“An Iraqi immigrant who stabbed two doctors to death has won the right to stay in Britain after a judge ruled that he would pose a danger to the public in his homeland. … The Home Office wanted to deport him on his release to protect the British public,” but a tribunal ruled that a violation of international human rights because Laith Alani would pose a danger to the Iraqi public and himself. Presumably it’s better for the British public to face the dangers. [Telegraph]
Posts Tagged ‘international human rights’
December 1 roundup
- Hertz drops libel lawsuit against investor research outfit that claimed its solvency was at risk [Crain’s New York, earlier]
- Report: New Jersey blogger jailed for threats against federal judges was on FBI informant payroll [AP]
- “Bentley Photos Are Props in Willie Gary’s High School Motivational Speech” [ABA Journal]
- Australian personal injury lawyers evade ad ban [Sydney Morning Herald]
- Scott Rothstein’s alleged Ponzi scheme “targeted people who invested in law suits” [Steele/Legal Ethics Forum] “Two Inside Looks at Rothstein’s Firm, Lifestyle” [Ambrogi/Legal Blog Watch]
- O’Quinn driving nearly twice speed limit on rainy pavement at time of crash [Chron]
- “Support for UN religious defamation rule drops” [Media Watch Watch] On the other hand? “Envoy’s Speech Signals Softening of U.S. Hostility to International Court” [AP]
- Rudely titled new book on how to avoid getting sued [Instapundit]
Chevron: hidden videos show bribery plot in giant Ecuador tort suit
I’ve got a link roundup on the new charges at Point of Law. Earlier here.
New at Point of Law
If you’re not reading my other legal site, Point of Law, here’s some of what you’re missing:
- Taft-Hartley and the secret ballot in union-representation elections, part of a new category on labor law;
- Also, a new category on international law and international human rights law with coverage of such topics as the Harold Koh nomination, other lawprofs joining the Obama administration, the Alien Tort statute, the proposed Spanish prosecution of Bush administration lawyers, and piracy and international law;
- One form of executive pay they don’t care to limit: Senate rejects proposed $50 million ceiling on bounties paid to informants (“relators”) in federal whistleblowing suits;
- Pay-for-play in state drug-recoupment litigation: Pennsylvania, New Mexico furors just the start of much more to come;
- We’ve heard the line, “Want less litigation after the fact? Then support more regulation before the fact.” Here’s one of many reasons to take that with a grain of salt;
- “File case in Texas. Take plaintiff deposition. Dismiss case, and refile in California.” Asbestos litigation has some of the best forum-shopping gamesmanship;
- Plaintiff’s lawyers in California spent more than $4.1 million in that state’s 2007-2008 election cycle;
- Miranda warnings for company counsel?
U.K.: Europe court says prisoners have right to use artificial insemination
“Six prisoners in British jails are applying to give sperm to their wives and partners after a landmark European court ruling concluded that their human rights were breached if they were stopped from having children. The inmates, all serving long terms, are basing their applications on claims they will be too old to become fathers once they have finished their sentences.” [The Guardian]
Labor minister flays Britain’s asylum laws
Trouble with human rights law, cont’d: Phil Woolas, immigration minister in Gordon Brown’s Labor government, has won attention for his sharp criticisms of U.K. asylum law.
In an interview with the Guardian, Woolas described the legal professionals and NGO [non-governmental organization] workers as “an industry”, and said most asylum seekers were not fleeing persecution but were economic migrants.
“The system is played by migration lawyers and NGOs to the nth degree,” Woolas said. “By giving false hope and by undermining the legal system, [they] actually cause more harm than they do good.”
(Patrick Barkham, “Asylum-seeker charities are just playing the system, says Woolas”, Guardian, Nov. 18). We’ve added a tag on asylum law.
Piracy and international human rights, cont’d
Modern theorists of international human rights law have concentrated on tying Western governments’ hands, but have devoted rather less attention to the human right not to be attacked on the high seas. (David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey, “Pirates Exploit Confusion About International Law”, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 19). Earlier here, here, and here.
November 18 roundup
- Harvard’s Charles Nesson argues that Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 violates Constitution by letting civil lawyers for RIAA enforce a criminal law [AP/MSNBC, Elefant]
- In some circles, bitter disappointment at reports that Obama camp probably won’t pursue Bush predecessors as war criminals [Paul Campos, Horton/Harper’s; earlier]
- Latest on wrangle over “exorbitant” fee: Alice Lawrence’s deposition-skipping before her death could endanger her estate’s claim against Graubard Miller law firm [NYLJ, earlier]
- One benefit of role as law school mega-donor, as Mark Lanier is with Texas Tech, is that you get to rub (hunting-jacket) elbows with visiting Supreme Court justices [WSJ law blog]
- Lou Dobbs and Phyllis Schlafly were among those who pushed bizarre theory of secret conspiracy to merge U.S. into “North American Union” with Canada and Mexico [John Hawkins]
- Senate Dems plan to abolish secret ballot for installing unions in everyone else’s workplace, so how come they insist on one for themselves in deciding how to handle Joe Lieberman? [Dan Riehl via McArdle]
- Congrats to historian Rick Brookhiser and City Journal editor Myron Magnet, among recipients of 2008 National Humanities Medal [White House release, Brian Anderson, NRO]
- Jarek Molski, California entrepreneur of disabled-access complaints, loses bid for Supreme Court review of his designation as vexatious litigant [AP, Bashman]
“Britain has no responsibility to protect Iraqis from their own legal system”
Fun with international human rights law, continued:
Lawyers for two Iraqis accused of the murder of two British soldiers now maintain that the men cannot get a fair trial in Iraq, and are entitled to one here in Britain instead. A High Court judge will rule on the case this week. Lawyers have already received several thousand pounds for representing the Iraqis, who, although not British citizens, have their case in the British courts funded by British taxpayers. Win or lose, the lawyers will receive more from that source. If the judge rules against them, they will no doubt appeal. The appeals process is lengthy, and lucrative. If they win, then there will be another issue to be litigated: whether the Iraqis should be given asylum in the UK, on the grounds that Iraq is not a safe place for the accused.
(“Iraqi crimes have no place in our courts” (editorial), Telegraph, Nov. 16).
Microblog 2008-11-16
- Tenth anniversary of Great Tobacco Robbery settlement of 1998 [NPR series all week h/t @billchilds; Carter Wood at PoL series linked here] #
- No need for “socialism” with endless bailouts instead [George Will, David Brooks] #
- Rude name for “age-restricted” (no-kids) housing developments: “vasectomy zoning” [Dr. Wes] #
- Iceland’s national financial calamity [Robert Jackson, Financial Times; Jon Danielsson, VoxEU] #
- World gone mad dept.: Saudi Arabia sponsors UN event on religious tolerance [Anorak, h/t @jeffnolan; Steven Groves, Heritage, on UN “defamation of religion” resolutions] #