“I’m just thankful to be free now and have the opportunity like anybody else to thrive in life,” Brian Banks told ABC News Radio today. “I’m completely overwhelmed with so many emotions and feelings all at once.”

During his hearing Thursday, Banks shook and sobbed as prosecutor’s did not object to the reversal of his conviction.

Banks, now 26, was 17 when he was convicted in 2002 and “by all accounts, a rising football star,” according to court documents.

The 6-foot-4, 225 pound middle linebacker had a full-ride scholarship offer to the University of Southern California. His on field talents also drew interest from Michigan State University, the University of Kansas, and a host of other schools. Accordingly, many believed that Banks was destined for the NFL.

“Tragically, Banks would never realize his dream of going to college and playing college football,” his attorneys wrote in court documents. “A high-school acquaintance—Wanetta Gibson—shattered that dream one fateful day after she accused Banks of rape and kidnapping following a consensual sexual encounter.”

After Gibson accused Banks of Rape, his attorneys suggested that he plead no contest because he faced the possibility of up to 41 years in prison if he was convicted at a jury trial.

He plead no contest and was sentenced to 6 years, which he served and is now on parole and registered as a sex offender.

After he served his time in prison the story finally began to turn in the right direction for Banks. In February of 2011, Gibson, his accuser, friend requested him on Facebook, and although he did not accept, he got her to meet with him and a private investigator.

“Gibson met with Banks and a private investigator and recanted her preliminary hearing testimony that Banks raped her,” his attorneys wrote. Gibson said that her and Banks had been “making out pretty heavy,” but that they did not have sexual intercourse or “anything like that.”

“Gibson said that they were just playing around, being curious about sexuality, and that the adults got involved and blew it all out of proportion,” according to court papers. “She said the adults ‘put stuff in [her] head.’”

The reason that Gibson was reluctant to reveal the truth is because she feared that she would have to relinquish the $1.5 million that she and her family won in a civil lawsuit against the Long Beach school district from the incident.

The California Innocence Project ran by California Western School of Law, dedicated to releasing the wrongfully convicted, represented Banks and eventually obtained his exoneration.

The Long Beach School District did not immediately respond to questions from ABCNews.com about whether they would seek the return of the money from the civil suit.

Banks is ecstatic that his life is back to where it once was and he has not given up on his NFL dreams. “I’ve been training since October of last year in hopes of giving football another shot,” he said. “I’m hoping to possibly receive a try out from a team.”

When asked if he harbors any anger or resentment towards Gibson he said, “I’ve been asked that question a couple of times and my answer’s always been no. You know I can hold on to that, that bitterness and that anger. It won’t get me anywhere.”

It is sad that Banks’ promising career was cut short by a lie. And even if he gets a shot at the NFL, nothing can replace the decade of training and development that he was deprived of by Gibson’s false claims. Either way, his resolve and ability to forgive is extremely impressive, which is why this writer hopes that he one day gets the shot to realize his ultimate dream.

What do you think?

The man said that he put the boy in the washing machine as a joke and did not realize that it would start spinning and lock up on him as he shut its door.

After the door locked and the washer began to spin with the baby inside both the man and the babysitter tried frantically to get him out, but their attempts were of no avail.

Thankfully, one of the workers at the laundromat came to the rescue when he cut the washer’s power, which finally put an end to the baby’s wild ride. Fortunately, the 1-year-old was virtually unharmed.

Neither the unidentified man nor the babysitter told the boy’s mother what had happened at the laundromat; and much to her horror she discovered what had happened to her son as she watched a news telecast 2 weeks after the incident.

Unsurprisingly, the mother said that the babysitter will not be permitted to watch her young son ever again.

Although the man’s actions were careless and downright stupid, New Jersey prosecutor’s said that the man and the babysitter did not commit any crimes and thus they will not file any criminal charges against them.

“This was not an intelligent choice to put the baby in the washing machine but it was not a crime,” said Jason Laughlin, spokesman at the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office.

Thankfully the child was unharmed.

The laundromat’s owner said that she has considered posting warning signs at her place of business to deter these types of actions in the future in order to protect herself from the potential threat of liability.

What do you think?

If you are thinking of filing for Bankruptcy, it is worth taking a mental inventory of the debts you are hoping to have discharged. It is important because some of the types of debts you have may not be dischargeable.

Although there may be exceptions to the rule, and laws sometimes have nuances, the following types of debts are typically not dischargeable in Bankruptcy:

• Non-dischargeable tax obligations
• Debts arising from property settlements in divorce or separation proceedings
• Debts for spousal support or alimony
• Child support 
• Governmental debts (fines or penalties)
• Debts for willful and malicious injuries to person or property
• Student loans guaranteed or funded by the government
• Debts for personal injury caused by the debtor’s operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated (additional personal injury related debts may also be non-dischargeable)
• Debts owed to certain tax-advantaged retirement plan
• Debts for certain condominium or cooperative housing fees

The reasoning behind some of these categories is the protection of otherwise helpless parties, ensuring the government is able to collect its revenues, and a general safeguard against the process being used fraudulently, as a way to escape paying final judgments, and the like.

For example, it is a law school legend that the ban against discharging student loans is thanks to some sharp law school grad who filed to discharge his law school loans the day after he graduated (or some other similarly short period of time) from Yale, in order to avoid having to pay any of them back.

You can find out more about the types of debts that are non-dischargeable here.  Alternatively, if you are ready to file or schedule an initial consultation, you can find a Bankruptcy Lawyer to evaluate your case.

This one shouldn’t come as that much of a surprise, considering it’s a crime to feed animals at many city and national state parks. The rationale is usually that the the food is probably not suitable for the animals’ diet, they might become dependent on humans to provide food, etc.

In Venice, however, it is a crime to feed the pigeons, punishable by a $50-$600 fine. The purported reasoning behind the prohibition, is the reasoning that the pigeons’ excrement creates a nuisance to the nearby buildings. Additionally, because of the booming business of selling birdseed in the square, the pigeon population was spiraling out of control.

Wash Me!

Don’t get caught driving with a dirt encrusted car in Russia. The penalty for driving a “dirty” car in Moscow can result in a $100 fine. What exactly dirty means, however, is not defined.

I’m guessing the reasoning behind this one is similar to the reasoning behind zoning laws regarding similarity of buildings–a desire to avoid visual blight. There may also be an argument for sanitation purposes and of course driving safely. You can’t see other cars too well if your windows are caked with mud. Many locals, however, feel as though this regulation is a mere excuse for local police to cite drivers and collect revenues.

A bill introduced in the New York Senate could have far-reaching societal implications, as it seeks to prevent anonymous Internet postings almost in their entirety.

The bill introduced by New York State Senator Thomas F. O’Mara (R—Big Flats), S6779, would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal unless the poster agrees to post and verify his or her legal name, IP address, as well as his or her home address, according to Yahoo News.

The relevant portion of the bill is as follows:

“A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.”

Those who oppose the bill’s passage are swift to point out the potential dangers and overall ineffectiveness that the bill would pose if it does in fact pass.

First, IP addresses do nothing to verify a person’s identity. Yet, the bill also requires a poster to  include their home address. Critics are weary that posting one’s home address on a controversial Internet posting could open people up to real-life threats.

It seems unlikely that the bill will pass. Nevertheless, if it does it would provide for a drastic change in the landscape for all comment based websites because those who are interested in posting comments would be forced to consider the ramifications of each and every comment that they post, in fear of having to reveal their name home address.

Finally, as mentioned in the Yahoo News article, ”the most likely result of the bill’s passage would just be the full-scale elimination of all comment systems everywhere, because the system is an unworkable burden on both the poster and the ‘web site administrators’ who would need to respond to ludicrous take down requests at all times of the day.”

What do you think?

Wednesday, Facebook’s fourth official day of trading as a public company showed an increase in stock price, and along with it came shareholder lawsuits related to Facebook’s IPO, according to CBS.

The increase Wednesday was about $1/share, or 3.2%, a small consolation for disgruntled shareholders. On Friday the initial offering got off to an unexpectedly rough start and prices continued to decline on both Monday and Tuesday. The stock is currently trading nearly 16% below its $38 IPO price.

There are several issues that surrounded Friday’s initial IPO as there was an intial 1/2 hour delay caused by glitches on the Nasdaq Stock Market as the market opened Friday. Further, investors accused the banks that set up the IPO of sharing important information about Facebook’s business prospects with certain clients and not others.

Accordingly, a number of shareholders who bought stock in the IPO have filed lawsuits against Facebook, its executives and Morgan Stanley, the IPO’s lead underwriter.

The issue surrounding the potential lawsuits is whether the banks informed select clients about the company’s financial forecasts related to the IPO, and disclosed the forecasts to only a select group of clients.

One of the lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, alleges that Facebook’s IPO documents contained untrue statements and failed to disclose important facts, such as a “severe reduction in revenue growth” that Facebook was experiencing at the time of the offering.

As a result, the 3  plaintiffs in the suit contend that they were damaged in the process of buying stock during the IPO.

Morgan Stanley has yet to comment, while officials at Facebook believe that the lawsuit is meritless.

Another lawsuit in San Mateo, CA similarly contends that Facebook and its underwriters misled investors. Both of the suits are seeking to become class action certified so that those misled can recover their monetary losses.

“No one gets it perfect, as far as saying what the financial results are,” said Anthony Michael Sabino, professor at John’s University’s Peter J. Tobin College of Business.

Sabino further stated that the bottom line is whether Facebook or the underwriter had material information about Facebook’s finances that it did not disclose publicly.

“At this moment, it’s still too early to say,” he said. “We don’t know enough, but this could turn out to be an issue.”

In March, Facebook began meeting with analysts at the underwriting firms, which is a routine part of the IPO process and is designed to help analysts understand the company’s business so they can make accurate financial projections.

Further, in early May, the third day of Facebook’s pre-IPO roadshow to meet with prospective investors, the company filed an amended IPO document, which stated that its mobile users were growing faster than revenue.

According to a anonymous person familiar with the matter, Facebook subsequently had another meeting with analysts and told them that based on the new information in the filings, the analysts’ forecasts should be at the low end of the range that the company gave them in their April meetings.

The person wished to remain nameless because they were not publicly authorized to discuss the matter.

Other reports indicate that Facebook was in talks with the NYSE to move its stock from the Nasdaq Stock Market after the substandard offering, according to a person familiar with the matter who also wished to remain nameless.

Nevertheless, NYSE spokesman Rich Adamonis said: “There have been no discussions with Facebook regarding switching their listing in light of the events of the last week, nor do we think a discussion along those lines would be appropriate at this time.”

As more facts come to light during the impending litigation it will become more evident as to whether the plaintiffs have viable claims against the social networking giant and its underwriters. The first step will be becoming class action certified.

What do you think?

When the British primary school student daughter asked her father to make her look like a princess for her photo Marcello tied her hair in the infamous tilted bow.  She loved the look, however, it went against the school’s very strict dress code.

“When she went for the school photo on Monday she was told she wasn’t allowed to wear her hair in that style because of the dress code,” Marcello told the Daily Mail.

When the school officials told her that she could not wear the hairstyle in her photo she ended up in tears, her dad said.

The strict dress code limits ribbons or bows to those that are “made of dark colors, maroon/navy blue/black” and states strictly that “Hair braids/beads may not be worn.”

Marcella’s hairstyle seems to fall somewhere between the banned bows and banned braids, as hair tied bows are not explicitly banned under the school’s policy. Yet, the school’s reading of the policy prohibited her look.

“I am so disappointed,”  Marcello told the Mail. “I could understand if Marcella arrived with her hair dyed or something, but this is an elegant look which I think the school should be proud of.”

The school rescheduled the photographs for unrelated reason and thus her hairdo would never have made the class photo as a result.

This seems to be an unnecessarily strict application of an already strict dress code. I can understand banning the hairstyle if it posed a distraction at the British primary school. But, the school did not assert distraction as a reason for the prohibition.

Nonetheless, the school is partly responsible for the upbringing of these young children and it is evident that they do not want to endorse a controversial figure like Lady Gaga, even if that means causing a 4-year-old student to shed a few tears.

What do you think?

• Create a home environment for your children– Particularly if you are no longer living in the family home, you should try to create the best home environment that you can. Create a separate living space for your children, and make them feel as if they have a permanent and comfortable place in your new home.
• Be careful who you share information with– Unfortunately, people who you may think are your friends may share information that you tell them with your former spouse or their attorney. This can be inadvertent, since people may not realize the potential evidentiary value of letting information about visitations or the like slip. Thus, try not to share information that may later be used against you.
• Consider the benefits of mediation– courts are increasingly mandating attempts at mediation because it can be better for all parties involved, especially the children. It can help to avoid the resentment that parents might feel following a long drawn out custody battle.
• Be open to working with your former spouse – If you are going to have joint custody of your children, you will need to work together to make important decisions about how best to raise the children. This includes everything from where they go to school, to medical decisions, to vacation times.
• Put your children’s interests first – By putting your child’s interests before your own, you will show the court and your former spouse that you take your responsibilities as a parent seriously, and want to be an important part of your children’s lives.

You can also find additional resources on LawInfo’s Child Custody page, and this weblog.

Click to learn more about  Child Support, How A Lawyer Can Help With Your Child Support Case,  or to find a qualified Child Support Lawyer. Here are 5 more tips for your Child Custody Case.

Posts on the LawInfo Weblog are meant solely for informative purposes and address general matters. Content on this weblog does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied on as such. Legal matters depend on the relevant laws of your state and facts of your situation. Contact an experienced attorney for legal advice regarding your case.

Palsgraf is a landmark Torts case,  decided in 1928 New York Court of Appeals, the highest level court in the State. The opinion was written by the well known Justice Cardozo, and details the concept of proximate cause.

The facts of the case are somewhat hard to follow, so bear with me.

A man was running to catch a train that was leaving the station. Two guards, one on the platform and one on the train itself, went to help the man. The one on the platform pushed him up, while the one in the train pulled him in. As he was being pulled in, the package he was carrying, which was wrapped in newspaper, fell to the tracks and exploded. It turns out the package contained fireworks.

The explosion, or some argue the hysteria that ensued, knocked over a scale at the other end of the platform, which fell on and injured Ms. Palsgraf. She sued the railroad, claiming the injury was due to the negligence of the employees, and won at trial and at the intermediate court level.

The New York Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the lower judgments, and found for the railroad. The court found that there was nothing about the man that would rise suspicions regarding his package, or the damage that it might cause. Cardozo wrote, “there was nothing in the situation to suggest to the most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage through the station. If the guard had thrown it down knowingly and willfully, he would not have threatened the plaintiff’s safety, so far as appearances could warn him.” The court also went over a definition of negligence as ”the absence of care, according to the circumstances.” Without a duty of care (to Ms. Palsgraf), there can be no negligence.

Additionally, the court stated that the railroad’s potential negligence toward the man boarding the train was irrelevant to Ms. Palsgraf, because a person can only sue for a wrongful negligent act that violates their own rights. Palsgraf could not sue the guard for pushing the other passenger because that act did not violate a duty to her, as is required for liability under a negligence theory. “If the harm was not willful, he must show that the act as to him had possibilities of danger so many and apparent as to entitle him to be protected against the doing of it though the harm was unintended.”

This latter piece is referred to as the foreseeability test. In this case, it was perhaps foreseeable that in pulling the passenger up onto the train, he could have fallen and injured himself, but it was not foreseeable that he would be carrying a package, which was actually explosive, that would set into play the scale scenario.

And there, you have one of the most integral cases of Tort Law, taught in first year law classes throughout the country.

On Sept. 21, 2009, David and Linda Kubert were hit head-on by a Chevy truck when it swerved across the center divide and hit them while they rode on a motorcycle about a mile from their New Jersey home.

David Kubert said that he saw the collision coming.

“What I saw was a gentlemen in the truck steering with his elbows, with his head down. And I could tell he was text messaging,” David Kubert told CBS News. “I looked down after the impact and my leg was torn off. I asked my wife if she was okay and she told me the bones of her leg were through her pants.”

The crash left both of the Kuberts without one of their legs.

In the ensuing criminal case the driver, Kyle Best, then 18 years old, pleaded guilty to using a handheld device while driving.

Now, in the civil case the Kubert’s have sued Best for distracted driving and have also sued his girlfriend, Shannon Colonna, for sending him text messages while he was driving, which the couple alleges caused Best to become distracted.

Many are considering this a landmark case because the sender of a text message has never been held civilly liable in a distracted driving case.

“I believe that if she knew he was driving and answering her back with texts, that she’s partially responsible, too,” Linda Kubert said.

According to the complaint, phone records show that the couple exchanged 62 texts that day and although it is not apparent from the individual texts, Colonna said in her deposition that she “may have known” that Best was driving.

“It seems to make sense that both people involved in the activity could very well be liable including the sender who is not actually behind the wheel,” Todd Clement, a lawyer who specializes in distracted driving cases, told CBS News.

“As this case goes forward, I think what you’re going to see is a new awareness throughout the country. A new responsibility on the part of both the sender and the receiver of the text message not to continue this kind of negligent activity,” he added.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reports that 3,092 people were killed in distracted driving related crashes in 2010 and an estimated additional 416,000 were injured in similar crashes in the same year. The NHTSA also reported that text messaging creates a crash risk 23 times greater than those driving not distracted.

Under New Jersey law, texting and talking on a cell phone is banned for drivers, but the Kubert’s think that this should be extended to the party on the other end of the telephone.

“If we get this out to the public, and hopefully we are, maybe somebody won’t end up like us both or worse,” David Kubert said.

In their legal briefs, lawyers for Colonna called the suit a “leap of logic” and said it should be dismissed.

A judge is expected to rule by the end of the week.

If the judge decides to impose liability on the sender of text messages in this case it may have huge implications nationally as those sending texts will have to think twice before they decide to do so as a result of the potential threat of civil liability.

The threat of paying monetary damages in these types of cases would undoubtedly deter those on the other end from texting drivers.

However, expanding liability would create a fact-intensive case-by-case analysis and ultimately increase the number of cases on the court docket. Especially in those cases where the driver is insolvent and the plaintiffs are looking to collect damages from a sender who has deeper pockets.

Accordingly, it will be interesting to see whether the judge feels that the time is now to expand the scope of liability in these distracted driving cases.

What do you think?