Friday - November 14, 2008

shopkeeper could face a murder charge.

This is another report on the previous story. This one from the Daily Mail.
Kinda doubtful they will prosecute the shop owner though.  Least I hope they don’t.

Instead of running the full story here, I’m going to post the criminal record of the late and unlamented scum who tried to rob this guy.  I sure do hope it hurt a lot.  Payback ya might say for all the pain and agony he caused over eight or nine years.  And I think the Criminal Justice System here sucks, like it does at home.

That ONE miserable rat could cause so much over so long does NOT say much for any system that allows it to continue.
There is always with no exceptions ever, a point in time when anyone can predict that a criminal will not reform and can’t be reformed because he doesn’t want to be.  He likes what he does.  He should have been snuffed years ago and this spot of bother would not have happened.

Shopkeeper faces murder charge after turning knife on career criminal during carjacking
By JARA NARAIN and JAMES TOZER
Last updated at 15:35 21 February 2008

A shopkeeper could face a murder charge following a fatal struggle with a knife-wielding raider.

Tony Singh fought back when Liam Kilroe, a career criminal, ambushed him in his car after closing time.

Kilroe, who was trying to steal Mr Singh’s takings, staggered away with a stab wound from his own knife and died in a pool of blood.

The 25-year-old was on the run after being charged with two robberies.

Police called to the scene found Mr Singh in a state of shock, still sitting in his car and nursing serious knife wounds to his back, face and neck.

However, the officers arrested the 34-year-old and are preparing to send a file to the Crown Prosecution Service.

A murder charge would carry a life sentence on conviction.

The case resembles that of Tony Martin who was charged with murder after shooting Fred Barras, 16, during a raid on his Norfolk farm in 1999.

He was convicted of manslaughter and served three years in prison.

http://tinyurl.com/6cgd22

Posted by peiper     on 11/14/2008 at 11:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Judges-Courts • Lawyers • Liberals • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - September 19, 2008

‘Bin police’ caught using ladders to spy on householders.  (and all in the name of green I guess)

I wasn’t sure if I was meant to laugh when I read this.  Guess not.

One bin?  How about a large family? Heck, our house has two for three adults but then, you don’t want to know what our second one is used for.

In another story today, and I can’t locate the link even through Google, there’s something here in one city anyway called, “Street Care Officers.”
And, they caught a lady dropping a cigarette butt on the pavement and was told she was being fined.  So, she said she would pick the butt up but they said too late, you’re fined $150.  (£75 in Brit money if the exchange is still 2 for 1)
They took her name and address but somehow the postman delivered to the wrong address. So she didn’t get the bill. Well, the fine came back to the council and by the time they found the error, they decided to embarrass her by posting her in a name and shame article in the local paper.
When she saw that, she contacted the council informing them she hadn’t received anything but did admit littering.

The city council lawyer then tacked on $300 to the original $150.

The case went to court and the judge thought that while she may be guilty of littering the extra fine wasn’t fair and it was reduced.

The lady in question btw is on welfare anyway.

Under new laws, litter wardens have the authority of police style accreditation.

‘Bin police’ caught using ladders to spy on householders
A council has sent staff equipped with ladders on spying missions to check whether householders are using more than one wheelie bin for their non-recyclable rubbish.

By Nigel Bunyan

The officials have been spotted scaling ladders all over Blackburn, Lancs, so they can peer over walls and fences into back yards.

If they see an “unauthorized” second bin, they retrieve it and take it back to a council depot.

At least one householder has called police to report her bin stolen, oblivious to the fact that it had simply been reclaimed.

The local council insists its policy of only allowing one rubbish bin per household for non-recyclable waste is necessary to cut down on landfill costs and boost recycling.

However, critics have condemned the “spying” missions, describing them as “ridiculous” and “over the top”.

Abdul Patel, a Labour councillor, said “This is ridiculous. How can you spy on people using a ladder?

“It would frighten people. They should knock on the door and show their ID. I am really shocked and will take it up with the council”.

Doretta Cocks, founder of the Campaign for Weekly Waste Collections, said: “The term ‘bin police’ is very much justified here.

“Councils do need to deal with wheelie bin thefts, but this is definitely not the way to deal with the problem.

“If it happened to me I would call 999. It’s just not on”.

She added: “You have to wonder how much time and money is going into this. It’s small wonder our council taxes are going up every year”.

Hazel Wilson, 67, challenged two council staff when she spotted them in an alleyway.

“One was carrying a ladder and putting it up against back yard walls one by one. The other man was taking notes.

“I asked them what they were doing and they said some people had more than one black bin, and if they did they were removing it.

“They had a lorry parked nearby. I thought ‘What if an old lady was doing the washing up and this man peered over the fence”.

“It would give you an awful shock. If I was in my garden trying to catch some sun and some Peeping Tom popped his head over the hedge I would call the police”.

Miss Wilson’s encounter came on the same day that police were alerted to the “theft” of a wheelie bin in a nearby street.

Senior staff at Blackburn with Darwen Council have now apologized for the “spying” missions. However, they insist that their policy of allowing only one rubbish bin per household is necessary.

Alan Cottam, executive member for regeneration and environment, said: “The council does remove unauthorised bins where they are found and have recently been carrying out checks to see how many are in the borough.

“On this occasion, the officers were over-zealous and the council apologies for the upset caused”.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3h3jat

Posted by Drew458     on 09/19/2008 at 10:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Lawyers • Scary Stuff • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - September 14, 2008

Officer ‘told race-claim lawyer how to win court case against his own force’

DIVERSITY AND THE BRITISH POUND HARD AT WORK.

Officer ‘told race-claim lawyer how to win court case against his own force’

Police watchdog probes Met officer who ‘told race-claim lawyer how to win court case against his own force’

By Stephen Wright and Richard Pendlebury

A deputy chief constable has been called in to investigate following the Daily Mail’s revelations about the relationship between a senior Scotland Yard officer and a conman lawyer.

The move was announced after we disclosed that Commander Ali Dizaei had advised race row solicitor Dr Shahrokh ‘Sean’ Mireskandari on how to undermine a prosecution being brought by his employers, the Metropolitan Police.

How the hell does anyone learn how to pronounce these foreign names made with a bunch of letters? And why should we come to think of it? Why can they change instead of the country they invade?  Oh wait.  Silly me again.  Diversity. Right?

The misconduct probe will examine our exclusive revelations that Dizaei was used as a consultant to point out flaws in a death by dangerous driving case being defended by Mireskandari’s West End law firm, Dean and Dean.

Last night there was widespread astonishment at Scotland Yard that Dizaei, who has had a chequered history at the Yard, had not been suspended immediately.

A number of officers accused the Metropolitan Police Authority, which could have stripped him of his warrant card, of pandering to political correctness because of Dizaei’s outspoken allegations of racism in the force.

One senior officer remarked: ‘I think the police authority has bottled it because of Dizaei’s colour and history. They’re worried he’ll slam in another compensation claim if he were stripped of his duties.’

The inquiry has been launched just six months after Dizaei was controversially promoted to a commander on a salary of £90,000.

Earlier this summer a separate inquiry was launched into his conduct after it emerged he had spent nearly £5,000 on his force credit card on clothes, shoes and perfume while on a trip to the United States. He denies wrongdoing.

Mireskandari is the lawyer representing Met Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur in his race claim against Scotland Yard.

Cleared of corruption charges in 2003, he is a hugely controversial figure in the Met because of his arrogant manner and militant claims about racism in the force.

He was reinstated and awarded £80,000 compensation after suing for racial discrimination over the multi-million pound inquiry into his conduct.

Now his behaviour is to be investigated yet again, this time by the deputy head of West Midlands Police, Phil Gormley.

The Metropolitan Police Authority-which oversees the running of Britain’s biggest force, confirmed an investigation had been launched.

‘Commander Dizaei is currently being investigated by the MPA for a matter of alleged misconduct,’ a spokesman said.

‘A deputy chief constable from another force has been appointed as investigating officer.

‘The MPA has a statutory duty to investigate all allegations of misconduct and takes this responsibility very seriously.’

Dizaei’s close friend Mireskandari, exposed earlier this week as a convicted fraudster with a suspect law degree, is the lawyer representing Met Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur in his £1.2million race claim against Scotland Yard.

As president of the National Black Police Association, Dizaei has played a key behind-thescenes role as Mr Ghaffur prepares to bring his case.

Earlier this week Mr Ghaffur was effectively suspended by Met chief Sir Ian Blair, after staging a live TV press conference to outline his discrimination claims against the force.

READERS OF THE DAILY MAIL ASK,

“Lawyer Shahrokh Mireskandari - revealed yesterday to have a conviction for fraud in the US - is said to have a close business relationship with Commander Dizaei, who was cleared of corruption at the Old Bailey in 2003. “

Is this copper not meant to be policing rather than running a business? What HAS he been doing on OUR taxpayer time?

- dave t, scotland, 12/9/2008 17:45

Welcome to Labour’s Britain, a law sneaked in so that people wouldn’t be victimised ‘race relations’ yet abused by those who should know better. Labour you deserve to all be kicked in your pants, and I hope the Labour MPs who passed this law and have followed the political correctness are all paying the price for their stupidity.

- Karen, ex pat USA, 12/9/2008 17:37

http://tinyurl.com/6ef4qx

Posted by Drew458     on 09/14/2008 at 09:22 AM   
Filed Under: • Lawyers • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - July 22, 2008

Don’t set dogs on criminals with allergies, police told.  latest example of “namby pamby” policing

Yeah, there’s a lot I can say but I’ll leave that up to the rest of ya.. Besides which, I have a tendency to curse a lot over stupid stuff like this.
Not as bad as what I say to my computer but that’s something else.

Police dog handlers will have to consider whether criminals have allergies or a fear of dogs before conducting searches in what has been described as the latest example of “namby pamby” policing.

By Gordon Rayner
Last Updated: 11:15PM BST 21 Jul 2008

Guidelines being drawn up by senior officers will tell dog handlers they should “avoid offending” people with phobias of animals when dogs are used in drug raids and other investigations.

The rules have been produced amid fears that suspects with medical conditions triggered by the presence of dogs, such as asthma, may file costly compensation claims against the police if they suffer an allergy or panic attack during a police raid.

Dog handlers have also been told to take “cultural sensitivities” into account, though reports that dogs would be required to wear specially-designed boots on their paws during searches of mosques and Muslim homes have been flatly denied.

The plans have been ridiculed in the respected force magazine Police Review, with one columnist citing it as the latest diktat from “the polite police”.

The anonymous sergeant writes: “The traditional shout of ‘stand still or I’ll set the dog on you’ will presumably have to become ‘excuse me, my police dog is quite hairy and might cause alarm as he sinks his fangs into his right thigh. Is that all right with you?’

“The whole point of police dogs is to frighten people rigid, at least those who have just committed a crime and would otherwise make a clean getaway. They should have considered the mental trauma and possible allergic reaction caused by 60lbs of foaming Alsatian clamping its teeth to their extremities before embarking on their criminal escapade.”

A serving dog handler, who asked not to be named, said: “I have never heard anything so ridiculous. What’s next? Sparing people custody because they have a fear of enclosed spaces?

“This is just another example of namby pamby policing laid down by people who haven’t been on the beat in years.”

PC Mike Dermody, a former dog handler with Greater Manchester Police, was among those dismissing the need for guidelines, saying: “I have never encountered an incident where we have offended someone. If there is a person with an allergy, we will put them in one room while we search the rest of the house.”

And PC David Heaps, a dog handling trainer at Derbyshire Constabulary, said dog handlers were already “mindful not to cause offence”.

The controversy arose after Peter Vaughan, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ adviser on dogs, said: “The draft guidelines outline a general principle that forces should consider what steps can be taken to avoid offending people during operations.

“This might include different categories of people such as those with a fear of dogs, for example or asthma sufferers who may be sensitive to dog hair.”

Mr Vaughan, deputy chief constable of South Wales Police, insisted, however, that “in all operations effective policing will take primacy”, meaning dog handlers would not have to take possible allergies into account when tackling violent criminals, for example.

http://tinyurl.com/5ek6ys

Posted by Drew458     on 07/22/2008 at 02:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Insanity • Lawyers • Liberals • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - July 03, 2008

Oh, just give it up fwancois

A French judge ordered Continental Airlines and five people to stand trial for manslaughter in connection with the 2000 crash of a Concorde jet that killed 113 people.

The prosecutor in the Paris suburb of Pontoise said two of the people to be tried are employees of the U.S. carrier. Two others were employed by Aerospatiale, the maker of the Concorde. The fifth is with the French civilian aviation authority.
...
The Air France Concorde crashed after takeoff from Paris’ Charles de Gaulle airport in July 2000. The crash killed all 109 people on board and four on the ground.

French investigators blamed a titanium strip on the runway from a Continental Airlines DC-10.

The metal strip caused one of the Concorde’s tires to burst, which sent debris flying that punctured the jet’s fuel tanks. The French judicial inquiry also determined the tanks lacked sufficient protection from shock — and that Concorde’s makers had been aware of the weakness since 1979.

No no no mes amis, time itself she does not matter, the finger must be pointed. Heads they must roll. Someone must be blamed, and it certainly can not be the lowly serfs responsible for keeping the runway clean.

Is there any truth to the rumors that fwance is importing kangaroos to sit in judgement for this show trial? Because the whole thing stinks worse than a Parisian sewer. The airplane was built light so it could go fast, thus it wasn’t designed as strongly as other planes. Blame Aerospatiale for that? Mon deu, non! Well, not the whole company itself. Maybe one or two of the designers. Blame the airport workers for not sweeping the runway? Can’t have that. So, who else to stick this one on? Alors! First, we blame the Americaine company, because they have the money. Then we charge the workers who installed this bit of metal, even though we already know the bit was defective. But they put it on, and it fell off, thus they are to blame. Then we go after the designers. Next, let’s blame the government, of course, from whom all blessings flow, and who is responsible for everything in the end. Let’s see ... who to select? ... A ha! Msr. de l’aeroplane, the guy who was in charge of training at the fwench FAA.

After all these years, why bother? Is there any real “closure” to be gained here, or is this just an act of revenge? Or an extraordinarily drawn out game of CYA? The Concorde doesn’t even fly anymore. The crash was an accident; a bad part perhaps badly installed, a missed bit of trash on the runway, a weakness in the design, maybe even a poor tire. Hey, you guys forgot to charge Goodyear!

Posted by Drew458     on 07/03/2008 at 07:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts • Lawyers •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - June 03, 2008

All your air are belong to us

Remember the Fairness Doctrine? The one that the libtards in and out of Washington want to resurrect? The theory behind the Fairness Doctrine is:

radio stations could be regulated in this way due to the limited spectrum of the public airwaves.

It was, in other words, a government-created scarcity that justified government regulation. Much like the government-created gasoline scarcities under Nixon and Carter.

Now a whacko Goremon named Mary Wood is asserting that the air is held in trust by the government.

University of Oregon law professor Mary Wood is tired of waiting for government officials to take action on global warming. So she’s devised a new legal tool to hurry them up.

Drawing on her background in both natural resources and property law, Wood has developed a theory that claims the atmosphere is an asset that belongs to all but is held in trust by the government. The government has a legal obligation to protect that trust from harm, she argues, just as financial managers have a legal obligation to protect the monetary assets in their care.

I’m sure that BMEWS readers have figured where this is going…

“The main problem with climate is that no government is taking responsibility for it and our government is sitting idle while this catastrophe is unfolding,” Wood said.

“There’s no other body of law that requires the government to act. But a trustee has to act to protect the body of the trust.”

Yep. And the laws are already on the books. No need to debate!

From theory to practice

Greg Costello is one of the public interest attorneys evaluating Wood’s proposal as the basis for potential lawsuits. He thinks it could be a successful legal strategy because it’s grounded in a widely accepted principle of common law.

“Public trust doctrine is a doctrine everybody learns in law school. It goes back to Roman times,” said Costello, executive director of the Eugene-based Western Environmental Law Center.

“It’s a theory that seems well-suited and perhaps ideal when you’re talking about who owns the atmosphere.”

Be afraid. Be very afraid. 

HT: Neal’s Nuze

cross-posted at my blog Something’s Rotten

Posted by Christopher     on 06/03/2008 at 10:13 PM   
Filed Under: • Climate-Weather • Colleges-Professors • Government • Insanity • Lawyers • Liberals • Nanny State • Outrageous • Scary Stuff • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - May 19, 2008

Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe: we’ll sue anybody

A New Jersey couple, whose son was struck in the chest with a line drive, is planning to sue the maker of a metal baseball bat used in the game.

Two years ago, Steven Domalewski was pitching when the ball slammed into his chest and stopped his heart. He was resuscitated but now has brain damage and is severely disabled.

The family contends metal baseball bats are inherently unsafe for youth games because the ball comes off them much faster than from wooden bats. The lawsuit will also be filed against Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain that sold the bat.

An attorney says Domalewski will need millions of dollars worth of medical care for the rest of his life.

The bat maker says while it sympathizes with Steven and his family, the bat is not to blame for the injury.

This is just ridiculous. Yeah, it’s a shame your kid got injured. It really is terrible. But suing the bat company is really stupid. How is it you think the sporting goods store is at fault, when any other store could have sold the exact same bat? Why not sue the parents of the kid on the other team who hit the ball? After all, if that kid hadn’t swung the bat so fast, your kid might still be Ok. And let’s ignore the obvious: another kid with a wooden bat and a faster swing could have hit the ball just as hard or harder.

No, if you have to find somebody to sue here, sue the Little League association itself. I think they set up a rule that says only metal bats can be used, not wooden ones? And they’re the group that didn’t have the foresight to require pitchers, and possibly all infield players, to wear some kind of body armor like the motocross racers wear. Nor did they make a rule that a defibrillator be on hand and that the coaches and umpires have the necessary training to use one. Because something like this happens about once every 20 years or so. They needlessly placed little Johnny at risk, playing such a dangerous sport!!

You’ll lose the suit, but every kid playing baseball in America will then be forced to wear the protective gear. And every team will have the device and the training. Thereby driving up the cost of having your kid in Little League by a huge amount. Thanks a lot. But we’ll all sleep happy, knowing our kids are so much safer now. Until one of the little spazzers trips over the curb in the parking lot and knocks his teeth out. Then the lawsuits will start again.

In the moonbat utopia of America everyone is a victim. Always. Which means that no matter what happens, somebody is going to get sued. Always. I think all parents should be sued, because of the negligence of bringing children into this world full of risk. So nobody should be allowed to have children anymore, for their own good!

Posted by Drew458     on 05/19/2008 at 07:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Lawyers • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - February 22, 2008

HOME OWNER SUED FOR JUNK MAIL …. this really wins some sort of twisted prize!

Got up early as I do every morning, took the morning Telegraph from our mail slot in the front door, took in the milk which they still deliver here to your front door, and many other items offered by the dairy, brought the milk into the kitchen and popped it in the fridge, put some water on the hobb (stove to us yanks)
and opened the paper to the front page.

I haven’t even had my coffee or any other part of breakfast yet.  Soon as I saw this bit of total lunacy ... I had to boot and blog.
Unfreekin’ believababble.  Well, no. It isn’t at all.  Is It?

Home owner sued for junk mail injury
By Richard Alleyne
Last Updated: 2:03am GMT 22/02/2008

A home owner is being threatened with legal action after a woman claimed she trapped her hand in his letterbox while delivering unwanted junk mail.

Joy Goodman, a cake decorator, is seeking damages for personal injury and loss of earnings, claiming the top of her right index finger was severed when she delivered the mail. She claims she needs compensation because she is now unable to carry out her intricate job.

But the home owner vowed to fight the case. Paul O’Brien, 44, a self-employed engineer from Leeds, said: “When I received a solicitor’s letter I thought someone was having a laugh. I actually told them they had sent it early. April Fool’s Day is still six weeks away.

“I just cannot believe someone who came on to my property uninvited, to put junk mail through my door that I didn’t want, can now sue me because they hurt themselves.”

He added: “There is nothing wrong with the letterbox. I haven’t altered it or done anything to it. It’s just like every other letterbox on this estate.”

Mrs Goodman declined to comment, saying only: “It is in the hands of my solicitors.”

A law expert said that householders had limited duties of care to people who went on to their property such as delivery people or postmen.

These duties of care include not having such things as bare electricity cables sticking out, but were not likely to extend to a letterbox providing it was a standard model.

here’s the link >>> http://tinyurl.com/34azss

Posted by Drew458     on 02/22/2008 at 02:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Greed • Insanity • Lawyers • News-Briefs • Outrageous •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 06, 2008

Children of foreign millionaire given £30,750 for court battle

Oh to be in England when it’s hand out time. Brits are the most generous ppl on earth.  Their ratepayers give and they give and they give.  And they would give even more but any monies left over are saved for illegal immigrants and those seeking asylum so they can make bomb in peace.

Legal aid for the rich: Children of foreign millionaire given £30,750 for court battle

By NEIL SEARS - More by this author »

Millionaire jeweller Iqbal Mubarik and his wife Aaliya Mubarak could not even agree how to spell their surname so maybe it was no surprise when they divorced.
He was told to pay her almost £5million but, eight years on, he has given her just £266,000 and spent £2million on legal fees trying to hang on to his money.
Even more astonishing is that two of their four children have been given legal aid of £30,750 to defend their interests.

Taxpayers are funding lawyers for the public-school educated children of a millionaire who manages to avoid paying tax and only moved to England ten years ago.

Now haven’t I been tellin’ ya and for how long?  The taxpayer is loaded and there’s plenty more where this came from you betcha.

High Court Judge Sir James Holman, hearing the latest stage of this Bleak House-style legal saga, said the affair was “about as bad a case as it is possible to imagine”.
The judge added that using legal aid for the children was “exquisitely ironical” as their parents “although resident here for tax purposes and liable for English taxation, manage to avoid paying any tax at all”.
In contrast, cuts to the legal aid budget include last month’s ruling that families of soldiers killed in action could not have free legal representation at inquests.
The Mubarik v Mubarak saga began in 1998 when Mr Mubarik, 48, an owner of the Dianoor Group of shops which has an outlet on New Bond Street in London, separated from his wife, 47.

In 1999, he was ordered to pay her a lump sum of £4.875million.
He has since gone to court repeatedly to try to avoid paying.
And as the family’s interest in the Dianoor jewellers is governed by trusts and companies established in the tax havens of Jersey and Bermuda, it is extremely hard to track Mr Mubarik’s money down.  The couple, from India, have four children, aged nine to 22, and for a couple of years the jeweller paid £14,000 a month maintenance.
By May 2005, he was paying only school fees, forcing his wife, who lives in Kensington, West London, to take out loans.

Mr Mubarik, who lives in a £ 2million house in Central London, has claimed he is £2.3million in debt.
But early in the case, he and business colleague Mohammed Wani, 58, were caught presenting false evidence.
The court decided he was worth “numerous millions”, with figures as high as £30million mentioned.
Last year, High Court Judge Sir David Bodey said: “The husband and wife have fought the good fight with all their might at considerable expense.
“The overall costs toll is appalling. It could involve litigation in four or five other countries, as well as here.
“The combined total is unclear, but before long it seems set to head off towards the direction of the amount of the lump sum.”

Even in 2000, Lord Justice Thorpe said it was “little short of tragic folly seemingly intelligent and civilised people should think that is a responsible way to make use of the family justice system”.
By 2004, he was describing the case as “insane”.
Aside from monthly maintenance paid in lieu of interest, Mrs Mubarak has managed to squeeze only £266,000 out of her ex-husband through enforcing the sale of property.  He now owes her about £7million, including legal costs and arrears.

The soaring bill for legal aid has risen to £620million a year for civil cases and £1.2billion for criminal.
Primarily, legal aid is supposed to be directed at people on benefits, or pensioners with an income of less than £289 a month.
A spokesman for the Legal Services Commission said a rule change in April meant similar legal aid payouts were unlikely as the capital and income of parents is now included in assessments.

http://tinyurl.com/2p5xml

Posted by Drew458     on 02/06/2008 at 02:23 PM   
Filed Under: • Immigration • Insanity • Lawyers • Outrageous •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (1) • Permalink •  

   Friday - January 25, 2008

DRIVER KILLS CYCLIST, SUES FAMILY OF CYCLIST.  LOGICAL

As Drew points out on another post ... some of these write themselves.

<

b>Killer Spanish driver sues for damage to car
By Fiona Govan in Madrid
Last Updated: 5:13pm GMT 25/01/2008

A Spanish driver who killed a 17-year old cyclist in a traffic accident is suing the boy’s parents for €20,000 (£14,800) for the damage caused to his luxury car. Businessman Tomas Delgado, 43, claims his Audi A8 suffered €14,000 (£10,400) of damage when he collided with Enaitz Iriondo, who died instantly in the crash on the night of Aug 26, 2004.

Mr Delgado, who faced no criminal charges for the incident despite allegedly travelling at more than 100 mph on a road with a speed limit of 50 mph, is also asking for a further €6,000 (£4,400) to cover the cost of hiring another vehicle while his was being repaired.

Enaitz had been staying at a campsite on a family holiday in the Rioja region at the time of the accident.

He was cycling back alone after a night out with friends and was not wearing reflective clothing or a helmet, according to a report cited by Spanish daily newspaper El Pais.

His family won €33,000 (£24,500) compensation from Mr Delgado’s insurance company after the firm acknowledged he had been driving at excessive speed and this could have contributed to the incident.

“I’m also a victim in all of this, you can’t fix the lad’s problems, but you can fix mine,” Mr Delgado told the newspaper, ahead of a court ruling on his claim expected on Jan 30.

The parents of the dead boy said they had previously pitied Mr Delgado for the guilt he must feel at killing their son but were now disgusted that his greatest concern appeared to be money.

“This was the final straw, a kick in the teeth,” Enaitz’s mother Rosa Trinidad said. “How can someone be so shameless?”
http://tinyurl.com/2ncghd

Posted by Drew458     on 01/25/2008 at 02:12 PM   
Filed Under: • Lawyers • Outrageous •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - January 11, 2008

A Kiss On The Hand May be Very Sentimental, but Lawyers Are a Guys Best Friend

DeBeers diamond cartel agrees to $295 million settlement in anti-trust price-fixing class action lawsuit. If you bought a diamond from a retailer it actually came through De Beers. If you bought one between January 1, 1994 and March 31, 2006, you are eligible for a refund if you sign up for the settlement. Maximum payout will be about $640.

I know I’m eligible. I think I’ll sign up.  The diamond cartel has been artificially inflating prices for over a century.

Diamonds are said to be a girl’s best friend. Now, that friend is potentially worth a substantial amount of money back as a result of a multimillion-dollar settlement with diamond behemoth De Beers.

The company that controls a huge share of the rough diamond market has agreed to pay nearly $300 million in a price-fixing dispute.

Customers who bought finished diamonds might be able to get hundreds of dollars back.

De Beers, one of the largest diamond suppliers in the world, has agreed to give Americans money back as a result from a class action lawsuit against the company alleging antitrust violations.

John Maher, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said the diamond leader violated the law.

“They controlled and monopolized the sale of rough diamonds and as a result merchants paid more than they should have for those stones,” he said.

De Beers has not admitted to doing anything wrong in the $295 million settlement. An earmark of $135.4 million has been made for consumers who file a claim.

According to the claims administrator, a consumer who purchased a $2,000 engagement ring would be entitled to a maximum of $640 back.

Here are some facts:

Several class-action lawsuits were filed asking for money damages on behalf of diamond purchasers. The lawsuits also asked that the defendants stop certain business conduct. The lawsuits claim that the largest suppliers of diamonds in the world—De Beers S.A. and its associated companies—violated antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer-protection laws by monopolizing diamond supplies, conspiring to fix, raise, and control diamond prices, and disseminating false and misleading advertising. De Beers and the other companies deny they violated the law or did anything wrong. They also say that because they do not do business in the United States, the courts in the United States do not have authority over them.

The courts where the lawsuits were filed have not made any determinations regarding whether the Defendants have done anything wrong. If the lawsuits are settled, the Court will not rule on any of Plaintiffs’ claims or on Defendants’ defenses to those claims, and the lawsuits will be dismissed. This means the Class Members may not sue any Defendant ever again about any past, present or future claims based on or related to the conduct covered by the lawsuits.

So what we have here is a zillion dollar cartel throwing a few pennies to the crowd to make this problem go away. Yeah, $300 million really is just chump change to De Beers.

News article here

FAQs and background info here.

Sign up online here, but please read the other info first.

Wow, some group of lawyers just got very rich!!

Posted by Drew458     on 01/11/2008 at 10:06 PM   
Filed Under: • Africa • Fun-Stuff • Lawyers •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - October 26, 2007

Who Needs Rights Anyway?

via SayUncle, we find this lovely bit of news:

I think it’s worth acknowledging the primary functions of the law as it’s used by prosecutors in DC: the gun ban is both a preventive detention statute and an intelligence-gathering tool. At one time when I was a prosecutor, we were prohibited from extending a plea offer in gun cases unless the defendant agreed to come into the office (with his attorney, of course) and be “debriefed” about his knowledge of criminal activity in the city. The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason. It’s pretty simple to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual was in possession of a gun without a license and a lot tougher to prove that he committed a violent crime. These functions may not be relevant to the question whether the statute is constitutional, but it’s worth acknowledging that invalidating the gun ban will surely have a tremendous impact on crime-fighting in the District.

Got that? Here’s a former prosecutor who (a) doesn’t care if it’s constitutional or not (b) knows that the gun ban does nothing to decrease gun crime but makes a nifty tool to imprison people for (c) HAVING A PERCEPTION OF BEING VIOLENT.

I had an interesting conversation a couple of weeks ago with an acquaintance of an acquaintance who is a cop in another city in Virginia.  When I asked if open-carry was common in that city, he scoffed: “If I see anyone open-carrying, they are going to get jumped on by me and any other cop in the district.” We were in a polite setting and it would not have been proper for me to get all in his face about it.  (BTW, open-carry is legal by anyone over 21 in the Commonwealth of Virginia)

On one hand, I know what he meant.  He works in a bad part of this city and the general population he encounters are less than nobel in their collective contribution to society.  That notwithstanding, you can see the parallel in his words to this prosecutor’s above.

It is the general perception by law enforcement and the government that they are our betters.  That we are but sheep needing to be tended to.  If we get out of line, we will be poked and prodded until we comply, or else sent to the slaughterhouse.

It is very disturbing.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/26/2007 at 02:22 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Firearms • Lawyers •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - September 27, 2007

Great Summary of Parker/Heller

From the CATO Institute

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and attorney general Linda Singer, in their petition to the Supreme Court and in a Washington Post op-ed ("Fighting for Our Handgun Ban,” September 4), raise four arguments in support of the city’s ban. Their first argument is that the Second Amendment ensures only that members of state militias are properly armed, not that private citizens can have guns for self-defense and other personal uses. That contentious question has been debated at length on these pages. See Dennis Henigan, “The Mythic Second,” March 26, 2007; and Robert A. Levy, “Thanks to the Second Amendment,” April 16, 2007.

The city’s remaining three arguments — two legal claims and one policy claim — have received comparatively less attention. First, declares the mayor, even if the Second Amendment protects private ownership of firearms for non-militia purposes, a ban on all handguns is reasonable because D.C. allows possession of rifles and shotguns in the home. Second, the Amendment restricts the actions of the federal government, but not the states, and D.C. should be treated the same as a state for Second Amendment purposes. And third, “handgun bans work”; the streets of the Nation’s Capital are safer as a result. Let’s consider each argument in turn.

The rest of the article lays out why each of those arguments is not going to pass muster.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 09/27/2007 at 10:33 AM   
Filed Under: • Firearms • Lawyers •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - April 11, 2007

Rape!

You have absolutely no freakin’ idea how pissed off this makes me. The taxpayers of this country who will foot the bill for the millions that were spent to prosecute these boys have been raped. The boys themselves who have had their lives wrecked and had to spend time in jail and thousands of dollars in their defense - have also been raped. Duke University has been raped with unending bad media coverage for THIRTEEN MONTHS - with a good bit of assistance from several dozen bigoted faculty members who piled on the boys unjustly. Jesse Jackson even piled on playing his usual race card to assist in the rape. The only person who WASN’T RAPED is the stupid stripper who started it all!

DAMN IT, this is an outrage!

And MIKE NIFANGUL stands there zipping his pants up after raping everyone in order to get re-elected. Nifong, the Duke faculty, Jesse Jackson, the slobbering media - all need a good ass-whuppin’, if not fines and jail time themselves.

The rest of us need a Morning After Pill. DAMN! DAMN! DAMN!

Duke Lacrosse Case Charges to Be Dropped
_{(ABC NEWS) - April 10, 2007}

The office of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper will announce that he is dismissing all charges against three Duke Lacrosse players, ABC News has learned from sources close to the case.

The three players, Reade Seligmann, David Evans and Collin Finnerty, were facing charges of first degree kidnapping and first degree forcible sexual offense. The charges stem from an off-campus party on the night of March 13, 2006.

In the hours after the party, one of two dancers hired to perform for the players claimed she had been violently raped in a bathroom by members of the lacrosse team. The players had also been indicted for first degree rape, but that charge was dismissed on Dec. 22, 2006.

Special prosecutors from the Attorney General’s office took over the case after Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong recused himself in January, citing charges of unethical conduct filed against him by the North Carolina Bar. Since then, Jim Coman and Mary Winstead have examined the case from scratch, interviewing key witnesses and working through reams of evidence.

The reasons that will be cited for the dismissal are not yet known, though the case has been riddled with criticism and colored by controversy since its early months. Defense attorneys released documents showing the accuser changed key details of her story in the weeks and months after the alleged assault.

Legal analysts and forensic experts have criticized what they call a critically flawed photo identification lineup — a lineup that led to the identification and indictment of Evans, Finnerty, Seligmann. No DNA evidence was found matching any lacrosse players with samples from the rape kit, while DNA from unidentified men was found on the accuser’s body and clothing.

On Tuesday, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General confirmed to ABC News that his office had completed its investigation into the Duke lacrosse case. A press conference on the outcome of their inquiry is widely expected sometime this week, though members of that office have not yet revealed a date and time.

Posted by The Skipper     on 04/11/2007 at 03:28 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts • Lawyers • Outrageous •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (1) • Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner