<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>USLegal Reporter &#187; Uncategorized</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reporter.uslegal.com/category/uncategorized/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com</link>
	<description>Just another USLegal Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:47:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Federal Court Rules Sex Offender Registration Law Violates Ex Post Facto Clause</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/09/30/federal-court-rules-sex-offender-registration-law-violates-ex-post-facto-clause/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/09/30/federal-court-rules-sex-offender-registration-law-violates-ex-post-facto-clause/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that retroactive application of a provision of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (&#8221;SORNA&#8221;), part of the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. 
SORNA requires adult and juvenile sex offenders convicted [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that retroactive application of a provision of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (&#8221;SORNA&#8221;), part of the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. </p>
<p>SORNA requires adult and juvenile sex offenders convicted before its enactment to register with the National Sex Offender Registry. A lawsuit challenging the law was brought by a juvenile who had been adjudicated as a sex offender in 2005, before passage of SORNA. The Ninth Circuit held that the law&#8217;s retroactive application to juvenile offenders violates the ex post facto clause. The court distinguished the case at hand from a Supreme Court case, <em>Smith v. Doe</em>, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), which held that retroactive application of a similar state statute to adult offenders was constitutional. The Ninth Circuit made a distinction between the cases, noting convictions of adult offenders, such as in <em>Doe</em>, are matters of public record, while juvenile proceedings are not such openly public matters.</p>
<p> Source:  <a href="http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp1_1579_United%20States">http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp1_1579_United%20States</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/09/30/federal-court-rules-sex-offender-registration-law-violates-ex-post-facto-clause/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Animal Rights Group Sue Over Helmsley Estate</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/08/18/animal-rights-group-sue-over-helmsley-estate/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/08/18/animal-rights-group-sue-over-helmsley-estate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:38:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[animal rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ASPCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Helmsley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three animal rights groups are suing over a judge&#8217;s ruling that allows the trustees of Leona Helmley&#8217;s estate to use funds to beneft people, rather than animals. In February, a judge ordered that the trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust have sole discretion to decide which charities will receive funds [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Three animal rights groups are suing over a judge&#8217;s ruling that allows the trustees of Leona Helmley&#8217;s estate to use funds to beneft people, rather than animals. In February, a judge ordered that the trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust have sole discretion to decide which charities will receive funds from the trust. In April, the trustees gave $136 million to hospitals, foundations and the homeless. $1 million was donated to groups that benefit animals and train guide dogs for the blind.</p>
<p>The groups, the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Aminals, and Maddie&#8217;s Fund, claim that the trustees are engaged in a scheme to deprive dog welfare charities from sharing in the funds of the Helmsley estate and acting against the wishes expressed in Helmsley&#8217;s will. The hotel heiress&#8217; estate has been valued between $5 and $8 billion, with $12 million left in a trust for her Maltese dog named Trouble. A judge later reduced that trust amount to $2 million.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/5599">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/5599</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/08/18/animal-rights-group-sue-over-helmsley-estate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eunice Kennedy Shriver Dies</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/08/11/eunice-kennedy-shriver-dies/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/08/11/eunice-kennedy-shriver-dies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mental Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eunice Kennedy Shriver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mental Retardation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Olympics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eunice Kennedy Shriver has died at the age of 88 at a Cape Cod hospital, after suffering a series of strokes. She was a sister of President John F. Kennedy and Sens. Robert F. Kennedy and Edward M. Kennedy, and the fifth of nine children born to Joseph P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy. Shriver [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eunice Kennedy Shriver has died at the age of 88 at a Cape Cod hospital, after suffering a series of strokes. She was a sister of President John F. Kennedy and Sens. Robert F. Kennedy and Edward M. Kennedy, and the fifth of nine children born to Joseph P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy. Shriver was the founder of the Special Olympics and devoted herself to helping those with mental disabilities. </p>
<p>In a 1962 article in the Saturday Evening Post, Shriver revealed that her older sister, Rosemary Kennedy, was developmentally disabled. Rosemary had been institutionalized since the age of 23. Her father arranged for her to have a prefrontal lobotomy in 1941, an experimental operation which destroyed part of her brain, leaving her in an infantlike state. She was later kept out of sight at other institutions snd secluded from her family. Shriver&#8217;s candor about her sister helped raised awareness about proper treatment for those with mental disabilities.</p>
<p>In 1982, Shriver founded the Community of Caring, an organization devoted to at-risk teens. Their work focuses on issues such as preventing teenange pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and encourages teens to stay in school and develop proper values. Shriver&#8217;s political activism on behalf of those who are mentally disabled and at-risk teens helped earn her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1984, the nation&#8217;s highest civilian award.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081100689.html?hpid=topnews&amp;sid=ST2009081101304">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081100689.html?hpid=topnews&amp;sid=ST2009081101304</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/08/11/eunice-kennedy-shriver-dies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Upholds $14 Million DUI Verdict Against Bar and Bartender</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/07/21/court-upholds-14-million-dui-verdict-against-bar-and-bartender/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/07/21/court-upholds-14-million-dui-verdict-against-bar-and-bartender/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dram shop law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DUI]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=878</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Washington court has upheld a $14 million award against the bar and bartender that served a patron who later left the bar and caused a fatal accident. Under a state dram shop law, bars can be liable to victims for &#8220;negligent overservice&#8221;, by serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons who later injure others.
The bartender [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Washington court has upheld a $14 million award against the bar and bartender that served a patron who later left the bar and caused a fatal accident. Under a state dram shop law, bars can be liable to victims for &#8220;negligent overservice&#8221;, by serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons who later injure others.</p>
<p>The bartender was the girlfriend of the drunk driver, Hawkeye Kinkaid, who was killed in the crash. The other car&#8217;s driver and all of its passengers were injured, included a 7-year old who was left a paraplegic.  It was estimated that Kinkaid drank the quivalent of 21 12-ounce beers or 30 ounces of 80-proof alcohol and had a blood alcohol content of .32 at the time of the collision. At issue on appeal was whether the plaintiff needed to provide specific &#8220;point-in-time&#8221; evidence that Kinkaid seemed drunk when the bartender served him. However, the Washington Supreme Court disagreed, since the bartender admitted to others that Kinkaid seemed too tipsy to drive and eventually refused to serve him any more alcohol.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/14-million-DUI-award-restored-in-Washington-state">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/14-million-DUI-award-restored-in-Washington-state</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/07/21/court-upholds-14-million-dui-verdict-against-bar-and-bartender/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illinois Supreme Court Lifts Injunction Against Parental Notification for Abortion</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/07/15/illinois-supreme-court-lifts-injunction-against-parental-notification-for-abortion/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/07/15/illinois-supreme-court-lifts-injunction-against-parental-notification-for-abortion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parental Notice of Abortion Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parental notification]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has lifted an injunction against enforcement of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995, which was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Seventh Circuit court found that the notification law was unconstitutional since it did not allow the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has lifted an injunction against enforcement of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995, which was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Seventh Circuit court found that the notification law was unconstitutional since it did not allow the judge to waive notification in cases of minors who are mature or who would face a greater risk of harm by such notification. The appellate court noted the law allows state judges to waive the notice requirement if doing so would be in a minor’s best interest. The court also noted the open nature of the statutory language, which it explained did not require judges to consider both the maturity and the interests of the minor. It also pointed out that minors lacking the maturity to consent to an abortion are provided for under the statute.
 </p>
<p>Because Illinois was the only state in the region without an active parental notification law for minors seeking abortions, pro-life groups had argued that minors from surrounding states would travel to Illinois seeking abortions. Currently, there are 35 other states with parental notification or permission laws for minors to obtain an abortion.<br />
Source: <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/07/7th-circuit-dissolves-injunction.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/07/7th-circuit-dissolves-injunction.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/07/15/illinois-supreme-court-lifts-injunction-against-parental-notification-for-abortion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rhode Island Passes Law Allowing Selling and Growing of Marijuana</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/07/07/rhode-island-passes-law-allowing-selling-and-growing-of-marijuana/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/07/07/rhode-island-passes-law-allowing-selling-and-growing-of-marijuana/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rhode Island]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In defiance of federal law, Rhode Island is on track to have marijuana crops legally culivated and distributed as early as next fall. New Mexico also has a state-sanctioned program for distributing marijuana to medical patients, but has yet to issue any permits since the law&#8217;s passage in 2007. California has had legislation governing medical [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In defiance of federal law, Rhode Island is on track to have marijuana crops legally culivated and distributed as early as next fall. New Mexico also has a state-sanctioned program for distributing marijuana to medical patients, but has yet to issue any permits since the law&#8217;s passage in 2007. California has had legislation governing medical marijuana use for the past 13 years.</p>
<p>The Obama administration has taken a more lenient position toward a state&#8217;s ability to pass medical marijuana legislation. Attorney General Holder indicated in February that the DEA is no longer going to target and harass state compliant medical cannabis providers in states that adopt medical cannabis laws. Also, the executive branch issued a memorandum, entitled &#8220;Pre-emption&#8221;, to all federal agency heads, in effect instructing them to no longer oppose states seeking greater autonomy to pass laws that may possibly be in conflict with federal laws, and to only oppose them if there is a positive conflict with federal laws resulting in genuine risks to national security.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2009/07/rhode-island-challenges-federal-ban-by.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2009/07/rhode-island-challenges-federal-ban-by.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/07/07/rhode-island-passes-law-allowing-selling-and-growing-of-marijuana/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Chrysler Sale to Fiat</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/06/09/us-supreme-court-blocks-chrysler-sale-to-fiat/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/06/09/us-supreme-court-blocks-chrysler-sale-to-fiat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=859</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg issued a temporary stay of Chrysler&#8217;s assets to Italian automaker Fiat, throwing a roadblock in the quick bankruptcy process that was hoped for. The sale of assets would have included Chrysler&#8217;s most valuable assets, such as plants, dealerships and contracts.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg issued a temporary stay of Chrysler&#8217;s assets to Italian automaker Fiat, throwing a roadblock in the quick bankruptcy process that was hoped for. The sale of assets would have included Chrysler&#8217;s most valuable assets, such as plants, dealerships and contracts.</p>
<p>U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had approved the sale, but it was challenged by emergency requests filed by groups representing unions, lenders, stockholders, and others. The stay will give the Court additional time to consider the matter. No timeline has been given for when the Court will issue a decision.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/06/chrysler-sale-delayed-temporarily-by.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/06/chrysler-sale-delayed-temporarily-by.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/06/09/us-supreme-court-blocks-chrysler-sale-to-fiat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Administration to Crack Down on Overseas Tax Havens</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/05/05/obama-administration-to-crack-down-on-overseas-tax-havens/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/05/05/obama-administration-to-crack-down-on-overseas-tax-havens/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 16:03:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax avoidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax havens]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Carrying out one of his campaign promises, President Obama has announced plans for reforms to the U.S. tax code, which are targeted at the tax incentives given to companies who create jobs overseas and overseas tax havens. The new reforms are estimated to add $210 billion in revenue currently lost from taxes currently being avoided [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carrying out one of his campaign promises, President Obama has announced plans for reforms to the U.S. tax code, which are targeted at the tax incentives given to companies who create jobs overseas and overseas tax havens. The new reforms are estimated to add $210 billion in revenue currently lost from taxes currently being avoided under the current practices.</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s plan also includes 800 additional federal agents to enforce the tax code. The president&#8217;s proposal would eliminate some tax deductions for companies that earn profits in countries with low tax rates, as well as making it a vioaltion of U.S tax laws for U.S. citizens to use tax havens in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands.</p>
<p>Business leaders have been highly critical of the new plans and claim they will hurt the U.S. economy. The Netherland, Ireland, and Bermuda have been named as tax haven countries. The U.S. government is currently negotiating to revise its tax treaty with Switzerland, another country criticized as a tax haven.</p>
<p>Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/05/obama-administration-announces-plans-to.php</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/05/05/obama-administration-to-crack-down-on-overseas-tax-havens/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Approval of Gay Marriage by Connecticut Legislature</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/23/approval-of-gay-marriage-by-connecticut-legislature/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/23/approval-of-gay-marriage-by-connecticut-legislature/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Connecticut Legislature Wednesday approved legislation that allows same-sex couples to marry. Following the Connecticut Supreme Court&#8217;s October ruling allowing the same, the vote was 28-7 in the Senate and 100-44 in the House of Representatives. The governor signed the bill into law today. Under the legislation, all civil unions would be considered marriages beginning [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Connecticut Legislature Wednesday <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&amp;bill_num=SB00899&amp;which_year=2009">approved</a> legislation that allows same-sex couples to marry. Following the Connecticut Supreme Court&#8217;s October ruling allowing the same, the vote was 28-7 in the Senate and 100-44 in the House of Representatives. The governor signed the bill into law today. Under the legislation, all civil unions would be considered marriages beginning October 2010. The bill contains an amendment that permits religious organizations the right to deny wedding services and goods to couples who marry under the new legislation.</p>
<p>Connecticut follows Vermont as only the second state to allow gay marriage through legislative vote.</p>
<p>Source:  <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/04/connecticut-legislature-approves-same.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/04/connecticut-legislature-approves-same.php</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.newstimes.com/ci_12210376">http://www.newstimes.com/ci_12210376</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/23/approval-of-gay-marriage-by-connecticut-legislature/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeals Court Rules Against McVeigh Lawyer&#8217;s Tax Case</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/03/31/appeals-court-rules-against-mcveigh-lawyers-tax-case/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/03/31/appeals-court-rules-against-mcveigh-lawyers-tax-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma bomber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Timothy McVeigh]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the lawyer for Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh isn&#8217;t entitled for a tax deuction for donating prosecution materials in the case.  Stephen Jones was the lead defense counsel in McVeigh&#8217;s trial for the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people.  Jones tried to claim a tax deduction of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the lawyer for Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh isn&#8217;t entitled for a tax deuction for donating prosecution materials in the case.<!-- search list --><!-- search reply list -->  Stephen Jones was the lead defense counsel in McVeigh&#8217;s trial for the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people.  Jones tried to claim a tax deduction of $294,877 for donating material he collected in the case, based on the valuation of an appraiser he hired.</p>
<p>The IRS sent Jones a notice of tax deficiency in the amount of $14,785. The appellate court held that Jones was entitled only to the amount he paid for or invested in the material, which was nothing. The materials, which were donated to the Universtiy of Texas, consisted of FBI reports, videotapes, transcripts, correspondence, and other materials. </p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Appeals-court-rejects-tax-case-of-McVeighs-lawyer">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Appeals-court-rejects-tax-case-of-McVeighs-lawyer</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/03/31/appeals-court-rules-against-mcveigh-lawyers-tax-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
