U.S. District Court Judge William Young made the following statement in the sentencing phase of "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, before ordering him to prison.It is interesting that the words of Judge Young were not heralded across the nation's papers and television sets. Why was our nation's elite press asleep?
===============
January 30, 2003 United States vs. Reid. Judge Young:
Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.
On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General.
On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. That's 80 years.
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Fear in the Court Room
Fear plays an important part in litigation.
Lawyers are afraid of losing, or perhaps intimidated by opposing counsel, and depending on the judge, they may also fear the jurist selected for the trial.
Lawyers are afraid of losing, or perhaps intimidated by opposing counsel, and depending on the judge, they may also fear the jurist selected for the trial.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Sex Discrimination in a Nutshell
The Law
The main statutory (law-based) protection against sex discrimination is under federal law and is found under what is commonly called “Title VII.” The Civil Rights Act (See: 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq.) provides that it is unlawful for an employer (private employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, and labor organizations) to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or to otherwise discriminate against any individual because of such individual’s ...sex....” 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1). Sexual harassment is also prohibited, though it is not specifically mentioned under the statute. The United States Supreme Court in the case Meritor Savings Bank, FSB vs. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399 (1986), held sexual harassment was in fact, an element that can be implied to exist within the statute.
The main statutory (law-based) protection against sex discrimination is under federal law and is found under what is commonly called “Title VII.” The Civil Rights Act (See: 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq.) provides that it is unlawful for an employer (private employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, and labor organizations) to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or to otherwise discriminate against any individual because of such individual’s ...sex....” 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1). Sexual harassment is also prohibited, though it is not specifically mentioned under the statute. The United States Supreme Court in the case Meritor Savings Bank, FSB vs. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399 (1986), held sexual harassment was in fact, an element that can be implied to exist within the statute.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Beware of Filing a Discrimination Case pro se
The Civil Rights arena is a very complex one. It’s not an area of the law well suited for the unwary, nor is it where someone can truly compete without a lawyer. There’s just too much that the lay person is not going to know that is crucial to their case.
For example, most Plaintiffs who file a discrimination lawsuit pro se (unrepresented by counsel) fail to understand the vital role of the process of discovery. It can be difficult for a plaintiff to remain in court with their case even with a lawyer, but without doing proper discovery, the odds are pretty strong that your case is going to be tossed out of court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This is a motion that says, in essence, that there isn’t a material issue of fact raised by the Plaintiff to be tried to the jury or the court. Thus, if the court decides there is no genuine, material issues of fact to be tried, it may issue a judgment for the Defendant, dismissing the case. (This often happens in these cases, even when represented by counsel.)
For example, most Plaintiffs who file a discrimination lawsuit pro se (unrepresented by counsel) fail to understand the vital role of the process of discovery. It can be difficult for a plaintiff to remain in court with their case even with a lawyer, but without doing proper discovery, the odds are pretty strong that your case is going to be tossed out of court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This is a motion that says, in essence, that there isn’t a material issue of fact raised by the Plaintiff to be tried to the jury or the court. Thus, if the court decides there is no genuine, material issues of fact to be tried, it may issue a judgment for the Defendant, dismissing the case. (This often happens in these cases, even when represented by counsel.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)