The Supreme Court is starting its new term with a new justice, Elena Kagan, and bad news for hundreds of parties trying to get their cases heard at the nation's highest court.

The justices are expected to start work Monday by denying many of the nearly 2,000 appeals that piled up in recent months. The court also is hearing argument in a bankruptcy dispute and an appeal by criminal defendants seeking shorter prison terms.

During the new term, the court will look at provocative anti-gay protests at military funerals and a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. These cases worry free speech advocates, who fear the court could limit First Amendment freedoms.

The funeral protest lawsuit, over signs praising American war deaths, "is one of those cases that tests our commitment to the First Amendment," said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Another case involves a different aspect of the First Amendment, the government's relationship to religion. The justices will decide whether Arizona's income tax credit scholarship program, in essence, directs state money to religious schools in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, marking his fifth anniversary on the court, and with the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by Justice Samuel Alito, the court has been more sympathetic to arguments that blur the line between government and religion, as long as one religion is not favored over another.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP announces that it has been retained to file a class action law suit on behalf of purchasers of Duoyuan Printing, Inc.stock between November 6, 2009 through September 13, 2010, including purchasers of the Company's November 6, 2009 initial public offering of common stock.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose (1) that the authenticity of certain of the Company's expenses related to advertising and tradeshow costs could not be verified; (2) that the Company had improper relationships with certain vendors and distributors; and (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls. As a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 13, 2010, Duoyuan Printing disclosed that the Company dismissed its independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd., and was reorganizing its top management in connection with Duoyuan Printing's "desire to resolve open issues and file our 10-K on a timely basis." Moreover, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and four members of the Company's Board of Directors resigned after the dismissal of Deloitte. In a reaction to the Company's revelations, Duoyuan Printing securities declined $3.60 or more than 54% and closed at $2.99 on September 13, 2010.

If you purchased Duoyuan Printing common stock during the Class Period of November 6, 2009 through September 13, 2010, and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, you must move the Court no later than November 19, 2010. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights as a potential class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact: Jack G. Fruchter or Arthur J. Chen of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP at (800) 440-8986, or via e-mail at info@aftlaw.com or achen@aftlaw.com.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience prosecuting securities class action cases, and the firm has been ranked among the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved by a survey of class action law firms conducted by Institutional Shareholder Services.

An Indiana money manager who once led a high-flying lifestyle pleaded guilty to five securities fraud counts on Wednesday, nearly two years after he tried to fake his death in a Florida plane crash to escape the crush of financial and personal problems.

Marcus Schrenker, 39, admitted the charges in a plea agreement under which he agreed to a 10-year prison sentence and prosecutors dropped four other charges. He also agreed to pay more than $600,000 in restitution. Prosecutors say he bilked friends, family members and other investors of more than $1 million.

He will remain in jail until his Oct. 7 sentencing, when Hamilton Superior Court Judge Steven Nation is expected to rule whether Schrenker serves the sentence at the same time as a federal sentence or afterward.

Schrenker, shackled at his wrists and ankles and wearing an orange jail T-shirt emblazoned with "Inmate 453" on its back in large black letters, told Nation he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and has taken medication for it since 1992.

His attorney, P. Chadwick Hill, said afterward that Schrenker didn't blame the disorder for his actions.

The Justice Department's Public Integrity Section has a storied 34-year history of pursuing corruption in government and safeguarding the public trust.

That trust was breached, however, when some of the unit's prosecutors failed to turn over evidence favorable to the defense in their high-profile criminal trial of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who died earlier this month in a plane crash.

Now Jack Smith, a 41-year-old prosecutor with a love for courtroom work and an impressive record, has been brought in to restore the elite unit's credibility.

Before Stevens, Public Integrity's renown was built on large successes — like the prosecution of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and convictions of federal and state judges, members of Congress and state legislators, military officers, federal lawmen and bureaucrats and their state counterparts over the years.

But its stumble — not disclosing exculpatory evidence as Supreme Court precedent requires — was equally large. It was so serious that Attorney General Eric Holder, one of Public Integrity's distinguished alums, stepped in and asked a federal judge to throw out Stevens' convictions.

Nobody disputes that driving under the influence of alcohol is dangerous. In fact, it's one of the most deadly crimes. You won't get any serious arguments from anybody that people should be allowed to drive while impaired. Nobody would dispute that you are far more likely to die at the hands of a DUI driver than at the hands of a serial killer or by gang violence.

The dispute is not about the problem of impaired driving, but rather about what to do about it. Every year, many states increase the jail time, fines and other penalties for DUI offenders. There is little evidence that increased punishment deters impaired driving. In fact, there's no conclusive evidence that suggests that the average would-be drunk driver even considers the penalties before turning on the ignition and hitting the road.

Most state lawmakers increase the penalties because it is politically popular to do so, and it’s the only thing they can think of doing. In most states, the average DUI convict spends no more than a day or two in jail for a first offense, and no longer than a year for a third offense. After that, the states have a tremendous range.

It seems for most offenders, a first, second or third DUI arrest is the wake-up call they need, and very few people get caught more than three times in their lifetime. In states such as Washington that have systems that treat and educate for alcohol and drug issues, there is a ray of hope that recidivism may be reduced. In states such as Arizona, where the focus is on punishment rather than treatment, DWI convictions often do little for a would-be repeat offender than take them off the road temprarily while they are incarcerated.

- attorney webdesign
- law firm website design
- lawyer web designers
- attorney web design