Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Strauss-Kahn lawyers fight against prostitutes claim - CNN

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Ex-International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is not allowed to have contact with others involved in the probe.Attorney: There is no evidence Strauss-Kahn knew women at sex parties were paidOther suspects say the former IMF chief did not know, Henri Leclerc saysStrauss-Kahn is warned he is being investigated for "aggravated pimping"French police are investigating a high-profile prostitution ring in Lille

Paris (CNN) -- Lawyers for Dominique Strauss-Kahn pushed back Tuesday against allegations that he facilitated prostitution in France, saying there was "no significant evidence" the former International Monetary Fund chief knew young women at parties he attended were being paid for sex.

Other suspects held over an investigation into prostitution centered around the city of Lille "said that Dominique Strauss-Kahn did not know that these women were being paid," Strauss-Kahn's lawyer Henri Leclerc said in a news conference.

"We hear that these women say otherwise. Well, no! I can tell you these women do not say otherwise," he said.

Strauss-Kahn was formally warned Monday that he is under investigation for "aggravated pimping" for accusations that he participated in a prostitution ring, prosecutors said.

He is not allowed to have contact with other people involved in the investigation, nor is he permitted to talk to the media about the case. Strauss-Kahn was released under a €100,000 ($133,000) bail, according to prosecutors.

Strauss-Kahn is now at a point in the French legal system that comes after an arrest and before formal charges are filed.

He faces allegations of habitual involvement in a prostitution racket.

The description of the alleged crime as "aggravated" means it took place on a regular and involved basis, and "pimping" means facilitating a prostitution operation, not just being a customer.

Leclerc said it was possible to question his client's morals, but that he had not broken the law.

"We can criticize in terms of virtue, in terms of how a man should conduct himself," the lawyer said. "But in reality, this is just unruly conduct. You can hate it, you may not find it virtuous -- everyone is entitled to their own opinion -- but it is not a crime."

Frederique Beaulieu, another lawyer for Strauss-Kahn, said Tuesday: "You have to remember that in our country having relations with a prostitute is not a crime."

While prostitution is not illegal in France, profiting from the prostitution of another person is against the law, according to the French Penal Code. Authorities are also investigating whether corporate funds were used to pay for the prostitutes.

Leclerc said in December that there was no evidence that such funds were misappropriated.

Last month, Strauss-Kahn was held for more than 24 hours by police in Lille and questioned about alleged involvement in the prostitution ring.

His attorneys released a statement in November calling the allegations against their client "unhealthy, sensationalist and not without a political agenda."

The prostitution probe, nicknamed the "Carlton Affair" by the French press, kicked off in October.

It centers around the city of Lille, w3here investigators began looking into claims that luxury hotels, including the Carlton, served as a base for a high-profile prostitution network.

In December, Strauss-Kahn's attorney Leclerc acknowledged in an interview with radio station Europe1 that his client attended sex parties, but said Strauss-Kahn was unaware the women in attendance were prostitutes.

A hotel manager and four other men were arrested late last year in connection with the investigation.

The Carlton Affair continues a string of sexual allegations against Strauss-Kahn. He has not been convicted of any crime.

One of the sex scandals torpedoed his expected run for the French presidency this year. He stepped down from the top job at the IMF after that incident, in which a New York hotel maid accused him of sexual assault and attempted rape in May. He denied the accusation.

The case ultimately fell apart after prosecutors decided they could not be sure about the credibility of the alleged victim, despite forensic evidence that showed a sexual encounter had occurred.

Strauss-Kahn also faced allegations of attempted rape from a young French writer. Tristane Banon filed a complaint, alleging a 2003 attack, though it could not be pursued because of a statute of limitations.

Strauss-Kahn denied the allegations and has since filed a countersuit in France, alleging slander.

CNN's Brian Walker contributed to this report.

updated 6:37 PM EDT, Tue March 27, 2012 Britain's Prince Harry has moved into the same London residence where his brother William lives with his new wife Kate, CNN can reveal.updated 8:17 PM EDT, Tue March 27, 2012 A British businessman who was found dead in his Chinese hotel room emerges as a key link in a story of intrigue, mystery and betrayal.updated 10:58 AM EDT, Mon March 26, 2012 Analyst Richard Chasdi says that nations that empower proxy groups are risking total disaster in a nuclear age. In a conversation about a European missile system caught on an open mic, President Barack Obama asks Russia's Dmitry Medvedev for space.updated 5:47 AM EDT, Tue March 27, 2012 Pope Benedict XVI was coming to Mexico for the very first time and the sense of anticipation was great. It was to be the pope's first trip to Spanish-speaking Latin America too. updated 8:24 PM EDT, Sun March 25, 2012 Oscar-winning director James Cameron plunges to the deepest point in the oceans, tweeting from his submersible during the process.updated 11:11 AM EDT, Mon March 26, 2012 Song Ee Han agonized over a decision: Would she leave her youngest child behind while she and her daughters escaped North Korea?updated 9:50 PM EDT, Sun March 25, 2012 Song Byeok had every reason to be pleased with his success. A gift for drawing led to a prestigious career as a propaganda artist.updated 9:12 AM EDT, Fri March 23, 2012 Did French intelligence services miss vital clues as Mohammed Merah showed signs of growing radicalization? updated 12:08 PM EDT, Thu March 22, 2012 One analysts says Sarkozy may be keen to keep the focus on security and the Toulouse attacks -- issues on which he looks strong.updated 12:11 PM EDT, Thu March 22, 2012 The Toulouse shootings refocus fears on trained attackers who are determined, living legally in the West and operating alone.updated 9:40 AM EDT, Thu March 22, 2012 How an acclaimed creates masks, thrones and figures out of weapons used in conflict. Most popular stories right now

View the original article here

Zimmerman Counsel rejects the racism claim - MyFox Phoenix

(NewsCore) - a lawyer advises George Zimmerman - Florida the man who shot dead teenager Trayvon Martin in what he claims was legitimate defence - denied Friday that his client was a racist, but light little on what led to the fatal confrontation.

Martin, 17, was shot and killed on February 26 that he was walking in a gated community Sanford where he was staying with his father. Zimmerman claimed he acted in self-defence and was not arrested or charged, leading to a widespread outcry and protests.

Lawyer Craig Sonner said he had not discussed the details of the incident with Zimmerman, but denied allegations of a possible racial slur during a 911 call before Zimmerman and the African-American Martin came into contact.

"I do not think that he did make a racist remark," sound said on CNN, after admitting that he had not heard the call in question. He said that the fact that Zimmerman and his wife had guided children African Americans supported by belief that the young man of 28 years is not racist.

He said that he had advised Zimmerman to cooperate with the new investigation on the incident, launched demonstrations which began in Florida and spread as far as New York.

He welcomed these investigations and said, "we will look at the facts." The ultimate question is that a kind of fight took place. The ultimate question is "was it self-defense?" ?

His comments are come as Attorney of State of Florida Angela Corey - Thursday was appointed by Governor Rick Scott to conduct a new investigation - began gathering evidence in the case. A grand jury is planned to probe the shooting on 10 April, but Corey staff told WFTV Friday that a grand jury cannot be used in the case.

Lead attorney Bernie the Rionda said: "we will get to the truth, one way or another."

"We are going to do three things." First thing is all what has already been done. Second thing is to determine what needs to be done in our opinion. And then we will make a decision. ?

Corey on Jacksonville replaced local Attorney Norm Wolfinger in case and WFTV said that several sources have confirmed that the police had recommended the original charges of manslaughter against Zimmerman, but that Wolfinger had not acted on their advice.

The Rionda would not confirm the request, saying: "I will not confirm or deny anything."

Head of the Sanford police, Bill Lee, was cancelled Thursday, claiming that he had become a "distraction" to the investigation.

Scott also announced the creation of a working group to study how an incident as Martin's death can be avoided in the future, while the Department of Justice civil rights division is also investigating the incident.

The case also has a focus and criticism, the right to "Stand Your Ground" of Florida, that allows a person to use the deadly force when it is threatened, without trying to retreat.

Asked about the law Friday, former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush said, according to FOX News Channel, "I think it's a good idea to review the laws."

"In this particular case, based on my limited knowledge, it seems to me that this Act does not apply to this situation." Stand means that your stand your ground soil that does not chase after someone who has turned his back. ?

He has added, "with the grand jury investigation, investigation of the Ministry of Justice in place, the fact that the Chief of police took part, the process is in place today and we will have the facts shortly."

View the original article here

Lawyer: Girl on phone with Trayvon Martin cuts shooter's self-defense claim - CNN

IP is over the quota
IP is over the quota
Lawyer: Girl on phone with Trayvon Martin cuts shooter's self-defense claim - CNN Lawyer: Girl on phone with Trayvon Martin cuts shooter's self-defense claimJUSTICE DEPARTMENT Share this on: Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn .cnnFBRecBtn { width:295px; float:right; margin:5px 0; clear:both; }.cnnFBRecBtnBot { width:420px; margin:30px 0 15px 186px; }.cnn_strycntntlft {clear:both;}.fb_edge_widget_with_comment { position:relative; }.fb_iframe_widget { display:inline-block; position:relative; }.fb_iframe_widget span { position:relative; } March 20, 2012|By the CNN Wire Staff

A girl who overheard part of an incident involving Florida teenager Trayvon Martin can help prove he was killed "in cold blood" by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, an attorney for Martin's family said Tuesday.

The girl, who was dating the 17-year-old, "completely blows Zimmerman's absurd self-defense claim out of the water," lawyer Benjamin Crump told reporters.

The girl -- who he said does not wish to be identified -- "connects the dots" about what happened that day when she lays out what she overheard while on the phone with him, he said.

Advertisement

911 calls paint picture of chaos

Martin was fatally shot on February 26 while walking to the house of his father's fiancee in Sanford after a trip to a nearby convenience store. Zimmerman has acknowledged shooting Martin.

Speaking on the phone shortly before he was shot, Martin told the girl that someone was following him and that he was trying to get away, Crump said.

The girl said that, during the phone call, she heard someone ask Martin what he was doing and heard Martin ask why the person was following him, Crump said. The girl then got the impression that there was an altercation in which the earpiece fell out of Martin's ear and the connection went dead, Crump said.

Based on what she heard, the girl believes that Martin was pushed, said Crump, who added that the girl did not hear any gunfire.

Phone records show Martin was on the phone with her much of the day, including around the time of the killing, Crump said. He argued that if Martin were really "up to no good," he wouldn't have been chatting with his friend on the phone.

The girl said Martin was "his regular self," Crump said, arguing that any suggestions that the boy was "high" are "preposterous."

"It's what Zimmerman wants you to believe so he can justify killing this kid in cold blood," Crump said.

Natalie Jackson, another attorney for the Martin family, said police had not interviewed the girl.

Sanford Police Sgt. David Morgenstern said "at the onset, we asked any and all witnesses with information to come forward."

He would not say say whether the department has contacted the girl.

Morgenstern said Martin's cell phone was collected from the crime scene and investigators were working to acquire records associated with the phone's use.

The girl provided her account to Crump in a recording, which he said he will share with the Department of Justice, which is investigating.

Justice Department, FBI to investigate Florida teen's death

1234>>> We recommend From around the web Related Articles ?Family of slain boy outraged shooter remains free
March 16, 2012Two more suspects in New York anti-gay attacks arraigned
October 13, 2010Justice Department investigating new MLK assassination claims
January 18, 1999Find More Stories About ?Justice DepartmentAdvertisement? 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights ReservedPrivacy GuidelinesTerms of ServiceIndex by DateIndex by KeywordArticles.CNN.comAdvertising Practices if (!cnn_metadata) { var cnn_metadata = { 'section' : [], 'friendly_name' : '', 'template_type' : '', 'business' : { 'cnn' : { 'page' : {}, 'video' : {} } } }; } cnn_metadata.section = ['PM:JUSTICE']; cnn_metadata.business.cnn.page.publish_date = "2012/03/20" cnn_metadata.friendly_name = 'Perfect Market Article Page'; cnn_metadata.template_type = 'perfect market'; A09801.DM_addEncToLoc("cnnpm", "True"); A09801.DM_tag();

View the original article here