The Texas Supreme Court late Thursday imposed a stay on county court rulings striking down the state's gay marriage ban hours after a lesbian couple became the first to wed in the Lone Star state.
A short statement on the state supreme court website said the justices had issued a special order.
"The Texas Supreme Court has granted a stay of two trial court rulings that Texas' constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages violates constitutional protections to equal protection and due process of law," the statement said.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had sought the stay in two cases in Travis County in which judges ruled in favor of the rights of same-sex couples: one, to marry; the other, to be the beneficiary of a will.
Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant became the first same-sex couple to wed in Texas on Thursday when they exchanged vows in Austin. The county clerk said the right to marry applied only to the couple, and was ordered by a state judge, because one of the women has "severe and immediate health concerns."
But Paxton declared the couple's marriage "void" after the state Supreme Court order.
"The Court's action upholds our state constitution and stays these rulings by activist judges in Travis County," Paxton said in a statement. "The same-sex marriage license issued by the Travis County Clerk is void, just as any license issued in violation of state law would be. I will continue to defend the will of the people of Texas, who have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, against any judicial activism or overreach."
A lawyer for Goodfriend and Bryant told the Austin-American Statesman that the stay didn't affect the couple's marriage.
"In our view, there's no practical meaning," he said. "We got our people married."
A challenge to the state's same-sex marriage ban is currently before the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Thirty-seven states, plus the District of Columbia, allow gays and lesbians to wed.
The Supreme Court this summer is expected to definitively answerwhether gay couples nationwide have the right to marry.
The shocking penalties prisoners face for banal activities like updating social networking sites.
he Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has put out a new investigationfinding that nearly 400 South Carolina prisoners have been subjected to solitary confinement because they used social media. Thanks to a 2012 rule change at the South Carolina Department of Corrections, “creating and/or assisting with a social networking site” became a Level 1 offense, which puts it on the same level of offense as “murder, rape, rioting, escape and hostage-taking.”
The investigation, conducted with open records requests by EFF, has found that these social media offenses carried extreme penalties, with the most severe being the case of Tyheem Henry. Henry received 13,680 days (approximately 37 and a half years ) of solitary confinement, while losing 27,360 days worth of telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges and 69 days of good time for 38 posts he made on Facebook.
While Henry's case is extreme, EFF found that the average length of punishment for social networking related cases was 512 days of solitary confinement.
Unfortunately, while South Carolina has perhaps the harshest punishments for social media use, it is not unique in handing out severe punishment for such a banal activity. EFF notes that New Mexico sentenced a man to 60 days in solitary when his family accessed his Facebook for him.
EFF is both calling on South Carolina to review its prison social media policy and for Facebook to provide transparency for how detention agencies are using data it gives them to punish prisoners; the site currently has an entire feature called the “Inmate Account Takedown Request” for corrections officers to use to shut down detainee social media accounts.
WASHINGTON — Ron Motley could have come straight out of a John Grisham novel, a charismatic Southern trial lawyer with the swagger of a man who had bet big in life and usually won.
He rose to wealth and fame by vanquishing one seemingly unbeatable legal foe after another. He beat the asbestos industry, then he beat Big Tobacco.
Finally, he focused on what was arguably his toughest target of all: Saudi Arabia, which he saw as helping finance the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In 2002, he filed suit in federal court on behalf of the families of Sept. 11 victims against the government of Saudi Arabia and members of the Saudi elite, including a wide range of Saudi financial institutions and wealthy individuals. The lawsuit accused the government, as well as banks, charities and even members of the Saudi royal family of financing Osama bin Laden’s terrorism.
Since then — mired in endless procedural delays and lacking an unquestioned smoking gun to prove Saudi complicity — Mr. Motley’s lawsuit has been stuck in the courts without ever coming close to a resolution.
Last week, though, after more than 12 years of grindingly slow legal wrangling, Mr. Motley’s long-running lawsuit suddenly drew headlines. Lawyers representing the families of Sept. 11 victims disclosed that Zacarias Moussaoui, a former operative for Al Qaeda now in federal prison, had told them that prominent members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family had been major donors to the terrorist organization in the late 1990s.
While Mr. Moussaoui’s statements were quickly challenged by some foreign policy experts and rejected by Saudi officials, the assertions helped bring the once-simmering issue of possible Saudi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks back into the national consciousness. They also gained widespread notice for the long-stalled lawsuit, which has occupied the federal court docket for almost the entire 21st century.
“When I began this, I would never have guessed that I would have spent so much of my legal career on one case,” said Sean Carter, a lawyer for plaintiffs in the case. “There are times when it is exhausting, but everyone is committed to see it through.”
The attention has come too late for Mr. Motley, who died in 2013, without ever having seen an end to his most ambitious legal fight. Now, other lawyers continue to steer his lawsuit and a series of others that have been consolidated into one giant legal action in federal court in Manhattan.
Over the years, this giant case has suffered so many delays and false starts, endured so many ups and downs, that it has sometimes been compared to Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, the endless legal drama at the heart of Charles Dickens's “Bleak House.” The case has also had to endure strange questions about whether some investigators hired by the lawyers for the Sept. 11 families were also working for the United States government on unrelated intelligence operations at the same time. Those questions led to a secret investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general into the relationship between the investigators and the F.B.I.
When they first began their legal campaign against the Saudis in the heated aftermath of Sept. 11, Mr. Motley and other lawyers adopted a shotgun approach, naming hundreds of institutions and individuals as defendants. Today, some lawyers involved in the case acknowledge that that approach was a mistake because it led to wasted years of procedural fights as many of the defendants sought to get dismissed from the case. “Turn the clock back 13 years, I would have preferred a more focused case,” said Jim Kreindler, one of the lawyers for the Sept. 11 families. “But we stayed alive.”
Many of the original defendants were successful in getting dismissed from the case — including the Saudi government and members of the royal family, who were able to argue that they were protected by the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity; the concept grants recognized nations immunity from the reach of American courts.
But after the government and royal family members were dismissed in 2005, lawyers for the families of the Sept. 11 victims appealed, beginning a lengthy legal war to get them brought back in. Finally, in 2013, an appeals court reversed its own decision and ruled that the victims' families could pursue their case against the Saudi government.
The ruling did not extend to the individual members of the Saudi royal family who had been dismissed, but it still gave the lawsuit new life and a new focus, with far fewer defendants.
“We started with five or six hundred defendants, including governments of several countries — it was painted with a broad brush in the beginning,” Mr. Kreindler said. “Now it is primarily focused on the government of Saudi Arabia.”
But the Saudi government is fighting back, and is scrambling once again to be removed from the case. The Moussaoui statements were filed with the court by the lawyers for the Sept. 11 families as part of a larger response to the Saudi government’s latest motion for dismissal.
Mr. Kreindler estimated that the continuing fight over whether the Saudi government should stay in the lawsuit could take yet another three years, as the issue winds its way once more through the legal system. He predicted it could end up before the Supreme Court, which has already dealt with the case three times, twice declining to hear appeals from the plaintiffs, and once declining to hear an appeal from the defendants, according to lawyers involved in the case. The lawyers for the families now hope Congress will short-circuit the process by passing legislation that would prevent the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity from protecting countries that provide support to terrorism.
After several lawsuits were consolidated in Federal District Court in New York in 2003, the giant case was given to Judge Richard Conway Casey, the nation’s first blind federal trial judge, and after his 2007 death the case was transferred to Judge George Daniels.
By far the most mysterious episode in the case revolves around some of the investigators brought in by Mr. Motley to investigate Saudi Arabia. Working through a small investigative firm called Rosetta Research and Consulting, which was formed to work on the case, some of the investigators also became involved in operations with the F.B.I. and later the Drug Enforcement Administration. Most notably, they were involved in an operation to lure an Afghan drug lord to the United States. In 2005, they persuaded the Afghan, Haji Bashir Noorzai, to come to New York, where he was then arrested by the Drug Enforcement Administration. He has since been convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
The role of the investigators from the Sept. 11 lawsuit in the Noorzai operation was baffling and embarrassing to many top officials in the government, and the connections between the investigators and the F.B.I. prompted an investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general, which never made the investigation’s findings public. Mr. Motley and his firm, Motley Rice, ultimately cut their ties, and Rosetta collapsed.
Today, the lawyers for the Sept. 11 families have seen so many changes of fortune that they are careful not to describe Mr. Moussaoui’s statements as a breakthrough. But in carefully chosen words of optimism, the lawyers do describe the new statements as adding to the evidence they need to make their case.
Alabama is set Monday to become the 37th state where gays can legally wed, prompting one couple to pitch a tent outside a courthouse to wait even as the state's chief justice was making an 11th hour attempt late Sunday to keep the weddings on hold.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore sent a letter to probate judges ordering them to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses when the courts open for business Monday. Moore wrote that the judges weren't bound by a federal judge's ruling Jan. 23 that the marriage ban was unconstitutional.
"Effective immediately, no probate judge of the state of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama probate judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent with (the Alabama Constitution)," Moore wrote.
But Susan Watson, executive director The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, called the move by the conservative chief justice "grandstanding" and predicted licenses would be issued shortly.
"We will see marriage equality in Alabama tomorrow. I don't think the probate judges in Alabama are going to defy a federal court judge's order," Watson said.
U.S. District Judge Callie Granade ruled the state marriage ban was unconstitutional and in a clarification order said that probate judges have a legal duty under the U.S. Constitution to issue the licenses.
The developments came as at least one couple showed up early at the county courthouse in one major city, Montgomery, and more were expected at courthouses around the state early Monday.
Tori Sisson and Shante Wolf pitched a blue and white tent outside the Montgomery County Courthouse and hugged as they waited for the doors to open later Monday morning. They hoped to be the first couple to get a marriage license.
"It's about time," Wolfe, 21, said of gay marriage being allowed in the Deep South state.
The chief justice, Moore, has been one of the state's most outspoken critics of gay marriage. He called homosexuality an "evil" in a 2002 custody ruling and urged judges to reject issuing such licenses in recent days.
A few probate judges have said they would refuse to issue the licenses until they got greater clarity from the courts. Then Moore, as head of the court system, upped the ante Sunday night by sending the directive, although, it was unclear what enforcement provision he has.
Moore's letter to the probate judges said Gov. Robert Bentley can take action against elected officials who fail to follow the law.
A spokeswoman for Bentley said he did not know about Moore's letter and did not have an immediate comment Sunday evening.
Couples plan to seek marriage licenses across the state with marriage equality groups providing ministers and judges to perform ceremonies in Huntsville and Birmingham.
Attorney General Luther Strange has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put aside Granade's order since justices are expected to issue a ruling later this year on whether gay couples have a right to marry nationwide. The high court had not ruled on the state's request with just hours to go until courthouses open on Monday morning.
The ACLU has established a hotline for couples to report if they are refused a license. Watson said the ACLU will be at courthouses across the state, not just to be prepared for problems, but to hand out balloons and gifts to joyful couples.
"I think it will really pretty simple. Hopefully we will be able to hand out a lot of wedding favors," Watson said.
More than 100 people attended a "Sanctity of Marriage" rally at the Alabama Capitol on Saturday. With the sign "One Man One Woman" behind them, speakers said they stood with the biblical definition of marriage and the 80 percent of voters who approved Alabama's gay marriage ban in 2006.
A group of marriage rights supporters gathered across the street waving signs reading, "Y'all means all" and singing a version of "Going to the Chapel," but changing the word chapel to courthouse.
Juanita High School rape: Teens attempted broomstick rape of special needs boy
Facebook
An alleged rape at Juanita High School in Kirkland, Washington has five teenage boys – ages 14 and 15 – facing attempted rape charges this week in a Seattle juvenile court. The boys, all members of the Juanita Rebels football team, are accused of luring an older, special needs student into the campus locker room and then sodomizing him with the end of a broomstick.
Writes the Seattle Times on Feb. 6: “According to court documents, an 18-year-old special-education student was lured into the shower area of the Juanita boy’s locker room and then held down by three of the boys, who then pulled down his pants and underwear while another boy attempted to sodomize him with a broomstick. Witness accounts and text messages leading up to the event suggested that the incident was planned.”
Names of the boys were not released, but the incident was reportedly captured on at least one of the suspect’s cell phones. According to KOMO News out of Seattle, four of the boys denied participating in the attack or blamed the others. Only one of the boys admitted to the sexual assault, telling Kirkland police that “I was going to stick a broomstick up (the victim’s) a**.”
In the video, one of the attackers can be heard telling the others “it isn’t funny anymore.” The victim was then released. His aunt was the first to report the rape to police after the school's athletic director called her to inform that “an incident” had occurred the day prior between her nephew and the members of the football team.
“Although the incident does not appear to have been sexually motivated, the charges reflect that the attack involved an attempted or threatened penetration with a broom handle while one student was restrained by several others,” the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said.
KOMO News picks up the story:
The victim – a senior in the school's special needs program – told police he had been hanging around the locker room with members of the school's freshman football team when five of the players started to tease him about finding a picture of his girlfriend, according to court papers.
The teasing continued, and one of the players eventually called the victim into the shower area, where police say he and the other players grabbed the victim and pulled down his sweatpants and underwear.
The victim told police that the Juanita football team’s head coach, Shaun Tarantola, approached him to tell him that he was “sorry that happened,” but did not report the incident to police.
According to arrest affidavits, witnesses to the attack inside of the locker room said they had “no doubt” that the assault was planned by the teenage boys. The players were “trying to stick the broom in (the victim's) rectum,” and called the attack a hazing-motivated action known as a “jubie,” which according to the witness statement is when “someone is held down and a broomstick or finger is stuck up that person's rectum.”
All five have been charged with second-degree attempted rape and are scheduled to be arraigned on February 20.
An Argentine special prosecutor who was found dead of a gunshot wound in his home had drafted a warrant seeking the arrest of the country's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, according to documents obtained by local media. Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor whose death last month sent shockwaves through Argentina, drafted a 26-page document, first published in Argentine Spanish-language newspaper Clarin, calling for the detention of Fernandez and her foreign minister, Hector Zimmerman. The document was found in a trash bin at the Nisman's apartment, where he was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head by police on Jan. 18. Nisman was the lead investigator into the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and injured hundreds more. In the last few months, Nisman had been outspoken in his criticism of Kirchner and other government officials, accusing them of having shielded Iranian officials from responsibility in the attack. Nisman was set to testify in a hearing about the bombing before his death. Image: RODRIGO ABD / AP In this Thursday, Jan. 29, 2015 photo, a woman holds up a sign that reads in Spanish "Justice" as she gathers with others outside the funeral home where a private wake for the late prosecutor Alberto Nisman takes place, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Nisman was scheduled to appear before Congress the day after he was found dead in his apartment on Jan. 18, to detail his allegations that President Cristina Fernandez had conspired to protect some of the Iranian suspects in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center. The man who gave Nisman the gun that killed him said Wednesday that Nisman feared for the safety of his daughters and didn't trust the policemen protecting him. Viviana Fein, the lead investigator into Nisman's death, initially denied the existence of a draft when Clarin first reported on them on Sunday. But on Tuesday Fein walked back her comments, saying on Argentine radio that it was a misinterpretation. "The word I should have used is: It is clear that there was a draft," she said on Argentine radio station Vorterix. In a statement released by Fein's office, she said different types of documentation were found in Nisman's home, including in a trash bin, and that the material was protected as evidence and all part of the investigation. She added that further testing of evidence will take place next Monday. Fein did not acknowledge whether there was a warrant for the president's arrest. The killing is still under investigation: Some have said Nisman's death was a suicide — he was found with a gun next to him and his home was locked from the inside — while others, including the Argentine president herself, have questioned that claim. In a post on her Facebook page, Fernandez suggested the death and ensuing political drama was part of an ongoing struggle with Argentina's intelligence community. "They used him while he was alive and then they needed him dead," she said in the post, adding that his death was "sad and terrible". Image: Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman attends a meeting with journalists in Buenos Aires MARCOS BRINDICCI / REUTERS FILE Late Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman pauses during a meeting with journalists May 29, 2013. Reuters contributed to this report. First published February 3rd 2015, 5:12 pm DANIELLA SILVA Daniella Silva is a Cover/Social Media Producer and reporter for NBCNews.com. She began in January 2015... Expand Bio
