Nicklin Monica

Judge Shannon Joseph of the Wake County,  North Carolina Superior Court struck down a 2011 law with a written order on March 28, 2012 that threw out a petition process authorized last year by the mainly Republican General Assembly. This effectively stops a municipality’s drive to expand, provided a sufficient number of property owners in the targeted area object to it. Joseph felt that certain parts of a statewide involuntary annexation law, along with two local laws, were unconstitutional and therefore void. The laws were enacted last year. The laws state that involuntary annexations proposed by cities will be terminated if 60 percent of the property owners in the targeted areas sign a petition opposing these annexations within a period of about four months, and the towns or cities in question cannot attempt to repeat the process for three years.

Joseph’s ruling affects cities such as Kinston, Fayetteville, and Lexington. In these areas, efforts had been made to undo recent annexations. Under the ruling, any future annexations can now continue unopposed, as property owners would no longer be unable to petition the cities to stop these.

A Charlotte attorney named Anthony Fox who represents certain cities such as Lexington was successful in his argument that the petition process was deficient because it limited the number of voices that could be heard on the issue. Only landowners could participate, and as Fox pointed out not only did this mean that those who do not own land are left out, it also allowed landowners who are not even residents of the area to take part. Fox says, “We contended that the provisions ran afoul of various provisions of the constitution.”

But this does not mean that the legal battle between the General Assembly, the cities, and the landowners opposed to the annexations is over, Fox said. The state can still appeal the decision.

Monica Risam Nicklin

In a victory by unanimous decision, a German insurance company has been relieved of the burden of defending itself against claims from victims of the Armenian genocide. Voting 11-0, the 9th US Court of Appeals overturned an earlier decision and ruled that the genocide law, in allowing California to exceed the level of authority allowed any state, is invalid. The law, which was passed in 2000, allowed descendants of victims of the Armenian genocide to sue insurance companies for unpaid benefits.

A class-action suit filed in 2003 by Vazken Movsesian, a priest from Glendale, against Munich Re for breach of contract on behalf of hundreds of Armenian-Americans, was ordered dismissed by the appeals court. The court ruled that as the genocide law encroaches on matters of foreign policy, which are beyond a state’s jurisdiction, this law is invalid. In 2010, a three-judge appeals court panel upheld the law, stating that there is no explicit federal policy that it violates. But the full panel of judges ruled that even if no specific policy on the matter exists, foreign affairs are still exclusively the territory of the federal government which has the sole right to sue foreign entities. This effectively throws out all cases filed under this law.

Another point of contention is the very use of the word “genocide.” Even if almost a century has passed since the killings, the Turkish government remains sensitive to the term’s use, and since Americans are keen on retaining Turkey as an ally against Iran, they judiciously avoid using the term, even when referring to the atrocities that slaughtered up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915. This was evident when President Obama condemned the killings in his speeches, but never mentioned the word. Judge Susan Graber of the 9th Court of Appeals stated in her ruling that the California law “imposes the politically charged label of ‘genocide’,” and that on this label, the court expresses no opinion.

Joseph Amendola, the lawyer of J. Sands (not his real name), recently made statements to help defend his client against accusations that he is a child molester. But given the content of Amendola’s statements, he just might have made things worse. Amendola was speaking before the media at the Centre County courthouse. He said it would be naïve of anyone to believe that when assistant coach Mike McQueary allegedly reported to Penn State officials that he had witnessed inappropriate contact between Sands and a young boy in the showers, the officials did nothing about it. To prove this, he suggested to his audience that they dial 1-800-REALITY. Naturally, some media men did and promptly discovered it was a gay and bisexual porn service.

Amendola had just earlier made a surprise decision in advising Sands to waive his right to a preliminary hearing after having expressed for several weeks hi s eagerness to have an opportunity to question several of his client’s accusers. Some analysts were mystified by the move. An attorney from Pittsburgh, Charles J. Porter, said, “You are giving up the ability to pin down a version of facts from the witnesses. If I was thinking of fighting tooth and nail to the end, I would want to have the preliminary hearing.”

It was during the press conference following their decision to waive that Amendola made his apparent gaffe. After all, given what it revealed, it can be assumed that he did not give the number intentionally. And instead of resolving anything, this merely invites more questions. Might people wonder why someone who must consider himself a respectable member of the law profession knows this number?

In a case marked by Amendola’s use of what has been branded an unorthodox and even bizarre defense strategy, allowing his client to give interviews to NBC and the New York Times, this may present the most bizarre turn of events yet. And the case has not even gone to trial. It would be interesting to see exactly what transpires when it does.

Nicklin, Monica Risam

No language is pure. Every living language on earth has words borrowed from other languages, be it English, Mandarin, German or Russian. Even the most obscure dialects spoken in the farthest jungles will still contain traces of etymological influences of older languages.

In a world that has become smaller and smaller because of expeditions, conquests, trade and technological advances, it is inevitable for languages to mix, enriching one another in the process. Truth is, a language that ceases to adopt foreign words is a language that is beginning to die. This is a mark that it can no longer adapt to the times and therefore, it can grow no more. A language, to continue to be relevant, must be vibrant and dynamic.

A lot of Latin words, which have become a part of the English language, are customarily used in the practice of law, perhaps because Latin had been established as the language of law in the Western civilization for thousands of years.

Here are some Latin words, along with their English translations.

in re                                        in the matter of

bona fide                              genuine; without fraud

ad lib                                      to speak off the cuff

sine qua non                       necessary condition

ad infinitum                        endlessly

persona non grata            an unacceptable person

terra firma                           solid ground

reductio ad absurdum    reducing to absurdity

status quo                            existing state of affairs

caveat emptor                   “let the buyer beware”

nota bene                             observe well

sub rosa                                confidential

vox populi                           “voice of the people”

non compos mentis         mentally unsound

ad nauseam                         to a disgusting degree

pro tem                                 for the time being

non sequitur                       “it doesn’t follow”; unwarranted conclusion

tempus fugit                        “time flies”

per diem                               by the day

alter ego                               “other self”

Monica Risam is a member of the New York State Bar.

Journalists are up in arms over the attempts of the Metropolitan Police to compel the Guardian newspaper to reveal the sources of its articles. The Guardian has published stories about its investigation into the News International phone hacking scandal, citing documents supplied by confidential informants.

The Scotland Yard, in response, tried to invoke the Official Secrets Act to force the newspaper to disclose who those sources were. Lawyers acting for the police said the Guardian’s reports were endangering Operation Weeting, the Met’s own investigation into the matter. “Operation Weeting is one of the MPS’s most high-profile and sensitive investigations, so of course we should take concerns of leaks seriously to ensure that public interest is protected by ensuring there is no further potential compromise,” the Met said in a statement.

The legal maneuver had since been met by a barrage of protests, led by the Society of Editors and the Index on Censorship. John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship, said this was a “direct attack on a free press.” Executive Director Bob Satchwell of the Society of Editors added: “The Official Secrets Act is designed to protect national security, so there is no justification in this case. The law, and particularly the Human Rights Act, is supposed to protect journalists’ sources.”

The Met argued that it was not using the law to subvert “whistle-blowing or investigative journalism.” But it alleged the Guardian’s “gratuitous release of information” was not in the public interest.

Eyes are now on the Attorney-General’s Office, which must decide whether or not to let this case go forward.

Aviva Europe Adds New GC, Pan-European Legal Panel

Since the Leeds City Council put up cameras a month ago, some 5,000 motorists have been caught, warned and fined for breaking traffic laws. The cameras were placed after a survey revealed that many motorists were illegally driving in bus lanes. The Council has since earned more than £300,000 in fines with the help of the cameras.

The cameras are used to photograph vehicles which are illegally using bus lanes or bus gates. The drivers are then sent a £60 penalty charge notice, with the photograph as evidence. If the fine is paid in two weeks, it is reduced to £30.

Leeds Councilor Richard Lewis said the purpose of the measure is not to generate revenues, but to send a stern message to motorists about observing the law. “In an ideal world everyone would obey the law and we would have no need to do this, but our surveys show that abuse of bus lanes is rife and it therefore needs to be clamped down on to help keep the city moving,” he said. “My message is that driving in bus lanes has long been illegal, you have been warned and you will no longer get away with it.”

The scheme is showing promising results. On its first week it resulted in 1,800 fines. On its fourth week the number was down to 1,100. The Council is now considering setting up cameras in other parts of the city to enforce driving laws and improve traffic flows.

At a public meeting in Trinity College Dublin, which was organized by a committee set up to review copyright law, T. J. McIntyre claimed that such social media multinationals as Google and Facebook could not move their search and aggregation functions to Ireland because of confusion surrounding copyright legislation between the two countries.

This has effects beyond the mere transfer of website functions. Some online news sites, such as the Irish publication theJournal.ie, want to avail of such technologies as feed-merging which are used by niche provider companies in the United States. But under present conditions, these would need to relocate to the United States proper, which would be an expensive proposition. Being able to access such services would be cheaper if an American niche provider company transferred its functions to Ireland, instead.

Globalization has made trade, supply and demand more efficient by enabling companies to find the most inexpensive labor and processes to produce a product or service. The Internet has also made the world smaller by enabling people from around the world to get in touch with each other in real time, among other things. But clearly, a lot of work needs to be done before globalization well and truly becomes a reality as far as companies which use the Internet is concerned – which is a bit ironic, given the international nature of the Internet itself.

Monica Risam Nicklin Profile

Aviva set to launch European panel as new GC joins from GE

The Ohio General Assembly has passed a bill into law which makes it legal to carry concealed firearms in a bar.

Ohio Governor John Kasich’s signing of the bill is seen to make Ohio’s concealed-gun-carry-law the most comprehensive in the United States. Ohio is not the first state to have such a law, with 42 others already allowing concealed guns in restaurants. The Ohio gun law specifically allows concealed firearms to be carried in the state’s Class D licensed liquor establishments, which are not limited to bars and nightclubs; it includes restaurants, museums, shopping malls, and stadiums.  The scope of the Ohio law is considered the broadest in the country.

The BuckEye Firearms Association is reportedly pleased, saying that it’s Ohio’s time to catch up with other states. But the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police (OFOP) and Ohio Restaurant Association (ORA) disagree with the law, even though it covers restrictions on carrying firearms. Among these are that a gun carrier cannot be drunk or drinking alcohol in a place where alcohol is served. A number of Northeast Ohio bar owners are disappointed with the passing of the law. They say there’s already the problem of fighting in bars and that with guns present, they fear that someone can just pull out a gun and start shooting.

The BuckEye Firearms Association says there are already guns in bars possessed by criminals and that it only makes sense for people to be protected from them. The group adds that under the new law, law-abiding customers can carry weapons to defend themselves.

Apart from specifying details on carrying guns in establishments, the law also covers how firearms are transported in vehicles.

Ohio Bill Stomps on One Vicious Dog Law

Monica Risam Nicklin

Aviva Europe Adds New GC, Pan-EuropeanLegal Panel Alerts – “Aviva PLC”

If a lawyer in a courtroom does not recite the Pledge of Allegiance, does the judge have the legal right to send him to jail as punishment?

The When Judge Talmadge Littlejohn of Mississippi imprisoned attorney Danny Lampley on October 6, 2010, for several hours for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in his courtroom, a national outburst followed with people wondering if the judge had violated Lampley’s right to free speech.

Enter the state’s Supreme Court which finally ruled in a unanimous decision that the judge “injured the integrity and independence of the judiciary,” Chief Justice William Waller, Jr. said in a statement, who added that the judge gave the impression that individuals with differing points of view are in a position to influence his legal actions.

The state Supreme Court set a public reprimand and a $100 fine for Littlejohn based on a recommendation by the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance. The court specifically declared that Littlejohn had misused his judicial power in holding Lampley in criminal contempt and jailing him for not reciting the pledge. It said however, that Littlejohn’s actions were not indicative of future conduct and was only aberrational. Judge Littlejohn had worked for 50 years as a lawyer, district attorney, municipal judge, and a member of the state’s Senate and House of Representatives.

According to a report by the Daily Journal, Judge Littlejohn now makes it clear that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in his courtroom is voluntary.

Monica Risam Nicklin lawyer profile

Aviva set to launch European panel as new GC joins from GE

California Gov. Jerry Brown revisits former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to close state parks in a bid to save money for California in the light of a $9.6 billion budget deficit—a plan that was scrapped due to public pressure. Brown says the plan to close down 70 of 278 parks will save the state $33 million in two years. He says closing the parks does not give him any joy, but that it is a necessary move in tough times, along with other cuts in public services. But according to the National Park Service, California may no longer qualify to receive park grants under the law if it pushes through with the closures.

According to opponents of the plan, federal law requires that any parks that receive funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund are to be kept open to the public. If a state like California closes parks that received such funding, the law does not require them to pay the money back, but it does say that the state must set aside new park land of equal value in a nearby location as a replacement for what’s been closed.

Jon Jarvis, the Director of the National Parks Service in Washington D.C., says he’s sympathetic to the states, but that he’s still opposed to the California parks closures. He recalled how 135,000 letters of protest were sent to the former state governor when the plan was brought up before. Jarvis says the federal funding given the parks is like a legal contract linked with the deeds of the lands. “It says the state makes a commitment to provide these places for public use in perpetuity.” He added that closure of the parks is a breach of contract. California State Parks Director, Ruth Coleman thinks it’s a challenge and a legitimate issue that need to be worked through.

Mining Claims in Public Lands Endanger US National Parks

Aviva Europe Adds New GC, Pan-European Legal Panel Alerts – “Aviva PLC”