|
|
|
Judge Removed From Office For Phone Rage
Court Issues |
2008/06/10 14:19
|
Niagara Falls City Judge Robert Restaino was removed from office in an apparent case of telephone rage. Frustrated that no one owned up to the cacophonous cell phone that rang in the back of his courtroom, Restaino sent 46 defendants to jail.
The New York Court of Appeals said removal was proper, because Restaino acted in a way that eroded confidence in his ability to render fair, rational judgments.
When the cell phone went off, Restaino told the defendants in his courtroom, "Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don't tell me I'm the only one that heard that."
After a fruitless inquiry to find the owner, he reiterated, "Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going."
He questioned the 35 remaining defendants and recalled 11 defendants whom he had previously released before the phone rang. Dissatisfied with their responses, he revoked their recognizance release and imposed bail. He even set bail for a petitioner who had been standing next to the judge when the phone rang in the back of the room.
He then ranted about the breach of courtroom decorum. "You know, for some of you folks, this hurts me more than you imagine because someone in this courtroom has no consideration for you, no consideration for me and just doesn't care," he said. "Some of you people may not be in the (same) economic situation (as) this selfish person ... (is who) put(s) their interests (sic) above everybody else's. They don't care what happens to anybody."
The 46 defendants were transported to the city jail, booked, searched and placed in holding cells. Thirty-two defendants posted bail, while the remaining 14 who could not post bail were shackled and bused to the county jail.
The state court said the circumstances qualified as "truly egregious" to merit removal from office. "(I)t is ironic that petitioner displayed the very attributes by which he accused and summarily punished each defendant," the court added. Restaino had "more than 46 chances to correct himself and failed to do so." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FTC Appeals D.C. Circuit Order In Rambus Case
Topics |
2008/06/09 16:11
|
The Federal Trade Commission claims the D.C. Circuit misunderstood patent law in finding Rambus Corp. a "lawful monopolist," though the memory chip-maker abused its power as a member of a standards-setting organization to acquire that monopoly.
The FTC seeks a rehearing en banc of the court's April 22 order setting aside the FTC's final order that Rambus cease and desist.
"The proceeding involved an issue of exceptional importance, in that the panel's failure to recognize the competitive harm that anticompetitive deception causes in the context of industry standard-setting organizations constitutes a significant error that has grave implications for beneficial industry standard-setting," the FTC says.
It claims the federal court panel's decision "is inconsistent with the causation standard for monopolization articulated by this Court's en banc decision in United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3rd 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)."
And the FTC claims, "The panel decision improperly extends the Supreme Court's holding in holding in NYNEX v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128 (1998), to protect a firm's use of deception to achieve monopoly power." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black Public Defenders Sue Atlanta
Court Issues |
2008/06/05 14:51
|
In pursuit of "greater diversity," the City of Atlanta laid off five black female public defenders who were better qualified and had more experience than the white men it retained, the women claim in Federal Court.
The women claim, "the decision makers regarding the reduction in force laid off plaintiffs as part of an effort to achieve what they perceived as greater diversity in a department that had previously had primarily African American and female employees."
The woman want reinstatement, back pay, damages and costs, alleging racial and sexual discrimination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Claims 'QuickPick' Bets Didn't List Last Horse
Law Firm News |
2008/06/03 14:54
|
Scientific Games' machines excluded the last horse from every race in its "QuickPick" program for more than 6 months, a class action claims in Superior Court.
The complaint states in Paragraph 11 that "the QuickPick program excluded the last horse in every race from the betting slips."
Two paragraphs later, it states, "The glitch was finally admitted when a Bay Meadows bettor played 1,300 quick picks and noticed that not one included the number 20 horse."
The complaint does not elucidate specifically whether the last horse was excluded in races with fewer than 20 horses, though Paragraph 11 indicates that was the case.
The named plaintiff claims that "Although Defendants were aware of the problem as of Nov. 1, 2007, the Defendants failed to notify the betting public. Instead, the Defendants kept the problem to itself [sic] and attempted to correct 'for' the problem with 'new software.' The glitch was finally admitted when a Bay Meadows bettor played 1,300 quick picks and noticed that not one included the number 20 horse. The public was not alerted to the problem until after May 19, 2008 - months after the Defendants knew of the problem and week after the Bay Meadows better complained to the State Board. As a result of the 'glitch,' thousands of Class members paid for 'QuickPick' bets without any chance of a 'QuickPick' payment."
Named plaintiff Angel Romero says he bought QuickPick tickets for races at Fairplex Race Track, Santa Anita, Hollywood park and Pacific Coast Quarter Horse, all in Southern California.
He is represented by William Audet of San Francisco and Thomas Ferlauto with King & Ferlauto of Los Angeles. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
