Police said Morelus shot guard Carlos Montes, who in turn fatally shot Cobb in self-defense. Montes survived. Morelus was charged with felony murder for taking part in the crime that led to his friend’s demise.
In June 2008, police said, Morelus confessed at the Miami-Dade police headquarters, 9105 NW 25th St. But before he could be booked into jail, Morelus slipped out of a homicide bureau office and made it to the nearby Miami International Mall, where he used a payphone to call his sister before he was found hiding in the parking lot.
Morelus was facing between 25 and 50 years in prison.

“It was a pleasure working with Brainley’s family. They are good hard-working decent people, and I only wish the result could have been a little bit better for them,” said defense attorney Richard Docobo.

Source: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/01/2245816/miami-dade-man-pleads-guilty-to.html

Mortgage fraud is not to be confused with predatory mortgage lending, which occurs when a consumer is misled or deceived by agents of the lender. However, predatory lending practices often co-exist with mortgage fraud. Examples of mortgage fraud: Occupancy fraud, Income fraud, Appraisal fraud, Cash-Back Schemes, Shotgunning
Working the Gap, Identity Theft.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_fraud

“There is indeed a question of contravention of the Declaration of Rights and there is need to refer the question to the Supreme Court.” Madanhire and Ndlovu have been appearing before the courts since November last year on charges of “publishing and communicating false statements prejudicial to the State” after The Standard ran a story on the postponement of police promotional examinations.

Through Harare lawyer Chris Mhike, the three questioned whether or not Sections 31 and 96 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which they are being charged under, were consistent with the Constitution of Zimbabwe, particularly Section 20 which provides for freedom of expression. Section 31 of the Act criminalises the publishing or communicating of false statements prejudicial to the State while Section 96 creates the offence of criminal defamation. AMH Editor-in-chief Vincent Kahiya and Zimbabwe Independent editor Constantine Chimakure have a similar application pending before the Supreme Court.
Police have routinely used the law to harass journalists and Ndirowei’s ruling would provide a ray of hope for journalists as the country heads towards a potentially volatile election period.

Source: http://www.thestandard.co.zw/local/28731-ruling-gives-journalists-a-ray-of-hope.html

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_defense_lawyer

RELATED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Judge Vinson became the second federal judge to strike down a key portion of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. In a Jan. 31 decision, Vinson declared that Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution’s commerce clause by requiring every American to purchase a government-approved level of private health insurance. But the judge went further. He also ruled that since the so-called individual mandate was the centerpiece of the entire reform effort, all 450 provisions in the law must also be rendered void as well. The Pensacola-based judge did not issue an injunction specifically commanding the Obama administration to immediately halt all efforts to implement health-care reform.

He did not believe an injunction was necessary. His Jan. 31 ruling says in part on page 75: “œThere is a long-standing presumption that officials of the executive branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the [Jan. 31] declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. Immediately after Judge Vinson issued his decision, senior administration officials said they would continue to implement the health-reform law as the appeals process moved forward. Some well-known provisions have already taken affect, including a bar on denying coverage for preexisting health conditions and allowing parents to maintain coverage of their young-adult children. In addition, several states are taking concrete steps to prepare for the broader implementation of the law and are accepting federal money to fund the effort. Many legal analysts had expected administration lawyers to seek a stay of Judge Vinson’s Jan. 31 ruling to extend during an appeal. But rather than immediately file an appeal, the Justice Department waited 2-1/2 weeks before it sent an unusual motion to the judge.

The government wanted the judge to clarify: Lawyers for the 26 states challenging the constitutionality of the ACA told Vinson the effort was a “œtransparent attempt “¦ to obtain a stay pending appeal.” Judge Vinson issued the requested clarification on Thursday and it is apparent from the tone of the 20-page order that he was not amused by the government’s conduct. He told the government lawyers that his Jan. 31 ruling used language that was “œplain and unambiguous.” Vinson said if the administration was unable to comply with his decision striking down the ACA, officials were entitled to seek an immediate stay of the ruling. “It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify,’ ” he wrote.

The judge said he was agreeing to issue a stay of his ruling because halting the ongoing implementation of the health-care reform effort would be “extremely disruptive and cause significant uncertainty.” The judge cited the case of residents and public officials in Michigan, where a different federal judge has ruled that the ACA is in full compliance with the Constitution. To date, three federal judges have upheld the ACA as constitutional and two have struck it down as unconstitutional. The cases are all under appeal. Vinson said the complicated health-reform effort, combined with the ongoing constitutional challenges, have generated uncertainty and confusion across the country. “The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be,” he said. A Justice Department spokeswoman praised Vinson’s decision to issue a stay of his earlier ruling. “We appreciate the court’s recognition of the enormous disruption that would have resulted if implementation of the Affordable Care Act was abruptly halted,” said Tracy Schmaler, deputy director of the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs. She said the stay would allow the continuation of tax credits to small businesses and distribution of millions of dollars in federal grants to states to help cover health-care costs. Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett said Vinson’s most recent order was “another masterful opinion from a heroic judge.”

Professor Barnett, a commerce clause scholar, said in a statement that the government’s motion to “clarify,” had given the judge an opportunity to defend his Jan. 31 ruling from criticism, “while effectively compelling a fast-track appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.” Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute also viewed Vinson’s action as a positive move for those challenging the constitutionality of the health-reform law. “Judge Vinson’s latest ruling exposes the government’s disingenuousness with respect to his earlier invalidation of the entirety of Obamacare,” Mr. Shapiro said. “He has now put [the government’s] feet to the fire, making clear that if the government doesn’t appeal – and ask for expedited appeal – within a week, it must stop implementation of Obamacare.” In her statement on behalf of the Justice Department, Ms. Schmaler said there was “clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the Affordable Care Act and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.”

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110303/ts_csm/367308_1