| 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                Supreme Court sends bar fees case back for further look  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2018/12/04 09:20 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        The Supreme Court is telling a lower court to take another look at a case challenging mandatory fees lawyers pay to a state bar association.  
 
The case the justices sent back for further consideration Monday involves North Dakota attorney Arnold Fleck, who sued after learning that bar fees were being used to oppose a ballot measure he supported. Fleck says he should have to affirmatively consent to paying for the bar association's political activities instead of being able to opt out. 
 
North Dakota's fees range from $325 to $380. Lawyers who don't want to support the bar's political activities can deduct about $10. 
 
The justices say the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should reconsider the case in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling about fees paid to unions. 
 
 | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
                
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                Russian court challenges International Olympic Committee  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2018/11/24 14:54 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        Court ruled Wednesday that bobsledder Alexander Zubkov, who carried the Russian flag at the opening ceremony of the 2014 Sochi Games, should still be considered an Olympic champion despite having been stripped of his medals because of doping. A CAS ruling upholding his disqualification is not enforceable in Russia, the court said. 
 
CAS, however, is the only valid arbiter for sports disputes at the games, according to the Olympic Charter. In rare instances, Switzerland's supreme court can weigh in on matters of procedure. 
 
"The CAS decision in this case is enforceable since there was no appeal filed with the Swiss Federal Tribunal within the period stipulated," the IOC told The Associated Press in an email on Thursday. "The IOC will soon request the medals to be returned." 
 
The law firm representing Zubkov said the Moscow court found the CAS ruling violated Zubkov's "constitutional rights" by placing too much of a burden on him to disprove the allegations against him. 
 
Zubkov won the two-man and four-man bobsled events at the Sochi Olympics but he was disqualified by the IOC last year. The verdict was later upheld by CAS. 
 
Zubkov and his teams remain disqualified in official Olympic results, but the Moscow ruling could make it harder for the IOC to get his medals back. 
 
"The decision issued by the Moscow court does not affect in any way the CAS award rendered ... an award which has never been challenged before the proper authority," CAS secretary general Matthieu Reeb told the AP. 
 
"The fact that the CAS award is considered as 'not applicable in Russia' by the Moscow court may have local consequences but does not constitute a threat for the CAS jurisdiction globally." 
 
The IOC's case against Zubkov was based on testimony from Moscow and Sochi anti-doping laboratory director Grigory Rodchenkov, who said he swapped clean samples for ones from doped athletes, and forensic evidence that the allegedly fake sample stored in Zubkov's name contained more salt than could be possible in urine from a healthy human. 
 
Zubkov, who says he never doped, retired after the Sochi Olympics and has since become president of the Russian Bobsled Federation. The International Bobsled and Skeleton Federation didn't respond to a request to comment. | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
                
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                Court: Reds exempt from tax on promotional bobbleheads  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2018/11/22 14:53 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        Quoting the Cincinnati Reds’ long-time play-by-play announcer, the Ohio Supreme Court declared Tuesday that “this one belongs to the Reds.” 
 
The state’s high court ruled 5-2 that the Major League Baseball franchise is exempt from paying tax on the purchase of bobbleheads and other promotional items the team offers to ticket buyers. 
 
The opinion written by Justice Patrick Fischer warned that the ruling was specific to the case and might not apply for other sports organizations. But the Department of Taxation’s chief legal counsel, Matt Chafin, said the decision essentially shows professional teams how to avoid the “use tax” on promotional items. 
 
Reds spokesman Rob Butcher said the club is “happy with the outcome,” but is still reviewing the opinion. 
 
The department argued the bobbleheads should be taxed because they’re bought by the Reds as giveaways, not sold with tickets. The Reds argued they’re exempt because they resell the items as part of the ticket package and Ohio law exempts companies from paying tax on items they buy for resale. 
 
Fischer, a Cincinnati resident, led off the opinion with a long summary of Ohio’s role in baseball history beginning in 1869, when the Cincinnati Red Stockings became the first all-professional team. There are references to Hall of Famers from Ohio including players Cy Young, Mike Schmidt and Barry Larkin, to the 1975-76 “Big Red Machine” champions, and firsts such as Larry Doby of the Cleveland Indians becoming the first black American League player and to the first night game being played in Cincinnati. 
 
Then, in explaining the ruling, Fischer wrote that unlike a foul ball or a T-shirt shot into the stands (the Reds use a contraption called “Redzilla” to fire free T-shirts into the crowd) that fans have no expectation of receiving, they buy tickets for games that have been advertised as bobblehead games expecting to get the bobbleheads, which last season included All-Stars Joey Votto and Eugenio Suarez. 
 
After quoting Reds’ broadcaster Marty Brennaman’s signature “this one belongs to the Reds,” Fischer as he neared the opinion’s conclusion also quoted Brennaman’s late broadcasting partner, Joe Nuxhall, saying the justices were “rounding third and heading for home.” 
 
Dissenting Justice Mary DeGenaro wrote that the the Reds were escaping sales tax or use tax on promotional items that generally apply to similar purchases. She pointed out that the Reds often limit the promotional items, such as free to the first 30,000 fans. 
 
 | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
                
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                European court orders Turkey to free ex-Kurdish party leader  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2018/11/18 14:52 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday called on Turkey to release the former head of Turkey's pro-Kurdish opposition from detention. Turkey's president responded by claiming his country was not bound by the court's rulings. 
 
In its ruling on Tuesday, the Strasbourg, France-based court said Turkey had violated Selahattin Demirtas' right to be promptly brought before a judge, his right to a speedy review of his case as well as his right to be elected and to sit in Parliament. 
 
Demirtas, the 45-year-old former co-chairman of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, was arrested in November 2016 on terrorism charges. He ran in Turkey's presidential election in June from his high-security prison in Edirne, northwest Turkey. He also campaigned for a constitutional referendum in 2017 from behind bars. 
 
In September Demirtas was sentenced to four years in prison for supporting the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, and engaging in terrorist propaganda in one of several trials against him. He is appealing his conviction. 
 
Asked to comment on the European court's ruling, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said: "We are not bound by the (European court's) decisions." 
 
He added: "We'll make our counter-move and finish it off." He did not elaborate. 
 
 | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
                
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                Trump moves to limit asylum; new rules challenged in court  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2018/11/09 10:43 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Friday to deny asylum to migrants who enter the country illegally, tightening the border as caravans of Central Americans slowly approach the United States. The plan was immediately challenged in court. 
 
Trump invoked the same powers he used last year to impose a travel ban that was upheld by the Supreme Court. The new regulations are intended to circumvent laws stating that anyone is eligible for asylum no matter how he or she enters the country. About 70,000 people per year who enter the country illegally claim asylum, officials said. 
 
“We need people in our country, but they have to come in legally,” Trump said Friday as he departed for Paris. 
 
The American Civil Liberties Union and other legal groups swiftly sued in federal court in Northern California to block the regulations, arguing the measures were illegal. 
 
“The president is simply trying to run roughshod over Congress’s decision to provide asylum to those in danger regardless of the manner of one’s entry,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. 
 
The litigation also seeks to put the new rules on hold while the case progresses. 
 
The regulations go into effect Saturday. They would be in place for at least three months but could be extended, and don’t affect people already in the country. The Justice Department said in a statement the regulations were lawful. 
 
Trump’s announcement was the latest push to enforce a hard-line stance on immigration through regulatory changes and presidential orders, bypassing Congress, which has not passed any immigration law reform. But those efforts have been largely thwarted by legal challenges and, in the case of family separations this year, stymied by a global outcry that prompted Trump to retreat. | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
              
 |            
      
          
                
                   | 
                 
                 
                
                     				
                 
                    
                      
                        
		
	| 
		
		
		 
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		
			  | 
			
				
					Investment Fraud Litigation   | 
				  
			 | 
		  
		
		 
	 |   
 | 
                       
                     
										
                    								
                  
                    
	
                   								
		
                    
	    
                    
 
 
          
 | 
  
  
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.  
 |  
 
  
  | 
                 
              | 
            
           
          
            |   | 
           
          
            |   | 
           
          
            |   | 
           
          
             | 
           
         
 The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo | 
  
 
      	
	 |