Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn court. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn court. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 1 tháng 5, 2013

Christian author takes on Muslim group's $30M suit- Is US military preparing to court martial Christians?

  • Gilani1.JPG

    Mubarak Ali Gilani, the shadowy founder of Muslims of the Americas, is believed to be living in Pakistan. (Christian Action Network)

  • Gilani3.JPG

    Christian Action Network vows to bring Gilani, founder of Muslims of the Americas, into a U.S. court if the $30 million defamation suit proceeds. (Christian Action Network)

  • Gilani2.JPG

    Gilani, who is believed to be in his eighties, fires a weapon in a training video made by Muslims of the Americas. (Christian Action Network)

  • Islamville sign.jpg

    Muslims of the Americas has rural bases in several states, including South Carolina and New York.

The shadowy leader of an American Muslim organization accused of running terror training camps in the U.S. could find himself being questioned under oath if his outfit follows through on its $30 million defamation suit against the Christian group that leveled the charges in a best-selling book.

Muslims of the Americas, a group founded in the 1980s by elusive Pakistani Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, is suing the Christian Action Network for defamation and libel following CAN’s recent publication of the book “Twilight in America: The Untold Story of Islamist Terrorist Training Camps Inside America.” Co-authored by CAN founder Martin Mawyer and Patti Pierucci, the book accuses MOA of “acting as a front for the radical Islamist group Jamaat al-Fuqra.”

In the suit, filed this year in federal court in Albany, N.Y., the Muslim group accuses Mawyer, Pierucci and CAN of "malicious, repetitious and continuous pronouncements and publication of defamatory statements against plaintiff."

"We're calling their bluff," said Mawyer. "I would have thought this would have been dropped a while ago, but I guess they feel they have to defend themselves to their own members."

Many of the book’s allegations are based on the claims of a former NYPD undercover informant who spent eight years posing as a member of the Muslim group, which has secretive bases in rural areas around the country, including Hancock, N.Y., and York County, S.C.

“We're calling their bluff.”

- Martin Mawyer, founder of Christian Action Network

The book alleges organized criminal activity on the part of MOA and claims profits from “street crimes, drugs, brothels, unemployment fraud and other offenses” have been funneled to Jamaat al-Fuqra. Part of the money has been used to establish a series of Jihadi training camps on American soil, according to the book.

Both Muslims of the Americas -- made up primarily of African-American converts to Islam -- and the Pakistan-based Jamaat al-Fuqra, are guided by Sheikh Mubarik Ali Gilani, a highly controversial cleric who lived in the U.S. during the 1980s and who was the subject of an investigation by the late Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl.

In 2002, Pearl was in Pakistan on his way to a pre-arranged interview with Gilani when he was kidnapped by Al Qaeda and eventually beheaded in a brutal case that shocked the world. Gilani was questioned in relation to the investigation but released without being charged.

“Twilight in America” highlights some 17 purported terrorist training camps inside the U.S. Mawyer said he learned of the camps from NYPD informant Ali Aziz, who said one of the camps – often attended by 100 or more followers -- was only 30 miles away from the CAN office in Forest, Va.

Aziz allegedly passed on vital information to authorities about MOA’s plans, its activities across the U.S., and the powerful presence of Gilani.

“If Gilani told everyone, ‘Set yourselves on fire,’ everybody would burn themselves,” Aziz told www.christianaction.org. “This has been going on for 30 years. And people praise him. They give him money. They kiss his feet. It’s crazy.”

Despite the evidence presented in the book, neither MOA nor Jamaat al-Fuqra is currently designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.

"The chapters on the former undercover agent really put them over the edge, as their members knew who Ali Aziz was,” Mawyer told FoxNews.com. “It then became very difficult for the leadership to continue to convince the women and children on the compounds that they weren’t associated with terrorists. They had to sue us to protect the wealth that they derive from the thousands of members they have in the U.S. I fully expect us to win this lawsuit.”

Mawyer and Pierucci say in the book that MOA has been linked to 10 unsolved assassinations and 17 bombings since the 1980s, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Gilani, who describes himself as “Vice Chancellor of the International Qur’anic Open University, Imam of the Muslims of the Americas and a direct Descendant of the Holy Last Messenger [the Prophet Muhammed],” has previously been accused of inspiring so-called “Shoe Bomber” Richard Reid and John Allen Mohammed, the Beltway sniper attacker who, with a young accomplice, killed 10 people during a brief reign of terror in October 2002.

Mawyer said if the civil suit goes to trial, he will move to bring Gilani to the U.S. and put him on the stand. For an organization that so jealously guards its privacy, that may be enough to drop the suit.

“I think they hoped that we would not have the money to fight it and it would serve the purpose of telling their own members, ‘See, we took care of that Martin Mawyer fellow,’” Mawyer said. “They say we have declared war on Islam, but I can tell you that is definitely not the case. This group is against Christians, Hindus, Hari Krishna, Jews, and any Imams who do not preach their strict view of Islam.”

MOA officials could not be reached, and the group's attorney, Tahirah Clark, did not return calls. But in a January statement on The Islamic Post website, the group’s official mouthpiece, Gilani denied claims he is a radical. He said he has weeded out militant Muslims who had infiltrated his inner circle, including a man he said was a hitman for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mawyer and the CAN have no intention of backing out of the legal fight with Muslims of the Americas, a group described by the Anti-Defamation League as “virulently anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers.”

“People’s concerns about home-grown terrorism have obviously been raised by the recent events in Boston,” said Mawyer. “They should know that this is the group that has led the way in the U.S. for 30 years.”

Paul Alster is an Israel-based journalist who blogs at www.paulalster.com and can be followed on Twitter @paul_alster


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Italy's top court overturns Amanda Knox acquittal in murder case, orders new trial- VIDEO: How strong is the case against Knox?

Italy's highest criminal court on Tuesday overturned the acquittal of Amanda Knox in the slaying of her British roommate and ordered a new trial, prolonging a case that has become a cause celebre in the U.S.

The Court of Cassation ruled that an appeals court in Florence must re-hear the case against the American and her Italian-ex-boyfriend for the murder of 21-year-old Meredith Kercher. The exact issues that have to be reconsidered won't be known until the court releases its full ruling.

Lawyers for Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito looked grim as they huddled with prosecutors and court officials to get details after the ruling was issued. Lawyers for the Kercher family said they had got what they wanted.

Kercher's body was found in November 2007 in her bedroom of the house she shared with Knox and others in Perugia, an Italian university town where the two women were exchange students. Her throat had been slashed.

Prosecutors alleged Kercher was the victim of a drug-fueled sex game gone awry. Knox and Sollecito denied wrongdoing and said they weren't even in the apartment that night, though they acknowledged they had smoked marijuana and their memories were clouded.

An Ivory Coast man, Rudy Guede, was convicted of the slaying in a separate proceeding and is serving a 16-year sentence. Knox and Sollecito were also initially convicted of the murder and given long prison sentences, but were then acquitted on appeal and released.

The high court's ruling Tuesday overturns the appeals court acquittals.

Italian law cannot compel Knox to return from the U.S. for the new trial. The appellate court hearing the case could declare her in contempt of court but that carries no additional penalties.

It is unclear what would happen if she was convicted in a new appeals trial.

"If the court orders another trial, if she is convicted at that trial and if the conviction is upheld by the highest court, then Italy could seek her extradition," Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said Monday.

It would then be up to the United States to decide if it honors the request. U.S. and Italian authorities could also come to a deal that would keep Knox in the United States.

Knox, now 25, and Sollecito, who turned 29 on Tuesday, were arrested shortly after Kercher's body was found in a pool of blood.

The appeals court that acquitted them in 2011 criticized virtually the entire case mounted by prosecutors. The appellate court noted that the murder weapon was never found, said that DNA tests were faulty and that prosecutors provided no murder motive.

After nearly four years behind bars in Italy, Knox returned to her hometown of Seattle and Sollecito resumed his computer science studies, following the degree he successfully earned while studying in prison.

Knox is now a student at the University of Washington, according to her family spokesman, Dave Marriott.

Italy's judicial system allows for two levels of appeals, and prosecutors can appeal acquittals.

Although the court on Monday heard gruesome details, including how Kercher choked on her own blood, it wasn't ruling on the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Its sole task was to decide if the appellate trial was properly conducted.

Details of the ruling weren't issued Tuesday and won't be for several weeks.


View the original article here

SUPREME COURT HINT: Justices May Issue Narrow Ruling on Gay Marriage

The national gay marriage debate has reached the Supreme Court, as the justices prepare to consider two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level.

On Tuesday the court will take up California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, and on Wednesday the Defense of Marriage Act, a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

The California case could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. 

Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states. 

Lawyers representing one lesbian and one gay couple from California will try to persuade the nine Supreme Court justices to strike down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages and to declare that gay couples can marry nationwide.

Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Proposition 8 will argue that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.

The case before the high court came together four years ago when the two couples agreed to be the named plaintiffs and become the public faces of a well-funded, high-profile effort to challenge Proposition 8 in the courts.

The fight began in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses. Six months later, the state Supreme Court invalidated the same-sex unions. Less than four years later, however, the same state court overturned California's prohibition on same-sex unions. 

Then, in the same election that put President Obama in the White House in 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, undoing the court ruling and defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The ballot measure halted same-sex unions in California. Roughly 18,000 couples were wed in the nearly five months that same-sex marriage was legal and those marriages remain valid in California.

The high-profile case has brought together two one-time Supreme Court opponents. Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies are leading the legal team representing the same-sex couples.

 They argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Opposing them is Charles Cooper, Olson's onetime colleague at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

The arguments come at a time of changing views on the issue. Support for gay marriage is becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue is causing a sharp divide among Republicans.

Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. 

The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it. 

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state." 

Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. 

Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman." 

However Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument." 

"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday." "There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage."

Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. 

President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit. 

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned.  And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay. 

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly. 

"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary." 

Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. 

That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it. 

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling. 

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 25 tháng 3, 2013

RACE A FACTOR? High Court to Weigh State's Affirmative Action Case

  • Supreme Court.jpg

    The Supreme Court building in Washington.AP

The Supreme Court announced Monday it would include a Michigan law that would bar public universities from considering race as an admissions factor in its review of affirmative action in higher education.

The high court is already considering whether the University of Texas violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection with its affirmative action program. In that case, the justices are considering a challenge to the university’s program, which factors in race to fill open spots in its freshman class. The Texas case has been argued before the justices but not yet decided.

The dispute over affirmative action in Michigan has its roots in the 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of race as a factor in university admissions. That case concerned the University of Michigan law school.

In response to the court's 5-4 decision in that case, affirmative action opponents worked to put a ballot measure in front of voters to amend the state constitution to outlaw preferential treatment on the basis of race and other factors in education, as well as government hiring and contracting. In November 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters approved the measure.

Civil rights groups sued to block the provision the day after the vote. In November, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 8-7 to invalidate the ban as it applies to college admissions. It did not address hiring or contracting.

The appeals court said the constitutional amendment is illegal because it prohibits affirmative action supporters from lobbying lawmakers, university trustees and other people who ordinarily control admissions policies. Instead, opponents of the ban would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action, the court said.

That burden "undermines the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change," the court said. The 6th Circuit divided along ideological lines, with its more liberal judges in the majority.

In the Texas case, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas is suing to overturn the school's use of race among many factors to fill out its incoming freshman classes. The bulk of the slots go to Texans who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes.

This week, the Supreme Court also will hear two cases on same-sex marriage. Its decisions could redefine marriage in the 40 states that currently don’t allow same-sex couples to wed.

One case involves California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage,and the other, the Clinton-era federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

Currently, the federal law defines marriage as the union of a man and woman and keeps legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits that are available to male-female married couples.

Rulings aren’t expected until late June.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 24 tháng 3, 2013

FINANCIAL CALAMITY: Large California City Heads to Bankruptcy Court

By outward appearances, Stockton, a city of nearly 300,000 on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, seemed in the mid-2000s to be emerging from decades of struggle.

Next to its gleaming downtown waterfront -- a window to the West's largest fresh-water estuary -- a beautiful new $46 million glass hockey arena rose in 2005. That same year, an Oakland A's minor league baseball team began play in a new taxpayer-financed stadium, amenities sought by elected officials catering to a wave of new residents fleeing Bay Area congestion and soaring home prices.

High salaries and lucrative benefits were supposed to attract and retain the brightest city workforce to improve the quality of life for its residents. "We spent like the good times would go on forever," said Stockton spokeswoman Connie Cochrane.

But then the recession hit, and the good times went bust. On Monday, California's 13th-largest city begins federal court proceedings that could end with it becoming the most populous city in the U.S. to successfully enter bankruptcy, a move opposed by those who lent the money to keep it flush.

On its journey to this point, the Central Valley city has become emblematic of both government excess and the financial calamity that resulted when the nation's housing bubble burst. Its salaries, benefits and borrowing were based on anticipated long-term developer fees and increasing property tax revenue. But those were lost in a flurry of foreclosures.

After the city's population grew by nearly 20 percent between 2000 and 2005 and real estate tripled in value, home prices plummeted 40 percent the following year before bottoming out at 70 percent.

Within two years, Stockton had accumulated nearly $1 billion in debt on civic improvements, money owed to pay pension contributions and the most generous health care benefits in the state -- coverage for life for all retirees plus a dependent no matter how long they had worked for the city.

"It's not realistic to think that something like that could be sustained indefinitely," Cochrane said.

Today, its largest creditors are the companies that in 2007, after the economy began to contract, insured the bonds that funded the city's over-extended pension obligations.

The city's deal was risky from the start, said Jeffrey Michael, who as director of the business forecasting center at University of the Pacific has studied the city's struggles.

"It was like refinancing your house and dumping the proceeds into the Wall Street market and hoping your earnings go up faster than the interest rate on your loan," he said.

By 2009, the city began slashing its budget to stay afloat. The police department lost 25 percent of its 441 sworn officers and the fire department was cut by 30 percent. City staff was cut by 40 percent. The city general fund budget, now $155 million, has been cut by $90 million over three years.

The impacts were felt everywhere. Wells Fargo bank seized three parking garages when the city defaulted on the $32 million in bonds that financed them. Bond holders also seized the $40 million downtown high rise that was to become City Hall.

Stockton recorded its highest-ever number of murders in 2011 and 2012, and had three just last Sunday. Last year, an FBI analysis of violent crime made it the 10th most dangerous city in the U.S. Its unemployment rate is 17.5 percent, and it has the third-highest illiteracy rate in the country.

"We are fiscally insolvent, but service insolvent as well and that threatens our ability to attract new business, which we need to recover," Cochrane said.

Last summer, the city began negotiating with creditors, a requirement before entering bankruptcy. Ten employee unions agreed to temporary wage and benefits cuts.

Retired employees have also been asked to pick up a larger share of health care premiums, closing a $540 million retiree health care cost liability.

But the holders of the biggest share of the debt were the companies that in 2007 insured nearly $165 million in pension bond obligations to allow the city a lower interest rate and make them stable for investors. They were unable to negotiate a deal and want the city to avoid bankruptcy, which would likely allow Stockton to avoid repaying the debts in full.

Officials for the largest creditor, Assured Guaranty, said the city offered them 17 to 18 cents on the dollar for bonds that run through 2048, a deal they plan to argue in court is unacceptable. They say the city should further cut costs and raise taxes and point to city subsidies for the arena and $7 million in uncollected parking tickets.

City politicians also lack the political fortitude to cut contributions to CalPERS, the public employee pension program, Assured officials say. Employees who shared in the wealth when times were flush ought to sacrifice when they are not, they say.

Stockton wants to cut its repayment of the pension bonds without reducing the liability itself, the attorneys wrote.

Those opposing bankruptcy say the city needs long-term wage concessions from public employees, not the one- and two-year deals that were negotiated. The pain must be shared among all debt holders, they argue.

"Stockton has budgeted itself into insolvency. It is now trying to cram down a plan on those it did not favor, instead of focusing on creating a fair, equitable and long-term plan for all stakeholders," said Robert Tucker, managing director of Assured Guaranty.

Few people doubt the city will be successful at a four-day trial and enter bankruptcy, but that won't be the end of litigation. If bankruptcy protection is approved, a federal bankruptcy judge would still have to decide whether Stockton's bankruptcy plan is fair, or whether it singles out some groups to bear more of the financial burden than others.

"All of us have a stake in ensuring Stockton gets back on its feet," said Tucker.


View the original article here

Gay Marriage Reaches High Court

  • gaymarriage_court_032313.jpg

    March 23, 2013: Those hoping to get a seat for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage line up early outside the court in Washington.AP

The front-lines of the gay marriage debate move this week to the Supreme Court, as it considers two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level. 

The arguments come at a time of changing views, with support for gay marriage becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue causing a sharp divide among Republicans. 

The first case the court will take up, on Tuesday, is California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court on Wednesday weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, considering a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits. 

It is the California case, though, that could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states. 

Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it. 

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state." 

Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman." 

But Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument." 

"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday." 

"There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage." 

Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit. 

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned. One of the lead lawyers arguing against Prop 8, Ted Olson, also is a prominent conservative who was solicitor general under George W. Bush. And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay. 

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly. 

"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary." 

Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it. 

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling. 

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. 

But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May. 

The case being considered Tuesday concerns the constitutional ban on gay marriage that California voters adopted in 2008. One key question before the court is whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals. 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously struck down Prop 8, without making any sweeping pronouncements. The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it. 

The other issue the high court will take on involves the central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. 

Supreme Court rulings are expected in June. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 20 tháng 3, 2013

Source: Adrienne Maloof skipped 'Housewife' reunion because of court gag orders

  • MaloofNassir660.jpg

    Adrienne Maloof and Paul Nassir have filed dueling divorce petitions.X17 Online

  • Adrienne Maloof Reuters 660.JPG

    U.S. television personality and businesswoman Adrienne Maloof poses on the red carpet as she arrives as one of the judges for the Miss Universe 2011 pageant in Sao Paulo.Reuters

  • adrienne-maloof-ftr1

Even when one ejects themselves from a reality show, the drama lives on.

Rumors have been running rampant for weeks as to why Adrienne Maloof blew off the highly-anticipated “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” reunion, which taped on March 1st. And just to add fuel to the fire, Bravo executive Andy Cohen has too taken to the TV screen to scold his former star over the absence.

“Well, today we are missing one of the Housewives who has been with us since the beginning. Adrienne Maloof has decided not to participate today,” he said in a clip posted on the network’s website. “This season was hard on Adrienne, as you all know. A secret about her family was revealed by Brandi (Glanville) and from that moment on, Adrienne refused to speak directly about it. We know that frustrated you in the audience. It frustrated all of us too…Adrienne won’t be here to tell her side of the story. Not only is she absent tonight, but she won’t be on the show next season.”

Ouch.

“Adrienne Maloof’s final act as a Housewife was not showing up tonight,” Cohen added.

But according to an insider, it wasn’t just a clear-cut case of Maloof simply deciding she did not want to attend.

“Of course Adrienne wanted to go on and say her part. But there was no way she could,” a source closely connected to the famous businesswoman. “She was strongly advised not to because of family court gag orders, which prohibits her from being allowed to discuss her divorce or custody whatsoever. And naturally, those topics would have come up on the show. So it was better she not go at all, to avoid any potential legal complications.”

Maloof’s tenure on the hit reality show turned sour last year when he co-star Brandi Granville revealed that she used a surrogate to have her twin sons, Christian and Colin, who are now six. Sparking something of a frenzy, Maloof’s marriage to plastic surgeon Dr. Paul Nassif soon fell apart, with their divorced finalized late last year, along with plenty of finger pointing as to whether Granville’s blurt caused the relationship to rupture.

And while all this makes for great reunion special fodder, apparently Maloof simply couldn’t risk treading anywhere near those forbidden topics.

“It was a smart decision on her part,” added the source. “She has too much to lose. Technically she can’t say anything at all, or she’s in violation of family court orders which are very common in these cases.”

Reps for Maloof and for Bravo declined to comment.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 14 tháng 3, 2013

Tevez's driving court date set

Carlos Tevez

Trouble ... Carlos Tevez will face court in April. Source: Jon Super / AP

Manchester City striker Carlos Tevez has been charged by police with driving with his licence suspended and without insurance.

The Argentina international, who was arrested last week, was formally charged today and will appear at a magistrates court on April 3.

The maximum penalty for driving while disqualified in England is six months in jail.

Tevez was banned from driving for six months on January 16 after failing to respond to letters by police in relation to incidents when his car was recorded speeding.

However, he was stopped by police while driving on a road near his home last Thursday.

Tevez scored a hat trick for City in a 5-0 win over Barnsley in the FA Cup quarter-finals last weekend, taking his season's tally in all competitions to 15.


View the original article here