Trump says Navy SEAL accused of a brutal killing to be moved 'to less restrictive confinement'3/30/2019
President Trump is intervening on behalf of a Navy SEAL who is accused of stabbing a teenage ISIS soldier to death and staging a re-enlisment ceremony over the soldier's body Trump tweeted on Saturday morning that Navy SEAL Chief Edward "Eddie" Gallagher "will soon be moved to less restrictive confinement while he awaits his day in court." Gallagher is facing an Article 32 hearing and a potential court-martial; he is accused of murdering a wounded ISIS combatant during a 2017 deployment to Iraq. After an air strike, US forces reportedly captured an ISIS soldier and turned him over to SEALs for medical treatment. While the fighter was receiving treatment, Gallagher allegedly attacked and killed the man, according to Task & Purpose. Prosecutors say that Gallagher posed with the body, cradling its head for a photo, which he would text with the caption "got him with my hunting knife," according to Task & Purpose. Read more:A war-crimes prosecution against 2 Navy SEALs just had 2 major setbacks Gallagher is currently being held at San Diego's Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar, and has been held there since his arrest in September 2018. Gallagher's wife Andrea Gallagher told American Military News that his confinement has made him unable, "to properly prepare for trial, receive medical treatment and see his family." A group of 40 lawmakers led by South Carolina congressman Ralph Norman urged Navy Rear Admiral Yancy B. Lindsey to move Gallagher to a "less severe form of restraint" as he awaits trial, a letter from the group said. Congressman Norman directly appealed to President Trump as well. "This morning, I spoke with President @realDonaldTrump by phone about Navy SEAL #EddieGallagher," Norman tweeted on Friday. "And I want to thank the President for deciding to move Chief Ghallager to less restrictive confinement while he awaits his day in court." It's not clear when Gallagher will be moved, to where he is being moved, nor is it clear how that process will work. Spokespeople for The White House and the Navy had no comment at the time of reporting. SEE ALSO: A war-crimes prosecution against 2 Navy SEALs just had 2 major setbacks Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Aston Martin's new fully-electric Lagonda could be the future of SUVs from https://www.businessinsider.com/navy-seal-eddie-gallagher-donald-trump-2019-3
0 Comments
A man convicted of making dozens of false reports to police has been sentenced to more than 20 years in federal prison. The "swatting" case of Los Angeles native Tyler Barriss, 26, garnered national attention after police in Witchita, Kansas shot and killed 28-year-old Andrew Finch outside of his home on December 28, 2017. On that day, Barriss called Wichita Emergency Services and claimed that Finch had killed his father and was holding his brother and mother hostage. Barriss and Finch did not know each other; Barriss was using a tactic called "swatting" to target a different Kansas native using an old address. Swatting uses false reports to encourage police to use force against an innocent citizen. In this case, Barriss sent police to the Finch family home to face a threat they believed to be lethal. Later, authorities would determine that the call was made following an argument over a game of "Call of Duty: WWII." A subsequent investigation showed that Barriss had called in fake bomb threat to the FBI headquarters and Federal Trade Commission as well as schools, malls and emergency workers in more than a dozen states. Barriss pleaded guilty to 51 federal charges in total, based on the false reports and instances where he used people's credit cards without permission. Barris faced additional state prosecution for his numerous false reports but charges in California and Kansas were dismissed as a part of his plea deal. Barriss will serve the full 20 year sentence and an additional five years of supervised release. The Wichita Eagle reports that he will pay a $5,000 fine to the Kansas Crime Victim's Compensation fund, which will then be given to the Finch family. Two more "Call of Duty" players are always awaiting trial for their alleged role in the incident. Casey Viner of Ohio and Shane Gaskill of Wichita were reportedly the two "Call of Duty: WWII" players who sparked the incident. The two argued on Twitter, and when Viner threatened Gaskill with physical violence, Gaskill provided Viner with an old address claiming that he would be there waiting to accept Viner's challenge. Viner then forwarded the address to Barriss and encouraged him to make the swatting call. "I take full responsibility in what happened to him," Barriss said during the sentencing, according to the Wichita Eagle. He added, "If I could take it back I would. ... I’m just so sorry for that." Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: What's going on with Jeff Bezos and Amazon from https://www.businessinsider.com/fatal-call-of-duty-swatting-incident-20-years-sentence-convicted-2019-3 Any advice? In the latest instalment in our Career Conundrums series, one magic circle trainee-to-be is looking to get some experience in lawtech.
If you have a career conundrum, email us with it to [email protected]. The post I want some lawtech experience before I start my magic circle training contract appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/i-want-some-lawtech-experience-before-i-start-my-magic-circle-training-contract/ Irritating habits include eating and drinking or interrupting those speaking, research finds It would seem good communication is a must-have skill for the vast majority of lawyers. Yet, new research reveals they are among some of the worst when it comes to over the phone dealings. A whopping 82% of lawyers (that’s one in four of those surveyed) admitted to demonstrating bad manners while on the blower. Although they’re worse than doctors, nurses and dentists (81%), and accounts (77%), lawyers are not as bad as those in marketing and PR (85%) or HR (87%), the industry which topped the survey of over 2,000 UK workers for the worst phone manners in the UK. The study, carried out by research agency The Leadership Factor, revealed some further interesting findings. The telephone no no’s lawyers admit to being guilty of include putting people on speakerphone, while being distracted with other tasks, and eating or drinking whilst on the phone, with 18% (one in five) ‘fessing up to these bad habits. Fourteen percent admitted the tendency to interrupt is their worst mannerism. The survey also revealed the top five telephone habits that lawyers find most irritating. They are being put on hold (50%), having a conversation with another person in the background (46%), being interrupted while speaking (41%), being put on speakerphone (32%), and loud music playing in the background (32%). Commenting on the research, Mark Pearcy, head of marketing at 4Com, the telecommunications firm that commissioned the research, said:
He added: “Hopefully this research will help people realise their phone habits can be considered rude and make chatting on the phone smooth sailing for people who work in the legal industry.” For a weekly round-up of news, plus jobs and latest event info Sign up to the Legal Cheek NewsletterThe post Lawyers among worst for phone etiquette appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/lawyers-among-worst-for-phone-etiquette/ Weekly round-up of the top legal blogosphere posts Can I work from home as a lawyer? [The Guardian] Are you committing a crime if you sign a parliamentary petition in a false name? [Barrister Blogger] A temporary prime minister? [The Norton View] Talent spotting & topography shifting [Counsel Magazine] Justice gap: the towns where there’s no access to free legal advice [The Guardian] Did the UK Government act unlawfully by extending Article 50? [Public Law for Everyone] What are the UK immigration rules on statelessness? [Free Movement] Thread: #bartips [Twitter] Starting your 2nd six [BPTC Lecturer] Lessons must be learned from the Windrush scandal [The Law Society Gazette] Lessons from the DWF IPO [Legal Futures] The ICLR Pupillage Award 2019 [Legal Cheek Hub] “Nobody needs a Sociology group meeting to discuss their presentation on a big table in the middle of the law library. Some subjects require more use of physical texts and analysis than others — I wouldn’t go and sit in a biology lab and light a bunsen burner to read Dicey.” [Legal Cheek comments] The post Best of the blogs appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/best-of-the-blogs-14/ ‘You be quiet sir’ A heckler has discovered first-hand why you should never interrupt a panel discussion chaired by one of the country’s top legal commenters. As part of this year’s Putney Debates, a series of annual public discussions which take place at St Mary’s Church in Putney, South London, a group of leading academics and lawyers gathered to discuss judicial independence. There was, however, a brief moment of adrenalin-fuelled excitement during the discussion when the debate’s chair, Joshua Rozenberg, confronted a heckler. The footage, posted online earlier today by Rozenberg himself, shows a man enter the church and sit on the front row of the audience, before attempting to interpret one of the panellists. Ever the professional, Rozenberg can be seen immediately rising to his feet, pointing at the man, and saying: “Sit down and be quiet, otherwise we’ll have to ask you to leave!” With the man continuing to talk, the top legal commentator and Legal Cheek contributor hits back again: “You be quiet sir, or we’ll ask you to leave.” Facing the prospect of ejection and Rozenberg’s steely gaze, it’s at this point the man finally decides to be quiet. The post Top UK legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg confronts heckler during debate appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/top-uk-legal-commentator-joshua-rozenberg-confronts-heckler-during-debate/ Exclusive: Promptly disinvites them As if the pursuit for pupillage wasn’t stressful enough, London’s 2 Bedford Row was forced to revoke a number of interview offers after some wannabe barristers received invites by mistake. The criminal set, which takes on four pupils a year, notified a number of candidates by email this week that they’d been shortlisted for a first-round interview. However, as one source explained to Legal Cheek, the email failed to mention the date and time of the interview. For some, unfortunately, the mixture of elation and confusion was shortlived. A number of pupil hopefuls received a follow-up email with the rather tantalising subject heading “Revised Interview Offer”, only to be informed that the original offer had been revoked and their application rejected. A spokesperson for 2 Bedford Row told Legal Cheek: “In 2019, 2 Bedford Row withdrew from the Pupillage Gateway in order to manage our own online portal with a third party providing IT support. On the 27th March 2019, we identified that a ‘pro forma / test’ email was sent out to a number of applicants in error. We have been working hard to try and identify how this happened.” They continued:
Needless to say, 2 Bedford Row’s email blunder didn’t go down well with wannabe barristers. “I’m surprisingly upset”, wrote one applicant on the website The Student Room. “I could have taken a straight rejection, but an interview offer, followed by a ‘sorrreeeee’ email half a day later was rather overwhelming!” While another, rather optimistically, commented: “Could that mean that those who didn’t get a reject are still in the running lol”. This, however, isn’t the first time a chambers has fired off interview invites in error. In 2016, 5 Essex Court incorrectly informed a group of applicants they’d successfully secured interview spots, only to cancel them hours later blaming a technical “glitch”. The post 2 Bedford Row invites aspiring barristers to pupillage interview in error appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/2-bedford-row-invites-aspiring-barristers-to-pupillage-interview-in-error/ Law school bigwigs wade into covert recording dispute Law professors at Ireland’s most prestigious law school have split into rival factions over a student newspaper bugging scandal that has made national headlines. Three academics at Trinity College Dublin have panned the argument made by a campus newspaper, the University Times, that it was within its legal rights to bug a student’s apartment in pursuit of a story. Writing in the flagship Trinity News student paper, professors Neville Cox, Oran Doyle and David Kenny say that placing a dictaphone outside a student’s residence in a bid to record a society “hazing” ritual was a potential breach of the right to privacy and not “legally or constitutionally protected”. The academics say that one of their number is advising the bugging victim, who is head of an all-male sports fraternity now under investigation over the allegations. But it has emerged that another Trinity law professor is backing the rival camp. Eoin O’Dell, an Oxford and Cambridge graduate, says that he is advising the University Times and has penned a rival legal opinion, calling his colleagues’ analysis “incomplete”. The row began when the University Times, which is backed by the students’ union, began an investigation into allegations that new members of an exclusive society for top university sportsmen were being “hazed”. The paper had previously reported that members of the uni boat club were being forced to strip to their underwear and hit with bamboo sticks while drinking heavily. Enterprising student reporters snuck into the halls where the society’s initiation was taking place and “heard groaning, gagging and retching sounds emerging from the apartment”. The paper breathlessly revealed that “those present were also told to eat butter”. But the budding journos also put a dictaphone outside the apartment door in a bid to record the alleged hazing. Furious society members discovered and kept the device, which Trinity News condemned as an invasion of privacy. The bungled bugging triggered a university investigation and a petition to cut the newspaper’s funding. Students will vote on the proposal next month. The University Times claimed that its methods were in line with Irish law, but professors Cox, Doyle and Kenny disagreed. Addressing the paper’s argument that bugging someone’s home is permitted if in the public interest, the academics wrote:
Fellow professor O’Dell hit back, arguing that “this newspaper and its journalists have acted ethically throughout. Revelation of the Knights’ hazing was clearly in the public interest in college, and the Cogley case clearly justifies its publication”. The Cambridge PhD holder concluded:
The campus kerfuffle has made national news in Ireland and attracted the attention of the International Federation of Journalists. The post Trinity College Dublin law profs split over whether student newspaper bugging halls to expose secret society’s ‘hazing’ was legal appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/trinity-college-dublin-law-profs-split-over-whether-student-newspaper-bugging-halls-to-expose-secret-societys-hazing-was-legal/ New session on clinical legal education to also feature universities Swansea and Northumbria, and leading apprenticeships provider A trio of legal education figures from non-Russell Group universities will speak at the biggest law training gathering of the year. Laura Pinkney, head of Nottingham Law School’s Legal Advice Centre, one of the UK’s first fully-fledged teaching law firms, will kick off the headline afternoon session on clinical legal education at The Future of Legal Education and Training Conference 2019. The student-staffed centre, which is part of Nottingham Trent University (NTU), plays an integral role in the university’s approach to teaching; offering its aspiring lawyers exposure to real-life cases under the supervision of qualified solicitors. It received accredited Alternative Business Structure (ABS) status in 2015. Pinkney, an NTU alumna and former Cartwright King Solicitors partner with over 15 years’ experience in private practice, will deliver a talk focusing on the centre’s work, which recently announced it had recouped over £3 million in benefits and compensation for its clients in just five years. Chairing the discussion will be Swansea University’s Professor Richard Owen, who leads the university’s student-run Law Clinic and delivers its dedicated undergraduate module on clinical legal education. Owen, a former solicitor, will discuss the benefits of acquiring experiential learning experience during the degree and the key skills LLB’ers learn from engaging with a university law clinic while boosting their job prospects. Pinkney and Owen will be joined by Northumbria University academic Victoria Roper at the Conference — which takes place on Wednesday 22 May at Kings Place, London. Roper, an experienced lecturer, researcher, and former corporate solicitor at national outfit Ward Hadaway, supervises student volunteers at Northumbria Law School’s Student Law Office (SLO). She co-founded an acclaimed blog detailing life as a student embarking on a clinical legal education course, and will shed light on Northumbria’s ‘M Law’ undergraduate and master’s course, which combines practical legal training at the SLO with legal education to enhance students’ understanding of the law. Appearing alongside the trio will be an expert from a leading law firm specialising in legal apprenticeships who will be announced early next month. Other sessions at this year’s Future of Legal Education and Training Conference — which is supported by lead sponsors BPP University Law School and The University of Law — will focus on entrepreneurship, cross-disciplinary skills and the coming together in particular of law and computer science and mental health, wellbeing and resilience. These will sit around a centrepiece debate on the practical effects of the new Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) featuring Solicitors Regulation Authority education and training chief Julie Brannan. Nottingham Law School will be exhibiting as one of the silver sponsors during the day-long Conference, alongside our other silver sponsor LexisNexis. Highlights from last year’s Future of Legal Education and Training ConferenceThe post Head of Nottingham Law School teaching law firm to join other top non-Russell Group academics at expanded Future of Legal Education and Training Conference appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/head-of-nottingham-law-school-teaching-law-firm-to-join-other-top-non-russell-group-academics-at-expanded-future-of-legal-education-and-training-conference/
Four former IBM employees have sued IBM, and they've hired a class-action law firm famous for winning big cases. They are alleging that IBM engaged in a "massive scheme to cover up discriminatory layoff of over 20,000 older workers in knowing violation of disclosure requirements." IBM says it isn't worried about the lawsuit. "The plaintiff's theories have been rejected by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. We are confident that our arbitration clauses are legal and appropriate," an IBM spokesperson tells Business Insider. The fact that IBM has been laying off thousands of workers for years without disclosing the size of its layoffs, while hiring thousands of others, has been well documented. And allegations that many of the people getting pink slips have been its older workers have also been the source of multiple investigations. Bloomberg wrote about it in 2014, after IBM changed how it discloses layoff information. There are laws requiring companies to share age information about the people it is letting go but IBM stopped doing that in 2014 and instead offers its workers the option of filing individual lawsuits, should they feel they have a case when taking a severance package. By signing an arbitration agreement, each employee that believes he or she was discriminated against on the basis of age would then have to front the costs of suing IBM for the legal discovery and statistical analysis of its layoffs. Business Insider wrote about the situation in 2015 and in 2016, when laid off employees told Business Insider that IBM had reduced severance pay for long-time workers to a month max. And Pro Publica delved into allegations of age discrimination during layoffs last year. One lawyer representing the former employees, Joe Sellers from law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, tells Business Insider that IBM's statement is a bit of red herring. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll is a well-known class-action law firm that's won hundreds of millions of dollars against the likes of Apple, Caterpillar, Citigroup, Mercedes Benz, BP, Bristol-Myers Squibb and many others. Sellers says that this lawsuit is not attempting to get the court to rule out arbitration agreements. He says his clients are honoring the agreement and have also filed suits with arbitrators. This lawsuit isn't challenging the arbitration agreements per se. It's challenging the part where employees waived their rights to sue collectively, arguing that IBM did not first give them the information about the ages of the people being laid off, as, he says, is required by law. "The only issue presented to the court is whether or not to enforce the waiver [to sue collectively]," he said. And that means this lawsuit is different from the one filed by IBM employees last fall. That age discrimination lawsuit was filed by people who didn't sign a waiver that prevented them from suing collectively in exchange for severance, he said. Sellers says his clients are those that did sign those waivers. He's trying to represent an estimated 20,000 people who also did. He believes that his case will allow these IBM workers to sue the company in court and not be liable for having to return their severance checks. "Our position is that the waivers that people signed — some people only got a month's payment, others got more than a month’s payment — are unenforceable. So individuals can keep whatever they got paid and join this lawsuit," he says. Ultimately, between the suit filed in arbitration and the one filed in court, this lawsuit seeks damages for what its plaintiffs say were age-discrimination practices. "I did my job very well and received glowing remarks on my annual evaluations for 33 years,” said one of the plaintiffs, Cheryl Witmer, in the law firm's press release. Witmer says she was laid off in 2016 at age 57. “Suddenly in my 34th year, I was unfairly downgraded in my annual evaluation. Nothing about my work changed; what changed is that IBM decided to replace me with a much younger worker." Sellers tells Business Insider that, through the lawsuit, he ultimately wants to stop IBM from "relying on stereotypes about older workers to force people out of work. There were, undoubtedly, some older people who may be better suited to other jobs. But there are lots of people in the workforce who are older, with a good deal of technical expertise at a company that values technical expertise, who should have been evaluated on their merits." Join the conversation about this story » from https://www.businessinsider.com/older-former-ibm-employees-sue-company-alleging-age-discrimination-2019-3 |
AuthorHi I am Alana Smith 35 years old living in New York. I am working as an assistant in local law office. I like to share legal news with people to educate them. Archives
April 2019
Categories |