The Alta ski resort is being sued by a group of snowboarders for violations of their constitutional rights, according to a report from The Salt Lake Tribune.

“Alta’s snowboarding prohibition was initiated as a result of animus … towards the type of people they believed to be ‘snowboarders,’” the lawsuit states. It was filed on Wednesday in federal court.

The lawsuit has been filed by Rick Alden, Richard Varga, Drew Hicken and Bjorn Leines. Leines is a pro. They were joined by Wasatch Equality, which is a snow sports advocacy group. The lawsuit was filed against Alta and the United States Forest Service.

The lawsuit notes that Alden, Hicken and Varga purchased tickets at Alta and attempted to board the Collins lift with their snowboards. They were escorted away from the lift by ski patrol. Alden boarded a lift with a split board, but was grabbed by ski patrol at the top of the lift.

Despite all of this, multiple pieces of ski equipment was permitted on the lift, even a mono-ski. The complaint says, “simply a single board nearly identical to a snowboard in shape and size but with feet facing forward.”

There are three resorts in North America that ban snowboarding. Those resorts are Alta, Deer Valley and Mad River Glen, which is in Vermont. Alta is the only resort that sits on public land.

According to the lawsuit, the ban “excludes snowboarders from use and enjoyment of the public land on which Alta operates.”

The lawsuit states that in the 1980s, snowboarders were viewed as “immature, inexperienced and reckless,” but as culture changed, “most resorts soon acknowledged that there was no legitimate reason to prohibit snowboarding.”

The lawsuit continued saying that  “outdated or outright discriminatory perceptions and attitudes continued among some skiers, which infected or was exploited by some resorts that wanted to prevent snowboarders and their ‘counterculture’ from having a presence on their mountain.”

Claims in the lawsuit include that snowboarders are banned from using the most snow and best terrain in Utah. The ban for snowboarders also “hurts Utah tourism and, by excluding mixed-skier/snowboarder families, flies in the face of Utah’s family values.”

In the lawsuit, language from the Alta Forest Service is discussed. The permit from the Forest Service says that “the lands and waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes.”

The rights of snowboarders are being violated under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, according to the snowboarders named in the lawsuit.

“The only difference between [skiing and snowboarding] is the orientation of a person’s feet on the skis or board,” the lawsuit states. “Alta allows a broad range of equipment … as long as the particular device is referred to as a ‘ski.’”

The post Snowboarders File Lawsuit Against Alta Ski Resort first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A former partner at Sidley Austin LLP seems to have grossly screwed up, and is facing ethics charges for charging the company $69,000 for cab fare reimbursement he never actually used. The ethics charges brought by the Illinois Administrator also claim he was reimbursed for restaurant gift cards (totaling around $3,000), tickets to sporting events (totaling $35,000) and various other meals and holiday expenses that were not even for legitimate firm purposes, as was reported by the Legal Profession Blog. The former head partner in charge of the Chicago’s office real estate practice seems to have truly screwed up – but his new employer, DLA Piper /a> is gracious and understanding about the entire fiasco!

The man, Lee Mark Smolen, is freshly a partner at Chicago office DLA Piper, who issued a statement regarding the charges brought against him:

“The firm was aware of this matter during the hiring process,” it says, as reported by ABA Journal. “After our own due diligence and a thorough review of the facts, the firm decided to give great weight to the total body of Lee’s work over his 25-plus years as a lawyer and to extend to him the opportunity to continue his career at DLA Piper. Lee is a well-respected attorney who has learned from his experience and taken all the necessary steps to move forward as a productive member of our team.”

That statement exudes almost the tones of grace and understanding one might call a “redemption.”

The post Former Sidley Austin Partner Charged With Theft first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

An attorney is the key witness in a trial against the client he was hired to defend, in what is expected to be a precedent setting case in San Jose. Criminal defense attorney Andy Tursi confidentially told the judge presiding over the trial he was working on that his client, Ernesto Mirabal, assaulted him and threatened his family during a private meeting. Mirabal is now being charged with threatening his defense attorney, but Tursi is backtracking on his initial story.

According to Mercury News, during the trial in which Tursi was defending Mirabal, an encounter between the two turned ugly. While in a private meeting with Santa Clara Supreme Court Judge Rise Jones Pichon, Tursi claimed that Mirabal grabbed his arm, slammed his head into the wall of a jail cell, and threatened his family. Tursi then showed the judge the bruises on his arm, and asked to be removed from the case. After showing Pichon the bruises on his arm, he reportedly said, “I just can’t be afraid for my safety every moment I’m in the room with this person.”

During the private meeting, Tursi expressed his unwillingness to discuss the matter in front of district attorneys or in open court because he did not want to bring new charges against his client. Based on what Tursi told him, Pichon declared a mistrial. The prosecutors, who considered the events an obstruction of justice, filed new criminal-threat charges against Mirabal.

Since the new charges were brought to trial, Tursi has been backtracking on his story. During a preliminary hearing, he told a jury that “Seventy percent of my clients want to strangle me at one time or another.” Mirabal has claimed that the incident did not occur, and that Tursi fabricated his story as a way to get off the trial.

Mirabal’s original charges stem from an incident in which he attempted to pimp out a 13 year-old runaway. During the trial for those charges, he allegedly hired a member of a gang to tamper with one of the witnesses, which sparked new charges at which point Tursi was appointed to defend him. He faces 12 years in prison solely for the charge of threatening Tursi, and decades more for his other charges.

Tursi is obviously not eager to proceed with the trial in which he will be a primary witness. His refusal to stand up to his initial accusations may hurt his reputation as an attorney, but more worryingly, defense attorneys all over the country are worried about the precedent that this case may set. If Mirabal is not convicted of the new criminal-threatening charges, it could place court-appointed defenders at risk. If a client is unhappy with their defender, he could simply threaten or attack the attorney in order to get a mistrial and have a new one appointed by the court.

The post Lawyer Reluctant to Take the Stand against His Own Former Client first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Ronell Wilson was convicted of his execution-style murder of two undercover police officers and the jury issued the first federal death sentence in New York City in over 50 years, according to The New York Times. Wilson is being held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.

One of Wilson’s guards, Nancy Gonzalez, worked the night shift and the two would talk for hours on end, according to inmates. They would even go missing for minutes at a time. They were caught kissing a couple of times, confirming what many believed to be an affair.

Gonzalez would finally admit that the two had sex on multiple occasions for the purpose of having a child. She said she knew of the complications of the relationship, which included her being sent to jail and telling the child about the father. When she spoke to another inmate, Gonzalez said, “Why not give him a child, as far as giving him some kind of hope?”

Gonzalez was arraigned in court on Tuesday of federal charges of sexual abuse of a person in custody. The reason for this charge is that an inmate cannot legally consent to having sex. She faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. She is in her eighth month of the pregnancy.

Gonzalez’s lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco, told the press outside the courtroom that “She’s had a very tragic life and as this case proceeds, you’ll learn more about it and how these affected her judgment. People find love in the strangest places.”

In March of 2003, Wilson entered the back seat of a vehicle on Staten Island. In it were undercover detectives James V. Nemorin and Rodney J. Andrews. They were running a gun operation as part of their assignment. Wilson shot both men in the back of the head.

The affair between Gonzalez and Wilson started in March and lasted until August. This is when Wilson was transferred to solitary confinement without a reason, according to court documents.

Omar Daza, a special agent with the Office of the Inspector General, started to investigate after multiple inmates reported that Gonzalez was having an affair with another inmate. One inmate said he saw Gonzalez in Wilson’s cell while his pants were off. All of this was confirmed by security footage from the prison’s cameras.

“I know what is going to be said about me. I know that for me as a parent, how am I going to explain this to this little boy? ‘Mommy was in the military, Mommy was a C.O.,’ ” she said, “And then the opposite end is with a person who took lives.”

The post Prison Guard Pregnant with Ronell Wilson’s Child first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a press release from the FBI, 26 people have been charged by federal prosecutors with filing hundreds of asylum applications that included false claims of persecution. Of the 26 charged, 21 were from 10 law firms in the New York City area. Of the 21, six of them are lawyers.

On Tuesday, 21 of the defendants were arrested by detectives from the NYPD and FBI agents. Authorities said that two more are going to surrender on Wednesday and three are still at large.

The false claims of persecution were submitted by the suspects, who also provided asylum applications educational info about their claims and even coached the applicants to lie during interviews with immigration officials.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated in the press release, “Our asylum laws exist to provide a safe haven in the United States to immigrants subject to persecution in their own countries for exercising freedoms fundamental to a democracy. As alleged, these defendants, including six attorneys and a church employee, exploited those laws by weaving elaborate fictions on behalf of hundreds of would-be asylum seekers, coaching them on how to lie on their applications, stepping in when they went off script, and lying to immigration judges at court hearings. Asylum fraud imposes a tremendous burden on the system and it also makes it more difficult for those who are legitimately seeking refuge in this country.”

The law firms operated in Chinatown and Queens. The firms created stories of persecution that related to claims of forced abortions performed in conjunction with China’s family planning policy. Other claims included persecution for believing in Christianity and claims of ideological and political persecution.

Following the completion of the applications and the coaching to lie, translators were sent with the applicant to their interviews. The translators were provided by the law firms and they would provide incorrect translations when the applicant would answer a question. Prosecutors said that when an application was denied, an attorney from a firm would represent the client at a hearing in front of an immigration judge. Those arrested will appear in federal court in Manhattan this week.

FBI Assistant Director in Charge George Venizelos said in the press release, “The defendants allegedly conspired criminally to exploit the safe haven our nation provides for asylum-seekers. They aided and abetted immigrants in falsely claiming to be victims of persecution. Some of the defendants are officers of the court who have violated the canons of their profession as well as the law. Others, including a church employee, used religion like a fake passport or phony ID—a perversion of religious freedom. The FBI is committed to policing unscrupulous exploitation of the asylum process.”

The defendants have been charged with conspiring to commit immigration fraud. Five defendants have been charged with substantive counts of immigration fraud and two defendants have been charged with identity fraud in connection with the sale of fake Chinese birth certificates, according to the press release.

The post FBI Arrests 26 People for Immigration Fraud; 21 from Law Firms first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Wiley v. Kirtsaeng, a significant copyright case that pits John Wiley and Sons, a textbook publisher, against Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai-born student entrepreneur who disrupted the textbook market with a business importing and selling textbooks for students who had difficulty affording high priced textbooks.

The case raises questions on whether Kirtsaeng will have to disgorge his profits as a copyright infringer, and the first sale doctrine on goods. The case outcome could affect property ownership in the United States since many consumer products, such as electronics are manufactured outside the United States and include copyrighted materials, such as software.  If Kirtsaeng loses the court battle, copyright owners could tax, or not allow resales of everyday consumer products, from books to audios to videos.

Under the first sale doctrine, owners are able to resell, lend, or give away copyrighted products without interference from the copyright owner or goods manufacturer.  Along with fair use, which allows incidental copying of materials for education and other purposes, the first sale doctrine is an important limit to copyright.  Kirtsaeng has drawn the support of consumers, libraries, and marketplaces, online and offline.  Marketplaces include eBay and Goodwill, where thrifty people currently have the right to freely sell used goods or loan books and DVDs.

On the other side of the spectrum, John Wiley and Sons has backers from the music and movie industries, software companies, and other book publishers who contend different pricing and distribution schemes should be up to those who own the copyrights.  Manufacturers argue that how distribution and pricing is determined for goods is important to their success, and should be enforced by courts.

Foreign-born students like Kirtsaeng, who came to the United States to study at Cornell University, saw an opportunity to disrupt the textbook market when they became exposed to lower-priced textbooks on trips home. They saw the same textbooks they were using in the United States sold for a fraction of the cost in their home countries.  For instance, the Thai, Indian, or Chinese edition of a textbook to study medicine, engineering, or mathematics may have a less costly bound cover or different lettering to make the edition less costly, but the same contents.

Students began to comparison shop on the websites of other countries, such as Amazon’s UK site, which sold a biochemistry book for $146.15 on the American Amazon site, but $63.48, plus $8.05 shipping on the UK site. College bookstores, such as Purdue University started purchasing overseas when students started textbook retailers.

The post Wiley v. Kirtsaeng – Possible Intellectual Property Case of the Decade first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A World Trade Organization case was filed by China on Monday that challenges anti-dumping measure from the United States. The anti-dumping measures from the U.S. are against billions of dollars of paper, kitchen appliance and other goods. The case filed by China came not long after President Obama filed a WTO case that accuses China of incorrectly subsidizing exports of auto parts and vehicles.

The WTO case filed by China is centered around a law passed this year by the U.S. Congress that retroactively provides the Commerce Department power to impose anti-dumping duties on Chinese goods, according to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce.

“This practice puts Chinese enterprises in an uncertain legal environment, in violation of the relevant rules of the WTO transparency and due process,” ministry spokesman Shen Danyang said.

The measures being challenged by the WTO case include 24 products worth $7.2 billion. The products include magnets, tires, steel, paper, kitchen appliance, chemicals, wind towers and wood flooring. China has requested consultations in order to settle the issue, which is the first process in the WTO complaint. A WTO panel can judge on the issue if a settlement is not reached in 60 days. China could then ask for sanctions based on the outcome of the ruling.

The post China Files WTO Case Against U.S. first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A husband and wife from Delaware have been arrested after police were told by their daughter that she was ‘waterboarded’ as a punishment. The girl, 11, claims that her father, pediatrician Melvin Morse, would hold her head under a faucet so water would run up her nose. Police say that the punishments to the girl came four times from 2009 to 2011. The mother, Pauline Morse, saw the abuse and did not do anything to stop it or prevent it from happening again.

“The guy is a caring sensitive individual,” said Joe Hurley, the attorney for Melvin Morse. “It’s unimaginable that he would expose his child to that kind of danger. He’s very interested in caring for people. It doesn’t equate that he would do that to his own child.”

Police were sent to Morse’s home in Georgetown back in July, which is the first time they were told of the abuse. Police say that Morse’s daughter said he would grab her by the ankle, across the gravel driveway and spank her. Four days after being sent to the home, police arrested Morse and he did post bond.

Hurley claims that the Morse family was coming home from a trip when the daughter did not get out of the car. Hurley says she sat in the car for close to four hours. Hurley said that Melvin Morse picked up his daughter and carried her into the home. “There was no dragging involved,” Hurley added. The next day, the daughter went to a friend’s home and told of the incident. This is when a call was made to police about the abuse. It is still unknown as to who made the call to police.

On Monday, the police officers conducted a follow-up interview with the daughter. During the follow-up interview, the daughter said that her father ‘waterboarded’ her as punishment. Police said that she used that term on her own. The couple was taken into custody by police on Tuesday and they are facing charges of conspiracy, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child.

Melvin Morse is now being held on bail of $14,500. Pauline Morse was released after posting a similar bail. The couple has been ordered not to have any contact with their daughter or their other child, a 5-year-old girl. Both children are being held in protective custody right now. On Wednesday of this week, the Delaware Department of Justice filed an emergency petition that would have the medical license of Melvin Morse suspended.

The post Father Accused of Waterboarding Daughter first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

When one employee, Tammy Armstrong, began working with I-Behavior, a consumer data tracking company, she did not realize that she would be working a job that would try to kill her. Armstrong is from Rapid City, South Dakota and she has filed a lawsuit against I-Behavior in Colorado. Armstrong’s lawyer outlined some of the evidence against her employer to prove that it abused Armstrong. One bit of evidence was that I-Behavior made her work more than the traditional 40 hours per week. Armstrong works as a senior accountant.

Armstrong also claims in the lawsuit that she was wrongly classified as an employee who is exempt from overtime so that her employer could rip her off while expecting that she work more than 40 hours per week. Armstrong is asking for three years’ worth of overtime payments, which are valued at $28,000, along with interest and attorney’s fees. To go along with these claims, Armstrong is also filing state law claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy and Willful Violation of the Colorado Wage Claims Act.

The complaint states the following:

“Throughout Ms. Armstrong’s employment, Defendant maintained a hostile work environment that included verbal abuse, assault, and massive amounts of work heaped on Ms. Armstrong that necessitated her working many overtime hours, including nights and weekends, to get it all done. Ms. Armstrong frequently complained about the work environment and her workload, to no avail.

The stress and pressure caused by the work environment and the workload caused Ms. Armstrong to experience serious negative physical problems, including heart problems that resulted in two trips to hospital emergency departments, on May 13, 2011 and July 29, 2011. Ms. Armstrong specifically requested accommodations and a relief in the stress and pressure that were placed on her since her cardiologist advised her that such stress and pressure could cause permanent damage to her heart. However, Defendant failed to make any accommodations to the significant physical symptoms Ms. Armstrong was experiencing as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s work environment and the demands and pressure it placed on Ms. Armstrong.”

The duties that Armstrong was responsible for included accounts receivable, accounts payable, assisting with the preparation of tax returns, assisting with the month-end financial reports, assisting with banking accounts and performing other types of accounting services. Armstrong claims that her supposed heart condition qualifies not only under federal law but also under state law. The condition also implies, according to Armstrong that since her employer ignored her warnings that her job was really killing her. This leads Armstrong to conclude that she was being discriminated against by her employer.

The post Employee Sues Employer Because Job was Killing Her first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A bank robber from Oklahoma, Shamont Lyle Sapp, has filed a lawsuit against Jamie Foxx and Tyler Perry. The lawsuit claims that the two men stole his idea for a movie that is called, ‘The Skank Robbers.’ The movie is a comedy, will star Foxx and Perry along with Martin Lawrence as a trio of bank robbers who are ladies. The three bank robbers will be previously played characters by the three men. The Lawrence character will be Sheneneh from ‘Martin,’ Foxx’s Wanda from ‘In Living Color,’ and Perry’s Madea.

Sapp is serving jail time right now for 10 bank robberies but he decided to file a lawsuit against Foxx and Perry because he gave the two men the idea for the movie and was then cut out of the project.

The idea from Sapp, according to court documents, had three characters set in a mental hospital as part of a drama. “A male white mental patient takes Madea hostage … He deals with phone calls from the negotiators, as Madea actually pleads for her life in a very sad tear-jerking way … Her pleas are to be very sad. No jokes at all.”

The post Jamie Foxx and Tyler Perry Sued by Bank Robber first appeared on JDJournal Blog.