Last updated over a decade ago, the guidelines steer judges in financial crime cases toward prison sentences that vary based on the dollar value of ill-gotten gains. Opinions on the revisions ran across the spectrum. On one end, the U.S. Justice Department objected to the revisions, appearing to base their judgment on public opinion. The Department said the move was contrary to “overwhelming societal consensus.”
On the other hand, many defense attorneys at the American Bar Association felt the proposals were too moderate. They have long advocated for softened guidelines and had pushed for broader revisions. Indeed, even some judges have said the recommended prison terms for financial offenders are too harsh.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in United States v. Booker, that all federal sentencing guidelines were advisory. Prior to the decision, they were mandatory — judges’ hands were tied, and the specific mitigating circumstances of each case had no bearing on the punishment imposed. Following Booker, judges would often hand down sentences in fraud cases that fell short of the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines. This illustrates that the recent revisions were probably overdue, especially considering the cumulative effects of inflation on the actual value of fraudulent gains.
The post White-collar sentencing guidelines modified despite DOJ pushback first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>Last updated over a decade ago, the guidelines steer judges in financial crime cases toward prison sentences that vary based on the dollar value of ill-gotten gains. Opinions on the revisions ran across the spectrum. On one end, the U.S. Justice Department objected to the revisions, appearing to base their judgment on public opinion. The Department said the move was contrary to “overwhelming societal consensus.”
On the other hand, many defense attorneys at the American Bar Association felt the proposals were too moderate. They have long advocated for softened guidelines and had pushed for broader revisions. Indeed, even some judges have said the recommended prison terms for financial offenders are too harsh.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in United States v. Booker, that all federal sentencing guidelines were advisory. Prior to the decision, they were mandatory — judges’ hands were tied, and the specific mitigating circumstances of each case had no bearing on the punishment imposed. Following Booker, judges would often hand down sentences in fraud cases that fell short of the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines. This illustrates that the recent revisions were probably overdue, especially considering the cumulative effects of inflation on the actual value of fraudulent gains.
The post White-collar sentencing guidelines modified despite DOJ pushback first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>The most infamous of the lawsuits against Obama was the case Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio filed, ostensibly seeking to force the Administration to obey the Constitution. Although the court agreed the case did raise important questions relating to how illegal immigration affected the nation, those questions were not for the court to address.
U.S. District Judge Howell indicated the role of the courts is not to participate in policymaking, leaving that to the legislative and executive branches of government. That aside, a significant number of scholars, along with the Department of Justice (DOJ), have stated on many occasions that Obama’s executive actions are both legal and lawful. In court, Arpaio’s attorney suggested the President’s executive actions were not merely policy, but rather the creation of new law, which is forbidden under the Constitution.
What is baffling about the legal challenges is that neither of the president’s actions – the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or the executive directive on immigration – grant legal status to people who do not have it or create a new law. The actions endeavor to refocus immigration enforcement on those posing a threat to public safety by deferring deportation. In theory, but evidently not in reality, the deferral programs should provide the White House with the time and the motivation to achieve more substantial immigration reform.
DOJ attorney Kathleen Hartnett weighed in on the court case, suggesting it seemed to raise a political dispute and not a legal claim that the courts could address. Despite Arpaio’s loss and the nationwide force of opinion not being on his side, he plans to appeal the decision. Polls still clearly indicate high support for immigration reform.
According to political pundits the chances that the other class action lawsuit launched by attorney generals and governors in 24 red states will go down in flames are also good, for similar reasons as cited in the Arpaio case. The court has taken under consideration the fact that executive directives are not new rules, but rather orders to enforce existing ones.
Also crucial to a decision for the defendant is that the plaintiffs are suggesting the tidal wave of children coming across the border is the result of Obama’s executive directives – an extremely hard allegation to prove, given that executive directives are often based on conflicting information. Again, these matters are typically considered to be policy decisions, not legislative ones.
The post Immigration Reform Lawsuit Against Federal Government Rejected first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>The civil rights division of the DOJ accused Florida officials of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by funding its community health programs so poorly that hundreds of children are forced to live in geriatric institutions, often far from home.
Reimbursement rates paid by the state to community service providers have remained flat since 1987, according to the lawsuit, while rates paid to nursing homes for housing children have risen by nearly 30 percent to $550 per day.
Three years ago, Florida lawmakers cut $6 million from a program that provided private nursing care for those outside institutions. Another program to assist parents in caring for disabled children close to home has a wait list of 22,000 individuals.
Children are far more likely to face abuse in nursing homes than at home or in community settings. A Miami nursing home faced over $300,000 in fines and eventually shut down its pediatric wing after two disabled children died there in less than a year. And Lakeshore Villas in Tampa recently closed after federal officials cut off Medicare payments amid allegations of neglect and isolation of disabled children living there. That was the second nursing home accepting children to close in 2013. Just four remain.
If you need to speak with a wrongful death attorney or lawyer, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.
The post DOJ Sues Florida Over Children in Nursing Homes first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>