Wow, the Obama tax promise rubber hits the road. $440,000 tax increase on a $5 million income. Sounds awful but that is actually less than a 9% increase in marginal rate. When I first started to study the law, the marginal rate on the top tax bracket was 70%. What the article doesn’t say as to what the total taxes on that $5 million will be. I bet there is still enough money left over to buy designer labels and pay the mortgage payment.
A $30,000 increase on an $800,000 income sounds about right and sounds almost exactly what Obama promised.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://fishtail.tv
http://waiting.com
Date: 7/20/2009 12:03 AM
STEPHEN OHLEMACHER,Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s probably never a bad time to be rich. But the good times for America’s wealthy could soon be a little less so.
President Barack Obama wants to boost income taxes for the wealthy to pay for tax cuts for everybody else. He wants to limit the deductions that high-income families take for mortgage interest and charity contributions to help pay for providing more people with health insurance.
House Democrats are planning to hit the wealthy with even higher income taxes to pay for their version of a health care overhaul.
Between the two plans, a family of four with an income of $5 million a year would see its annual income taxes skyrocket by more than $440,000. A similar family making $800,000 a year would get a tax increase of $30,000, according to an analysis by the financial services firm Deloitte Tax.
“I still think being wealthy is better than being poor,” Clint Stretch, who heads tax policy at Deloitte Tax, said with a touch of understatement. “But this is a pretty high proposed tax burden.”
Taxing the rich to pay for health insurance would represent a significant departure from the way Americans have financed safety net programs in the past.
Both Social Security and Medicare are supported by broad based payroll taxes. Although the rich pay more — they have bigger incomes — the burden is shared by the middle class and even the working poor.
By contrast, the health care plan working its way through the House would impose $544 billion in new taxes over the next decade on just 1.2 percent of households — joint filers making more than $350,000 a year.
The bill would impose a new 5.4 percent income surtax on couples making more than $1 million a year, starting in 2011. Couples making more than $350,000 would have to pay a surtax of 1 percent tax and those making more than $500,000 would pay a 1.5 percent surtax.
If certain savings in the health care system are not achieved by 2013, the surtax would rise to 2 percent for families making more than $350,000 and to 3 percent for those making more than $500,000.
For a family of four making $450,000 a year, the initial tax increase would be $1,000, according to the Deloitte analysis. But for the super rich, like a single filer making $5 million a year, the tax increase would be $452,000. The analysis assumes a typical mix of earned income, capital gains and itemized deductions for each income level.
Democrats said that for most of the affected taxpayers, the surtax would be far smaller.
“What we’re talking about is frankly very, very small amounts for the overwhelming majority of people who will pay it,” said Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala.
The top marginal income tax rate now is 35 percent, on income above $372,950. Obama wants to boost the top rate to 39.6 percent in 2011 by allowing some of the tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush to expire.
The House Democrats’ proposed health care surtax would increase the top rate to 45 percent, making it the highest top rate since 1986, when it was 50 percent.
Republicans complain that some taxpayers would face marginal tax rates above 50 percent, when federal and state taxes are combined. They also say that tax increases on the wealthy hurt small business owners who typically pay their business taxes on their individual returns.
Democrats say the tax increases would affect only 4.1 percent of tax filers who report small business income. Those small businesses, however, tend to be the ones that employ the most workers, according to data from the National Federation of Independent Business.
“We shouldn’t have to resurrect the 1970s to remember that when tax rates go too high, people lose the incentive to build new businesses and create jobs,” said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif. “These massive tax increases are no substitute for real fiscal responsibility.”
Obama has tried to make the rich a popular target for tax increases as Democrats struggle to find ways to pay for his plan, intended to assure that virtually everyone gets health care. He regularly portrays the wealthy as big winners under Bush, noting that their taxes dropped and incomes soared during Bush’s eight years in office.
“I think the best way to fund (health care) is for people like myself who have been very lucky, to pay a little bit more,” Obama said recently.
The argument, however, omits the fact that Bush also cut taxes for middle- and low-income people. Their incomes didn’t jump as much as they did for the wealthy, but effective federal tax rates for middle-income and low-wage workers are at or near 30-year lows.
This year, 47 percent of filers won’t owe any federal income taxes — including some families making as much as $50,000 a year, according to separate projections by the Tax Policy Center and Deloitte Tax.
“Right now, if you are middle class or below, you are not expected to help pay to solve these problems,” said Stretch, the tax policy adviser.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
GOP senators weigh options in Sotomayor’s wake
Sonia Sotomayor seems to have made it thru the Senate confirmation hearings without creating a major political issue for the Republicans or some misstep which would threaten her nomination. Life in American politics has changed when only some Republicans are willing to take on directly a pro-abortion, liberal judge. Clearly there has been a shift to the left and these hearings are more evidence of that.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://fishtail.tv
Date: 7/17/2009 10:41 AM
JESSE J. HOLLAND,Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor won her first public pledge of support from a Republican senator Friday, after a smooth performance at her confirmation hearings that has placed her firmly on track to become the high court’s first Latina and the first Democratic-named justice in 15 years.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., announced that he would vote for Sotomayor, calling her “clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court,” after four days of Judiciary Committee hearings in which he said she showed “a judicial temperament.” Lugar, who previously voted to confirm Sotomayor to her current spot on a federal appeals court, was just the first of what is expected to be a number of Republicans who back Sotomayor.
The only other Republicans to publicly weigh in on Sotomayor’s nomination are two of the Senate’s staunchest conservatives, Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who have said they intend to vote no on President Barack Obama’s first high court choice.
With Democrats solidly behind Sotomayor, three days of grueling questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee gave Republicans no new ammunition to use against the 55-year-old nominee, who was raised in a South Bronx housing project, educated in the Ivy League, and rose through the legal ranks to spend 17 years on the federal bench.
Now GOP senators are weighing the tricky politics of voting on Sotomayor’s confirmation without alienating either their conservative base or Hispanic and women voters.
The GOP’s leader at the confirmation hearings, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama has said he has no interest in stopping or even delaying Sotomayor’s confirmation vote as the country’s 111th Supreme Court justice.
“I look forward to you getting that vote before we recess” on in Aug. 7, said Sessions, despite calls from some conservatives to delay the vote until after the Senate returns in September from its summer break.
“Each senator will make up their own mind,” Sessions said.
Sotomayor has overwhelming if not unanimous support among the Senate’s 58 Democrats and two independents.
Democrats, sensing a big win, immediately scheduled a committee vote Tuesday, starting the clock on a schedule for a final confirmation vote before the Senate leaves in August for a four-week summer break as well as before the next Supreme Court argument on Sept. 9.
Republicans will likely ask for a weeklong delay before the panel vote, but a unified GOP front against her also seems unlikely, given the praise Sotomayor got from a couple of GOP critics on the Judiciary Committee.
“Your judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of judicial decision-making,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Added Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: “You have, as a judge, been generally in the mainstream.”
The underlying politics are dicey for Republicans. They must be careful to keep faith with constituents like National Rifle Association members who oppose her, yet avoid offending the Hispanic voters who represent the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.
Sotomayor’s hearings were as much a prelude for future Supreme Court fights as a battle over the judge herself. Republicans criticized Obama’s assertion — made before nominating Sotomayor — that he was looking for a justice with “the quality of empathy,” and earlier an statement when he was a senator that some decisions depend on what’s in a judge’s heart.
They also pressed Sotomayor repeatedly on her 2001 statement that she hoped a “wise Latina” would usually rule better than a white male, drawing expressions of regret from the nominee, who said her words were poorly chosen.
Sotomayor parried all their questions on hot-button issues like guns and abortion rights and defended her speeches that have been faulted as showing bias.
She was unequivocal, however, in her statements on what kind of justice she would be. “I do not permit my sympathies, personal views or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases,” she told senators.
Republicans, expressing concern that she would bring bias to the court, gave a speaking role at the hearing to Frank Ricci, a white New Haven, Conn., firefighter whose reverse discrimination claim was rejected by Sotomayor and two other appeals court judges. He complained that the ruling showed a belief “that citizens should be reduced to racial statistics” but declined when given the chance to say Sotomayor’s nomination should be rejected.
Her panel’s ruling was overturned last month by the Supreme Court she hopes to join.
___
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://fishtail.tv
Date: 7/17/2009 10:41 AM
JESSE J. HOLLAND,Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor won her first public pledge of support from a Republican senator Friday, after a smooth performance at her confirmation hearings that has placed her firmly on track to become the high court’s first Latina and the first Democratic-named justice in 15 years.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., announced that he would vote for Sotomayor, calling her “clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court,” after four days of Judiciary Committee hearings in which he said she showed “a judicial temperament.” Lugar, who previously voted to confirm Sotomayor to her current spot on a federal appeals court, was just the first of what is expected to be a number of Republicans who back Sotomayor.
The only other Republicans to publicly weigh in on Sotomayor’s nomination are two of the Senate’s staunchest conservatives, Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who have said they intend to vote no on President Barack Obama’s first high court choice.
With Democrats solidly behind Sotomayor, three days of grueling questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee gave Republicans no new ammunition to use against the 55-year-old nominee, who was raised in a South Bronx housing project, educated in the Ivy League, and rose through the legal ranks to spend 17 years on the federal bench.
Now GOP senators are weighing the tricky politics of voting on Sotomayor’s confirmation without alienating either their conservative base or Hispanic and women voters.
The GOP’s leader at the confirmation hearings, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama has said he has no interest in stopping or even delaying Sotomayor’s confirmation vote as the country’s 111th Supreme Court justice.
“I look forward to you getting that vote before we recess” on in Aug. 7, said Sessions, despite calls from some conservatives to delay the vote until after the Senate returns in September from its summer break.
“Each senator will make up their own mind,” Sessions said.
Sotomayor has overwhelming if not unanimous support among the Senate’s 58 Democrats and two independents.
Democrats, sensing a big win, immediately scheduled a committee vote Tuesday, starting the clock on a schedule for a final confirmation vote before the Senate leaves in August for a four-week summer break as well as before the next Supreme Court argument on Sept. 9.
Republicans will likely ask for a weeklong delay before the panel vote, but a unified GOP front against her also seems unlikely, given the praise Sotomayor got from a couple of GOP critics on the Judiciary Committee.
“Your judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of judicial decision-making,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Added Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: “You have, as a judge, been generally in the mainstream.”
The underlying politics are dicey for Republicans. They must be careful to keep faith with constituents like National Rifle Association members who oppose her, yet avoid offending the Hispanic voters who represent the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.
Sotomayor’s hearings were as much a prelude for future Supreme Court fights as a battle over the judge herself. Republicans criticized Obama’s assertion — made before nominating Sotomayor — that he was looking for a justice with “the quality of empathy,” and earlier an statement when he was a senator that some decisions depend on what’s in a judge’s heart.
They also pressed Sotomayor repeatedly on her 2001 statement that she hoped a “wise Latina” would usually rule better than a white male, drawing expressions of regret from the nominee, who said her words were poorly chosen.
Sotomayor parried all their questions on hot-button issues like guns and abortion rights and defended her speeches that have been faulted as showing bias.
She was unequivocal, however, in her statements on what kind of justice she would be. “I do not permit my sympathies, personal views or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases,” she told senators.
Republicans, expressing concern that she would bring bias to the court, gave a speaking role at the hearing to Frank Ricci, a white New Haven, Conn., firefighter whose reverse discrimination claim was rejected by Sotomayor and two other appeals court judges. He complained that the ruling showed a belief “that citizens should be reduced to racial statistics” but declined when given the chance to say Sotomayor’s nomination should be rejected.
Her panel’s ruling was overturned last month by the Supreme Court she hopes to join.
___
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Paulson defends his response to economic crisis
Was Henry Paulson a hero or someone who cried fire in a crowded theatre? That will be debated perhaps as long as the politics of Herbert Hoover. But I doubt he will have any dams named or unnamed for him.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com
Date: 7/15/2009 4:23 PM
ANNE FLAHERTY,Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Wednesday defended his response to the economic crisis last year as an imperfect, but necessary rescue that spared the U.S. financial market from total collapse.
“Many more Americans would be without their homes, their jobs, their businesses, their savings and their way of life,” he said in written testimony prepared for a hearing Thursday.
While losses have been staggering, “that suffering would have been far more profound and disturbing” had the government not intervened, he will tell the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Paulson’s defense came as Congress began an independent bipartisan probe into the government’s handling of the crisis. Democrat Phil Angelides and Republican Bill Thomas, both politicians from California, were appointed to lead the effort.
The commission will be given $5 million to complete its work by Dec. 15, 2010.
Angelides, who in 2006 unsuccessfully challenged Arnold Schwarzenegger to become California governor, said his goal was to lead a thorough and non-partisan inquiry.
“Our job is to do the best possible job of shining the light of day on what really happened so it’s less likely to happen in the future,” he said in an interview.
The White House and Congress are debating the government’s next step in handing the worst economic crisis in decades, as foreclosures rise and unemployment figures are projected to top 10 percent this year.
One idea floated this week by administration officials would allow homeowners facing foreclosure to stay in their homes as renters but relinquish ownership to the banks. Democrats, who had not been briefed on the plan, said they were skeptical but would keep an open mind.
“I don’t know if this is the right idea or not, but given the scope of the crisis — more than 10,000 Americans found themselves in foreclosure last month — we should consider any option that might help keep people in their homes,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Banking Committee.
Congress already approved a $700 billion bailout for financial institutions last fall under Paulson’s direction, as well as a separate $787 billion stimulus package requested by President Barack Obama in February.
Some Democrats have suggested more government spending may be necessary, while Republicans are warning that the nation’s $1 trillion deficit will be the single biggest hurdle to recovery.
Paulson, who orchestrated the bank bailout fund, said the unprecedented steps taken by the government in 2008 was necessary to restore confidence to the market.
“Our responses were not perfect … But, having had the benefit of some time to reflect, and to consider views expressed by others, I am confident that our responses were substantially correct and they saved this nation from great peril,” Paulson wrote.
Paulson also defended himself against allegations that he and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke pressured Bank of America Corp. into acquiring Merrill Lynch, despite mounting financial losses at Merrill that were ultimately absorbed by Bank of America stockholders.
Bernanke has denied threatening to oust Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis if he abandoned the takeover.
Paulson said he told Lewis that reneging on the promise to purchase Merrill would show “a colossal lack of judgment.” He then pointed out to Lewis that the Fed could remove management at the bank if it saw fit, he said.
“By referring to the Federal Reserve’s supervisory powers, I intended to deliver a strong message reinforcing the view that had been consistently expressed by the Federal Reserve, as Bank of America’s regulator, and shared by the Treasury, that it would be unthinkable for Bank of America to take this destructive action for which there was no reasonable legal basis and which would show a lack of judgment,” Paulson said.
Paulson said he believed his remarks to Lewis were “appropriate.”
Bank of America ultimately received $45 billion from the government’s financial bailout program, $20 billion of which was linked to its acquisition Merrill Lynch.
Appointed by Republicans to co-chair the financial crisis commission was Thomas, the former California GOP chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
In addition to Thomas, Republicans picked Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign; Peter Wallison, general counsel at the Treasury Department during the Reagan administration; and Keith Hennessey, an economic policy adviser to President Bush.
Democrats chose Brooksley Born, a former financial regulator who warned against lax rules for derivatives; Bob Graham, the former Democratic senator from Florida; John Thompson, board chairman of the Symantec Corporation; Heather Murren, a retired Merrill Lynch director; and Byron Georgiou, a Las Vegas businessman.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com
Date: 7/15/2009 4:23 PM
ANNE FLAHERTY,Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Wednesday defended his response to the economic crisis last year as an imperfect, but necessary rescue that spared the U.S. financial market from total collapse.
“Many more Americans would be without their homes, their jobs, their businesses, their savings and their way of life,” he said in written testimony prepared for a hearing Thursday.
While losses have been staggering, “that suffering would have been far more profound and disturbing” had the government not intervened, he will tell the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Paulson’s defense came as Congress began an independent bipartisan probe into the government’s handling of the crisis. Democrat Phil Angelides and Republican Bill Thomas, both politicians from California, were appointed to lead the effort.
The commission will be given $5 million to complete its work by Dec. 15, 2010.
Angelides, who in 2006 unsuccessfully challenged Arnold Schwarzenegger to become California governor, said his goal was to lead a thorough and non-partisan inquiry.
“Our job is to do the best possible job of shining the light of day on what really happened so it’s less likely to happen in the future,” he said in an interview.
The White House and Congress are debating the government’s next step in handing the worst economic crisis in decades, as foreclosures rise and unemployment figures are projected to top 10 percent this year.
One idea floated this week by administration officials would allow homeowners facing foreclosure to stay in their homes as renters but relinquish ownership to the banks. Democrats, who had not been briefed on the plan, said they were skeptical but would keep an open mind.
“I don’t know if this is the right idea or not, but given the scope of the crisis — more than 10,000 Americans found themselves in foreclosure last month — we should consider any option that might help keep people in their homes,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Banking Committee.
Congress already approved a $700 billion bailout for financial institutions last fall under Paulson’s direction, as well as a separate $787 billion stimulus package requested by President Barack Obama in February.
Some Democrats have suggested more government spending may be necessary, while Republicans are warning that the nation’s $1 trillion deficit will be the single biggest hurdle to recovery.
Paulson, who orchestrated the bank bailout fund, said the unprecedented steps taken by the government in 2008 was necessary to restore confidence to the market.
“Our responses were not perfect … But, having had the benefit of some time to reflect, and to consider views expressed by others, I am confident that our responses were substantially correct and they saved this nation from great peril,” Paulson wrote.
Paulson also defended himself against allegations that he and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke pressured Bank of America Corp. into acquiring Merrill Lynch, despite mounting financial losses at Merrill that were ultimately absorbed by Bank of America stockholders.
Bernanke has denied threatening to oust Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis if he abandoned the takeover.
Paulson said he told Lewis that reneging on the promise to purchase Merrill would show “a colossal lack of judgment.” He then pointed out to Lewis that the Fed could remove management at the bank if it saw fit, he said.
“By referring to the Federal Reserve’s supervisory powers, I intended to deliver a strong message reinforcing the view that had been consistently expressed by the Federal Reserve, as Bank of America’s regulator, and shared by the Treasury, that it would be unthinkable for Bank of America to take this destructive action for which there was no reasonable legal basis and which would show a lack of judgment,” Paulson said.
Paulson said he believed his remarks to Lewis were “appropriate.”
Bank of America ultimately received $45 billion from the government’s financial bailout program, $20 billion of which was linked to its acquisition Merrill Lynch.
Appointed by Republicans to co-chair the financial crisis commission was Thomas, the former California GOP chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
In addition to Thomas, Republicans picked Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign; Peter Wallison, general counsel at the Treasury Department during the Reagan administration; and Keith Hennessey, an economic policy adviser to President Bush.
Democrats chose Brooksley Born, a former financial regulator who warned against lax rules for derivatives; Bob Graham, the former Democratic senator from Florida; John Thompson, board chairman of the Symantec Corporation; Heather Murren, a retired Merrill Lynch director; and Byron Georgiou, a Las Vegas businessman.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
SEC charges 11 people with insider trading
One of the great mysteries of the financial crisis of 2008 was where was the SEC while this catastrophe evolved? It wasn’t just Bernie Madoff, it was the complete failure to require publicly held companies to make full disclosures. Maybe with the change in Administrations, the SEC will remember its mandate to regulate publicly held companies.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://fishtail.tv
Date: 7/15/2009 4:25 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday said it charged 11 people in connection with separate insider trading schemes related to acquisition deals at two different companies.
Three of the 11 have reached agreements on financial settlements with SEC, while the SEC said it’s seeking injunctions against further violations, the return of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest and financial penalties from the other eight.
According to the SEC, five people illegally tipped off others or traded on private information ahead of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.’s 2008 announcement that it would acquire Seattle-based insurance company Safeco Corp.
One of those five charged is Anthony Perez of Maitland, Fla., a former Goldman Sachs investment banker, who the SEC says illegally tipped off his brother, Ian C. Perez of Orlando, Fla.
Ian Perez bought Safeco call options one day ahead of the public announcement and later sold them for a profit of more than $152,000, the SEC said.
As part of a deal with the SEC, Anthony Perez will pay a penalty of $25,000 and Ian Perez will pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $152,992. Neither brother will admit or deny the charges, the SEC said.
The three other people charged in relation to the Liberty Mutual acquisition include Math J. Hipp of Seattle. Hipp received confidential information from his wife, an executive assistant at Safeco, bought Safeco call options ahead of the public announcement and later sold them for a profit of more than $118,000, the SEC said.
Under a settlement agreement, Hipp will pay $239,770 without admitting or denying the allegations.
The SEC also charged Peter E. Talbot of Springfield, Mass., a financial analyst, and his nephew, Carl E. Binette of Ludlow, Mass. The pair bought Safeco call options ahead of the public announcement and later sold them for a profit of more than $615,000, the SEC said.
The SEC also charged six other people for illegally trading on private information ahead of private equity firm Odyssey Investment Partners’ 2005 announcement that it would acquire Neff Corp.
The SEC claims that Thomas L. Borell, a Miami-based lawyer, obtained access to confidential information through his friendship with a Neff director. He then used information to buy more than $1.3 million of Neff stock ahead of the announcement and later sold it for nearly $1 million in profits, the SEC said.
Also charged in connection with the Odyssey acquisition are Sebastian De La Maza of Miami, along with brothers Alberto Perez and Jose G. Perez, also of Miami. The SEC also charged Kevan D. Acord of Overland Park, Kan., and an accountant who works for him, Philip C. Growney of Kansas City, Mo.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://fishtail.tv
Date: 7/15/2009 4:25 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday said it charged 11 people in connection with separate insider trading schemes related to acquisition deals at two different companies.
Three of the 11 have reached agreements on financial settlements with SEC, while the SEC said it’s seeking injunctions against further violations, the return of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest and financial penalties from the other eight.
According to the SEC, five people illegally tipped off others or traded on private information ahead of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.’s 2008 announcement that it would acquire Seattle-based insurance company Safeco Corp.
One of those five charged is Anthony Perez of Maitland, Fla., a former Goldman Sachs investment banker, who the SEC says illegally tipped off his brother, Ian C. Perez of Orlando, Fla.
Ian Perez bought Safeco call options one day ahead of the public announcement and later sold them for a profit of more than $152,000, the SEC said.
As part of a deal with the SEC, Anthony Perez will pay a penalty of $25,000 and Ian Perez will pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $152,992. Neither brother will admit or deny the charges, the SEC said.
The three other people charged in relation to the Liberty Mutual acquisition include Math J. Hipp of Seattle. Hipp received confidential information from his wife, an executive assistant at Safeco, bought Safeco call options ahead of the public announcement and later sold them for a profit of more than $118,000, the SEC said.
Under a settlement agreement, Hipp will pay $239,770 without admitting or denying the allegations.
The SEC also charged Peter E. Talbot of Springfield, Mass., a financial analyst, and his nephew, Carl E. Binette of Ludlow, Mass. The pair bought Safeco call options ahead of the public announcement and later sold them for a profit of more than $615,000, the SEC said.
The SEC also charged six other people for illegally trading on private information ahead of private equity firm Odyssey Investment Partners’ 2005 announcement that it would acquire Neff Corp.
The SEC claims that Thomas L. Borell, a Miami-based lawyer, obtained access to confidential information through his friendship with a Neff director. He then used information to buy more than $1.3 million of Neff stock ahead of the announcement and later sold it for nearly $1 million in profits, the SEC said.
Also charged in connection with the Odyssey acquisition are Sebastian De La Maza of Miami, along with brothers Alberto Perez and Jose G. Perez, also of Miami. The SEC also charged Kevan D. Acord of Overland Park, Kan., and an accountant who works for him, Philip C. Growney of Kansas City, Mo.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Historic Sotomayor confirmation hearings under way
With the hearings commencing today to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, the Republicans get to dominate the headlines with their attacks on an experienced, liberal judge, because she believed in Affirmative Action. The Connecticut Fire fighters case will wrongly dominate the news of the confirmation of this judge who reach thousands of decisions in her years on the bench. Yet the Rush Limbaugh influenced part of the Republican party will try to make her qualifications about what they call “racism”, not whether she brings to the Court, a great mind which will help to shape our law into the future. By selecting Sotomayor for the bench, President Obama will help to restore a more civil liberty, consumer rights approach to American law. By attacking the first Hispanic woman nominated, the Republican’s may lose any political traction in this growingly important, swing ethnic group.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com
Date: 7/13/2009 10:01 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — In the glare of bright lights, Sen. Patrick Leahy called to order confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor that she hopes will make history and knows will be closely followed by millions.
It was all happening in a large, square Senate office building hearing room, relatively unadorned compared to the cavernous sancturaries elsewhere on Capitol Hill. Leahy banged the gavel and looked straight into the eyes of the 55-year-old native New Yorker, welcoming her to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sotomayor (SUHN’-ya soh-toh-my-YOR’) would be the first Hispanic and third woman to sit on the high court bench. A smiling Sotomayor greeted some senators and took her seat, ready to hear opening statements and make her own case publicly for the first time.
The drama and tension of the moment was palpable as senators took their seats, photographers jockeyed for position and the hearing room was filled to capacity.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com
Date: 7/13/2009 10:01 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — In the glare of bright lights, Sen. Patrick Leahy called to order confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor that she hopes will make history and knows will be closely followed by millions.
It was all happening in a large, square Senate office building hearing room, relatively unadorned compared to the cavernous sancturaries elsewhere on Capitol Hill. Leahy banged the gavel and looked straight into the eyes of the 55-year-old native New Yorker, welcoming her to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sotomayor (SUHN’-ya soh-toh-my-YOR’) would be the first Hispanic and third woman to sit on the high court bench. A smiling Sotomayor greeted some senators and took her seat, ready to hear opening statements and make her own case publicly for the first time.
The drama and tension of the moment was palpable as senators took their seats, photographers jockeyed for position and the hearing room was filled to capacity.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Finally 60? Franken in Washington, says he’s ready to work
I had a minor in history, a major in journalism, graduated high in my law school class. But until George Bush won his second term in office, I didn’t know about the 51 means 60 rule in the U.S. Senate. From my perspective as a trial lawyer and consumer advocate, that 60 rule saved us in 2005, when the Republicans ran on a platform of what they called Tort Reform and would have legislated the civil justice system out of existence. For two years, until the Democrats regained control of the Senate, we advocates for consumer rights shuddered every time some Rush Limbaugh clone went on a rampage against basic rights that have been guaranteed going back to the Magna Carta.
Well, now it is the Democrats who have control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Will they create some push back against the tort reform abuses of the Bush years? Probably not. But it sure is a lot better representing injured people when there are 60 members of the Democratic Party, than the other way around.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://fishtail.tv
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Well, now it is the Democrats who have control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Will they create some push back against the tort reform abuses of the Bush years? Probably not. But it sure is a lot better representing injured people when there are 60 members of the Democratic Party, than the other way around.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://tbilaw.com
http://fishtail.tv
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Analysis: GOP struggles for anti-Sotomayor message
Date: 7/5/2009 8:21 AM
JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS,Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — A week before her Senate hearings, Republicans are floundering in their efforts to trip up Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, unable to find an effective message about why she’s not fit to serve.
Blame the tricky politics of opposing the woman who would be the first Hispanic justice, especially for a party struggling to broaden its base and whose chief spokesman on Sotomayor has a troubled history of racism allegations.
Add to that the mathematical impossibility of Republicans’ rejecting President Barack Obama’s first high court nominee, and it’s a recipe for a weak-kneed response.
Conservative activists have noticed, and they’re not happy.
“Too many Republicans and conservatives planned to lose instead of planning to win” the debate over Sotomayor, said Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. His group has mounted strong opposition to the federal appeals court judge.
About half the Senate’s Republicans are willing to raise serious questions about Sotomayor and there’s “a sizable minority who — partly because she’s Hispanic — just want this to go away,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice.
Conservative groups have sought to convince Senate Republicans that they can benefit politically by strongly opposing Sotomayor. But many of their leaders complain the message isn’t getting through.
During recent confrontations, some activists have told GOP senators, “Don’t throw away yet another conservative agenda item when it’s a successful one for you. Your base cares about this and you should, too,” said former Rep. David McIntosh, R-Ind., who’s advising some outside groups on Sotomayor’s nomination. “It was kind of a blunt message.”
There are good reasons for Republicans to be holding back, wondering what their best approach is to opposing a nominee who’s broadly acknowledged to be qualified and whose past rulings make it difficult to pigeonhole her as a liberal crusader.
The GOP has just 40 votes in the Senate — well short of the majority they would need to defeat Sotomayor or to sustain a drawn-out effort to block a final vote to confirm her.
Even if they could stall Sotomayor’s nomination, though, it’s evident that many Republicans don’t think it’s politically prudent to take on a Hispanic woman, given the GOP’s low standing in the polls and its efforts to appeal to women and minorities. Those groups traditionally have shunned the party.
The issue of race and ethnicity has proven a toxic one for the key Republican carrying the party message on Sotomayor: Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the senior GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which begins hearings on Sotomayor on July 13.
Sessions’ own nomination for a federal judgeship in 1986 was scuttled by allegations that he made racist comments and targeted black civil rights leaders as a federal prosecutor in Alabama.
He denied those charges. But he did acknowledge making what he called some off-color “jokes,” such as calling civil rights groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People “un-American.”
Sessions has spoken in similar terms recently about a Puerto Rican legal advocacy group on whose board Sotomayor sat from 1980 until 1992.
“This is a group that has taken some very shocking positions with respect to terrorism,” Sessions said of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, citing its defense in 1990 of Puerto Rican nationalists who 36 years earlier had wounded five lawmakers during an attack on the House while it was in session.
Sessions said Thursday the group’s stances on issues from capital punishment to race were “extreme.” His staff raised concern about its ties with the community organizing group ACORN, which Republicans routinely describe as a radical organization.
Democrats said the GOP was grasping at straws.
It’s not that Republicans aren’t criticizing Sotomayor. Early on, they went out of their way to treat her gently, trying to distinguish themselves from party firebrands such as radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who called her a racist.
In recent days, GOP senators have faulted her for her stance on gun rights, her ruling against white firefighters who alleged reversed discrimination, and her participation in the Puerto Rican legal advocacy group. They’ve raised questions about her ability to be “colorblind.”
Still, they’ve had to reach to score points against Sotomayor.
For instance, Republicans recently banded together to raise concerns about her position on gun rights. They held a news conference about an appeals court decision Sotomayor joined that said the Second Amendment’s protection against curbs on bearing arms applies only to the federal government — not to states.
That was in line with Supreme Court precedent on the issue, Sessions acknowledged, and presumably in keeping with GOP views that judges should be restrained.
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, criticized Sotomayor for taking a “cramped and restricted view of a basic civil liberty.” At the same time, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Sotomayor had been too expansive in her ruling on the right to keep and bear arms. “I wish Judge Sotomayor had been similarly restrained on these issues” as other courts that ruled differently, he said.
The message was as clear as mud.
___
EDITOR’S NOTE — Julie Hirschfeld Davis has covered Congress and the White House for 11 years.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS,Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — A week before her Senate hearings, Republicans are floundering in their efforts to trip up Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, unable to find an effective message about why she’s not fit to serve.
Blame the tricky politics of opposing the woman who would be the first Hispanic justice, especially for a party struggling to broaden its base and whose chief spokesman on Sotomayor has a troubled history of racism allegations.
Add to that the mathematical impossibility of Republicans’ rejecting President Barack Obama’s first high court nominee, and it’s a recipe for a weak-kneed response.
Conservative activists have noticed, and they’re not happy.
“Too many Republicans and conservatives planned to lose instead of planning to win” the debate over Sotomayor, said Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. His group has mounted strong opposition to the federal appeals court judge.
About half the Senate’s Republicans are willing to raise serious questions about Sotomayor and there’s “a sizable minority who — partly because she’s Hispanic — just want this to go away,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice.
Conservative groups have sought to convince Senate Republicans that they can benefit politically by strongly opposing Sotomayor. But many of their leaders complain the message isn’t getting through.
During recent confrontations, some activists have told GOP senators, “Don’t throw away yet another conservative agenda item when it’s a successful one for you. Your base cares about this and you should, too,” said former Rep. David McIntosh, R-Ind., who’s advising some outside groups on Sotomayor’s nomination. “It was kind of a blunt message.”
There are good reasons for Republicans to be holding back, wondering what their best approach is to opposing a nominee who’s broadly acknowledged to be qualified and whose past rulings make it difficult to pigeonhole her as a liberal crusader.
The GOP has just 40 votes in the Senate — well short of the majority they would need to defeat Sotomayor or to sustain a drawn-out effort to block a final vote to confirm her.
Even if they could stall Sotomayor’s nomination, though, it’s evident that many Republicans don’t think it’s politically prudent to take on a Hispanic woman, given the GOP’s low standing in the polls and its efforts to appeal to women and minorities. Those groups traditionally have shunned the party.
The issue of race and ethnicity has proven a toxic one for the key Republican carrying the party message on Sotomayor: Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the senior GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which begins hearings on Sotomayor on July 13.
Sessions’ own nomination for a federal judgeship in 1986 was scuttled by allegations that he made racist comments and targeted black civil rights leaders as a federal prosecutor in Alabama.
He denied those charges. But he did acknowledge making what he called some off-color “jokes,” such as calling civil rights groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People “un-American.”
Sessions has spoken in similar terms recently about a Puerto Rican legal advocacy group on whose board Sotomayor sat from 1980 until 1992.
“This is a group that has taken some very shocking positions with respect to terrorism,” Sessions said of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, citing its defense in 1990 of Puerto Rican nationalists who 36 years earlier had wounded five lawmakers during an attack on the House while it was in session.
Sessions said Thursday the group’s stances on issues from capital punishment to race were “extreme.” His staff raised concern about its ties with the community organizing group ACORN, which Republicans routinely describe as a radical organization.
Democrats said the GOP was grasping at straws.
It’s not that Republicans aren’t criticizing Sotomayor. Early on, they went out of their way to treat her gently, trying to distinguish themselves from party firebrands such as radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who called her a racist.
In recent days, GOP senators have faulted her for her stance on gun rights, her ruling against white firefighters who alleged reversed discrimination, and her participation in the Puerto Rican legal advocacy group. They’ve raised questions about her ability to be “colorblind.”
Still, they’ve had to reach to score points against Sotomayor.
For instance, Republicans recently banded together to raise concerns about her position on gun rights. They held a news conference about an appeals court decision Sotomayor joined that said the Second Amendment’s protection against curbs on bearing arms applies only to the federal government — not to states.
That was in line with Supreme Court precedent on the issue, Sessions acknowledged, and presumably in keeping with GOP views that judges should be restrained.
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, criticized Sotomayor for taking a “cramped and restricted view of a basic civil liberty.” At the same time, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Sotomayor had been too expansive in her ruling on the right to keep and bear arms. “I wish Judge Sotomayor had been similarly restrained on these issues” as other courts that ruled differently, he said.
The message was as clear as mud.
___
EDITOR’S NOTE — Julie Hirschfeld Davis has covered Congress and the White House for 11 years.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Colin Powell attacks critics of Sotomayor
The below AP story discusses Colin Powell’s distaste for the Republican attacks on Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor for racism. Affirmative Action is one of those legal and political issues upon which lawyers and politicians can have unique views which don’t necessarily line up squarely with party lines. The problem with the New Haven case is that the Fire Department rejected the test too late. They could have known going in that the test would disparately favor whites, because all such tests do. That doesn’t make the test racist, it makes it a test that discriminates in favor of those who did well in school and who worked hard to prepare for the test.
The most disturbing part of the test is that the test actually accurately reflects the difference in educational achievement between black males and white males. Why is our education system more than 50 years after forced federal integration of the schools, still so massively failing to educate blacks, especially black men?
I have hopes that this fact will change, primarily for two reasons:
1) The tearing down of the major inner city housing projects, like the Robert Taylor homes in Chicago; and
2) The Election of a brilliant man like Barack Obama, who will provide the type of positive role model for black youths in an area outside of sports.
Maybe these developments can be a catalyst for change. The New Haven Fire Department case shows how desperately something must change.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://subtlebraininjury.com
http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com
http://vestibulardisorder.com
http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
g@gordonjohnson.com
800-992-9447
©Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr. 2009
Date: 7/5/2009 9:01 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Colin Powell, one of the nation’s most prominent African-Americans, is going after people who attacked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor because of her stand in favor of affirmative action.
Powell, who’s from the same Bronx neighborhood in New York as Sotomayor, said she should face “a spirited set of hearings” in the Senate. But he said the federal appeals court judge, who would be the first Hispanic justice, shouldn’t be condemned for ruling against white firefighters who contended they suffered reverse discrimination.
“What we can’t continue to have is to have somebody like a Judge Sotomayor … called a racist, a reverse racist and she ought to withdraw her nomination because we’re mad at her,” Powell said in an interview broadcast Sunday on “State of the Union” on CNN.
Powell made it clear that he was referring to critics outside the Senate.
“Fortunately, the senators who will sit on this hearing in the Judiciary Committee, after a few days of this kind of nonsense, said, ‘Let’s slow down, let’s examine her qualifications in the way we’re supposed to at a confirmation hearing.’” The committee begins hearings July 13.
Powell said Sotomayor has “an open and liberal bent of mind, but that’s not disqualifying. But she seems to have a judicial record that seems to be balanced and tries to follow the law.”
Powell, a Republican who supported Obama, said his party still is not sensitive enough toward minorities.
He noted that Obama had a significant advantage with Hispanics and African-Americans in the November elections. He criticized Republicans who are not elected to office and “immediately shout racism” against Sotomayor, while accusing Powell of supporting Obama because both men are black.
“We still have a problem,” he said.
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has called Powell “just another liberal,” said he should become a Democrat and charged that Powell endorsed Obama based on race. Powell said Sunday that Limbaugh “doesn’t decide who I am or what I am no more than I decide who he is or what he is.”
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last Monday that white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotion because of their race. The justices threw out a decision that Sotomayor had endorsed as an appeals court judge.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
The most disturbing part of the test is that the test actually accurately reflects the difference in educational achievement between black males and white males. Why is our education system more than 50 years after forced federal integration of the schools, still so massively failing to educate blacks, especially black men?
I have hopes that this fact will change, primarily for two reasons:
1) The tearing down of the major inner city housing projects, like the Robert Taylor homes in Chicago; and
2) The Election of a brilliant man like Barack Obama, who will provide the type of positive role model for black youths in an area outside of sports.
Maybe these developments can be a catalyst for change. The New Haven Fire Department case shows how desperately something must change.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://subtlebraininjury.com
http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com
http://vestibulardisorder.com
http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
g@gordonjohnson.com
800-992-9447
©Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr. 2009
Date: 7/5/2009 9:01 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Colin Powell, one of the nation’s most prominent African-Americans, is going after people who attacked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor because of her stand in favor of affirmative action.
Powell, who’s from the same Bronx neighborhood in New York as Sotomayor, said she should face “a spirited set of hearings” in the Senate. But he said the federal appeals court judge, who would be the first Hispanic justice, shouldn’t be condemned for ruling against white firefighters who contended they suffered reverse discrimination.
“What we can’t continue to have is to have somebody like a Judge Sotomayor … called a racist, a reverse racist and she ought to withdraw her nomination because we’re mad at her,” Powell said in an interview broadcast Sunday on “State of the Union” on CNN.
Powell made it clear that he was referring to critics outside the Senate.
“Fortunately, the senators who will sit on this hearing in the Judiciary Committee, after a few days of this kind of nonsense, said, ‘Let’s slow down, let’s examine her qualifications in the way we’re supposed to at a confirmation hearing.’” The committee begins hearings July 13.
Powell said Sotomayor has “an open and liberal bent of mind, but that’s not disqualifying. But she seems to have a judicial record that seems to be balanced and tries to follow the law.”
Powell, a Republican who supported Obama, said his party still is not sensitive enough toward minorities.
He noted that Obama had a significant advantage with Hispanics and African-Americans in the November elections. He criticized Republicans who are not elected to office and “immediately shout racism” against Sotomayor, while accusing Powell of supporting Obama because both men are black.
“We still have a problem,” he said.
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has called Powell “just another liberal,” said he should become a Democrat and charged that Powell endorsed Obama based on race. Powell said Sunday that Limbaugh “doesn’t decide who I am or what I am no more than I decide who he is or what he is.”
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last Monday that white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotion because of their race. The justices threw out a decision that Sotomayor had endorsed as an appeals court judge.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Judge OKs continued freezing of financier’s assets
Date: 7/3/2009 9:39 AM
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge has granted the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request to continue freezing the assets of a California financier charged in a fraud case involving hundreds of millions of dollars.
U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez ruled Thursday there was sufficient evidence of fraud to justify the continued freeze of Danny Pang’s assets. The judge also appointed Robert P. Mosier as a permanent receiver in charge of Pang’s companies.
Pang is accused of bilking investors in his Private Equity Management Group companies by falsely portrayed returns as coming from investments in timeshare real estate and life insurance policies of seniors. His attorneys have denied any wrongdoing.
Mosier had said in previous court documents that Pang managed his investments as a “personal piggy bank” to fund a lavish lifestyle, including spending $35 million on a fleet of jets, $1 million on a cruise for employees and $1.5 million on a China vacation for his staff.
Pang had accepted more than $800 million from Taiwan-based investors.
Pang’s attorneys wanted to remove Mosier, claiming bias, but Gutierrez denied the motion.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge has granted the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request to continue freezing the assets of a California financier charged in a fraud case involving hundreds of millions of dollars.
U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez ruled Thursday there was sufficient evidence of fraud to justify the continued freeze of Danny Pang’s assets. The judge also appointed Robert P. Mosier as a permanent receiver in charge of Pang’s companies.
Pang is accused of bilking investors in his Private Equity Management Group companies by falsely portrayed returns as coming from investments in timeshare real estate and life insurance policies of seniors. His attorneys have denied any wrongdoing.
Mosier had said in previous court documents that Pang managed his investments as a “personal piggy bank” to fund a lavish lifestyle, including spending $35 million on a fleet of jets, $1 million on a cruise for employees and $1.5 million on a China vacation for his staff.
Pang had accepted more than $800 million from Taiwan-based investors.
Pang’s attorneys wanted to remove Mosier, claiming bias, but Gutierrez denied the motion.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
Mom in MySpace case says it was properly dismissed
Date: 7/3/2009 10:06 AM
LINDA DEUTSCH,AP Special Correspondent
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Missouri mother said she never should have been prosecuted for her role in a MySpace hoax directed at a 13-year-old girl who ended up committing suicide.
A federal judge said Thursday that he has tentatively thrown out Lori Drew’s convictions, acquitting her of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization. U.S. District Judge George Wu stressed the ruling was tentative until he issues it in writing.
Drew showed no reaction to the decision in the courtroom. In a statement read on NBC’s “Today” show Friday, said she agreed with it and felt she never should have been prosecuted.
“In my view, it was proper that this case was dismissed, primarily because I simply did not do what the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles accused me of doing,” Drew said.
Drew was convicted in November, but the judge said that if she is to be found guilty of illegally accessing computers, anyone who has ever violated the social networking site’s terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor. That would be unconstitutional, he said.
“You could prosecute pretty much anyone who violated terms of service,” he said.
Prosecutors had sought the maximum three-year prison sentence and a $300,000 fine, but it had been uncertain going into Thursday’s hearing whether Drew would be sentenced.
Wu had given a lengthy review to a defense request for dismissal, delaying sentencing from May to go over testimony from two prosecution witnesses.
Wu said he allowed the case to proceed to trial when Drew was charged with a felony, but she was convicted only of the misdemeanor and that presented constitutional problems.
Defense attorney Dean Steward said outside court that Los Angeles federal prosecutors should not have brought the charges in a case that originated in Missouri and was rejected by prosecutors there.
“Shame on the U.S. attorney for bringing this case. The St. Louis prosecutors had it right,” Steward said. “The cynic in me says that (U.S. Attorney) Tom O’Brien wanted to make a name for himself or to keep his job.”
O’Brien told a press conference that after prosecutors see the written ruling they will consider options, including an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“I’m proud of this case,” he said. “This is a case that called out for someone to do something. It was a risk. But this office will always take risks on behalf of children.”
Steward said the ruling should mark the end of Drew’s criminal case.
“It’s not the end of the road, it’s the end of the chapter on the criminal side, which is pretty clearly the end,” he said.
The parents of Megan Meier, the teenager who killed herself, were in court for the ruling. Later, her mother, Tina Meier, said that in spite of the disappointment, she felt that justice was done because “we got the word out.”
Tina Meier said she is devoting her life to educating parents and teachers about potential threats to their children lurking in the Internet.
Much attention has been paid to Drew’s case, primarily because it was the nation’s first cyberbullying trial. The trial was held in Los Angeles because the servers of the social networking site are in the area.
Prosecutors say Drew sought to humiliate Megan by helping create a fictitious teen boy on the social networking site and sending flirtatious messages to the girl in his name. The fake boy then dumped Megan in a message saying the world would be better without her.
She hanged herself a short time later in October 2006 in the St. Louis suburb of Dardenne Prairie, Mo.
Drew was not directly charged with causing Megan’s death. Instead, prosecutors indicted her under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which in the past has been used in hacking and trademark theft cases.
Wu acknowledged in May he was concerned that sending Drew to prison for violating a Web site’s service terms might set a dangerous precedent. Wu at the time noted that millions of people either don’t read service terms, as happened in Drew’s case.
During the trial, prosecutors argued that Drew violated MySpace service rules by setting up the phony profile for a boy named “Josh Evans” with the help of her then-13-year-old daughter Sarah and business assistant Ashley Grills. They posted a photo of a bare-chested boy with tousled brown hair.
“Josh” then told Megan she was “sexi” and assured her, “i love you so much.”
Prosecutors believe Drew and her daughter, who was friends with Megan, created the profile to find out if Megan was spreading rumors about Sarah. Grills testified she received a message from Megan in mid-2006, calling Drew’s daughter a lesbian.
Grills, who testified under a promise of immunity, allegedly sent the final, insulting message to Megan before she killed herself. Prosecutors said Megan sent a response saying, “‘You are the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.’”
Jurors decided Drew was not guilty of the more serious felonies of intentionally causing emotional harm while accessing computers without authorization. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on a felony conspiracy charge. The judge dismissed it Thursday at the request of prosecutors.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
LINDA DEUTSCH,AP Special Correspondent
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Missouri mother said she never should have been prosecuted for her role in a MySpace hoax directed at a 13-year-old girl who ended up committing suicide.
A federal judge said Thursday that he has tentatively thrown out Lori Drew’s convictions, acquitting her of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization. U.S. District Judge George Wu stressed the ruling was tentative until he issues it in writing.
Drew showed no reaction to the decision in the courtroom. In a statement read on NBC’s “Today” show Friday, said she agreed with it and felt she never should have been prosecuted.
“In my view, it was proper that this case was dismissed, primarily because I simply did not do what the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles accused me of doing,” Drew said.
Drew was convicted in November, but the judge said that if she is to be found guilty of illegally accessing computers, anyone who has ever violated the social networking site’s terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor. That would be unconstitutional, he said.
“You could prosecute pretty much anyone who violated terms of service,” he said.
Prosecutors had sought the maximum three-year prison sentence and a $300,000 fine, but it had been uncertain going into Thursday’s hearing whether Drew would be sentenced.
Wu had given a lengthy review to a defense request for dismissal, delaying sentencing from May to go over testimony from two prosecution witnesses.
Wu said he allowed the case to proceed to trial when Drew was charged with a felony, but she was convicted only of the misdemeanor and that presented constitutional problems.
Defense attorney Dean Steward said outside court that Los Angeles federal prosecutors should not have brought the charges in a case that originated in Missouri and was rejected by prosecutors there.
“Shame on the U.S. attorney for bringing this case. The St. Louis prosecutors had it right,” Steward said. “The cynic in me says that (U.S. Attorney) Tom O’Brien wanted to make a name for himself or to keep his job.”
O’Brien told a press conference that after prosecutors see the written ruling they will consider options, including an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“I’m proud of this case,” he said. “This is a case that called out for someone to do something. It was a risk. But this office will always take risks on behalf of children.”
Steward said the ruling should mark the end of Drew’s criminal case.
“It’s not the end of the road, it’s the end of the chapter on the criminal side, which is pretty clearly the end,” he said.
The parents of Megan Meier, the teenager who killed herself, were in court for the ruling. Later, her mother, Tina Meier, said that in spite of the disappointment, she felt that justice was done because “we got the word out.”
Tina Meier said she is devoting her life to educating parents and teachers about potential threats to their children lurking in the Internet.
Much attention has been paid to Drew’s case, primarily because it was the nation’s first cyberbullying trial. The trial was held in Los Angeles because the servers of the social networking site are in the area.
Prosecutors say Drew sought to humiliate Megan by helping create a fictitious teen boy on the social networking site and sending flirtatious messages to the girl in his name. The fake boy then dumped Megan in a message saying the world would be better without her.
She hanged herself a short time later in October 2006 in the St. Louis suburb of Dardenne Prairie, Mo.
Drew was not directly charged with causing Megan’s death. Instead, prosecutors indicted her under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which in the past has been used in hacking and trademark theft cases.
Wu acknowledged in May he was concerned that sending Drew to prison for violating a Web site’s service terms might set a dangerous precedent. Wu at the time noted that millions of people either don’t read service terms, as happened in Drew’s case.
During the trial, prosecutors argued that Drew violated MySpace service rules by setting up the phony profile for a boy named “Josh Evans” with the help of her then-13-year-old daughter Sarah and business assistant Ashley Grills. They posted a photo of a bare-chested boy with tousled brown hair.
“Josh” then told Megan she was “sexi” and assured her, “i love you so much.”
Prosecutors believe Drew and her daughter, who was friends with Megan, created the profile to find out if Megan was spreading rumors about Sarah. Grills testified she received a message from Megan in mid-2006, calling Drew’s daughter a lesbian.
Grills, who testified under a promise of immunity, allegedly sent the final, insulting message to Megan before she killed herself. Prosecutors said Megan sent a response saying, “‘You are the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.’”
Jurors decided Drew was not guilty of the more serious felonies of intentionally causing emotional harm while accessing computers without authorization. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on a felony conspiracy charge. The judge dismissed it Thursday at the request of prosecutors.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.
http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney