Showing posts with label Lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuits. Show all posts

Saturday, June 14, 2014

In a Win for Public Engagement in North Carolina Government, a Wake County Judge Rules against Three of New Legislative Building Rule Changes as 'Overly Broad'

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 13, 2014

Contact: Sarah Bufkin, NC NAACP - smbufkin@gmail.com or 404.285.3413

In a Win for Public Engagement in North Carolina Government, a Wake County Judge Rules against Three of New Legislative Building Rule Changes as 'Overly Broad'

RALEIGH, NC - In a great victory for the people in North Carolina, a Wake County judge granted the North Carolina NAACP's motion for a temporary restraining order on three of the new Legislative Building rule changes on the grounds that they are overly broad and thus unfit for enforcement.

All three enjoined provisions were added to the Legislative Building rules the week before the start of the short session in a blatant attempt to silence the Moral Mondays protests that rocked the NC General Assembly and raised the consciousness of the state last summer.

After hearing hours of oral arguments from the North Carolina NAACP legal team and state attorneys, Judge Carl Fox ruled against the following rule changes:

  • Section III (C) 2a: Judge Fox ruled that barring people from "making noise that is loud enough to impair others' ability to conduct a conversation in a normal tone of voice" was overly vague. What constitutes a "normal" tone of voice differs from person to person, giving law enforcement too much discretion. Section 2a specifically targeted the Forward Together Moral Movement by directly mentioning activities such as "singing, clapping [and] shouting."
  • Section III (C) 2b: This section banned the people from impeding or obstructing access to doors, stairways, hallways or the legislative chambers. Judge Fox also ruled this measure overly broad on the grounds that state lawmakers have no more rights to impede the free movement of the people inside the Legislative Building than they would outside on the streets.
  • Section III (C) 4: Judge Fox upheld the ban on signs mounted on sticks, but he temporarily enjoined the new rule blocking signs that could be "used to disturb or used in a manner that will imminently disturb the General Assembly" as overly broad and vague.   

"Speaker Thom Tillis tried to muffle the Forward Together Moral Movement by calling this last-minute, closed-doors meeting of the practically defunct Legislative Services Commission to change the building rules on us directly before the short session, but his political games did not hold up to the higher constitutional standards required in our courts," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, president of the North Carolina NAACP. "What Speaker Tillis tried to do in the dark has now come to the light in the courts, and it has been found wanting. We would not be silenced by these rules changes this session, and we look forward to returning to the People's House this Monday to petition our lawmakers for the redress of grievances as is our constitutional right."

Today, Judge Fox upheld the rule change that ban people from causing a disturbance or posing an imminent threat of a disturbance as well as the provision that allows the Legislative Service Officer to put more restrictions on the use of space.

The NC NAACP filed its motion against the new Legislative Building rules changes on June 11 alongside five other plaintiffs - Douglas and Vicki Ryder, Sylvia Barnes, O'Linda Gillis and Stella Adams.

"This decision is a tremendous victory for protecting the time-honored principle of the 'Rule of Law,'" said Atty. Irv Joyner, NCCU Law professor and a member of the NC NAACP legal team. Joyner and Attorney Scott Holmes argued the NC NAACP's motion before Judge Fox today.

"This principle revolves around the notion that constitutional rights and guarantees are fundamental and essential in protecting the well-being of racial minorities, the poor and others who are presently being victimized by regressive legislative enactments from this General Assembly," Joyner continued. "The NC NAACP has chosen to fight against efforts to roll back legal protections and guarantees that people have fought for and won over the years. This decision is a step in the right direction and renews our enthusiasm and energy level, which is needed to continue to attack these unjust laws and procedures in the courts."

A copy of the NC NAACP complaint can be found HERE.

A copy of the newly amended Legislative Building rules can be found HERE

###

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Yes! NAACP Sues to over turn the #NCGA new house rules..

Raleigh, N.C. — The state chapter of the NAACP and other protesters are seeking to overturn rules that limit demonstrations at the Legislative Building.

The group filed suit Wednesday seeking a restraining order that would prevent the General Assembly Police from enforcing rules that prohibit groups from making enough noise to interfere with conversation and allow officers to order people to leave the building if they think those people pose an "imminent threat" of a disturbance.

Read more at http://www.wral.com/protesters-file-legal-challenge-to-legislative-building-rules/13729448/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#1JxiiBirs6rEUPo6.99

Friday, May 16, 2014

NAACP and the Forward Together Moral Movement Applaud Court Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE,

May 16, 2014

Contact: Sarah Bufkin, NC NAACP - smbufkin@gmail.com or 404.285.3413

The North Carolina NAACP and the Forward Together Moral Movement Applaud Court Decision to Rule Unconstitutional the NC Extremists' Attempt to End Teacher Tenure

DURHAM, NC - In a sweeping victory for North Carolina's teachers and its children, a Wake County judge ruled today that the extremist lawmakers' attempt to end teacher tenure in our state is unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the law that would have given educators a raise in exchange for eliminating their tenure.

The North Carolina NAACP and the Forward Together Moral Movement welcome Judge Robert Hobgood's decision and remain confident that while extremism may flourish in this General Assembly, these morally indefensible laws will not stand when subjected to the strict constitutional scrutiny of our court system.

"Again and again, the courts are reminding the extremists in our General Assembly led by Speaker Thom Tillis that holding an ideological majority does not give you the right or the power to run roughshod over the constitutional protections guaranteed to our public education system and to our public school teachers," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, president of the North Carolina NAACP and architect of the Forward Together Moral Movement. "The courts moved towards achieving justice in public education 60 years ago in its Brown v. Board of Education decision. The courts are moving towards justice here in North Carolina again 60 years later."

On Monday, May 19, the NC NAACP, the Forward Together Moral Movement, its HKonJ coalition partners and North Carolinians fed up with these extremist policies will join together at Moral Monday in Raleigh to push for pay raises for our teachers that do not require them to give up their tenure and the employment protections that come along with it. 

###

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Didn’t see this coming, Magistrates to sue over pay

First the Teachers and now comes the Magistrates to sue for more pay..

Magistrates have filed a lawsuit, alleging that they've been underpaid for years.

Forty magistrates from across North Carolina sued the state Tuesday, alleging that going years without raises amounts to a breach of contract and violates their constitutional rights.

The magistrates are seeking back pay, plus interest, and want a judge's approval for a class-action lawsuit, noting all North Carolina magistrates are in the same position.

Pay scales for magistrates are set by statute and are based on the number of years of experience, which according to the suit creates a contractual obligation for the state to pay those rates. The state hasn't fulfilled that obligation since 2009, the suit states.

So who will be next to sue for more pay????

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Wholes foods doing what?

The Raw Story (@RawStory)
Lawsuit: Whole Foods pressures suppliers to lie about the origin, quality of their fish http://t.co/8sStNrLxav
Forwarded via UberSocial


Sent from my iPhone

Saturday, May 3, 2014

No, really, who would have known.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

NC NAACP Exposes the Racial Discrimination at the Heart of North Carolina's Vouchers Program and Voter Suppression Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 25, 2014

DURHAM - The NC NAACP, its legal team and litigation partners challenged two of the extremist initiatives pushed by Gov. Pat McCrory, Speaker Thom Tillis, Senate Leader Phil Berger, Budget Director Art Pope and other Tea Party legislators who claim their proposals are not targeting racial minorities and the poor.

"These two issues are connected," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, president of the NC NAACP. "The people that are trying to keep minorities and the poor from voting are the same people that want to prevent our children from receiving a quality public education and the economic opportunities that such an education makes possible. We must be conscious of the racialized legacy of voter suppression and vouchers in North Carolina."

Friday, February 21, 2014

Voter Suppression Lawsuit Update

Voter Suppression Lawsuit Update

Pre-trial hearing tomorrow!
Friday, February 21, 2014

Winston-Salem Federal Court
Hiram H. Ward Bldg., 251 N. Main St.,
Courtroom #3

In August, 2013, only minutes after Governor McCrory signed the Voter Suppression Bill HB 589 into law, the NC NAACP filed a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina for suppressing the vote of thousands of North Carolinians by reducing early voting days, eliminating same-day registration, eliminating pre-registration for 16 and 17 year olds, implementing a Voter ID law, and other regressive and extreme measures. We are in an ongoing legal battle over Voting Rights. This pre-trial hearing will focus on our continued fight to make Legislators and the Governor comply with the NC NAACP's requests to produce the documents that they have in their possession that are essential to determining what their intent was when this voter suppression bill was passed. 

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Justice is blind, deaf and stupid here in NC

Its also where justice can be brought too,

The North Carolina Supreme Court sided Friday with legislative leaders who withheld emails and other documents between them and state-funded private attorneys about redistricting maps approved in 2011, ruling that those documents can be confidential. Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, who was chairman of the House Redistricting Committee when the maps were drawn, praised the ruling Friday. "It's very important for individuals to have the common-law right afforded to them of being able to have confidential communications with their attorneys," he said.

I bet if the Dem’s try this the GOP would be outraged..

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

New Law Criminalizing Online Student Speech Takes Effect Dec. 1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 28, 2012

ACLU-NC Says the First-in-the-Nation Law is Misguided and Chills Free Speech

Group Calls on Students Charged Under the Law to Contact ACLU-NC Office

RALEIGH – A new state law, the 2012 School Violence Prevention Act, that will be the first in the nation to impose criminal sanctions on public school students who use computers with the “intent to intimidate or torment” school employees will go into effect Dec. 1.

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina opposes this law because it is too broad, threatens to chill students’ free speech, sets a bad precedent by telling students it’s wrong to criticize government officials, and could saddle students as young as 16 with up to 60 days in jail or a $1,000 fine for a wide range of acts that do not merit a criminal punishment. The law would even criminalize true statements by prohibiting online statements “whether true or false, (emphasis added) intending to immediately provoke, and that is likely to provoke, any third party to stalk or harass a school employee.”

The ACLU-NC is urging any student who is charged under this new law to contact its office.

“This law is so vague that it could easily result in a student being arrested simply for posting something on the Internet that a school official finds offensive,” said ACLU-NC Policy Director Sarah Preston. “Young people should not be taught that they will be punished for telling the truth, speaking freely, or questioning authority – yet that is exactly what could happen under this law. If it is okay to criminalize students who criticize teachers online, what is to stop the government from making it illegal for any one of us to criticize some other government official, like the city council or state legislature, whether the comments are made online or not? We urge any student charged under this misguided law to contact our office immediately.”

Click here to read a factsheet outlining the law and the ACLU's opposition.

Attachment Size
ACLU_FACTSHEET-Criminalizing-Online-Student-Speech.pdf 295.3 KB

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

News Flash, Illinois Supreme Court Rules on Recording Police

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.

By passing on the issue, the justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers.

Court Rules You Can Keep Using Your SmartPhone to Record Police Abuses. -Common Dreams
The Supreme Court has blocked enforcement of an Illinois law that prohibited people from recording police officers actions, agreeing with the ACLU that the law "restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests.” CopWatch, in New York and elsewhere, explains why it matters.


Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/26-0

Monday, October 29, 2012

Reselling your stuff make become illegal thanks to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court

Read about the case here, click 
Are you in?  More than 3,000 sites -- including prominent allies like the Electronic Frontier Foundation -- have signed up to take part in today's day of action. The Supreme Court is hearing that case that will decide if you have the right to resell the things you own.
Ebay, Craigslist, and even the old-fashioned garage sale are under threat.
Sites will be using our ribbons and ball-and-chain icons to sound the alarm about the Kirtsaeng vs John Wiley & Sons case:
The Supreme Court might side with Big Business and decide that you don't have the right to resell things that were made abroad: books, clothes, iPhones -- almost anything.
If you're planning to take part, please click here to grab the code for one of those icons, and post it on your site! (And maybe write up a blurb about why you're taking a stand.)
Here's what it'll look like:


We expect to have a legislative fight on our hands come winter, no matter how the Supreme Court rules.  So we want to drive thousands of emails to lawmakers before Big Business sics its brigade of lobbyists on them.
Whether or not you're posting on your site, will you spread word to your friends -- and especially anybody who you know who sells things online?
You can use these links, or forward the email below:

If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.



If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet










Saturday, February 18, 2012

NAACP wins in Court :Guilford County Commissioner Redistricting Plan Unconstitutional

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 18, 2012

For More Information:     Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, President, 919-394-8137

   Mrs. Amina J. Turner, Executive Director, 919-682-4700   

        Atty. Jennifer Marsh, Legal Redress Coordinator, 919-682-4700   

NAACP Wins Again in Court:

Guilford County Commissioner Redistricting Plan Unconstitutional

(DURHAM) - For the second time in a week, the NAACP was victorious in defending the voting rights of North Carolinians. On Friday, the United States District Court of the Middle District of North Carolina agreed with the NAACP constitutional challenge to the newly imposed redistricting of the Guilford County Board of Commission by the North Carolina General Assembly when it enjoined the proposed changes from taking effect until the constitutional flaws are corrected. In this lawsuit, the NAACP successfully sought to protect the voting rights of over 40,000 Guilford county voters who would have been stripped of their right to be represented on the Guilford County Board of Commissioners.

Last year, the extremist leadership in the North Carolina General Assembly stealthily passed local bills in an effort to gain partisan advantage across the state. One of these bills, Session law 2011-407, bypassed the local democratic redistricting process and changed the method of electing the Guilford County Board of County Commissioners. In their mad rush to help local conservative politicians increase their political power, the General Assembly carved out flawed maps that the NAACP, and now the courts, found to be unconstitutional. By depriving some voters representation on the Board, this bill is a clear violation of the one person, one vote requirement under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Article 1, § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. When Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger was presented with the clearly flawed maps, he refused to correct them, instead saying he would not change them until forced to do so by the courts.

"Twice now the General Assembly leadership has chosen to waste taxpayer dollars in court proceedings instead of following the North Carolina Constitution that they are required to uphold," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, President of the NC NAACP. "We sit and watch in utter amazement that we have elected officials so uninterested in following our Constitution, whether it comes to voting rights, quality education for all or equal protection under the law. It is clear that the North Carolina NAACP and the progressive community must stay vigilant as we keep our eyes on Jones Street in the coming months."

The NC NAACP brought existence of these constitutional defects to the attention of leaders of the NC General Assembly and they refused to address them by contending that their actions were legal and in conformity with their legislative agenda. A timely correction of these violations would have prevented this lawsuit and the needless expenditure of State funds which is required to litigate voting rights cases.

In its order, the Court directed the State of North Carolina to show how the North Carolina General Assembly is going to correct the unconstitutional redistricting mandate in a timely manner in order to allow elections to go forward as originally scheduled. A hearing on the remedies will be held on February 22, 2012.    

The NAACP recognizes the importance of ensuring that all people are afforded the opportunity to participate equally and fairly in the electoral process.  The NAACP will continue to defend voting rights across the state.

###

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

So Public Officials just can’t handle the Truth.

The City of Philadelphia refused to allow us to publicize this ad in the Philly airport about over-incarceration in America. Share this to “run the ad” on your Facebook wall and take a stand for the First Amendment: http://bit.ly/BillboardLawsuit

298517_10150329355058947_6476528946_8243094_519759273_n

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

What the Hell is Phil Berger Problem: beside not having a Brain!

Recently the Governor Perdue call on the out of touch members of the Legislature to comply with the most recent court order, concerning the “more at Four” Program.. However Berger-head reply that he wasn’t interested in funding the program, and they are seeking to over turn the court order.

The NCDP (NC Democratic Party), Chairman David Parker say it the best..

“Phil Berger needs to stop picking on four-year-old children and do his job,” said North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman David Parker. “Instead of working with the Governor to put over 6,000 kids back in the classroom, Senator Phil Berger is playing politics with our children’s futures—his priorities are clearly out of whack.”

Why is Berger picking on these at risk kids.. O’ don’t worry Berger-Head is also opposed to the Governor’s proposal to stimulate the NC economy, he recently block the Governor’s efforts to bring in New Jobs to our state as well..

We need to get Berger and his sick, backward ideology out of the Legislature.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Lambda Legal Appeal of Louisiana Birth Certificate Ruling

"The Supreme Court is leaving untouched a dangerous ruling that carves out an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

(Washington, DC, October 11, 2011) – The U.S. Supreme Court today denied Lambda Legal's petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of a same-sex couple seeking an accurate birth certificate for their Louisiana-born son whom they adopted in New York. The Louisiana state registrar has refused to recognize the adoption and issue a birth certificate listing both fathers as the boy’s parents.

"By denying this writ, the Supreme Court is leaving untouched a dangerous Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that carves out an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution and to the uniformly recognized respect for judgments that states have come to rely upon," said Kenneth D. Upton, Supervising Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's South Central Regional Office in Dallas. "This decision leaves adopted children and their parents vulnerable in their interactions with officials from other states."

"More particularly, this decision leaves a child without an accurate birth certificate listing both his parents," Upton added. "This issue now moves into the legislative arena.  We need to push for a change in Louisiana state policy in order to stabilize and standardize respect for parent-child relationships for all adoptive children." 

Lambda Legal represents Oren Adar and Mickey Smith in their case against Louisiana State Registrar Darlene Smith. Adar and Smith are a gay couple who adopted their Louisiana-born son in 2006 in New York, where a judge issued an adoption decree. When the couple attempted to get a new birth certificate for their child, in part so Smith could add his son to his health insurance, the registrar's office told him that Louisiana does not recognize adoption by unmarried parents and would not issue it with both adopted parents' names. 

Lambda Legal filed suit on behalf of Adar and Smith in October 2007, saying that the registrar was violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by refusing to recognize the New York adoption judgment because the child's parents are unmarried. The Constitution requires that judgments issued by a court in one state be legally binding in other states. Further, a state may not disadvantage some children over others simply because the child's parents are unmarried. The Louisiana attorney general advised the registrar that she did not have to honor an adoption from another state that would not have been granted under Louisiana law had the couple lived and adopted there. In 2008, U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey ruled against the registrar and entered judgment ordering her to issue a new birth certificate identifying both Oren Adar and Mickey Smith as the boy's parents, saying her continued failure to do so violated the U.S. Constitution. In 2010, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and unanimously affirmed the judgment. The attorney general requested a rehearing by the full Court of Appeals, and a sharply divided court issued a decision this spring overturning the prior decisions.

In July Lambda Legal asked the U.S Supreme court to review the case arguing that the Fifth Circuit's ruling ignores nearly one hundred years of well-established Supreme Court law and conflicts with other federal circuits across the country. In August, the nation's leading child welfare organizations joined family law and constitutional scholars in support of Lambda Legal's petition for a writ of certiorari, filing six separate friend-of-the-court briefs. The signatories included: National Association of Social Workers; Child Welfare League of America; Center for Adoption Policy; Tulane School of Law - Juvenile Litigation Clinic; Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana; and more than 60 legal scholars.

"Unfortunately, same-sex parents who have or plan to adopt children are treated differently from state to state at this point," added Upton. "So we urge parents to check with an attorney and take every step they can to protect their families - and to call Lambda Legal's HelpDesk if they need more information."

The case is Adar v. Smith

Kenneth D. Upton, Jr., Supervising Senior Staff Attorney, is handling the case for Lambda Legal. He is joined by Paul Smith of Jenner & Block in Washington, D.C., and Regina O. Matthews and Spencer R. Doody of Martzell & Bickford in New Orleans.

-###-

Press contact:  Tom Warnke, Cell: 213-841-4503: Email: twarnke@lambdalegal.org

Jonathan Adams Office: 212-809-8585 x 267 Cell: 646-752-3251 Email: jadams@lambdalegal.org

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.

==================================================== 

LAMBDA LEGAL NEWS RELEASE, October 11, 2011

Contact Tom Warnke: T:  213-382-7600 x 247

C: 213-841-4503;  twarnke@lambdalegal.org 

====================================================

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Lambda Legal Urges Supreme Court to 'Give Full Force to Privacy Act'

Via Pam’s Facebook notes,

Man Seeks Recognition of Non-Financial Damages After Three Federal Agencies Disclosed His HIV Status

(New York, October 5, 2011) - Late yesterday, Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of itself and 16 other LGBT, HIV and health advocacy organizations urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a lower court ruling finding that the federal Privacy Act protects against illegal disclosures that result in suffering unrelated to financial losses. 

"The language of the statute is clear - the Privacy Act covers 'actual damages,'" said Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director for Lambda Legal, "And what actually happens when the government violates your privacy doesn't usually hit you in the wallet; it hits you personally. We urge the Court to uphold the full force of the Privacy Act."

The brief argues that the federal Privacy Act was intended to cover nonpecuniary harms, meaning that the disclosure of private medical information without consent often has significant personal impact on community standing, physical and emotional safety, and family and professional relationships. Lambda Legal and the other amici argue that such unlawful violations, if proved, must be compensated under the act. 

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court was brought initially by Stanmore Cooper, who disclosed his HIV status to the Social Security Administration (SSA) in applying for long-term disability benefits. Cooper sought redress in court after his HIV status was wrongfully shared among the SSA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, all without his consent. Mr. Cooper did not claim financial injuries; rather, he presented witnesses and documentation to show his psychological harm.  

The brief was filed on behalf of AIDS Foundation Chicago, AIDS Legal Referral Panel, APICHA, Inc., Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Gay City Health Project, Global Network of People Living with HIV, HIV Law Project, Interior AIDS Association, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Legal Action Center, Metro TeenAIDS, National Black Gay Men’s Advocacy Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Immigrant Justice Center, National Women's Health Network, Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Whitman-Walker Health.

The case is Cooper v. FAA.

Click here to read the brief: www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/cooper_us_20111004_amici-lambda-legal-et-al.html

Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director for Lambda Legal, is handling this matter for Lambda Legal.  

###

==================================================== 

LAMBDA LEGAL NEWS RELEASE, October 5, 2011

Contact Jonathan Adams: T: 212-809-8585 x 267

C: 646-752-3251;  jadams@lambdalegal.org 

====================================================

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

DOJ Sues to Block ATT and T-mobile merger..

News Alert: Justice Dept. moves to block AT&T, T-Mobile merger
August 31, 2011 11:02:11 AM
----------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Justice sued to block AT&T’s proposed $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA, saying the deal would "substantially lessen competition" in the wireless market. The complaint was filed today in federal court in Washington.

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Tobacco Sues the lame FDA

Five tobacco companies have sued the FDA to overturn a law requiring graphic health warnings on cigarette packages. The companies argue that the new labels, which cover 50 percent of packages and include images of dead bodies and rotten teeth, will make customers "depressed, discouraged, and afraid” of their products. “The government can require warnings which are straightforward and essentially uncontroversial, but they can't require a cigarette pack to serve as a mini-billboard for the government's anti-smoking campaign," a tobacco lawyer said. The law is set to take effect September 2012.

Will the war on Tobacco end any time soon..

Friday, August 12, 2011

Atheists Win Bus Suit

Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that the Central Arkansas Transit Authority and its advertising agency should not have denied the group the right to place the ads on 18 publicly-funded city buses during Memorial Day weekend. Washington-based United Coalition of Reason filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Arkansas group in June after the transit authority and its advertising agency rejected an ad that would have read, "Are you good without God? Millions are." "This was a victory for all of us whether you believe in God or not, because it's a victory of free speech," United Coalition of Reason's attorney J.G. Schultz told Reuters. The transit authority and its advertising agency, On The Move Advertising, had required payment of a $36,000 deposit to run the ad. The group then changed that to a $3 million insurance policy in case of bus vandalism by angry Christians.

Public Transit Agency wanted they to pay a huge premium just in case the outraged Christians decide to vandalize the buses with the ad on them..

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...