Law Promo announced today that it will form a partnership with BreakingLegalNews.com. The two companies together will create a one stop shop for lawyers and law firms’ online needs. This partnership will allow much more opportunity for both party’s clients in the way of Search Engine Optimization and online awareness.
Lawyers and law firms alike can combine their online marketing efforts with the two companies, making their online brand, marketing and public relations efforts seamless. With direct links between their website or blog and their own dedicated page showcasing their articles, press releases, videos and audio clips on BreakingLegalNews.com, the visibility couldn’t get any better.
Lawyers have a multitude of options with BreakingLegalNews.com to increase their visibility and online visibility. By posting articles and having their own Featured Commentary, lawyers can have a voice in the legal community and advertise their knowledge and opinions on current legal matters. Lawyers can also submit video footage and audio clips for viewers to watch online or download for viewing later. All of the different submission options on BreakingLegalNews.com provide their own dedicated link in which the information will be archived for life.
This partnership will be extremely beneficial for Law Promo clients as well as BreakingLegalNews.com client who are in need of a website to direct potential clients to for more information. Law Promo looks forward to developing a long lasting relationship with BreakingLegalNews.com.
10/01/2006
breaking legal news is now hiring!
Breaking Legal News Corp.(breakinglegalnews.com) is a fast growing internet based company revolutionizing the legal news & PR business, and we are looking for an enthusiastic, results oriented individual to join our team.
We are looking for a smart, articulate and ambitious online marketing manager to implement all of our online marketing and sales activities. This individual will be responsible for business development; sales activities, promoting BreakingLegalNews.com's unique opportunity to lawyers and law firms nationwide, developing new business & relationships, developing marketing strategies and evaluating market conditions and competitor data, and product/service development & pricing.
This individual must posess excellent written/verbal communication skills, the ability to generate new business via email marketing/sales as well as over the phone. The indvidual that we are looking for is well-spoken, poised, dynamic and focused with a vigorous work ethic and enjoys being on the phone
Responsibilities will include:
- Preparing and implementing a marketing strategy for each service - Responsible for managing qualified leads through closure- Develop new and unique ways to reach out to the legal community- Developing new business as well as maintaining our existing customer base
We are offering a unique opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a cutting edge, pro active company looking to change the way lawyers and law firms utilize the internet for marketing. We are fun, entrepreneurial, fast-paced and innovative and we are looking for an individual to help us continue our growth. The individual who is selected for this position will take ownership and pride in his/her job and in the success of our business.
Any experience in the legal field is a big plus.
US Senate approves US-Mexico border fence bill
The US Senate passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 Friday by a vote of 80-19, authorizing the construction of a 700-mile fence along the US-Mexico border. President Bush is expected to sign the measure, designed to curb illegal immigration into the United States.
A key provision of the bill dictates that the US Department of Homeland Security must have "operational control" over US borders within 18 months in an effort to keep illegal substances and illegal immigrants from entering the US, while also providing for a study to decide whether the government should also construct a fence along the Canadian border. A separate measure will fund construction and maintenance of the fence.
The US House of Representatives passed the border fence bill by a vote of 283-138 September 15. The Mexican government has already expressed its opposition to the scheme.
www.breakinglegalnews.com
A key provision of the bill dictates that the US Department of Homeland Security must have "operational control" over US borders within 18 months in an effort to keep illegal substances and illegal immigrants from entering the US, while also providing for a study to decide whether the government should also construct a fence along the Canadian border. A separate measure will fund construction and maintenance of the fence.
The US House of Representatives passed the border fence bill by a vote of 283-138 September 15. The Mexican government has already expressed its opposition to the scheme.
www.breakinglegalnews.com
9/28/2006
Merck's $50-Million Vioxx Award Too Excessive
SAN PEDRO, Calif., Sept. 19, 2006 -- When a federal judge threw out a $50-million jury award against Merck & Co.,calling it excessive for a former FBI agent who had suffered a heart attack while using the drug maker's Vioxx painkiller, the news was met with mixed feelings for the 16,000 Vioxx users that have filed suits against Merck.
On August 17, 2006 a federal jury in New Orleans awarded $51 million to Gerald Barnett - a retired FBI agent who had a heart attack in 2002 after taking Vioxx for 55 months - after finding that Merck knowingly misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact regarding Vioxx safety to the plaintiff's physician.
In a written ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon found that the jury's findings on Merck's liability were reasonable, but that the $50-million compensatory damage assessment was not.
Vioxx plaintiff's can see positive news in the ruling in that the jury's finding of Merck's liability and is a positive development for everyone suing Merck for damages. The ruling clearly establishes Merck's liability and will strengthen future Vioxx cases that go to trial this month. Many experts are predicting that Merck's liability will reach 50 billion in damages.
Fallon ruled that a new trial on all damages was necessary, citing a previous case requiring reconsideration of both awards when compensatory damages are reviewed. The new trial will also reconsider the punitive damages award of $1 million in the case, although the federal judge did not take issue with that award.
Merck may see a surge in Vioxx lawsuits after an independent study found an increased risk of kidney-related complications and arrhythmia. The study was conducted by researchers at Harvard University and published online September 12, 2006 by The Journal of the American Medical Association.
A data analysis of 114 clinical trials involving more than 116,000 patients found that Merck's withdrawn painkiller was associated with an increased risk of "renal events," which include swelling of the hands and feet, high blood pressure and kidney dysfunction.
With the statutes of limitations expiring soon for manyformer patients this may prompt many to "pile on" the tensof thousands of Vioxx-related lawsuits already filed against Merck. Merck is the fourth largest drug manufacturer in the U.S. and has pledged to fight each of the nearly 16,000 cases filed against them individually, rather than as a class action.
keywords:
Tax IRS Jerome Ringler Vioxx Roger Clark Clark & Goldberg Immigration Mark Lanier Lanier Law Firm Stuart D. Zimring Girardi & Keese tax & finance Dan Webb New York Times John Girardi John Manly DUI Mary Helen Sears Justice Department Patricia M. Annino
On August 17, 2006 a federal jury in New Orleans awarded $51 million to Gerald Barnett - a retired FBI agent who had a heart attack in 2002 after taking Vioxx for 55 months - after finding that Merck knowingly misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact regarding Vioxx safety to the plaintiff's physician.
In a written ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon found that the jury's findings on Merck's liability were reasonable, but that the $50-million compensatory damage assessment was not.
Vioxx plaintiff's can see positive news in the ruling in that the jury's finding of Merck's liability and is a positive development for everyone suing Merck for damages. The ruling clearly establishes Merck's liability and will strengthen future Vioxx cases that go to trial this month. Many experts are predicting that Merck's liability will reach 50 billion in damages.
Fallon ruled that a new trial on all damages was necessary, citing a previous case requiring reconsideration of both awards when compensatory damages are reviewed. The new trial will also reconsider the punitive damages award of $1 million in the case, although the federal judge did not take issue with that award.
Merck may see a surge in Vioxx lawsuits after an independent study found an increased risk of kidney-related complications and arrhythmia. The study was conducted by researchers at Harvard University and published online September 12, 2006 by The Journal of the American Medical Association.
A data analysis of 114 clinical trials involving more than 116,000 patients found that Merck's withdrawn painkiller was associated with an increased risk of "renal events," which include swelling of the hands and feet, high blood pressure and kidney dysfunction.
With the statutes of limitations expiring soon for manyformer patients this may prompt many to "pile on" the tensof thousands of Vioxx-related lawsuits already filed against Merck. Merck is the fourth largest drug manufacturer in the U.S. and has pledged to fight each of the nearly 16,000 cases filed against them individually, rather than as a class action.
keywords:
Tax IRS Jerome Ringler Vioxx Roger Clark Clark & Goldberg Immigration Mark Lanier Lanier Law Firm Stuart D. Zimring Girardi & Keese tax & finance Dan Webb New York Times John Girardi John Manly DUI Mary Helen Sears Justice Department Patricia M. Annino
Shield law's effect on national security debated
Proponents and detractors of a federal law that would protect journalists from revealing their confidential sources clashed Wednesday about whether judges or the executive branch would be better suited to weigh the interests of national security against the rights of reporters to protect their sources.
In its fourth hearing on the proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned a panel of witnesses that included former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, the second-in-command at the Department of Justice.
Although Olson and McNulty both have close ties to the Bush administration -- Olson represented President Bush in the U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore in 2000 -- they were on different sides Wednesday.
Olson, who supports the legislation, warned that journalist subpoenas have become "weapons of first resort" in federal investigations, and that reporters are often unable to determine whether their actions fall under the jurisdiction of federal or state law. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia recognize some form of a reporter's privilege but no such federal law exists. Olson said that since state shield laws have no federal counterpart, "uncertainty renders provisions in the states ineffective."
Furthermore, Olson argued that even if no federal shield law is adopted, "there will be judicial analysis of the process anyway" when reporters are served with subpoenas and they move to quash those subpoenas. "Judges do consider national security issues," Olson said.
Speaking on behalf of the Department of Justice, McNulty referred to the legislation as "a solution in search of a problem" and said that the department's guidelines already strike the correct balance between the government's interest and the interests of a free press.
A federal shield law, McNulty said, would only make criminal investigations more difficult and put too much power in the hands of judges. "Courts lack the ability and the knowledge to do a balancing test," he said.
In response to McNulty's comments, former prosecutor Bruce Baird said that the bill should be passed primarily because it "does no more than codify the Department of Justice's existing policy" on issuing subpoenas to reporters. Baird said that "from a defense perspective, the bill is also an improvement" because it would apply the department's guidelines to all investigations, creating a more uniform procedure.
Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the bill's co-sponsor, asked McNulty if under a proper application of the Department of Justice's guidelines, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller would have still gone to jail. McNulty declined to answer.
Steven Clymer, a professor at Cornell Law School, suggested that if a shield law is passed, the Department of Justice should be exempted from its provisions because department officials "already do a good job of policing themselves."
Clymer called the proposed bill "useless" because "at the moment of truth -- when the source seeks an assurance of anonymity -- it will not be clear" if any of the exceptions to the federal shield law apply.
The bill was originally introduced in the Senate last year by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).
Although the original bill provided for an absolute privilege for confidential sources, the current version, introduced in the Senate in May, offers only a qualified privilege. A similar bill has been introduced in the House.
more info www.breakinglegalnews.com
In its fourth hearing on the proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned a panel of witnesses that included former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, the second-in-command at the Department of Justice.
Although Olson and McNulty both have close ties to the Bush administration -- Olson represented President Bush in the U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore in 2000 -- they were on different sides Wednesday.
Olson, who supports the legislation, warned that journalist subpoenas have become "weapons of first resort" in federal investigations, and that reporters are often unable to determine whether their actions fall under the jurisdiction of federal or state law. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia recognize some form of a reporter's privilege but no such federal law exists. Olson said that since state shield laws have no federal counterpart, "uncertainty renders provisions in the states ineffective."
Furthermore, Olson argued that even if no federal shield law is adopted, "there will be judicial analysis of the process anyway" when reporters are served with subpoenas and they move to quash those subpoenas. "Judges do consider national security issues," Olson said.
Speaking on behalf of the Department of Justice, McNulty referred to the legislation as "a solution in search of a problem" and said that the department's guidelines already strike the correct balance between the government's interest and the interests of a free press.
A federal shield law, McNulty said, would only make criminal investigations more difficult and put too much power in the hands of judges. "Courts lack the ability and the knowledge to do a balancing test," he said.
In response to McNulty's comments, former prosecutor Bruce Baird said that the bill should be passed primarily because it "does no more than codify the Department of Justice's existing policy" on issuing subpoenas to reporters. Baird said that "from a defense perspective, the bill is also an improvement" because it would apply the department's guidelines to all investigations, creating a more uniform procedure.
Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the bill's co-sponsor, asked McNulty if under a proper application of the Department of Justice's guidelines, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller would have still gone to jail. McNulty declined to answer.
Steven Clymer, a professor at Cornell Law School, suggested that if a shield law is passed, the Department of Justice should be exempted from its provisions because department officials "already do a good job of policing themselves."
Clymer called the proposed bill "useless" because "at the moment of truth -- when the source seeks an assurance of anonymity -- it will not be clear" if any of the exceptions to the federal shield law apply.
The bill was originally introduced in the Senate last year by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).
Although the original bill provided for an absolute privilege for confidential sources, the current version, introduced in the Senate in May, offers only a qualified privilege. A similar bill has been introduced in the House.
more info www.breakinglegalnews.com
Justice Department Sues Florida City
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit against the City of Boca Raton, Fla., alleging that a city zoning ordinance discriminates against individuals with disabilities.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that a zoning ordinance passed by the city in 2002 and amended in 2003, excludes housing for persons recovering from alcohol or drug dependency from residential areas of the city and unreasonably restricts their operation in commercial zones in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The only zones in the city in which “substance abuse treatment facilities” (SATFs) may operate as of right under the ordinance are “medical center” districts. The complaint alleges that the ordinance intentionally and on its face targets housing for persons in recovery and subjects it to different and substantially more onerous requirements than other types of housing.
“No citizen should be refused an equal opportunity for housing in their community,” said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department is committed to preventing such housing discrimination against people with disabilities.”
“The Fair Housing Act protects all Americans from housing discrimination, including those persons recovering from substance abuse problems,” said R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. “My office, in conjunction with the Civil Rights Division, is deeply committed to enforcing the laws that provide equal protection to all Americans.”
The suit seeks to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance, monetary damages to compensate victims, civil penalties, and a court order barring future discrimination.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that a zoning ordinance passed by the city in 2002 and amended in 2003, excludes housing for persons recovering from alcohol or drug dependency from residential areas of the city and unreasonably restricts their operation in commercial zones in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The only zones in the city in which “substance abuse treatment facilities” (SATFs) may operate as of right under the ordinance are “medical center” districts. The complaint alleges that the ordinance intentionally and on its face targets housing for persons in recovery and subjects it to different and substantially more onerous requirements than other types of housing.
“No citizen should be refused an equal opportunity for housing in their community,” said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department is committed to preventing such housing discrimination against people with disabilities.”
“The Fair Housing Act protects all Americans from housing discrimination, including those persons recovering from substance abuse problems,” said R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. “My office, in conjunction with the Civil Rights Division, is deeply committed to enforcing the laws that provide equal protection to all Americans.”
The suit seeks to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance, monetary damages to compensate victims, civil penalties, and a court order barring future discrimination.
“Girls Gone Wild” Founder Joseph F. Pleads Guilty
WASHINGTON – Joseph Francis, founder, CEO and sole shareholder of two California companies doing business under the name “Girls Gone Wild,” has pleaded guilty to charges that he failed to create and maintain age and identity documents for performers in sexually explicit films produced and distributed by Girls Gone Wild, as required by federal law, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.
Francis entered the guilty plea yesterday before U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow at U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Santa Monica-based Mantra Films, Inc., which is owned and operated by Francis, entered a plea agreement on Sept. 12, 2006, at U.S. District Court in Panama City, Fla. A second related company, MRA Holdings, Inc., also entered a deferred prosecution agreement the same day.
Francis pleaded guilty to two counts filed under a law—often referred to as Section 2257—passed by Congress to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. The law protects against the use of minors in the production of sexually explicit material by requiring producers to create and maintain age and identity records for every performer. Producers and distributors must then label their products with the name of the custodian of the records and their location.
Under the agreements, Francis agreed to pay the maximum fine of $500,000, and his two companies agreed to pay an additional sum of $1.6 million in fines and restitution. Francis, Mantra, and MRA Holdings will make a public acknowledgment of criminal wrongdoing and agreed to fully comply with the record-keeping laws going forward. MRA Holdings also agreed that for three years it will employ an independent, outside monitor selected by the government and provide the monitor complete access to the books and records, production facilities and other locations required to ensure the company’s compliance with federal law relating to the production of visual materials under the name Girls Gone Wild, or any other name. In statements filed in court yesterday, Francis admitted that Girls Gone Wild, acting under his direction, filmed performers engaging in sexually explicit conduct and produced and distributed sexually explicit video materials during all of 2002 and part of 2003 while violating the record keeping and labeling laws.
In May 2006, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, pursuant to “Project Safe Childhood,” asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to begin conducting regular inspections of records kept by producers of sexually explicit materials pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2257. Producers are required to keep records on performers to include true name and date of birth and to produce these records on demand. These regulations and resulting inspections are designed to prevent producers from hiring minors as performers, and carry criminal penalties for violations.
The Los Angeles case is being prosecuted by Brent D. Ward, Director of the Justice Department’s Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, with assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Florida. The Obscenity Prosecution Task Force was formed to focus on the prosecution of adult obscenity nationwide. Investigation of the cases was conducted by the Adult Obscenity Squad of the FBI, which is based in Washington, D.C.
Francis entered the guilty plea yesterday before U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow at U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Santa Monica-based Mantra Films, Inc., which is owned and operated by Francis, entered a plea agreement on Sept. 12, 2006, at U.S. District Court in Panama City, Fla. A second related company, MRA Holdings, Inc., also entered a deferred prosecution agreement the same day.
Francis pleaded guilty to two counts filed under a law—often referred to as Section 2257—passed by Congress to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. The law protects against the use of minors in the production of sexually explicit material by requiring producers to create and maintain age and identity records for every performer. Producers and distributors must then label their products with the name of the custodian of the records and their location.
Under the agreements, Francis agreed to pay the maximum fine of $500,000, and his two companies agreed to pay an additional sum of $1.6 million in fines and restitution. Francis, Mantra, and MRA Holdings will make a public acknowledgment of criminal wrongdoing and agreed to fully comply with the record-keeping laws going forward. MRA Holdings also agreed that for three years it will employ an independent, outside monitor selected by the government and provide the monitor complete access to the books and records, production facilities and other locations required to ensure the company’s compliance with federal law relating to the production of visual materials under the name Girls Gone Wild, or any other name. In statements filed in court yesterday, Francis admitted that Girls Gone Wild, acting under his direction, filmed performers engaging in sexually explicit conduct and produced and distributed sexually explicit video materials during all of 2002 and part of 2003 while violating the record keeping and labeling laws.
In May 2006, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, pursuant to “Project Safe Childhood,” asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to begin conducting regular inspections of records kept by producers of sexually explicit materials pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2257. Producers are required to keep records on performers to include true name and date of birth and to produce these records on demand. These regulations and resulting inspections are designed to prevent producers from hiring minors as performers, and carry criminal penalties for violations.
The Los Angeles case is being prosecuted by Brent D. Ward, Director of the Justice Department’s Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, with assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Florida. The Obscenity Prosecution Task Force was formed to focus on the prosecution of adult obscenity nationwide. Investigation of the cases was conducted by the Adult Obscenity Squad of the FBI, which is based in Washington, D.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)