You are viewing all posts about law

U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Photo from www.justice.gov

The UNC School of Law announced Monday that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will speak at the school’s commencement ceremony. Commencement will be held in Carmichael Arena on May 12.

Holder, who was chosen by a committee of law students in the 2012 graduating class, is the first African-American to hold the post of attorney general of the United States. He was sworn in on Feb. 3, 2009.

“We are delighted that Attorney General Holder has accepted the invitation to speak to our graduating class in May,” said UNC School of Law Dean John Charles Boger.

View the UNC news release here: http://uncnews.unc.edu/content/view/5087/70/

(CNN) — Attorneys have dropped a lawsuit alleging that Taco Bell’s beef was mostly not beef, both sides in the legal battle said.

Alabama-based law firm Beasley Allen claimed in the class-action lawsuit in January that lab tests had shown that the eatery’s beef was actually only 35 percent beef.

The plaintiffs said they wanted the fast-food restaurant to stop referring to its products as beef.

Taco Bell’s leadership vowed to fight the lawsuit. They took out newspaper ads in January slamming the claims as “absolutely false.” In a full-page ad in major newspapers, Taco Bell proclaimed, “Thank you for suing us.”

“Our reputation’s been falsely tarnished,” Greg Creed, Taco Bell’s president, said in January.

Creed said at the time that the company was considering legal action on these “egregious” accusations against the chain’s beef.

On Monday, Taco Bell said the company had been vindicated.

“As Taco Bell has stated before, the allegations in the lawsuit and in public statements about Taco Bell’s seasoned beef, food quality and advertising were absolutely wrong,” the company said in a statement. “No money or other value was exchanged between the parties….”

Creed added: “This sets the record straight about the high quality of our seasoned beef.”

The Beasley Allen law firm confirmed the lawsuit was dropped but also said it had pushed Taco Bell to make changes — an assertion that Taco Bell disputed.

“As a result of the lawsuit, changes in marketing and product disclosure were made by the company, allowing us to dismiss the case,” the law firm said in a statement.

Taco Bell, however, said the company “is not making any changes to its products or advertising.”

The-CNN-Wire/Atlanta/+1-404-827-WIRE(9473)
™ & © 2011 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.

(CNN) — A Georgia state lawmaker with a history of operating on the political fringe has filed a bill stripping the term “victim” from rape, stalking and domestic violence cases.

Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican from the Atlanta suburb of Cobb County, filed the bill in November but it only recently came to public attention.

It would eliminate the word “victim” from statutes dealing with stalking, rape, obscene telephone contact with a child and family violence.

It also strikes the word “victim” from statutes dealing with electronic pre-trial monitoring, HIV testing of criminal defendants, and pre-trial discovery, the exchange of crucial information between attorneys prior to the start of a criminal trial.

It wasn’t clear why Franklin’s legislation includes only those specific laws, or whether it would affect how people who file complaints about other crimes, such as child molestation, assault or theft might be described.

Franklin did not return a telephone message or e-mail to his office on Monday.

The proposed change angered some who felt that Franklin meant the legislation as an attack on rape victims and on women, who comprise the overwhelming majority of victims of sexual assault.

“I am dismayed … angry … and shocked by your wacked out ideologies concerning VICTIMS of rape,” one commenter wrote on Franklin’s Facebook page.

Carolyn Fiddler, the communications director for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, wrote on the organization’s website that the legislation diminishes rape victims by questioning whether what happened to them is even a crime.

“Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims,” she wrote. “But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beating by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn’t think you have been victimized.”

In an interview with CNN Monday, Fiddler said she would like to think that Franklin didn’t mean to diminish rape victims with the legislation. But she said the language displayed a “lack of empathy and awareness.”

There is some merit in the idea of neutralizing legal and courtroom language to help focus potential jurors on the facts of a case, instead of the emotions raised by issues of rape and similar offenses, said Russell Gabriel, director of the University of Georgia School of Law’s Criminal Defense Clinic.

“When we assume the facts that a jury is being asked to decide by presuming that an individual is in fact a victim, then we are undercutting some of the foundational principles of our legal system,” Gabriel said.

Carol Tracy, director of the Women’s Law Center, an advocacy organization, agreed with the call for neutral language, but said neither “victim” nor “accuser” are appropriate. In Pennsylvania, where she lives, the law references “complaintants,” she said.

“It sounds a little hostile,” Tracy said of the term Franklin proposed. “It doesn’t have the ring of neutrality to me.”

This is the second controversy this month over Republican legislation mentioning rape.

Last week, U.S. House Republicans changed the language in a bill limiting taxpayer funding for abortions after Democrats and others argued it narrowed a longstanding allowance for government funding of abortion in the case of rape by using the term “forcible rape.”

Critics said that the language would exclude abortion funding for the rape of unconscious or mentally incapacitated women, for instance.

Franklin, who also has filed legislation that would outlaw abortion in Georgia, is known for taking fringe positions that often chafe state House leaders, said Charles Bullock, a political science professor and expert in Georgia politics at the University of Georgia.

“He’s been something of a loose cannon since he got in there,” Bullock said.

Franklin recently attracted attention for filing legislation that would eliminate the need for Georgia residents to get driver’s licenses, saying the government cannot abridge an individual’s right to travel.

He has also filed a bill that would abolish all zoning laws in the state.

The-CNN-Wire/Atlanta/+1-404-827-WIRE(9473)
TM & © 2011 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON
(CNN) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will review an Arizona election law providing matching funds to underfunded candidates. The court had put off consideration of an appeal of the measure until the conclusion of recent statewide elections.

The justices temporarily blocked enforcement of the “clean elections” law in June, ordering state officials not to distribute money under the measure. The law would provide extra taxpayer-funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups.

A federal appeals court approved parts of the sweeping campaign reform law in April. Several mostly conservative groups — including current and former Republican state legislators — subsequently filed an emergency appeal with the high court, claiming their free speech rights were being hurt by the law.

Among other things, they contended that private fundraising efforts would be hampered because of public election financing.

Arizona lawmakers have argued there is a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups. They contend the plan to provide matching funds advances that state interest in the least restrictive manner.

The Supreme Court will now review the broader free speech issues raised in the appeal. Oral arguments will be held before April, with a ruling expected by June.

Groups opposed to the law were pleased the high court decided to intervene.

“We hope the Supreme Court will strike down Arizona’s ‘matching funds’ law,” said Bill Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice, which helped bring the legal challenge.

“The entire purpose of laws like Arizona’s is to provide the government with the means to limit individuals’ speech by limiting their spending while putting a thumb on the scale in favor of government-funded candidates. That is not allowed under the First Amendment.”

There was no immediate reaction from Arizona officials.

The cases are McComish v. Bennett (10-239) and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (10-238).

The-CNN-Wire/Atlanta/+1-404-827-WIRE(9473)
TM & © 2010 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.