Judge ousts defendant twice from Guantanamo court

The military judge presiding over the Sept. 11 war crimes tribunal at Guantanamo ejected one defendant from the courtroom twice Tuesday for speaking out of turn, adding a bit of drama to an otherwise dry pretrial motions hearing at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Ramzi Binalshibh, one of five Guantanamo prisoners charged with orchestrating the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, refused repeated warnings to stop trying to address the judge about what he claims are efforts by guards to keep him awake at night with banging sounds inside his cell.

But the judge, whose courtroom was repeatedly disrupted when the defendants were arraigned in May 2012, was having none of it. Army Col. James Pohl ordered troops to remove Binalshibh and place him in a holding cell.

Then the same scene repeated itself in the afternoon session, and the judge warned it would happen again if the defendant tried again on Wednesday. "If he is disruptive he will be escorted from the courtroom," Pohl told the lawyers for Binalshibh.

He also said he was concerned that the prisoner might shout out classified information, prompting courtroom censors to cut the sound. "I don't know what he'll say," he said.

Both removals occurred as the judge asked Binalshibh if he understood he has the right to be absent from the remainder of the pretrial motions hearing this week. The four other defendants also answered in the affirmative.

Binalshibh used the question as an opportunity to repeat claims that prison authorities use sounds and vibrations to keep him awake at night inside Camp 7, the high-security section of Guantanamo where he and the other defendants in the Sept. 11 case are held. Prosecutors say they have looked into the matter and were assured that no noises are being made.

Texas Supreme Court tackles same-sex divorce

The issues of same-sex marriage and divorce are set to go before the Texas Supreme Court.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on whether Texas can grant divorces to same-sex couples who married elsewhere.

Both cases involve same-sex couples who married legally in Massachusetts. Texas approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage in 2005.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argues that state law won't allow Texas to recognize the divorces because that would validate the marriage. The couples question whether the same-sex marriage ban applies to divorce and whether it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act because it treats same-sex couples unequally.

The Texas court is not expected to rule for several months.

Committee OKs school spending report for WA court

A committee overseeing progress on paying the full cost of basic education for kids in public school voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a draft of its latest progress report to the state Supreme Court.

In its decision on a lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents and education groups _ known as the McCleary case for the family named in the suit _ the high court ruled in January 2012 that the state is not meeting its constitutional obligation concerning education funding. In the ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to make yearly progress reports on its efforts. Those reports are then critiqued by the group that brought the lawsuit, and by the Supreme Court.

This year, the Legislature allocated about $1 billion more for basic education for the current two-year budget cycle. Lawmakers estimate they need to find a total of between $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion more over the coming years to fully pay for basic education.

The Law Offices of David Stein - DC Assault Lawyer

Assault in Washington, DC can be complicated and if you find yourself facing these charges you will need to contact a DC assault attorney. The threshold requirement for a simple Assault Charge in the District is very low. The statute criminalizes “whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens in a menacing manner.” An experienced criminal law DC assault lawyer would fully consider and litigate all viable defenses to an assault charge, including but not limited to, self-defense and defense of others -- guide you through the process with minimal exposure. Simple Assault carries a penalty of $1000.00 fine or no more than 180 days in jail or both.

Depending on the severity of the injuries and potential weapons used during commission of offense, the charge may be Aggravated Assault, Assault with Deadly Weapon, or Assault with Intent to Kill.

In times of need, you will need a DC assault lawyer who knows how to handle both misdemeanors and felonies.

For example, DC assault charge with a significant bodily injury is a step up from Simple Assault and is defined as: whoever assaults, threatens, and intentionally and knowingly or recklessly causes significant bodily injury to other. The Washington DC assault with significant injury offense carries a potential prison sentence of three years and/or a $3,000 fine.

DC aggravated assault is defined as whoever knowingly causes serious bodily injury to another person. Serious bodily injury means an injury that creates substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, or protracted and obvious disfigurement. Washington DC aggravated assault charge carries a fine of $10,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.

A trial by judge or jury can result in a not guilty verdict if reasonable doubt has been established. A criminal law DC lawyer with impeccable litigation skills can often meet the minimum threshold to create reasonable doubt given favorable evidence. Thus it is imperative to engage our skilled, trained and seasoned DC assault lawyers to seek out all exculpatory evidence exonerating you of the charges.

We want to help individuals going through a difficult time keep a positive problem-solving attitude. Contact a Washington, DC assault lawyer today to discuss your case. We are within reach. For a consultation with The Law Offices of David Stein, call now.

Court strikes down Arizona 20-week abortion ban

A federal court in San Francisco Tuesday struck down Arizona's ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates a string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with Roe v. Wade that guarantees a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. That's generally considered to be about 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks
Several states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks. But the 9th Circuit's ruling is binding only in the nine Western states under the court's jurisdiction. Idaho is the only other state in the region covered by the 9th Circuit with a similar ban.
A trial judge had ruled that the ban could take effect. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional, partly because of concerns about the health of women and possible pain for fetuses.
But abortion-rights groups appealed that decision, saying the 20-week ban would not give some women time to carefully decide whether to abort problem pregnancies.

3 guilty in Dallas-area, Houston health care fraud

Three more people have been convicted in a nearly $3 million health care fraud case involving Houston and Dallas-area companies.
Prosecutors say unlicensed doctors were recruited to treat patients at their homes and then wrongly bill Medicare.
A federal judge in Dallas on Wednesday convicted Godwin Umotong and Comfort Gates of Houston of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and health care fraud. A third person - Vagharshak Smbatyan of Grenada Hills, Calif., - was convicted of making a false statement to an agency.
All will be sentenced in July and face penalties ranging from five to 10 years per count.
Prosecutors say Umotong worked for Euless Healthcare Corp. in Hurst and Medic Healthcare Inc. of Houston. Gates worked for Medic.

Craig W. Drummond - Civil Litigation

If you are a business, corporation or entity involved in a disagreement contact Craig to discuss your rights and options. Craig has a proven track record of successfully resolving disputes on behalf of businesses and corporations, including serving as local counsel to out of state law firms, handling disputes that arise with business transacted in Las Vegas, and working with enforcement and regulatory authorities to resolve civil issues. Craig has developed strategic relationships with some of the best specialty corporate attorneys in Las Vegas to work with to ensure that the client has the best possible team to fight their case.

http://www.drummondfirm.com/civil-litigation

Colo. theater shooting lawyers head back to court

Prosecutors and defense lawyers in the Colorado theater shooting will head back to court Wednesday in advance of a crucial hearing in the case.

State District Judge William B. Sylvester has told both sides to appear before him to make sure everything is ready for next week's preliminary hearing, when prosecutors will outline their case against the defendant, James Holmes.

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Sylvester will decide if the evidence is sufficient to put Holmes on trial.

Holmes is charged with killing 12 people and wounding 70 on July 20 in a movie theater in the Denver suburb of Aurora. Prosecutors say he opened fire during a midnight showing of the Batman movie "The Dark Night Rises."

Holmes faces multiple counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder and hasn't yet entered a plea. His lawyers have said he suffers from mental illness.

The preliminary hearing, which starts Monday, will give the public its first officially sanctioned look at much of the evidence against Holmes.

Sylvester imposed a gag order shortly after Holmes' arrest barring attorneys and investigators from speaking publicly about the case, and many documents have been sealed.

The University of Colorado, where Holmes was a graduate student, has also been tight-lipped about the case.