Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has proposed replacing the elected state comptroller as the sole trustee of New York's massive public employee pension fund.

Cuomo instead wants a board of trustees that he says will eliminate payments seeking to influence investments, a practice under former state Comptroller Alan Hevesi that has led to successful prosecutions in an investigation by Cuomo. Hevesi resigned in 2007 after he admitted using state workers as drivers and companions for his wife.

Current state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli calls the bill a good step and in line with reforms in his office. But he cautions changes must be examined carefully to avoid protracted fights over their constitutionality.

Cuomo, flanked by key Senate sponsors, announced the proposal Thursday.

This just in: Anthony Marshall has been convicted of stealing from his mother, legendary New York socialite Brooke Astor.

After a months-long trial that has transfixed New York haute society, Marshall was convicted of one count of grand larceny, the most serious charge he faced. Here’s a Times piece on the verdict.

Jurors convicted Marshall of giving himself an unauthorized raise of about $1 million for managing his mother’s finances.

Astor, who died in 2007 at the age of 105, suffered from Alzheimer’s late in life. Marshall and Astor’s lawyer, Francis Morrissey Jr., have been accused of exploiting Astor’s ailments to trick her into directing millions of dollars their way. Her will was changed in 2004, so that her estate was assigned outright to Marshall in 2004.

The trial began in March. Recently, a juror claimed she felt physically threatened by another juror – a dispute that threatened to derail the trial.

Barring an appeal, the Times reports, the 85-year-old Marshall faces anywhere from 1 to 25 years behind bars.

Morrissey, meanwhile, was convicted of forgery charges.

After the verdict, judge J. Kirk Bartley Jr. told the panel: “How does a judge thank jurors who have served since March? You have acted in the finest tradition of the American court of law.” [End of Post.]

Forgive us for feeling a touch of Disco Fever today. It feels like we are living in the Seventies with the news today that the Justice Department is investigating allegations that IBM has monopolized the market for mainframe computers.

Big Blue has been accused by rivals of anticompetitive behavior in the mainframe market, including by allegedly prohibiting rivals from using its software or requiring purchasers of IBM software to also buy its mainframes ─ the sort of tying allegations that have bedeviled Microsoft in the past.

Here are articles on the investigation from WSJ and the Times.

IBM said in a statement that it will cooperate with any DOJ inquiries. The company has recently beaten back civil litigation by rival companies accusing IBM of anti-competitive behavior. Even so, WSJ reports, IBM holds a near-monopoly position in mainframes, which are large computers designed to run accounting software and databases.

How does this hearken back to the Disco era? In 1969, the Justice Department filed suit claiming IBM maintained an illegal monopoly in computers. The suit spanned the Seventies, before the Justice Department under Reagan finally dropped the suit in 1982.

The Obama administration appears eager to crank up the dial on antitrust enforcement, according to WSJ, which cites investigations of Google in connection with its foray into the digital books market and Intel’s dominant position in sales of microprocessorchips.

Cravath defended IBM in the earlier case, and many firm lawyers, including one David Boies, came of age logging interminable hours fending off the government watchdogs.

For a detailed look at Cravath’s work in the IBM case check out the James B. Stewart 1983 book “The Partners,” which still ranks as one of the more comprehensive and entertaining accounts of life insider corporate law firms.

Here is a long-ago review of the book by former Times editor Christopher Lehman-Haupt, who highlighted this anecdote from The Partners:

One young man working on the I.B.M. case for Cravath, Swaine succeeded in establishing a company record by billing 24 hours of work in a single day; one of his rivals promptly flew to California and, by exploiting the time difference, managed to bill 27 hours.

Ah, what associates would do now for that kind of billable output.

Photo: Bloomberg News

Microsoft has given $100,000 to the effort to uphold a state law that expands gay rights – the campaign's largest single donation.

According to a filing with the state's Public Disclosure Commission, Microsoft donated the money Friday to Washington Families Standing Together, which is working to approve Referendum 71. The measure will ask voters to confirm a law Gov. Chris Gregoire signed in May that gives registered same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples.

Microsoft's contribution was first reported by The Stranger's Slog, which cited a poll that said 51 percent of likely voters support the referendum.

Microsoft, which historically has supported gay rights, was highly criticized in 2005 after it took a neutral stance on a state bill that banned discrimination against homosexuals. Gay-rights proponents, The Stranger and Microsoft employees claimed the software company bowed to pressure from the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, a Redmond pastor who threatened a national boycott of Microsoft if it supported the bill.

CEO Steve Ballmer later reversed Microsoft's position, saying "that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda." Fifteen days earlier, the bill had been defeated in the state Senate by one vote. It was subsequently approved during the next legislative session.

Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ruled Monday that Kentucky’s anti-price-gouging law is constitutional, according to a news release from the office of Attorney General Jack Conway.

The judge also dismissed three counterclaims filed by defendants Marathon Petroleum Co. LLC, Marathon Oil Corp. and Speedway SuperAmerica LLC, a Marathon subsidiary. The defendants claimed that the law was vague and that it violated the separation of power and due process clauses.

In May 2007, Conway’s office filed suit against Marathon and Speedway SuperAmerica under Kentucky’s anti-price-gouging law. The suit seeks $89 million in damages plus penalties from Marathon and Speedway SuperAmerica for alleged price-gouging.

A New York City law requiring restaurant chains to display calorie counts has not changed eating habits among poorer people, a study released Tuesday said.

The research by a team from New York University and Yale University, which was published Tuesday in Health Affairs, suggests some people actually ordered slightly more calories than before the July 2008 law took effect.

Even when confronted with the sky-high calorie counts of fast food, many poor New Yorkers still go with their gut.

New York was the first US city to impose the calorie law, which is meant to promote healthier eating and combat the national obesity epidemic.



Calorie counts on fast-food restaurant menus such as McDonalds', above, aren't influencing low-income diners to make healthier choices, according to one study. Ou/AP

Poland’s sports minister resigned Monday in a growing scandal, amid accusations that he had tried to influence amendments to a new gambling law on behalf of the gambling industry.

The minister, Miroslaw Drzewiecki, tendered his resignation after his name appeared on transcripts in connection with an anticorruption investigation with the code name Operation Blackjack. The transcripts, of recorded conversations between a Parliament member and the owners of gambling companies, were published last week in the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita.

The sports minister said was resigning to prevent the situation from affecting important projects, such as plans to build football stadiums for children, or football's Euro 2012 championship, which Poland is set to co-host with Ukraine.



Drzewiecki: 'I cannot allow this to affect Euro 2012 preparations'. AFP

The Associated Press takes a look at how new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor may rule on the bench and some of the cases high court will review. (Oct. 5)

Italy's top court rules this week on whether a law granting immunity to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi violates the constitution, in a politically charged verdict that could reopen criminal trials against him.

One of the first measures passed by parliament since Berlusconi returned to power for a third time last year was a law giving him immunity from prosecution while in office.

The law's immediate effect was to halt existing legal proceedings against the 73-year-old conservative businessman.

But prosecutors in those cases have lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the measure violates a number of principles enshrined in Italy's constitution, including that all citizens are equal before the law.

More...

Italy's top court to review law shielding Berlusconi



Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is also a media mogul in control of about 3/4 of Italian media, he owns TV stations, newspapers, magazines, and also a major soccer team. Berlusconi has the tools to control the message, and he has been exercising that power during all of his political career. The only possible comparison would be if Rupert Murdoch was Prime Minister of Australia.

The data in the freedom of the press 2009 global press freedom rankings is alarming to say the least. Italy is the only country in Western Europe to be rated ” partly free”, as far as freedom of the press. Among the 195 countries in the survey, only 36 percent ( 70 countries) are considered to have a free press, 31 percent (61 countries including Italy & Israel) a partly free press, and 33 percent (64 countries) not a free press at all.

Not reviewing Pledge of Allegiance law

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal to review a Florida law that requires public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each day unless they have their parents' written permission excusing them.

The justices declined Monday an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida on behalf of a high school student removed from his math class because he remained seated during the pledge.

A federal appeals court upheld most of the law. The ACLU said that ruling, if left undisturbed, would undermine the Supreme Court's 1943 ruling that schoolchildren could not be forced to salute the flag and say the pledge.

Florida argued that the law, by giving parents the right to have their children excused, does not violate the First Amendment.

In addition to enduring yet another difficult loss, the Oakland Raiders are bracing for the possibility that coach Tom Cable could be arrested soon in relation to an alleged assault on an assistant coach. Criminal charges against Cable could lead to a suspension by the league.

“Everybody is trying to figure out who’s going to take over if Tom isn’t here,” said an assistant coach, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “John Marshall has a lot of experience, he’s probably the guy. But it’s nuts. It’s crazy when you start to really think about it.”

Although Napa Valley (Calif.) police have declined to comment on the investigation, NFL.com quoted the attorney for Raiders assistant coach Randy Hanson as saying that Hanson told police he had been assaulted by Cable on Aug. 5 while the Raiders were in training camp. Hanson was treated for a broken jaw and his attorney, San Francisco-based John McGuinn, said three other coaches, including Marshall, witnessed the attack.

More...

Source: Cable's potential legal issues a concern - NFL - Yahoo! Sports



Cable (right) has said very little about the matter publicly. (Kirby Lee/US Presswire)

A new justice has been seated; an early argument has been heard; the Red Mass has come and gone. It’s the first Monday in October, which means it’s time, yes it is, to start the 2009-10 Supreme Court term.

This morning, let’s walk you through the walk-ups.

In his “curtain-raiser” on Monday, the WSJ’s Jess Bravin takes a close look at one of the central criminal-justice cases of the term, which asks whether life sentences for minors (that don’t attach the possibility of parole) are constitutional.

Bravin’s opening is provocative:

WASHINGTON — In 1989, Joe Sullivan was convicted of breaking into a Pensacola, Fla., house, stealing jewelry and coins, and raping the 72-year-old woman who lived there.

Coming after 17 prior offenses that included assault, burglary and animal cruelty, a judge found that rehabilitation was hopeless. He sentenced Mr. Sullivan to life imprisonment, which in Florida carries no possibility of parole.

Mr. Sullivan was 13 years old. That fact alone makes the sentence unconstitutional, says Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, a Montgomery, Ala., nonprofit that represents indigent defendants.

On Nov. 9 the Supreme Court will hear arguments about the sentence of life in prison without parole when imposed on juveniles. The case involves two young men in Florida who committed crimes at ages 13 and 16. Their age alone makes the sentence “cruel and unusual” and therefore unconstitutional, their lawyers say.

Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar says the state is entitled to authorize severe punishment for offenders who deserve it, regardless of age. “There is no consensus against life sentences for juveniles, particularly for heinous crimes such as sexual battery,” his brief argues.

Meanwhile, over at the NYT, Adam Liptak focuses on the Court’s business cases.

Writes Liptak:

The new Supreme Court term that begins Monday will be dominated by cases concerning corporations, compensation and the financial markets that could signal the justices’ attitude toward regulatory constraints at a time of extraordinary government intervention in the economy.

The cases comprise something altogether different than we’ve seen in recent terms. In recent terms, the business docket was studded with cases about employment discrimination, federal pre-emption of injury suits and the environment,” writes Liptak. “In their stead, important questions about bankruptcy, corporate compensation, patents, antitrust and government oversight of the financial system will confront the justices.”

The Washington Post asked an array of experts what could be expected of the court during Justice Sotomayor’s first term.

For our money, the words of University of Texas Law Professor Gerald Torres were some of the most interesting. Writes Torres:

We can expect a careful judge — and I use the term judge purposely. As a federal prosecutor, federal district judge and federal appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor was not merely a justice-in-waiting. She comes to the role of justice having served more than a perfunctory appellate court apprenticeship, from a long exposure to the importance of facts and their role in constructing the meaning of law. This training has produced sensitivity to how law affects the lives of the people before the court. Principles live through people, not the reverse.

* We had no idea, but a play entitled The First Monday in October debuted on Broadway on October 3, 1978, dealing with the fictional appointment of the first female justice to the Court. The play was later made into a movie starring Walter Matthau. Anyone seen this thing?

Driving While Texting: The New DUI?

The regular Sunday special from Sen. Charles Schumer is worthy of note this week because it deals with a particularly trendy and dangerous problem: Texting while driving (an especially dangerous extension of of cell phone distraction). He's calling for a nationwide law to ban the practice.

"Nearly 100 teenagers were killed in the New York City area in just the last five years in accidents where the driver was found to be texting while they were driving," he states today. "According to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation, nearly 1 out of every 5 car accidents occurred because the driver was found to be texting or using their cell phone -- with the greatest portion of those accidents involving drivers under the age of 20."

Vice President Joe Biden, six members of the Supreme Court and hundreds of members of the legal community attended the annual Red Mass in Washington. (Oct. 4)

The following editorial appeared in Friday's Washington Post:

With its landmark ruling in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to keep and bear arms. The fact that this case originated in Washington D.C. -- a federal enclave -- saved for a later day the question of whether the Second Amendment also applied to states, thus extending this right to all citizens.

That day has come in the form of McDonald v. Chicago, in which Chicago residents challenged the constitutionality of that city's broad and strict gun laws. The justices will probably hear the case early next year.

The Second Amendment declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Yet there have been deep rifts among federal and state courts about whether this prevents state and local governments, as well as the federal government, from infringing on that right. Some courts, including the federal appeals courts in Chicago and New York, have relied on 19th century Supreme Court precedents to conclude that state governments are not controlled by the amendment; the federal appeals court in California reached a different result by concluding that these high-court precedents were obsolete.

The justices are right to step in to answer the question once and for all.

A majority of Californians in recent polls say the state should legalize marijuana. What pot proponents can't agree on is how soon voters will really be ready to approve legalization.

A schism has emerged among California's pot-legalization advocates. On one side are those pushing to get a proposition to voters quickly, including activists such as Richard Lee, who last month began collecting signatures to put a pot-legalization measure on the state's November 2010 ballot.



Participants smoke pot at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws conference Sept. 25 in San Francisco. Groups pushing for legalization of the drug in California disagree over whether they have a better chance to succeed with a ballot initiative in 2010 or 2012. Associated Press

Republican Tom DeLay danced the cha-cha and the tango on TV, but he's tiptoeing through a legal web as his criminal case crawls through the courts in Texas.

The former U.S. House majority leader who's competing on ABC's hit show "Dancing With the Stars" was indicted four years ago on charges of money laundering and conspiracy allegedly connected to 2002 state legislative elections. His case now hinges on how an appeals court rules on legal questions raised by DeLay's two indicted associates.

It could be months before the case goes to trial, if it does at all.



In this Monday, Sept. 21, 2009 file photo, former House Republican Whip Tom DeLay, 62, dances on the ABC Television's "Dancing with the Stars, " in Los Angeles. Republican Tom DeLay danced the cha-cha and the tango on TV, but he's tiptoeing through a legal web as his criminal case crawls through the Texas courts. The former U.S. House majority leader who's competing on ABC's hit show "Dancing With the Stars" was indicted four years ago on charges of money laundering and conspiracy allegedly connected to 2002 state legislative elections. His case now hinges on how an appeals court rules on legal questions raised by DeLay's two indicted associates. (AP Photo/ABC, Adam Larkey, File)

A CBS News employee is out of jail on bond after pleading not guilty to trying to blackmail David Letterman for $2 million in a plot that forced the late night comic to acknowledge having sex with some of the women who have worked for him. (Oct. 2)

As the debate over abortion rights has been injected into the health care deliberations this year, more Americans say they are opposed to strong abortion rights than in previous years, making the country evenly split on the issue, according to a new poll.

Down seven points from last year, 47 percent of Americans said this summer that abortion should be legal in most cases, according to a poll from the Pew Research Center. The poll, conducted from Aug. 11 - 27, 2009, found that 45 percent of Americans said abortion should be illegal in most cases -- an increase of four points from 2008.

The decline in support for legal abortion first became apparent in the spring of 2009, and according to Pew, that may be related to President Obama's election. Just over half of conservative Republicans polled by Pew said they worry the president will go too far in supporting abortion rights.



(CBS/AP)

A medical marijuana symposium at Wayne State University on Saturday aimed to get accurate information to doctors, lawyers and law enforcement about Michigan's medicinal marijuana law.

But the majority of the 227 people who showed up were patients or people looking to learn more about the law. That suited the WSU law students, students with the National Lawyers Guild and the Police Officers for Drug Law Reform, who staged the symposium, just fine.

More...

Medical marijuana event at Wayne State spotlights state law | detnews.com | The Detroit News