Recent Blog Posts in February 2010 |
| February 26, 2010 |
| Prosecutor Removes Ash From Forehead at the Request of Judge |
| Posted By Bompiani Law Group LLC |
 |
The following article was published in the American Bar Association's Journal this month.
A
defense lawyer objected last Wednesday when an Iowa prosecutor returned to an attempted murder trial after a lunch break with ash on his forehead.
Assistant Marshall County Attorney Paul Crawford was observing Ash Wednesday, the Marshalltown, Iowa,
Times-Republican
reports. Defense
lawyer
Aaron Hawbaker objected, saying he
feared
jurors could be swayed for
or against the prosecution by the religious display.
Judge Michael Moon said he tended to agree with the defense objection, spurring Crawford to remove the ash, the story says. "I understand his position and his request was made out of an abundance of caution," Crawford told the newspaper. "I can live with it."
Rob Boston, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told the Times-Republican that the issue involves a gray area. In some instances, a display of religious preferences can be the basis for an appeal or mistrial, but he was unsure if this instance would meet the criteria.
|
|
| Continue reading "Prosecutor Removes Ash From Forehead at the Request of Judge" » |
|
Permalink  |
| |
| February 19, 2010 |
| 'Harry Potter' Author Accused of Plagiarism |
| Posted By Bompiani Law Group LLC |
|
The following article was recently published in the American Bar Association Journal.
The estate of the deceased author of a children's book has accused the author of the stunningly successful "Harry Potter" books of plagiarizing concepts and themes from Adrian Jacob's
The Adventures of Willy the Wizard: No 1 Livid Land, which was published in 1987.
J.K. Rowling, who became the world's richest author due to the success of Harry Potter, has strongly disputed the claim, reports the London Times.
Bloomsbury Publishing, which printed the books, was named as a defendant in the London lawsuit in June, the newspaper recounts. However, Paul Allen of Australia, who is trustee of Jacob's estate, initially thought the statute of limitations had run on a potential case against Rowling, says Max Markson. An agent in Sydney, he represents Allen.
"I estimate it's a billion-dollar case," Markson tells the Times. "When you think of all the money that's involved, I would say $1 billion is a conservative estimate."
|
|
| Continue reading "'Harry Potter' Author Accused of Plagiarism" » |
|
| Permalink |
| |
| February 05, 2010 |
| Who Gets What in a Pennsylvania Divorce? |
| Posted By L. Anthony Bompiani, Esquire |
|
Pennsylvania is not a 50/50 state. It is an equitable distribution state regarding the division of property in a
divorce proceeding. Specifically, i
n an action for
divorce or annulment in Pennsylvania, the court shal
l, upon request of either party, equitably divide, distribute or assign, in kind or otherwise, the marital property between the parties without regard to marital misconduct in such proportions and in such manner as the courtdeems just after considering all relevant factors, including:
1. The length of the marriage.
2. Any prior
marriage of either party
3. The age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties.
4. The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other party.
5. The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income.
6. The sources of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits.
7. The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as homemaker.
8. The value of the property set apart to each party.
9. The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage.
10. The economic circumstances of each party, including Federal, State and local tax ramifications, at the time the division of property is to become effective.
11. Whether the party will be serving as the custodian of any dependent minor children.
All real or personal property acquired by either party during the marriage is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or by the parties in some form of co-ownership such as joint tenancy, tenancy in common or tenancy by the entirety. [Based on Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes - Title 23 - Sections: 3501 & 3502]
As you can see, there are many factors to consider when dividing martial property. For this reason, it is best to consult with an
experienced attorney to learn your rights.
If you have any specific questions regarding
divorces in Pennsylvania, please
contact, L. Anthony
Bompiani, Esquire at (724) 925-9600.
|
|
| Continue reading "Who Gets What in a Pennsylvania Divorce?" » |
|
| Permalink |
| |