Thrown Out Lawsuit targeting National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that Opponents Argue could be used to Indefinitely Detain American Citizens on Suspicions of Terrorism.

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

The journalists and activists who brought the case argued that the NDAA unconstitutionally gives the president the authority to detain anyone he suspects of teaming up with al Qaeda or the Taliban, anywhere. They argued that even those who merely spoke with terrorists -- like former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges -- might be in danger.

But in a 60-page ruling, a three judge panel from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs lacked legal status to mount a challenge to the law because it "says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens," and that two non-citizens who were also plaintiffs had failed to show that they were actually threatened with detention.

Hedges, who served as the lead named plaintiff in the case, told HuffPost he was frustrated by the court's decision.

"It's sad that we can't even find any kind of redress through the courts," he said. "There's nowhere left to turn to in this really egregious assault against our most basic civil liberties."

Wednesday's decision may bring to a close a 16-month legal saga during which a lower court judge briefly attempted to block the law. While noting that the Supreme Court's guidance on granting standing for such lawsuits "has been less than clear," the appeal court leaned heavily on the high court's February ruling that human rights groups couldn't challenge a warrantless wiretapping program without concrete proof that it had targeted them.

The plaintiffs may appeal the ruling, but the Supreme Court is not required to hear them out.

"The Second Circuit panel did not distinguish itself in upholding civil rights in America," said Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "I think the decision is imminently appealable because it reverses a very solid and comprehensive lower court opinion, and frankly I think it's time for the Obama administration to stop supporting these statues like the indefinite detention law."

Read More.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/ndaa-indefinite-detention-lawsuit_n_3612354.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600   
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Lady Gaga Concert Promoters Sue 'Despicable' Insurer Over Terrorism-Related Cancellation

The pop star was pulled from a concert in Indonesia last year amid a mounting protest from various Islamic or other groups. Now Live Nation LGTours says it has suffered substantial damage.

As concert promoters discuss with insurers who will be responsible for picking up the cost of a cancellation that is estimated at $25 million, a legal dispute has erupted over the withdrawal of the pop singer from a concert in Indonesia on an earlier leg of the tour.

Gaga (real name: Stefani Germanotta) was scheduled to perform in Jakarta on June 3, 2012, but various Islamic or other groups began mounting a protest. She backed out, and now Live Nation LGTours says it has suffered substantial damage.

Live Nation, Mermaid Touring and The Atom Factory are now suing a Lloyds of London syndicate for allegedly not living up to the terms of a "Terrorism Policy," accusing the defendant of "despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs rights... with the intent to vex, injure or annoy the Plaintiffs, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice..."

Insurance disputes aren't usually this searing.

In advance of the scheduled Lady Gaga concert in Indonesia, many local papers covered the threats.

For example, the Jakarta Globe reported on May 17, 2012 that the "hardline Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) said it would dispatch 30,000 of its members to prevent Gaga from entering Jakarta."

Local police were also reported that it couldn't guarantee the security for Lady Gaga.

According to the lawsuit filed in California federal court, the concert was canceled in order "to prevent bodily injury and property damage and to protect the lives and safety of Lady Gaga, all members of the Born This Way Tour, and the public."

Afterwards, Live Nation attempted to collect on its "Terrorism Insurance" policy, which the plaintiff says they paid a substantial premium to obtain. The language of the policy stated indemnification for the "ascertained net loss" for cancellations due to "the sole and direct result of Terrorism and/or Sabotage or Threat."

The plaintiff is seeking at least $75,000 of Ascertained Net Loss for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In addition, punitive damages are being sought.
Read the full complaint here... http://www.scribd.com/doc/128664504/Gov-uscourts-cacd-555670-1-0

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/lady-gaga-concert-promoters-sue-426047