Spanish court convicts 53 in corruption trial

A Spanish court convicted 53 people Friday in the country's biggest-ever corruption trial, which lasted two years and centered on widespread real estate fraud and bribery in the southern jet-set resort town of Marbella.

The defendants in the trial, which ended last year, included former town hall officials, lawyers and business representatives. The judge took several months to decide on the sentences — 40 other people were acquitted and two accused died while the case was being prepared.

Under a highly complex scheme in the mid-1990s, city funds were widely misappropriated, and public officials and business representatives divvied up under-the table kickbacks for planning permissions and construction of hotels, residential complexes and urban infrastructure. Much of the money was then laundered with the help of lawyers.

Marbella, located on Spain's southern coast, was a magnet for jet set and society figures from across the world during the 1970s and 1980s.

The man who prosecutors said was the mastermind of the fraud, former Marbella urban planning adviser Juan Antonio Roca, got the biggest sentence — 11 years — for money laundering, bribery and fraud. He also was fined 240 million euros ($326 million).

Roca has been in jail since 2006 when he was first arrested as the case broke. Back then, he was considered one of the richest people in Spain with his assets including ranches, fighting bulls, thoroughbred horses, art, expensive cars and boats.

The scheme began when late Atletico Madrid soccer club owner Jesus Gil y Gil was mayor of Marbella between 1991 and 2002. Roca began working for Marbella town hall under Gil and claimed during the trial that he was just following the mayor's orders.

Ind. high court to hear eminent domain lawsuit

The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear an eminent domain case involving land in southern Indiana that a local board claimed for a planned airport runway expansion.
The state's high court recently vacated the Indiana Court of Appeals' ruling in the case involving the action by the now-defunct Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners. That board used eminent domain in 2009 to acquire property owned by resident Margaret Dreyer for a runway expansion at the Clark County Regional Airport.
Dreyer sued the board, alleging its appraisals of the property acquired through eminent domain were wrong. She won and was awarded a judgment of $865,000.
The News and Tribune reported Clark County became party to the case last year when Dreyer's motion was granted to have the "civil government of Clark County" pay the judgment. The Court of Appeals later upheld the verdict.
South Central Regional Airport Authority Attorney Greg Fifer said last week in an email that the Indiana Supreme Court could either reach the same verdict as the appellate court, or affirm the county's position that the judgment was void.
Authority President Tom Galligan said the panel, which replaced the now-defunct Board of Aviation Commissioners, is pleased with the court's decision to hear the case. He said the airport authority thought the original ruling "was not a very good ruling."

Ohio kidnap suspect in court, plea talks ongoing

Prosecutors and lawyers for a Cleveland man accused of holding three women captive in his home for more than a decade signaled Wednesday that they are talking about a possible plea deal.

With a trial less than two weeks away, there was no mention of whether the prosecutor will seek the death penalty. Attorneys for Ariel Castro, 53, say a deal is dependent on taking it off the table.

"My understanding is that the parties have discussed possible pleas and that you're working to see if that would be an effective resolution, is that correct?" Judge Michael Russo asked.

Both sides responded "yes" without elaboration and left the courtroom without commenting. Last month, the judge had mentioned the possibility of a plea deal raised by the defense.

Castro mostly kept his head down during the brief hearing and quietly answered "yes" to routine questions from the judge.

The hearing focused on the trial date, Aug. 5, and whether the prosecution had provided its evidence to the defense in a timely fashion, as required.

McKennon Law Group - Disability Insurance

Disability insurance law firm, McKennon Law Group are experts at resolving long-term disability insurance claim disputes. The disputes we handle include individuals ad group policies involving the ERISA. Our attorneys have had over 25 years of experience and are the aggressive advocates in the Newport Beach, California area but also known nationally and regionally as the top disability insurance litigation firm. If you are feeling helpless because your insurance company denies your disability claim, contact one of our attorneys today and we can claim the case for you to get successful results.

Judge OKs class-action settlement over Skechers

A federal judge approved a $40 million class-action settlement Monday between Skechers USA Inc. and consumers who bought toning shoes after ads made unfounded claims that the footwear would help people lose weight and strengthen muscles.
U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell in Louisville approved the deal, which covers more than 520,000 claims. About 1,000 people eligible for coverage by the settlement opted not to take part.
Those with approved claims will be able to get a maximum repayment for their purchase _ up to $80 per pair of Shape-Ups; $84 per pair of Resistance Runner shoes; up to $54 per pair of Podded Sole Shoes; and $40 per pair of Tone-Ups.
Russell also awarded $5 million for the attorneys in the case to split. Russell ordered that the money cannot come from the $40 million settlement fund set aside for consumers.
Two people that served as the lead plaintiffs in the case will receive payments of $2,500 each.
Russell considered multiple factors in deciding to approve the settlement and found it provides just compensation to the plaintiffs.

Appeals court hears challenge to gay therapy ban

California's novel law seeking to ban licensed counselors from trying to turn gay teens straight is boiling down to a question over whether the therapy is free speech or a medical treatment that can be regulated by government.

It's the "pivot point" of the legal debate, Judge Morgan Christen of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday.

Morgan and two other judges on the nation's largest federal appellate court considered 90 minutes of legal arguments over the ban on "sexual-orientation change" counseling of minors, which other states are considering.

The three-judge panel is considering two challenges to the law approved in California last fall. It took no action Wednesday and will issue a written ruling later.

The law was to go into effect Jan. 1, but the court put it on hold pending its decision.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski noted the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California ban of violent video games because the state failed to show a compelling reason to infringe on game-makers free speech rights to manufacture the products.

He said it appeared the same argument could be applied to the evidence lawmakers relied on in passing the prohibition on sexual-orientation change therapy.

Court to mull Arizona's immigrant harboring ban

An appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's bid to let police enforce a minor section of the state's 2010 immigration law that prohibits the harboring of illegal immigrants.
The harboring ban was in effect from late July 2010 until U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled in September that it was trumped by federal law and barred police from enforcing it. Brewer has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Bolton's ruling.
Brewer's lawyers argue the ban doesn't conflict with federal policies, is aimed at confronting crime and that the law's opponents haven't shown they have legal standing to challenge the prohibition. The governor's attorneys also say there's no evidence that the ban has been enforced against any people or organizations represented by a coalition of civil rights groups that have challenged the law in court.
The coalition has asked the appeals court to uphold Bolton's ruling, saying the state law is trumped by a federal harboring law that leaves no room for state regulation. The coalition also argues that Bolton has repeatedly confirmed that it has standing to challenge the harboring ban.
Another federal appeals court has barred authorities from enforcing similar harboring bans in Alabama and Georgia.