Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mass.
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
N.Carolina
N.Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
S.Carolina
S.Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
W.Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Law Firm Website Design Companies : The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
  Legal Spotlight - Legal News


A former juvenile court judge in Wisconsin has reached a deal with prosecutors to resolve a host of child pornography charges filed against him earlier this year.

Court records show that former Milwaukee County Children’s Court Judge Brett Blomme agreed to plead guilty to two counts of distributing child pornography in federal court in Madison, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Friday. Each count carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.

The deal would resolve seven child pornography counts against him in state court. Each of those counts carries a maximum 25-year prison sentence.

According to a criminal complaint, the state Department of Justice began investigating Blomme in February after receiving a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that he had uploaded child pornography through the Kik messaging application 27 times in October and November.

He was charged in state court in Dane County in March. A federal grand jury indicted him in May.

The state Supreme Court barred Blomme from serving as a judge after he was charged in state court.

Blomme’s attorney, Chris Van Wagner, said he’s trying to schedule a date in September for Blomme to enter his pleas.

“He’s ashamed and embarrassed,” Van Wagner told The Associated Press by phone. “He wants people to forgive him, which isn’t easy. He just asks that people remember that nobody is as bad as their worst decision or as good as their greatest victory.”


President Joe Biden may have averted a flood of evictions and solved a growing political problem when his administration reinstated a temporary ban on evictions because of the COVID-19 crisis. But he left his lawyers with legal arguments that even he acknowledges might not stand up in court.

The new eviction moratorium announced Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could run into opposition at the Supreme Court, where one justice in late June warned the administration not to act further without explicit congressional approval.

Landlords from Alabama whose bid to lift the earlier pause on evictions failed returned to federal court in Washington late Wednesday, asking for an order that would allow evictions to resume.

The administration is counting on differences between the new order, scheduled to last until Oct. 3, and the eviction pause that lapsed over the weekend to bolster its legal case. At the very least, as Biden himself said, the new moratorium will buy some time to protect the estimated 3.6 million Americans who could face eviction from their homes.

Some legal scholars who doubt the new eviction ban will stand up say its legal underpinnings are strikingly similar to the old one.

“Meet the new moratorium, same as the old moratorium!” Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor who backed Biden over former President Donald Trump last year, wrote on Reason.com.

Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, said he expects landlords “all over the country to turn immediately to the courts in an effort to secure a preliminary injunction,” an order that would effectively allow evictions to resume.

The basic legal issue is whether the CDC has the authority in the midst of a public health crises to impose a pause on evictions, under existing federal law that dates to 1944.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled in May the CDC exceeded its power under that law, a decision Bagley called “measured and sensible.” But Friedrich kept her ruling in favor of the Alabama landlords on hold pending appeal.


A divided federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that an aerial surveillance program used as a crime-fighting tool by the Baltimore Police Department was unconstitutional and said police must stop using any data obtained through the now-defunct program.

In its ruling, the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the use of planes equipped with wide-angle high-tech cameras to surveil the city amounted to a warrantless search that violated the Fourth Amendment.

“The AIR (Aerial Investigation Research) program records the movements of a city. With analysis, it can reveal where individuals come and go over an extended period. Because the AIR program enables police to deduce from the whole of individuals’ movements, we hold that accessing its data is a search, and its warrantless operation violates the Fourth Amendment,” Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote for the majority in the 8-7 ruling.

The police department’s use of the aerial surveillance in a pilot program last year prompted an outcry among some privacy advocates. The six-month program tracked the movements of virtually all Baltimore residents during daylight hours.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Maryland sued in federal court on behalf of a group of Black activist leaders in Baltimore, arguing that the program jeopardized the privacy rights of residents. A judge rejected a request for an injunction to temporarily block the program.

In November, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit upheld the lower court ruling, finding that the program was carefully designed to “slow the recurrent increases in violent crime in Baltimore” and was “merely a tool used to track short-term movements in public, where the expectation of privacy is lessened.”

The ACLU appealed that ruling to the full court, which reversed the panel’s ruling Thursday.



Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman formally launched a run for attorney general Monday, becoming the latest challenger to embattled GOP incumbent Ken Paxton.

Guzman, a Republican who spent more than a decade on Texas’ highest court before stepping down this month, joins Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush in what may be the state’s most contested primary in 2022.

Guzman is a longtime judge who became the first Latina to join the Texas Supreme Court in 2009. Both Gov. Greg Abbott and Sen. John Cornyn are also former justices who were later elected attorney general.

Paxton did not draw a primary challenger in 2018 but now has at least two as his legal problems mount. He is under FBI investigation following an extraordinary revolt by his top aides, who accused him of abusing his office in the service of a donor, and he is still awaiting trial on separate charges of securities fraud.

The Texas bar association is also investigating whether Paxton’s failed efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election based on bogus claims of fraud amounted to professional misconduct. Paxton has pleaded not guilty to the fraud charges and has denied the other accusations as politically motivated.



Alaska discriminated against some same-sex spouses for years in wrongfully denying them benefits by claiming their unions were not recognized even after courts struck down same-sex marriage bans, court documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

The agency that determines eligibility for the yearly oil wealth check paid to nearly all Alaska residents denied a dividend for same-sex spouses or dependents of military members stationed in other states for five years after a federal court invalidated Alaska’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2014, and the Supreme Court legalized the unions nationwide in June 2015, the documents show.

In one email from July 2019, a same-sex spouse living out-of-state with his military husband was denied a check because “unfortunately the state of Alaska doesn’t recognize same sex marriage yet,” employee Marissa Requa wrote to a colleague, ending the sentence with a frown face emoji.

This Permanent Fund Dividend Division practice continued until Denali Smith, who was denied benefits appealed and asked the state to start including her lawyer in its correspondence.

Smith later sued the state, seeking an order declaring that state officials violated the federal court decision and Smith’s constitutional rights to equal protection and due process

Smith and the state on Wednesday settled the lawsuit. Alaska admitted denying benefits to same-sex military spouses and dependents for five years in violation of the permanent injunction put in place by the 2014 U.S. District Court decision. The state also vowed to no longer use the outdated state law, to deny military spouses and dependents oil checks going forward, and updated enforcement regulations.

There were no financial terms to the settlement. In fact, Smith had to pay $400 out of pocket to file the federal lawsuit to get her oil check, and her attorney worked pro bono.

In Alaska, the oil wealth check is seen as an entitlement that people use to buy things like new TVs or snowmobiles, fund college savings accounts or, in rural Alaska, weather high heating and food costs. The nest-egg fund, seeded with oil money, has grown into billions of dollars. A portion traditionally goes toward the checks, but the amount varies. Last year, nearly every single resident received $992. The year before, the amount was $1,606.

About 800 pages of emails provided by the state for the lawsuit show a clear misunderstanding or outright disregard of the 2014 precedent and reluctance to reach out to the attorney general’s office for guidance.




A federal judge refused Thursday to set bail for a Texas man who was wearing a T-shirt that said, “I Was There, Washington D.C., January 6, 2021,” when he was arrested on charges he stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

U.S. Judge Carl Nichols ordered Garret Miller to remain jailed pending trial, concluding the Dallas man poses a danger to the community.

Miller didn’t give a statement to the law enforcement officers who arrested him at his home two weeks after the riots, prosecutors said. But they noted he was wearing a T-shirt that had a photograph of former President Donald Trump, and it said “Take America Back” and “I Was There, Washington D.C., January 6, 2021.”

Prosecutors presented a photograph of Miller wearing the shirt during an earlier hearing for his case and cited it in a court filing seeking his pretrial detention.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Kelley said Miller has shown a troubling “lack of respect for any authority.”

“Ï think it’s safe to say that nobody who entered the Capitol that day showed any respect for authority, so I don’t credit that argument very much,” countered defense attorney F. Clinton Broden. He conceded Miller entered the Capitol that day but said his client didn’t engage in any violence.

On a recorded call immediately after his arrest, Miller told his mother, “I don’t feel that I’ve done anything wrong and now I’m being locked up,” according to prosecutors.

Like many of the more than 300 people facing federal charges in connection with the siege, Miller thoroughly documented and commented on his actions that day in a flurry of social media posts.

After Miller posted a selfie showing himself inside the Capitol building, another Facebook user wrote, “bro you got in?! Nice!” Miller replied, “just wanted to incriminate myself a little lol,” prosecutors said.



A U.S. appeals court sided with a photographer Friday in her copyright dispute over how a foundation has marketed a series of Andy Warhol works of art based on her pictures of Prince.

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the artwork created by Warhol before his 1987 death was not transformative and could not overcome obligations to photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s copyright protections. It returned the case to a lower court for further proceedings.

Warhol created a series of 16 artworks based on a 1981 picture of Prince that was taken by Goldsmith, a pioneering photographer known for portraits of famous musicians. The series contained 12 silkscreen paintings, two screen prints on paper and two drawings.

“Crucially, the Prince Series retains the essential elements of the Goldsmith Photograph without significantly adding to or altering those elements,” the 2nd Circuit said in a decision written by Judge Gerard E. Lynch.

The decision overturned a 2019 ruling by a Manhattan judge who concluded that Warhol’s renderings were so different from Goldsmith’s photograph that they transcended Goldsmith’s copyrights.

U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl in Manhattan had concluded that Warhol transformed a picture of a vulnerable and uncomfortable Prince into an artwork that made the singer an “iconic, larger-than-life figure.”

In 1984, Vanity Fair licensed one of Goldsmith’s black-and-white studio portraits of Prince from her December 1981 shoot for $400 and commissioned Warhol to create an illustration of Prince for an article titled “Purple Fame.”

The dispute emerged after Prince’s 2016 death, when the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts licensed the use of Warhol’s Prince series for use in a magazine commemorating Prince’s life. One of Warhol’s creations was on the cover of the May 2016 magazine.

Goldsmith claimed that the publication of the Warhol artwork destroyed a high-profile licensing opportunity.

Attorney Luke Nikas said the Warhol Foundation will challenge the ruling.

“Over fifty years of established art history and popular consensus confirms that Andy Warhol is one of the most transformative artists of the 20th Century,” Nikas said in a statement. “While the Warhol Foundation strongly disagrees with the Second Circuit’s ruling, it does not change this fact, nor does it change the impact of Andy Warhol’s work on history.”

Attorney Barry Werbin said Goldsmith, his client, was “beyond happy and very grateful to everyone who helped get to this day.”

“Apart from being ecstatic as to the result, in my view it’s a long overdue reeling in of what had become an overly-expansive application of copyright “transformative” fair use,” Werbin said in an email.

“The decision helps vindicate the rights of photographers who risk having their works misappropriated for commercial use by famous artists under the guise of fair use,” he added.

The three-judge 2nd Circuit panel said it hoped its ruling would bring more clarity to copyright law. It repeatedly compared the copyright issues to what occurs when books are made into movies. The movie, it noted, is often quite different from the book but yet retains copyright obligations.

The appeals court also said the unique nature of Warhol’s art should have no bearing on whether the artwork is sufficiently transformative to be deemed “fair use” of a copyright, a legal term that would free an artist from paying licensing fees for the raw material it was based on.

“We feel compelled to clarify that it is entirely irrelevant to this analysis that “each Prince Series work is immediately recognizable as a ‘Warhol,’” the appeals court said. “Entertaining that logic would inevitably create a celebrity-plagiarist privilege; the more established the artist and the more distinct that artist’s style, the greater leeway that artist would have to pilfer the creative labors of others.”

Legal News | Breaking News | Terms & Conditions | Privacy

ⓒ Breaking Legal News. All Rights Reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by BLN as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. Small Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo Website Design
   More Legal News
   Legal Spotlight
   Exclusive Commentaries
   Attorney & Blog - Blog Watch
   Law Firm News  1  2  3  4  5  6 
   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
Gurnee IL bankruptcy attorneys
Credit card debt lawyer
bankruptcylawchicago.com
New York Dental Malpractice Attorney
DUI Lawyer
dentalmalpracticenewyork.com
Indiana Medical Malpractice Attorneys
Indianapolis Medical Malpractice
www.williamspiatt.com.com
Surry County Criminal Defense Lawyers
Yadkin County Family Law Attorneys
www.dirussolaw.com
Oregon DUI Law Attorney
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Criminal Defense Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
Chicago, DuPage IL Workers' Compensation Lawyers
Chicago Workplace Injury Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
   More Legal News  1  2  3  4  5  6
   Legal News Links
  Click The Law
  Daily Bar News
  The Legal Voice
  The Legal Report
  Legal News Post
  Crisis Legal News
  Legal News Journal
  Korean Web Agency
  Law Firm Directory