Gitmo Terrorists Could be Freed on US Soil

When President Obama announced last week that he was moving ahead with transferring Guantanamo Bay’s last remaining detainees here, he made it sound as if these terrorists, who include 9/11 conspirators, would never see the light of day, that they would be locked up forever in a super-secure facility, a kind of Gitmo North.

But legal experts say his public-safety guarantees ring hollow. There’s a real chance the worst

terrorists on the planet could be freed on American soil.

Once the detainees are transferred from the Cuban prison to the United States, they are automatically entitled to more protections under the Constitution than those detained abroad. These include the right to a lawyer, the right not to incriminate themselves with coerced statements and, most key, the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which orders their release from confinement. They can also request asylum, and if granted, apply for permanent residence here.

As soon as the 30 to 60 monsters Obama hopes to relocate here hit the tarmac, an army of defense lawyers from the ACLU will be waiting for them, ready to exploit those newfound rights on their behalf. And they will file an avalanche of habeas lawsuits to free them from custody.

“There is every reason to believe that if detainees are brought to the United States, litigation will ensue, despite Congress’ latest efforts to” bar them from seeking relief in civilian courts, the Pentagon’s former head of detainee affairs, Charles Stimson, wrote. And, “It is not hard to imagine future legal challenges succeeding.”

Since 9/11, the government has lost every Gitmo detainee-rights case it has fought before the Supreme Court, including a landmark 2008 case that held that alien enemy combatants had a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Agreed former US prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who put away the Blind Sheik in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: “It is very possible that a judge could order the release of a detainee in the US, either after he’s been acquitted at trial or if the court found law-of-war detention was unconstitutional.”

To date, liberal Gitmo defense lawyers have filed more than 200 habeas corpus petitions on behalf of detainees there. A dozen of the remaining detainees have habeas petitions pending.

Congressional legal scholars concluded in a 2013 research paper that Gitmo detainees transferred into the United States would likely win challenges over the admissibility of confessions obtained during interrogation at Gitmo or other military sites. That means evidence tying them to terrorism could be thrown out of court.

If that were the case, these foreign terrorists would avoid not only criminal conviction, but might even dodge deportation from the United States. How? By applying for asylum.

“It is possible that some detainees who have been found not to have fought on behalf of the Taliban or al Qaeda may qualify for asylum or other forms of relief from removal if transferred to the United States,” the Congressional Research Service determined in its report.

“I could easily see an Obama judge issuing a bail order. Or a Clinton or Carter judge,” McCarthy said. “Remember, Obama will have appointed close to 400 judges by the time he leaves.”

Don’t count on the Justice Department aggressively pursuing appeals. At least seven Obama prosecutors shilled for Gitmo terrorists as defense lawyers, including a former associate attorney general. Even a Republican administration would be buried in paper from the Gitmo bar, which numbers more than 400 habeas lawyers from as many as 50 law firms.

The remaining detainees have the highest likelihood of recidivism, greatest chance of escape, and pose the greatest threat to America. Still, the administration insists nearby residents will be safe, noting the terrorists will be housed in facilities with beefed-up security.

But a just-released 21-page Pentagon report to Congress detailing Obama’s plan to transfer detainees here indicates it’s looking at 13 sites in the United States and splitting the detainee population among several of them. So worried about escapes and attacks, it’s budgeting for the housing of troops and even guards to protect the troops.

The FBI, meanwhile, worries the hardcore Islamic terrorists could radicalize others at prisons.

Obama’s plan would take detainees deemed too dangerous to transfer to other countries — even ones in the Middle East — and bring them right into our back yards, risking the lives and safety of the American people he swore to protect. And he wonders why people are worried.

“A lot of the American public are worried about terrorism, and, in their mind, the notion of having terrorists held in the United States rather than in some distant place can be scary,” Obama said.

As it turns out, they have every right to be afraid.

Former WWE superstar Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit trial against American blog Gawker is set to commence next week, with the wrestler seeking $100 million in damages from the site run by Nick Denton and Elizabeth Biers, reports allwrestlingnews.com.

The attorneys of both parties discussed “logistics and jury selection” for the case, which is set to go on trial next Tuesday.

Gawker published sex tape features Hogan in compromising positions with Heather Clem, the estranged spouse of radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge. The video seems to suggest that Bubba was well aware of the unfolding of events, and can even be heard on the tape telling the pair to ‘do their thing’.

Hogan later appeared on shock-jock Howard Stern’s show to discuss the tape, saying: "it was a bad choice and a very low point"

"I was with some friends and made a wrong choice. It has devastated me, I have never been this hurt".

Hogan originally filed a lawsuit against Bubba and Clem, which was eventually settled out of court on October 29, 2012. A U.S court found that Gawker’s publication of the video did not violate any copyright laws, but Hogan’s suit against the site for defamation, loss of privacy, and emotional pain still stands.

Employment Attorneys Differ on the Legacy of Ellen Pao Case

The outcome of the Ellen Pao lawsuit against venerable Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner

Perkins Caufield & Byers will have repercussions far beyond the plaintiff and the defendant. The question is, what will those repercussions be?

The stunning verdict Friday, which found that Kleiner in no way discriminated or retaliated against Pao, will almost certainly cast a shadow over future employment cases filed against Valley companies. Not surprisingly, the courtroom in San Francisco where the case was tried was filled with employment attorneys curious about the outcome and implications.

Felicia Medina, managing partner of the San Francisco office of Sanford Heisler Kimpel, was one of them. Medina said the Pao trial has put the Valley on notice. She had this to say after the verdict yesterday:

Despite the jury’s decision today, Ellen Pao’s case is a win for any woman facing gender discrimination and harassment in the workplace, in Silicon Valley and beyond. The curtain has been pulled back, providing a rare glimpse into the lack of equal employment opportunities for women in Silicon Valley.

Very few gender discrimination cases actually make it to trial, and other women who have experienced discrimination will hopefully be influenced to come forward, thanks to Ms. Pao’s courageous step.

This point is repeated by Institute for Women’s Leadership CEO Rayona Sharpnack, who said she’s worked with 10 female executives in circumstances similar to Pao’s over the past 3 years, and all of them eventually decided to walk away from filing a lawsuit.

“For every one courageous female leader who is willing to fight for retribution in the courts, there are a thousand more who walk away in silence,” Sharpnack said in an email response to VentureBeat. “In the year 2015, it seems insane that we as a nation are still struggling with the inability to surface and remove both conscious and unconscious forms of discrimination like the ones Ellen Pao revealed at Kleiner Perkins.”

Others fear that the verdict will simply legitimize the discriminatory practices of Valley companies. Debra Katz, founding partner of D.C.-based, civil rights and whistleblower law firm Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP called the verdict “stunning.”

“The sexist conduct that came to light in this case was disgraceful but apparently business as usual in Silicon Valley,” Katz said. “Men will continue to discriminate with impunity after this verdict.”

“A defense verdict in a high-profile case like this will have a chilling effect on other high-level female executives who have been grossly underrepresented in boardrooms and held back in their careers by glass ceilings and worse,” Katz said.

Pao claimed she was punished and eventually fired in 2012 from her job as junior partner at her former firm, one of Silicon Valley’s most famous venture capital firms, for questioning the firm’s treatment of women. Her lawyers argued the firm judged male and female employees differently in an illegal double standard.

The Kleiner Perkins attorneys, on the other hand, had claimed that Pao complained about discrimination only after she could see that she would be dismissed from the firm for other reasons. Raynham Employment Attorney Julius Turman of San Francisco’s Reed Smith pointed out before the verdict yesterday that that is a behavior seen over and over in discrimination cases.

“Time and time again in employment law we see people who are not performing who exaggerate their claims or complain only when a decision is coming to a head,” Turman told VentureBeat. “As a defense attorney I have to wonder that if things were that bad, why didn’t she complain earlier?” Turman said.

Still, the attorneys VentureBeat spoke with before the verdict Friday were hesitant to say which side had the upper hand. Sanford Heisler Kimpel’s Medina said she felt that both legal teams did what they needed to do during the trial.

When I talked to Medina before the verdict Friday, however, she said she felt that the Kleiner side was vulnerable. “Yes, I think that if you just sat in on the trial for a couple of days you would have heard lots of bad facts about Kleiner,” Medina said.

“But remember that they have the easier job here because the burden of proof is on the Pao side,” Medina said, “so they can make a lot of noise and depict her as difficult to work with, or as territorial, or as out of her league.”

Medina said the Pao side needed to present “a preponderance of evidence, that is, a 51 percent likelihood that she was denied promotion because of her gender.” That hill proved too tall to climb, especially as Kleiner’s lead attorney Lynne Hermle did an effective job of calling into question the real motivations behind Pao’s complaint.

In the end the plaintiff could not convince the jury that Pao was denied promotion because of complaining about gender discrimination, nor that she was fired because of her gender, nor that she was fired because she complained of discrimination, nor that Kleiner failed to provide a means of redress for Pao, nor that Kleiner retaliated.

The outcome of the case isn’t likely to sully Pao’s reputation much. Her comments after the verdict Friday (the “battle was worth it” if she helped women and minorities) were well received, and now she returns to her job as CEO of Reddit.

Raynham Property Division Attorneys

The trial court is empowered by M.G.L.A. c. 208, § 34 to assign estates of the parties at the time of divorce, or anytime after the judgment of divorce has been entered by the court assuming the court retained jurisdiction.  The courts are charged with dividing property in a fair and equitable manner and these statutes are closely linked with the spousal support and alimony statutes. 

Our Raynham property division attorneys can help give you the edge.

• Length of marriage

• Conduct of the parties during marriage

• Age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income

• Vocational skills

• Employability

• Estate

• Liabilities

• Needs of each party

• Opportunity for each party for future acquisition of assets and income

• Present and future needs of children

• Contribution of each party to the acquisition, preservation, or appreciation in value of the estates of each party

• Contribution of each party as a homemaker to the family unit.

Section 34 sets forth a number of factors that the court must consider when provided the task of dividing property, as well as other factors that the court may consider.  The court must set out specific findings of fact to support its conclusions.  These are the same factors that the court considers when ordering alimony.  Because the law now prefers to award property as opposed to permanent spousal support, the court considers all the factors for equitable property division along with alimony.

The mandatory and discretionary factors that the court weighs for property division include:

The division of estates of the parties upon divorce is supposed to entail a final assignment of their property, not subject to modification.

During a divorce proceeding, it is essential that a party concentrate on portraying information to the judge that addresses each of the factors listed above.  It is important to paint a picture applicable to the goals of that party in the divorce, such as showing evidence that a party enhanced the estate of the other party, for example, or that a spouse has sufficient assets to be received in the divorce sufficient to negate the need for alimony.

Our Raynham Massachusetts law firm offer a free, private consultation to discuss divorce,alimony and the division of property as it may relate to your potential case.  

Robert Saloschin, lawyer who helped with ‘Freedom Riders,’ dies at 95

Robert L. Saloschin, a Justice Department lawyer who found an

the unconventional legal basis for the federal government to order the racial integration of interstate bus travel and bus terminals during the violence-wracked Freedom Rides of 1961, died Feb. 24 at his home in Bethesda. He was 95.

The cause was myelodysplasia, a blood disorder, said his daughter, Mary Ann Hubbard.

In a 23-year Justice Department career, Mr. Saloschin also was a top official advising federal agencies on compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, and he was one of the authors of the legislation that created Comsat, the Communications Satellite Act of 1962.

In 1961, he recommended that desegregation of bus and terminal facilities be brought about by petition to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which many lawyers previously thought had authority over only economic matters.

Early that year, groups of “Freedom Riders,” black and white, had boarded New Orleans-bound buses in Washington, intending to challenge racial segregation laws and customs throughout the South. There were minor incidents and some arrests from Virginia through Georgia.

But in Alabama, the riders were met by Ku Klux Klan-led mobs armed with crowbars, pitchforks, and clubs. A bus was burned near Anniston, Ala., and riders were attacked and beaten. Photographs and videotapes of the violence were broadcast around the world, much to the embarrassment of the new president, John F. Kennedy, and his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, whose pleas for a cooling-off period went unheeded.

It was at that point, then-Deputy Raynham Attorneys General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach wrote in his 2008 memoir “Some of It Was Fun,” that Mr. Saloschin suggested a petition to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. Saloschin had years of experience with federal agencies, Katzenbach wrote, and he knew whereof he spoke.

The two men met with the general counsel of the ICC, who doubted that the commission had the authority to issue an order.

“But Saloschin had the bit in his teeth,” Katzenbach wrote, quoting him as having said, “Well, the Attorney General can formally and publicly petition the Commission to desegregate all buses and terminals if he wants to.”

Continued Katzenbach: “This seemed a dramatic and somewhat original way of supporting the Freedom Riders, and Bobby [Kennedy] liked it. So did the president.”

The petition was filed in May 1961, and that September, the ICC issued a sweeping order banning racial segregation at travel facilities. Still, Katzenbach said, it took two more years to fully enforce the order.

Robert Louis Saloschin was born Jan. 15, 1920, in New York City, where his father ran a detective agency. He graduated in 1940 from Columbia University, where he also completed his law degree in 1947 after Navy service in the Pacific as a flier in World War II.

He worked two years as a lawyer on Wall Street, then came to Washington. In 1958, he joined the Justice Department after handling economic and safety cases for the Civil Aeronautics Board.

He became chairman of the Justice Department’s Freedom of Information Committee in 1970 and, from 1978 until he retired in 1981, was director of its Office of Information, Law and Policy, advising federal agencies on openness and secrecy issues.

In retirement, he consulted on law and national security for a committee of the American Bar Association and did legal work for the Bethesda law firm of Lerch, Early & Brewer.

Survivors include his wife of 65 years, Neita Smith Saloschin of Bethesda; two daughters, Mary Ann Hubbard of Raynham, Mass., and Joan Bunning of Washington; and four grandchildren.

More than 50 years after he learned to fly in the Navy, Mr. Saloschin still had a civilian pilot’s license, and his flying career was long enough for him to enjoy taking his grandchildren up for rides in a Cessna aircraft.

He was a boatman and in 1962 had the opportunity to go on an expenses-paid voyage from Florida to the Chesapeake Bay as captain of a cabin cruiser, with his wife and daughters as passengers. It would take two weeks. He asked Robert Kennedy whether he could get the time off.