The Salazar Law Firm, PLLC
Motorcycle accidents happen for a variety of reasons, but statistics
consistently show that they are now happening with alarming regularity.
Approximately 25,000 people are injured and over 1,000 killed every
year as a result of motorcycle accidents. A motorcycle accident can
cause catastrophic injuries, leaving the victim partially or completely
paralyzed. Motorcycle accidents that result in a wrongful death often
leave the victim's family to deal with the sudden and unexpected loss.
The most common causes are: driver error, reckless driving by another,
dangerous road conditions, mechanical failure, and faulty motorcycle
design.
The Salazar Law Firm is committed to providing clients involved in
motorcycle accidents with the aggressive advocacy and knowledgeable
support they need to get back on their feet. Their team of attorney aim
to help the victims obtain a reasonably fair compensation for their
losses and suffering. They are there for every step of the way, starting
with the investigation site. See http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more
information.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Eugene and Portland Criminal Defense - Coit & Associates, P.C.
Coit & Associates, P.C.,
with offices in Eugene and Portland, have criminal defense lawyers
acknowledged for providing the highest quality representation in the
greater Eugene and Portland metropolitan locations. No matter the size
or seriousness of your case, a lawyer at Coit & Associates, P.C.
will aggressively tackle the case and understand its importance to you
and your family.
Our attorneys at Coit & Associates, P.C. not only have the experience to represent you but we will not b ack down from anyway. Our goal is to provide our clients with efficient, aggressive, and affordable criminal defense that is effective. We care for our defendents charged with or suspected of committing crimes and will fight for you.
Call us at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Our attorneys at Coit & Associates, P.C. not only have the experience to represent you but we will not b ack down from anyway. Our goal is to provide our clients with efficient, aggressive, and affordable criminal defense that is effective. We care for our defendents charged with or suspected of committing crimes and will fight for you.
Call us at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Supreme Court: Inmate cannot change court-appointed lawyer
The Supreme Court says a death row inmate can't change his court-appointed appeals lawyer because he didn't like the lawyer's defense tactics.
The justices on Monday turned away the appeal from Kenneth Clair, who was sentenced to death in California in 1987 for burglary and murder.
Clair wanted to change his federal public defender in 2005 because he says they were trying to stop his execution instead of trying to prove his innocence. A federal judge denied his request but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision.
The justices ruled unanimously that the appeals court's decision was incorrect
Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Clair's request came just as a judge was about to make a final ruling so any change would have been too late.
The justices on Monday turned away the appeal from Kenneth Clair, who was sentenced to death in California in 1987 for burglary and murder.
Clair wanted to change his federal public defender in 2005 because he says they were trying to stop his execution instead of trying to prove his innocence. A federal judge denied his request but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision.
The justices ruled unanimously that the appeals court's decision was incorrect
Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Clair's request came just as a judge was about to make a final ruling so any change would have been too late.
Conn. high court rules prisoners can be force-fed
Connecticut prison inmates who go on hunger strikes can be restrained and force-fed to protect them from life-threatening dehydration and malnutrition, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The 7-0 decision came in the case of 51-year-old prisoner William Coleman, a Liverpool, England, native who stopped eating in September 2007 to protest his conviction on what he claimed was a fabricated rape charge by his ex-wife. The court rejected Coleman's claims that force-feeding violated his free speech rights and international law.
Coleman's weight dropped from 237 pounds to 129 pounds by October 2008, and a prison doctor who believed Coleman was at risk of dying or developing irreversible health problems determined it was necessary to force-feed him by inserting a feeding tube through his nose and into his stomach.
The first of what Coleman's lawyers say was about a dozen forced feedings was performed on Oct. 23, 2008, after prison officials had obtained permanent authority to force-feed him after a trial in Superior Court. Coleman appealed the Superior Court judge's ruling to the Supreme Court.
Coleman resumed taking liquid nutrition voluntarily in late 2008 and returned to a normal weight, court records say, but the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut says he went back on the hunger strike last week.
The 7-0 decision came in the case of 51-year-old prisoner William Coleman, a Liverpool, England, native who stopped eating in September 2007 to protest his conviction on what he claimed was a fabricated rape charge by his ex-wife. The court rejected Coleman's claims that force-feeding violated his free speech rights and international law.
Coleman's weight dropped from 237 pounds to 129 pounds by October 2008, and a prison doctor who believed Coleman was at risk of dying or developing irreversible health problems determined it was necessary to force-feed him by inserting a feeding tube through his nose and into his stomach.
The first of what Coleman's lawyers say was about a dozen forced feedings was performed on Oct. 23, 2008, after prison officials had obtained permanent authority to force-feed him after a trial in Superior Court. Coleman appealed the Superior Court judge's ruling to the Supreme Court.
Coleman resumed taking liquid nutrition voluntarily in late 2008 and returned to a normal weight, court records say, but the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut says he went back on the hunger strike last week.
Federal Law Entitles You to an Accurate Credit Report
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (the FCRA), a federal statute passed in 1970 to regulate the collection and use of consumer credit information, requires consumer reporting agencies (also known as credit reporting agencies or credit bureaus) to maintain the “maximum possible accuracy” of the credit information they collect and use to create consumer reports (also known as credit reports). When a consumer reporting agency fails to maintain this level of accuracy and errors occur, this federal law gives consumers the right to dispute information in their credit files and, when necessary, bring suit against those agencies and the furnishers of credit information to those agencies, to recover damages for those inaccuracies and errors.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law combines experience and efficiency in credit reporting law to render their clients high quality legal representation. Their attorneys represents cosumers whose rights have been violated by the credit reporting agencies and runishers of credit information. Having represented a number of parties involved with these kinds of claims in federal court, their work has been acknowledged throughout the Indianapolis area.
www.rbelaw.com.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law combines experience and efficiency in credit reporting law to render their clients high quality legal representation. Their attorneys represents cosumers whose rights have been violated by the credit reporting agencies and runishers of credit information. Having represented a number of parties involved with these kinds of claims in federal court, their work has been acknowledged throughout the Indianapolis area.
www.rbelaw.com.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Molycorp, Inc. common stock during the period between March 9, 2011 and November 10, 2011.
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mcp.
The complaint alleges that defendants’ false and misleading statements about the capability of the Company’s “Mountain Pass” mining operation and the Company’s earnings caused Molycorp common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a) Molycorp’s development and expansion of the Mountain Pass mine was not progressing on schedule and would not allow the Company to reach rare earth oxide production rates at the end of calendar 2012 and 2013; and (b) end users had been reducing demand for the Company’s products as prices for rare earth elements increased.
On November 10, 2011, the Company reported disappointing third quarter 2011 revenues and earnings results below analysts’ estimates and announced a reduction in Mountain Pass production guidance for the fourth quarter of 2011 due to expected equipment downtime relating to Mountain Pass engineering and expansion issues. The Company’s stock price fell, dropping from $38.70 per share on November 10, 2011 to $33.45 per share on November 11, 2011, or 13.6%, on heavy trading volume.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 3, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
www.rmclasslaw.com.
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mcp.
The complaint alleges that defendants’ false and misleading statements about the capability of the Company’s “Mountain Pass” mining operation and the Company’s earnings caused Molycorp common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a) Molycorp’s development and expansion of the Mountain Pass mine was not progressing on schedule and would not allow the Company to reach rare earth oxide production rates at the end of calendar 2012 and 2013; and (b) end users had been reducing demand for the Company’s products as prices for rare earth elements increased.
On November 10, 2011, the Company reported disappointing third quarter 2011 revenues and earnings results below analysts’ estimates and announced a reduction in Mountain Pass production guidance for the fourth quarter of 2011 due to expected equipment downtime relating to Mountain Pass engineering and expansion issues. The Company’s stock price fell, dropping from $38.70 per share on November 10, 2011 to $33.45 per share on November 11, 2011, or 13.6%, on heavy trading volume.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 3, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
www.rmclasslaw.com.
8 women allege rape, harassment in military suit
Eight current and former members of the U.S. military allege in a new federal lawsuit that they were raped, assaulted or harassed during their service and suffered retaliation when they reported it to their superiors.
The lawsuit, being filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, accuses the military of a having a "high tolerance for sexual predators in their ranks" and of fostering a hostile environment that discourages victims of sexual assault from coming forward and punishes them when they do. The suit says the Defense Department has failed to take aggressive steps to confront the problem despite public statements suggesting otherwise.
The eight women include an active-duty enlisted Marine and seven veterans of the Navy and Marine Corps. Seven women allege that a comrade raped or tried to sexually assault them, including in a commanding officer's office after a pub crawl in Washington and inside a Navy barracks room in Florida. The eighth says she was harassed and threatened while deployed overseas, only to be told by a superior that "this happens all the time."
The women say they've suffered depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder because of the assaults. One woman says she tried to commit suicide after being raped inside her row home by a senior officer and his civilian friend.
The lawsuit, being filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, accuses the military of a having a "high tolerance for sexual predators in their ranks" and of fostering a hostile environment that discourages victims of sexual assault from coming forward and punishes them when they do. The suit says the Defense Department has failed to take aggressive steps to confront the problem despite public statements suggesting otherwise.
The eight women include an active-duty enlisted Marine and seven veterans of the Navy and Marine Corps. Seven women allege that a comrade raped or tried to sexually assault them, including in a commanding officer's office after a pub crawl in Washington and inside a Navy barracks room in Florida. The eighth says she was harassed and threatened while deployed overseas, only to be told by a superior that "this happens all the time."
The women say they've suffered depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder because of the assaults. One woman says she tried to commit suicide after being raped inside her row home by a senior officer and his civilian friend.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)