virginia Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Insurance case is ‘but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space,’ high-profile appeals judge writes

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 02 May 2025 20:52:54 +0000

Judiciary

Insurance case is ‘but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space,’ high-profile appeals judge writes

April 28, 2025, 3:07 pm CDT

Law professor (and future federal judge) J. Harvie Wilkinson III listens during his testimony on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., in August 1994. (Photo by Cynthia Johnson/Getty Images)

In a span of less than a week, a conservative federal appeals judge has written two opinions that are getting attention—for taking a tough stand against the mistaken deportation of an immigrant in one case and for waxing philosophical in another case.

In an April 17 opinion, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III took the Trump administration to task for “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process.”

Wilkinson wrote the “blistering” opinion for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia of Maryland, according to the New York Times.

Abrego Garcia was deported to a prison in El Salvador in Central America because of an “administrative error.” The case is Abrego Garcia v. Noem.

Now, Wilkinson is getting attention once again for an April 23 opinion in an insurance dispute involving a man on a lawn mower struck and killed by an underinsured motorist, according to Above the Law and the Judicial Notice newsletter at Original Jurisdiction.

The 4th Circuit held that the man’s estate was entitled to $150,000 under the plain terms of the man’s underinsured motorist coverage—and nothing more.

Wilkinson engaged in “existential, metaphysical musings” at the end of his opinion, according to Judicial Notice.

Here is what Wilkinson wrote: “What after all does it matter? A single, seemingly ordinary, rather technical insurance case. One among the many hundreds of rulings judges make each year.

“What does it matter? A case but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space and in the four-plus billion years since our solar system’s birth. What does it matter, this case deserted by both space and time?

“To be human is to live in the here and now. This small case extracts courageous meaning from the vast impersonality in which it resides. Its immediacy confounds infinity; its passions light the dark. We have given it our best; the litigants have given it their best. The trial court has done the same. We do not overlook for a moment the tragic passing of the insured but neither can we ignore the contract under South Carolina law that defines the insurer’s obligation.”

The insurance case is Owners Insurance Co. v. Walsh.

Wilkinson, 80, was appointed to the 4th Circuit by former President Ronald Reagan, the New York Times reports in a story about his background. He is the “son of a patrician Virginia banker,” an Army veteran and a law grad of the University of Virginia.

He delayed his legal education after one year to unsuccessfully run for Congress in 1970 as a Republican. After law school, he worked as a law professor and in the U.S. Department of Justice.

On the bench, the New York Times reports, Wilkinson has “a long track record of conservative rulings under his belt, having criticized rulings establishing abortion rights while writing approvingly of a broad conception of presidential power.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Insurance case is ‘but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space,’ high-profile appeals judge writes appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Once-homeless University of Chicago law grad getting treatment, hopes to return to law practice

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 06 Apr 2025 18:33:30 +0000

Homelessness

Once-homeless University of Chicago law grad getting treatment, hopes to return to law practice

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 19, 2025, 12:41 pm CDT

A University of Chicago Law School graduate who lived for two years on the streets of Los Angeles has moved back home with his mother in Virginia and hopes to resume law practice. (Image from Shutterstock)

A University of Chicago Law School graduate who lived for two years on the streets of Los Angeles has moved back home with his mother in Virginia and hopes to resume law practice.

Rob Dart moved home in January and has been taking anti-psychotic medication for more than three months, the Wall Street Journal reports. He is taking online continuing legal education classes and hopes to regain his law license.

The Wall Street Journal had chronicled efforts by Dart’s family to help him in articles published this month and in May 2024. He began hearing voices when he was 35 years old and returned to his mother’s home at that time. He received medication and therapy for two years but quit treatment in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dart ended up homeless in Los Angeles. His sister and mother had traveled to California to try to help him, but he often rejected them.

The Wall Street Journal’s coverage spurred some people to offer help. One reader set up a tab for Dart at a coffee shop. Another connected Dart’s family with a psychiatrist affiliated with a Pasadena, California, hospital who said he would treat Dart when he was willing to accept help.

Late last year, Dart began treatment at the hospital. But during the wildfires in Los Angeles earlier this year, Dart successfully petitioned for release. Days later, he agreed to return to his mother’s home and began treatment.

Online records indicate that Dart was admitted to law practice in Illinois in 2004 and in California in 2009. He was suspended in California for failure to meet state CLE requirements in 2022 and for failure to pay fees in 2023. He also failed to show compliance with Illinois CLE requirements and was last registered there in 2022.

Dart’s last registered address with Illinois attorney regulators was at the Wilshire Law Firm in Los Angeles.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Once-homeless University of Chicago law grad getting treatment, hopes to return to law practice appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Former George Mason University law prof says he’s ‘fully vindicated’ after ‘relatively modest’ defamation suit settlement

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:28:05 +0000

Verdicts & Settlements

Former George Mason University law prof says he’s ‘fully vindicated’ after ‘relatively modest’ defamation suit settlement

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2025, 2:59 pm CDT

A former professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School has reached a settlement in his defamation lawsuit against two former students. (Photo from Shutterstock)

A former professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School has reached a settlement in his defamation lawsuit against two former students who alleged that he abused his power to initiate sexual relationships with them when they were law students.

Professor Joshua D. Wright settled with Elyse Dorsey and dropped his claim against Freshfields counsel Angela Landry, report Law.com, Law360 and Reuters.

His suit, filed in Fairfax County, Virginia, circuit court, had sought $108 million in damages.

The articles identify Dorsey as a Kirkland & Ellis partner, but the law firm’s website page for her appears to have been removed.

Dorsey’s settlement “provides Wright with a relatively modest amount of compensation and allows Dorsey to continue speaking out,” Law.com reports. Wright filed a motion to end the litigation last week.

Wright had maintained that the relationships were consensual, and the two women were “scorned former lovers.” In a statement released to Law360, he said he is “relieved to have been fully vindicated. The evidence has made it undeniably clear that the relationships in question were consensual from the start. I remain fully committed to defending my reputation and will not hesitate to take further legal action if necessary to hold accountable those responsible for false accusations.”

The two defendants said they were pleased with the development.

A statement by Dorsey’s lawyer said the settlement will exclusively be paid from insurance “and constituted less than 0.3% of the damages professor Wright sought in the litigation,” according to Law.com.

“Settling this case was a difficult decision, but it allows me to continue my advocacy work without the distraction or continued trauma of ongoing litigation,” Dorsey said in a statement cited by Law.com.

Wright has the option of refiling his claim within six months against Landry. Her lawyer, Stacey Rose Harris, told Law.com that the dismissal “obviously speaks for itself.”

“Parties ‘vindicated’ in litigation don’t voluntarily dismiss their own claims on the eve of trial,” Harris said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Former George Mason University law prof says he’s ‘fully vindicated’ after ‘relatively modest’ defamation suit settlement appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump, CIA can fire intelligence workers in DEI roles: Judge

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 21:49:27 +0000

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo/Alex Brandon).

A federal judge in Virginia has given the Trump administration and CIA the green light to pluck intelligence workers from offices focused on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — falling in line with the president’s axing of DEI policies — after originally agreeing to block their terminations last week with a temporary restraining order.

“Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, and for the reasons stated from the bench, it is hereby ordered that the administrative stay, entered on February 18, 2025, is vacated, with Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the deferred resignation program (“DRP”) and other employment options, made available to them under the CIA Director’s February 18, 2025 Memorandum, extended to at least to 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, March 3, 2025,” the Thursday order from U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga said. “Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, and for the reasons stated from the bench, it is hereby ordered that the administrative stay, entered on February 18, 2025, is vacated.”

Trenga ruled from the bench, saying he was siding with Trump and CIA Director John Ratcliffe to vacate the TRO based on current laws and regulations in place that give them the authority to fire intelligence employees at will, according to The New York Times.

The judge reportedly said that he would have agreed to keep the TRO in place for the 11 plaintiffs — all intelligence workers who were fired — if the argument would have been centered around basic fairness. The federal employees at risk of being fired work in offices and have roles tasked with overseeing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs across all intelligence agencies.

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee who presides over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, extended the deadline to Monday, March 3, for workers to resign under a deferred resignation program (“DRP”) and other employment options made available to them that allows them to be paid through Sept. 30. Employees are unable to challenge the firings or transfer to other agencies, per Trenga.

When the judge stayed the firings last week, he said that he was looking for “clarification” as to what agency regulations are involved in the case and the potential harm caused to the plaintiffs if they were to be terminated.

“Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, the Court concludes that it would benefit from Defendants’ response to the Motion, including clarification as to what Agency regulations are implicated in this case and the potential irreparable harm to Plaintiff John Does 1-6 and Jane Does 1-5,” Trenga’s Feb. 18 order said. “As the Court awaits full briefing and argument on the Motion, it exercises its powers under the All Writs Act and its inherent powers to manage its docket, to issue an administrative stay.”

After Thursday’s ruling came down, several intelligence workers — including those who filed the suit — gave Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Barghaan, who argued Trump’s case, a tongue lashing outside of court.

“You should be ashamed. You should really be ashamed of yourself,” one of the plaintiffs said, according to Politico. “That was really disgusting.”

When Trump issued his Jan. 20 orders ending DEI programs shortly after taking office, he condemned the initiatives and policies as being a corruption of “our institutions” and an attempt to replace “hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy,” according to one order. Three different directives were handed out targeting diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility roles.

“The previous administration has embedded deeply unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices within every agency and office of the Federal Government,” Trump said.

The DEI crusade has sparked multiple lawsuits and at least one other TRO in Maryland, where a federal judge blocked Trump from targeting federal agencies and contractors.

It’s unclear how many intelligence officers will be dismissed by the CIA, with as many as 51 being listed by lawyers for the employees. The plaintiffs suing the Trump administration include six men and five women who worked for the CIA and Director of National Intelligence. They claim in their complaint that they were unlawfully targeted and terminated due to “their assumed beliefs” about DEI policies without cause and notice.

“While intelligence officers lack recourse to the Merit System Protection Board, their own agencies classified internal regulations provide procedures for terminating officers,” the complaint says. “Officers’ basic rights include notice, the development of a record, to consult with counsel, and the opportunities to be heard and to appeal. Plaintiffs have received none of these rights.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Source link

The post Trump, CIA can fire intelligence workers in DEI roles: Judge appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Kavanaugh looms large as both sides in voter purge dispute

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 30 Oct 2024 01:09:27 +0000

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh stands during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on April 23, 2021 (ERIN SCHAFF/POOL/AFP via Getty Images).

As the U.S. Department of Justice and civil rights groups link arms in an effort to stop a commonwealth-sanctioned voter roll purge in Virginia, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s understanding of a nearly 20-year-old legal doctrine has risen to the foreground.

In the Old Dominion, under the terms of Executive Order 35, election officials had begun removing “individuals who are unable to verify that they are [U.S.] citizens to the Department of Motor Vehicles” from the state’s lists of voters eligible to participate in the upcoming election.

To date, some 1,600 voters’ names have been removed. On Oct. 25, a federal district court put the kibosh on the program — by way of a preliminary injunction. The appeals process has worked quickly due to the impending (and ongoing) nature of the political process.

As Law&Crime previously reported, the issue, with lightning quickness, is now before the nation’s high court. By Monday, a controversy that began with an Oct. 7 complaint was transmogrified into an emergency stay request filed with Chief Justice John Roberts.

While there are numerous issues at play in the litigation, the area of election law most likely to garner attention at this stage, and at this level, has to do with the Purcell principle — the notion that courts should be cautious and hesitant to make substantial changes to state election rules in the time period just before an election.

The doctrine is sourced from the 2006 Supreme Court case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. This murky bit of precedent made itself ripe for varying interpretations by asserting that “considerations specific to election cases” should be weighed “in addition to” typical concerns governing requests for emergency injunctions and stays of injunctions.

In a 2022 concurrence, Kavanaugh carved out his own territory with a since-popularized restatement of the Purcell principle.

While an inconsistently applied admonition from the justices, Kavanaugh summarized the doctrine as standing for the proposition that “federal district courts ordinarily should not enjoin state election laws in the period close to an election.”

Kavanaugh’s definition continues:

When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled. Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties, and voters, among others. It is one thing for a State on its own to toy with its election laws close to a State’s elections. But it is quite another thing for a federal court to swoop in and re-do a State’s election laws in the period close to an election.

Since that ruling, parties have been keen to cite Kavanaugh’s understanding of how the doctrine applies — perhaps in efforts to cite a still-serving member of the court and/or to elicit a direct reaction.

To hear Virginia tell it, the two lower courts that put a stop to the purge have acted far too heavy-handedly — and far too late. While the executive order instructing the current swathes of voter roll purges was issued by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, in August, the law it interpreted was passed and signed into law in 2006.

“This burdensome mandatory injunction patently violates this Court’s Purcell doctrine,” the application reads. “This Court has repeatedly instructed that Purcell bars federal courts from enjoining the enforcement of state election laws with an election impending.”

The emergency request elaborates, quoting Kavanaugh:

This Court has applied more searching review of election-eve injunctions. It has stayed injunctions against state election officials issued close to an election unless plaintiffs have demonstrated “at least the following”: “(i) the underlying merits are entirely clearcut in favor of the plaintiff; (ii) the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (iii) the plaintiff has not unduly delayed bringing the complaint to court; and (iv) the changes in question are at least feasible before the election without significant cost, /confusion, or hardship.”

And, here, Virginia says, the merits of the case are in their favor because non-citizens might now try to vote should the injunction stand.

“Not only would such a mistake potentially expose the noncitizens to criminal charges, such court-introduced errors would severely undercut the public’s faith in our electoral system,” the application goes on. “The point of Purcell is that election administration is a complicated endeavor even without judicial intervention.”

Oppositely, the DOJ and a broad coalition of pro-voting non-profits say the district court and appellate court — which did not apply the Purcell principle — would be in the right even if they were to accept the doctrine here.

And, in each instance, the plaintiffs-respondents chose the Kavanaugh iteration to make their case.

The DOJ’s 38-page brief contains the following footnote:

Even if this Court concluded that Purcell applied and required a heightened justification for preliminary injunctive relief, the United States made that showing here. The courts below correctly held that “the underlying merits are entirely clearcut” in the United States’ favor; the United States and the public “would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction”; the United States “has not unduly delayed bringing the complaint to court”; and the narrow remedy ordered by the district court to restore the status quo is “feasible before the election without significant cost, confusion, or hardship.”

The voting rights groups’ 50-page brief states and then repeats:

Indeed, even if this Court applied Purcell and the factors identified in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence to the stay decision in Merrill, Applicants would prevail because the merits are clear-cut, Respondents and eligible Virginia voters face irreparable harm, Respondents did not delay, and the relief ordered is eminently reasonable. …
[E]ven if this Court applied Purcell and the factors identified in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence to the stay decision in Merrill v. Milligan, Respondents would prevail. The merits are clear-cut, Respondents and eligible Virginia voters face irreparable harm. Respondents did not delay, and the relief ordered is eminently reasonable.

The DOJ and the civil rights groups say Youngkin and Virginia brought this election-eve injunction on themselves by going beyond even the terms of the executive order and then declining to provide necessary documentation about the purges when originally requested in late August.

As of this writing, the Supreme Court had yet to act on the emergency appeal.

Marisa Sarnoff contributed to this report.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Kavanaugh looms large as both sides in voter purge dispute appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Au pair pleads guilty in sex fetish killings conspiracy case

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:59:01 +0000

Inset left to right: Brendan Banfield and Juliana Peres Magalhaes (Fairfax County Police Department). Background: The house where Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan were killed (WTTG).

When an au pair from Brazil moved to Virginia, her life apparently became dedicated to two things: a romantic affair — and homicide.

Juliana Peres Magalhaes, 24, was once the live-in nanny at a two-story house on Stable Brook Way in Herndon, a medium-sized town that’s part of the broader Washington, D.C., metro area. Her charge was the young daughter of Christine Banfield, 37, and Brendan Banfield, 39.

Now, she could spend the next several years behind bars — although such a punishment appears to be exceedingly unlikely.

On Tuesday, Magalhaes pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter in a Fairfax County courtroom, prosecutors announced.

The plea deal means the defendant will forego a trial — and could potentially put the screws to her alleged partner in crime.

Initially, Magalhaes was the lone alleged culprit in the double slaying of Christine Banfield and Joseph Nathan Ryan, 39, a semi-mysterious man who died alongside her on the day in question. The au pair was arrested and charged in October 2023 for Ryan’s death on one count of murder in the second degree. But that calculus would eventually change.

The Stable Brook Way slaughter occurred in February 2023. Then, for several months, law enforcement hung back and investigated. One alleged oddity observed by detectives would prove pivotal in the overarching case: the widower and the nanny began openly expressing affection for one another and carrying on as a couple.

Buoying this turn of events was, in at least two senses, photo evidence: newly-framed photos of the two alleged conspirators together. In one such photo, set up in Banfield’s bedroom after the killings, the husband and the au pair share an embrace, the nanny’s head resting on the IRS special agent’s shoulder; both smiling.

The upturned grins wouldn’t last.

Left: Juliana Peres Magalhaes and Brendan Banfield in a photo together next to his bed (NBC Washington via Fairfax County Police). Right: Christine Banfield (via her Facebook).

Last month, Brendan Banfield was indicted on four counts of aggravated murder and one count of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Magalhaes was the first person to call 911 that day. She first dialed dispatchers at 7:49 a.m. in what amounted to an “open line hangup,” Fairfax County Police Chief Kevin Davis said. Some 13 minutes later, Magalhaes called again and spoke, saying her friend was hurt. Then Brendan Banfield got on the line to say he had shot Ryan, claiming the other man had entered their home and stabbed his wife.

More details came to the fore when Brendan Banfield was indicted in September. Law enforcement now believe Ryan was snookered — by way of a fake profile on a sexual fetish website — into showing up at the Banfield residence and acting out a part. Whoever ran that profile, known as a catfish, was posing as Christine Banfield, police allege. Intended to play the role of the patsy, Ryan was eventually found in the bedroom with Christine Banfield. And both would die there.

Police would come to refer to Ryan as not “necessarily a stranger.” The sexual fetish website angle filled in the picture for why his car was parked on the driveway right outside the two-car garage.

“There was no forced entry whatsoever,” Davis told the press on the day of the slayings. “This was not a home invasion. Here’s what I can say right now with certainty: He did not force entry into the home. I do not know exactly what the nature of his presence in the home is all about just yet, but we’re working hard to determine that.”

Prosecutors say they found messages on the fetish website between both victims — even one arranging a meeting on the fatal day in question. But, law enforcement alleges, the way the fake Christine Banfield profile communicated with Ryan did not match the way she otherwise spoke, citing descriptions provided by friends and family.

Tuesday’s developments necessarily lock away, at least for awhile, many details — or, perhaps, new or different accounts — of how the double homicide went down at the house on the tree-dotted lot in Herndon.

“Earlier today, Juliana Peres Magalhaes pled guilty to manslaughter for shooting and killing Joseph Ryan on the morning of February 24, 2023. Today’s agreement marks a significant step forward in this case, and it is an important development in our pursuit of justice for the victims and their families,” Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano said. “Much of the information that led to this agreement cannot be made public at this time, due to the upcoming criminal trial against the other defendant in this matter.”

Stories in the case have necessarily diverged.

To hear the version the defendants had told for months: Magalhaes left the home with the Banfield’s daughter in tow around 7:30 a.m. that day, just after Christine Banfield purchased their tickets for the zoo. Then, the au pair told police, she doubled back because she forgot to grab their packed lunches and saw a car she did not recognize in the driveway. A phone call to Christine Banfield went unanswered, Magalhaes said, so she called Brendan Banfield. He happened to be at a nearby McDonald’s and quickly rushed home.

The trio — husband/father, daughter, and au pair — entered the house. Upstairs, the defendants claimed, Ryan was in a bedroom with a naked Christine Banfield, who had been stabbed repeatedly in the neck. Ryan was then shot with a gun already in Brendan Banfield’s possession. Then, the husband directed the au pair to retrieve another gun from a safe in a bathroom closet, and he provided the code.

While Brendan Banfield initially said he was the one who shot and killed Ryan, Magalhaes would later admit she used the second gun to shoot the already-shot man in the chest. Another story allegedly diverged: the au pair first said she and Brendan Banfield were not in a romantic relationship, but her attorney later confirmed that they were.

The pair claimed in their story that they acted in self-defense, but investigators were immediately suspicious.

Now, it seems entirely possible that Brendan Banfield’s narrative of the killings may be entirely his own.

Magalhaes, for her part, was given a plea deal in exchange for promising to cooperate against Brendan Banfield, according to a courtroom report by D.C.-based NBC affiliate WRC.

Prosecutors, in fact, told the judge overseeing the matter they intend to recommend an exceedingly light sentence for her — time-served that would conclude at the end of the widower’s trial.

Magahlhaes technically faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in state prison. Her sentencing hearing is slated for March 21, 2025.

Brendan Banfield’s trial is currently scheduled for Feb. 3, 2025. If convicted as charged, he faces life in prison.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Au pair pleads guilty in sex fetish killings conspiracy case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Teen died in school hallway, officials did nothing: Lawsuit

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:25:47 +0000

Ben Crump, center, speaks at a press conference announcing a lawsuit over the death of 16-year-old Kaleiah Jones. Kaleiah’s mother, Keyonna Stewart, stands to Crump’s right (WAVY).

A Virginia mom says that a lack of action taken by school officials who stood by as her daughter had a medical emergency is responsible for the girl’s death.

Kaleiah Jones was 16 years old when she went to school on Feb. 20. According to a lawsuit filed by Kaleiah’s mother, Keyonna Stewart, Kaleiah suffered a cardiac issue and collapsed in a hallway at Menchville High School that day in Newport News, but despite having medical training — and access to potentially lifesaving machines — school officials did next to nothing for more than 16 minutes.

The school nurse, principal, assistant principals, and multiple security officers were “immediately notified by radio” of Kaleiah’s collapse, the lawsuit says, and they “promptly” arrived at the scene.

“Kaleiah’s heart had stopped and she was not breathing,” the lawsuit says. “But for nine minutes, the Defendants did nothing to aid Kaleiah.”

“No one started CPR,” the complaint continues. “And no one went to get one of the three automated external defibrillators (“AEDs”) positioned throughout the school for such a medical crisis.”

A school resources officer “spontaneously commenced CPR,” but this only lasted 17 seconds, according to the lawsuit, which notes that “no one took over” after the school resource officer stopped.

“For the next seven minutes, Kaleiah lay unaided and dying on the hallway floor,” the complaint says. Multiple school officials, including a nurse, “either stood nearby or entered and then left the scene.”

Emergency first responders arrived more than 16 minutes after Kaleiah’s collapse. At that point, the lawsuit says, an AED was retrieved and CPR was started — but it was too late.

“EMS eventually transported Kaleiah to Riverside Regional Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead at 2:43 p.m.,” the complaint says.

A video allegedly backs up the version of events laid out in the lawsuit. According to the complaint, Kaleiah collapsed at 1:09 p.m.; security footage allegedly shows her pulse first being taken at 1:12 p.m. A minute later, a nurse “appeared to splash” some water on Kaleiah, and an assistant principal “continued to shake or stroke Kaleiah’s shoulders.”

A medic was requested over the radio, with a dispatcher notifying that the call had been upgraded to a “Code Blue,” the lawsuit says. For several moments afterward, multiple school officials “huddled” over Kaleiah, but did little more than rub shoulders and pat her leg. One official started CPR nine minutes after Kaleiah collapsed, but stopped chest compressions after only 17 seconds, the lawsuit says.

“For approximately ten minutes thereafter, [some defendants] milled around the unresponsive Kaleiah without retrieving any of the three AEDs located in the school,” the lawsuit says. “Kaleiah’s collapse was in a central part of the school; an AED should have been nearby.”

The complaint insinuates that a cover-up may have been attempted.

School notes about the incident allegedly “falsely suggest[ed] that CPR was promptly commenced and continued until EMS arrived,” the lawsuit says.

According to the lawsuit, the blame for Kaleiah’s death falls directly on the school.

“The Defendants’ gross negligence and willful and wanton negligence to Kaleiah’s acute medical needs caused her death,” the lawsuit alleges. “Had the Defendants promptly commenced CPR and/or used the AED, Kaleiah would have survived.”

According to Stewart, the school was aware that Kaleiah had a medical condition.

“She had bradycardia and she recently had a surgery, so they were aware of that and given documentation for her accommodations,” Stewart said, according to a report by local NBC affiliate WAVY.

Stewart is represented by noted civil rights attorney Ben Crump.

“We filed this lawsuit because we can’t just let people simply say ‘oh that was unfortunate’ and sweep it under the rug. If it was your child, would that be acceptable to you?” Crump said at a press conference on Thursday. “This lawsuit is about saying Kaleiah’s life mattered. And we must do better.”

The lawsuit seeks $85 million in compensatory damages.

Neither lawyers for the plaintiff nor representatives from the Newport News school board immediately responded to Law&Crime’s request for comment.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Teen died in school hallway, officials did nothing: Lawsuit appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Lawyer accused of storing 1,000 pounds of marijuana at law office enters guilty plea

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 06 Oct 2024 05:26:25 +0000

Ethics

Lawyer accused of storing 1,000 pounds of marijuana at law office enters guilty plea

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 4, 2024, 9:14 am CDT

A Virginia lawyer has been temporarily suspended after pleading guilty for his role in a conspiracy to distribute large amounts of marijuana. (Image from Shutterstock)

A Virginia lawyer has been temporarily suspended after pleading guilty for his role in a conspiracy to distribute large amounts of marijuana.

Lawyer Matthew Taylor Morris, 38, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, was suspended effective Oct. 1 and ordered to show cause why his law license should not be further suspended or revoked, according to a Sept. 27 show-cause order.

The Legal Profession Blog noted the temporary suspension and a Sept. 24 press release on Morris’ guilty plea.

Morris allowed other participants in the conspiracy to store 1,000 pounds of marijuana and cash proceeds at his Virginia Beach law firm, the Top Tier Law Group, prosecutors said.

The street value of the marijuana products ranged from $800,000 to $1.6 million, according to a statement of facts signed by Morris and filed with the show-cause order.

Morris also allowed a co-conspirator to store cash proceeds from marijuana sales at his law office, the statement said. In one photo taken at the law office, a co-conspirator posed with more than $100,000 in cash. On the wall behind him are Morris’ diplomas and legal credentials.

As compensation, Morris received part of his monthly rent for his law office from a co-conspirator “for several months beginning in late 2021”, prosecutors said. Morris also received 70 pounds of THC products, at the rate of 15 pounds per month, that he could sell to his customers.

Morris also allegedly received a handgun from a co-conspirator, even though Morris unlawfully used Adderall, cocaine, opiates and THC, prosecutors said.

Morris is a former prosecutor in Portsmouth, Virginia, who resigned from the commonwealth attorney’s office Sept. 6, four days before the indictment, WVEC reported here and here.

Morris joined the prosecution office three months after the drug conspiracy allegedly ended in May 2022, according to the Virginian-Pilot.

Morris pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. His sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 22, 2025.

Morris is represented by lawyer James O. Broccoletti in the criminal case. He did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email seeking comment.

Source link

The post Lawyer accused of storing 1,000 pounds of marijuana at law office enters guilty plea appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

French teacher settles with school board over firing

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:05:18 +0000

Peter Vlaming in 2018. (WRIC)

A French teacher has settled with the Virginia school board that fired him for refusing to use a transgender boy’s pronouns.

Peter Vlaming will receive $575,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees, said his legal team at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a far-right advocacy organization known for filing lawsuits aimed at rolling back the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender people.

“I was wrongfully fired from my teaching job because my religious beliefs put me on a collision course with school administrators who mandated that teachers ascribe to only one perspective on gender identity — their preferred view,” he said in a statement. “I loved teaching French and gracefully tried to accommodate every student in my class, but I couldn’t say something that directly violated my conscience. I’m very grateful for the work of my attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom to bring my case to victory, and hope it helps protect every other teacher and professor’s fundamental First Amendment rights.”

More Law&Crime coverage: Pair of Trump-appointed federal judges blocks Biden efforts to protect transgender students

West Point Public Schools Superintendent Larry Frazier told Newport News outlet The Daily Press that “we are pleased to be able to reach a resolution that will not have a negative impact on the students, staff or school community of West Point.”

The Virginia Supreme Court last December reinstated Vlaming’s lawsuit, which the Circuit Court of King William County had previously dismissed.

“[N]o government committed to these principles can lawfully coerce its citizens into pledging verbal allegiance to ideological views that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs,” the decision also said. The judges found that the lower court “erred dismissing this claim on demurrer on the ground that Vlaming’s factual allegations, even if assumed to be true, were insufficient as a matter of law to state a free-exercise claim” under Virginia law.

In its ruling, the Virginia High Court said that hurt feelings are sometimes the cost of free speech.

“When religious liberty merges with free-speech protections, as it does in this case, mere ‘objectionable’ and ‘hurtful’ religious speech or, as in this case, nonspeech, is not enough to meet this standard,” the opinion said.

Justice Thomas Peter Mann, who concurred in part and dissented in part, said he agreed with the majority opinion that the circuit court made a mistake and that Vlaming’s lawsuit was “legally viable.” Nonetheless, he said the majority mishandled their analysis of the plaintiff’s claims.

“Regarding Vlaming’s free-exercise claim, the majority establishes a sweeping super scrutiny standard with the potential to shield any person’s objection to practically any policy or law by claiming a religious justification for their failure to follow either,” he wrote (citations omitted). “Justice Antonin Scalia, writing on behalf of the Supreme Court of the United States, warned that interpreting a free exercise clause so broadly would permit an individual ‘to become a law unto himself.’ Under the majority’s analytical framework, all laws and regulations must yield to an individual’s invocation of religious freedom unless doing so results in ‘overt acts against peace and good order.’ I disagree.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post French teacher settles with school board over firing appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Missing sailor couple feared dead after boat theft

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 26 Feb 2024 15:00:46 +0000

Police say that three jail escapees stole a boat belonging to an American couple. Family identified the couple as Ralph Hendry and Kathy Brandel, who are pictured in the inset. (Inset photo: GoFundMe campaign; screenshot: ABC News file footage in a story about the case)

Authorities fear the worst after recapturing three jail escapees — the men allegedly stole a yacht and might have killed a missing sailor couple.

“The RGPF is currently working on leads that suggest that the two occupants of the yacht may have been killed in the process,” the Royal Grenada Police Force wrote on Thursday. “It is believed that the occupants of the yacht were American citizens.”

Loved ones identified the missing sailors as Ralph Hendry and Kathy Brandel, a married Virginia couple in their 60s who had been enjoying retirement on their boat, “Simplicity.”

According to cops in the Caribbean nation of Grenada, Ron Mitchell, 30, Trevon Robertson, 19, and Abita Stanislaus, 25, were locked up at the South St. George’s Police Station and fled on Sunday, Fed. 18. All three had been jointly charged with a count each of robbery with violence. On top of that, Mitchell faced a count of rape, three counts of attempted rape, two counts of indecent assault, and a count of causing harm at the time of the escape.

The search came to an end up north in the nation of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Hendry and Brandel were longtime members of the Salty Dawg Sailing Association. According to the organization, a good Samaritan encountered Simplicity anchored and abandoned off a beach on the south coast of St. Vincent.

“The good Samaritan had boarded the boat and noted that the owners, Ralph Hendry and Kathy Brandel, were not onboard and found evidence of apparent violence,” the organization said. “Contact information for the SDSA was posted and the skipper contacted the Association. The good Samaritan contacted the St. Vincent coast guard alerting them of the situation; they in turn notified the local police. The Coast Guard took possession of Simplicity and the St. Vincent police are currently investigating with the U.S Embassy and the Grenada police department.”

Grenada police said they worked with their St. Vincent counterparts to rearrest the escapees Wednesday. They said the men had taken a yacht that had been docked in the St. George’s area, and then made their way to St. Vincent. But as mentioned before, cops believe the original yacht occupants are dead.

“What happened in Grenada was a perfect storm. It was a perfect tragedy of a perfect storm of a perfect love story,” Hendry’s sister, Suellen Desmarais, told West Palm Beach ABC affiliate WPTV in Florida. “They went into town to have a little bite and to walk back (on Feb. 18),” she said. “Somehow Ralph crossed paths in this teeny tiny town with these three men. What happened after that, we’re not sure.”

“Kathy and Ralph, experienced adventurers, spent their retirement sailing aboard Simplicity, spending summers in New England and embracing the warmth of Caribbean winters,” said a GoFundMe campaign to support family. “Their final voyage with the Salty Dawg Sailing Association crew took an unthinkable turn as Simplicity was found abandoned in St. Vincent, bearing chilling evidence of a violent struggle.”

Desmarais reportedly said that the couple had been in a once-in-a-lifetime trip, which had been in the works for 12 years, during the incident.

“Ralph and Kathy are the kindest people in the entire world and I just can’t understand how a tragedy like this could happen to people as kind and nice as them,” she said. “It feels made up and I just can’t comprehend why someone would do this? Why didn’t someone just take the boat?”

But Desmarais is holding out hope that her brother and sister-in-law are still alive.

“You have to presume they’re still alive until further notice, and without bodies or DNA, I won’t give up,” she told WHAS, the ABC affiliate in Louisville, Kentucky.

More Law&Crime coverage: Convicted family murderer and fraudster Alex Murdaugh locked up even longer for stealing money from vulnerable clients after emotional hearing

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Missing sailor couple feared dead after boat theft appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.