Category Archives: Civil Rights

Read Civil Rights updates, alerts, news, and legal commentary from leading lawyers and laws. Providing news and information about Civil Rights Law for legal professionals.

Gordon Ramsay’s father-in-law pleads guilty to hacking celebrity chef’s computer

BY EMILY PENNINK 
  • 09:42, 11 APR 2017

Gordon Ramsay‘s father-in-law today pleaded guilty to hacking the celebrity chef’s computer.

Christopher Hutcheson, 68, admitted the offence at the Old Bailey.

Hutcheson Snr, who is now estranged from the foul-mouthed TV favourite, and his son and daughter, ran Ramsay’s business empire for 12 years alongside the firebrand chef as a “committee of two” until October 2010.

A legal settlement two years later cost Ramsay £2million to cut all professional ties with his father-in-law.

Hutcheson Snr was charged under Operation Tuletta with conspiring to cause a computer to access programs and data without authority.

Three of his children – Adam Hutcheson, 46, Orlanda Butland, 45, and Chris Hutcheson Jnr, 37 – also faced the same charge.

They appeared at the Old Bailey before Judge Gerald Gordon and spoke to confirm their identities.

The defendants pleaded guilty apart from Ms Butland, who denied the charge.

The prosecution accepted the pleas and offered no evidence in relation to Ms Butland.

Hutcheson Snr is the father of Ramsay’s wife, Tana.

The charges relate to an alleged plot to hack the computer system at Gordon Ramsay Holdings Ltd between October 23, 2010 and March 31, 2011.

The defendants, Butland, of Wycombe Place, Earlsfield, south-west London, Hutcheson Snr, who has a home in Druillat, France, but gave the same address as his daughter, Hutcheson Jnr, of Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, and Adam Hutcheson, of Sevenoaks, Kent, were on bail.

The judge agreed to the preparation of pre-sentence reports and said all sentencing options were open. He adjourned sentencing to June 2.

Full Read – http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/gordon-ramsays-father-law-arrives-10200050

Court decision on transgender bathroom access could put state ballot-measure proposal in spotlight

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court decided not to hear a case over a transgender person’s access to public bathrooms. Some say that decision could elevate the battle over the issue in Washington state.

OLYMPIA — With the nation’s top court sidestepping the issue of transgender people’s access to public bathrooms, Washington state may find itself in the spotlight in this year’s debate over the issue.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not hear the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender Virginia high-school student who sued to be able to use the school’s boys’ bathroom.

The move comes not long after President Donald Trump canceled guidelines by the Obama administration intended to protect transgender students.

The actions could raise the profile of a proposed Washington ballot initiative for this November, I-1552, that would roll back a state rule allowing open locker rooms and bathrooms.

“Washington State is now the 2017 battleground for transgender nondiscrimination protections,” Seth Kirby, chair of Washington Won’t Discriminate, a group opposing proposed Initiative 1552, said in a statement. “All eyes will be on us as we decide whether we will hold true to our state’s values of fairness, equality and freedom, or fall prey to scare tactics and fear mongering.”

Read Full – http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/court-decision-on-transgender-bathroom-access-could-put-ballot-measure-proposal-in-spotlight/

Tempe ‘squatter’ loses in court again as judges affirm lower-court ruling that case lacks merit


Steve Sussex gives a tour of the property his family has occupied for 137 years on the corner of First Street and Farmer Avenue. Sussex is in a dispute with Tempe over rights to the parcel. Ben Moffat/azcentral.com

A Tempe man whose family has squatted in a century-old house on valuable property near downtown has again lost a court decision in his ongoing battle to keep his land.

A three-judge panel from the Arizona Court of Appeals said last week that a Superior Court judge was correct in tossing out Steve Sussex’s case against the city of Tempe because it had no legal merit.

But the man’s 12-year turf war remains far from resolved. Though Sussex can’t prove he rightfully owns the land, the city has so far failed in its effort to oust him. The case — and the land — remain in limbo.

Sussex’s attorney, Jack Wilenchik, said Monday he would appeal to the state Supreme Court. A separate court case, with Tempe asking a court to remove Sussex from the property, is still pending at the Superior Court level.

Wilenchik has fought the city’s move to eject Sussex, arguing in a counterclaim that there are problems with the city’s claim to title as well.

“I haven’t been able to get him title to the land, but the city hasn’t been able to eject him, either,” Wilenchik said. “So it’s been the same as its been for the last 120 years.”

Full Read – http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2017/03/06/tempe-squatter-loses-court-again-judges-affirm-lower-court-ruling-steve-sussex/98820154/

 

Judge Tosses Dakota Pipeline Motion Seeking to Block Construction

A federal judge has denied a motion brought by the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes seeking a preliminary injunction against an easement needed to construct the Dakota Access Pipeline.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote in a court filing Tuesday that the tribe had waited too long to raise the religious concerns upon which the motion was based.

“At this point … the [Army] Corps has granted the permits and easement, and DAPL’s construction under Lake Oahe is days from completion,” Boasberg wrote. “Rerouting the pipeline around Lake Oahe would be more costly and complicated than it would have been months or years ago, as doing so now requires not simply changing plans but abandoning part of a near-complete project and redoing the construction elsewhere.”

full read – http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/judge-tosses-dakota-pipeline-motion-seeking-block-construction-n730271?

Houston area decriminalizes possession of small amounts of weed

Effective March 1, the nation’s fourth-largest city will no longer make arrests of those carrying four ounces or less of marijuana

HOUSTON — The district attorney in the most populous Texas county has announced a new program in which law enforcement agencies will not arrest individuals caught with four ounces or less of marijuana.

Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg announced in Houston on Thursday that her office will offer those possessing misdemeanor amounts of marijuana an opportunity to participate in the program starting March 1.

Individuals won’t be jailed or have to appear in court, but they will have 90 days to complete a four-hour decision-making class. Those completing the program won’t face charges.

Read Full – http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/02/17/houston-marijuana-possession-misdemeanor/73835/