of Americans have fallen behind on paying their bills, debt collection law firms have been clogging courtrooms with lawsuits seeking repayment. Few have been as prolific as Cohen & Slamowitz, a Woodbury, N.Y., firm that has specialized in debt collection for nearly two decades. The firm has been filing roughly 80,000 lawsuits a year. With just 14 lawyers on staff, that works out to more than 5,700 cases per lawyer. How is that possible? The answer to that question is at the heart of a growing debate over the increasing use of the nation’s legal system to collect on bad debts.
Like many other firms, Cohen & Slamowitz relies on computer software to help prepare its cases. While many of the cases represent legitimate claims, critics say the lawsuits are too often based on inaccurate or incomplete information about the debtor or the amount owed. Already, some state legislators and judges have tried to crack down on collection lawsuits, and on Monday, the Federal Trade Commission weighed in, saying the system for resolving disputes over consumer debts was broken and in need of “significant reforms.” The commission, which says debt collection is its top consumer complaint, proposed that states require collectors to include more information about debts in their lawsuits, including a breakdown of the current balance by principal, interest and fees, and the relevant terms of the original credit contract, if not the contract itself. The agency also urged states to adopt measures to make it more likely that consumers would show up in court to defend themselves; currently, most do not, resulting in default judgments. “We are pushing very hard to make certain that debt collectors have sufficient substantiation, particularly when a consumer challenges the debt,” said David Vladeck, director of the commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. The commission, which has limited authority to write debt collection rules, urged states to take action because most collection cases are filed in state courts.
The litigation boom has been propelled by fundamental changes in the way debts are collected, particularly for credit cards. In recent years, credit card companies have increasingly sold off debt they have considered uncollectible to debt buyers, usually for 5 cents or less on the dollar. The debt buyers, in turn, may try to collect the debt themselves using traditional practices like sending letters or making phone calls to a consumer to try to arrange a payment plan. Increasingly, they are choosing to sue instead. Collection law firms are able to handle such large volumes of cases because computer software automates much of their work. Typically, a debt buyer sends a law firm an electronic database that contains various data about consumers, including name, home address, the outstanding balance, the date of default and whether interest is still accruing on the account.
Once the data is obtained by a law firm, software like Collection-Master from a company called Commercial Legal Software can “take a file and run it through the entire legal system automatically,” including sending out collection letters, summonses and lawsuits, said Nicholas D. Arcaro, vice president for sales and marketing at the company. No group has definitive statistics on debt collection lawsuits, but federal regulators, collection lawyers and judges say the numbers have increased and are straining the court system. Most consumers fail to show up in court, and those who do rarely have a lawyer. A court judgment gives debt buyers the ability to collect on the debt through actions like wage or property garnishment. “What they are hoping to recover is the full dollar on some of it,” said Robert J. Hobbs, deputy director of the National Consumer Law Center, an advocacy group. “On most of it, they are hoping to recover 40 or 50 cents on the dollar. And they are hoping to do it with as little work as they can.”
Critics say the business model for some debt buyers and law firms relies on such huge volumes of legal actions that mistakes and abuses are inevitable, in part because the lawsuits are often based on little more than a defendant’s name, address and alleged balance. “It’s the factory approach to practicing law,” said a New Mexico lawyer who represents consumers against debt collectors.
C.E.B.
A Debate on the Google Book Search Settlement.
More Below
0 comments:
Post a Comment