Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_law

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 709

2016-50/4389/en_head.json.gz/22492

Submit Search Federal Bureau of Investigation Maryland Owner of Loan Brokerage Firms Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Obstruction of Justice Charges District of Maryland Maryland Owner of Loan Brokerage Firms Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Obstruction of Justice Charges BALTIMORE, MD—Jeong Joon Moon, a/k/a Patrick Moon, age 47, of Germantown, Maryland, pleaded guilty today to charges arising from a scheme to defraud financial institutions who loaned money to small businesses. The guilty plea was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein; Small Business Administration (SBA) Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson; Acting Postal Inspector in Charge David G. Bowers of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service—Washington Division; Assistant Director in Charge Andrew G. McCabe of the Federal Bureau of Investigation—Washington Field Office; and Acting Inspector General Fred W. Gibson, Jr. of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Moon owned and operated JM Capital Solutions, Inc. and RNB Consulting, Inc., which were loan brokerage firms with offices located in Annandale and Springfield, Virginia. These firms specialized in securing loans for individuals interested in purchasing or refinancing small businesses in Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia and elsewhere. Moon encouraged prospective borrowers to apply for business loans through the SBA’s Section 7(a) program, which authorizes SBA to help small businesses obtain financing by guaranteeing 75 to 90 percent of qualified loans made by commercial lenders. Small business owners are required to invest a certain amount of their own money into the business before they can qualify for the loan. Moon compiled and submitted to lenders the documentation necessary to substantiate the borrowers’ equity injection and ability to repay loans guaranteed by SBA, as well as documentation needed for other commercial loans. According to his agreement to plead guilty to the indictment, from 2006 to April 2014, Moon and others defrauded financial institutions by submitting false copies of the borrowers’ monthly bank statements to reflect more money than was actually in the borrowers’ bank accounts. Moon and others also prepared and submitted false tax returns for the borrowers which inflated the borrowers’ income. The financial institutions relied on the false information to lend funds to the borrowers, which resulted in loan broker commissions being paid to JM Capital and RNB Consulting. On July 12 and 15, 2013, Moon altered, destroyed or concealed documents relating to six loans guaranteed by SBA for six small businesses, intending to impede the federal investigation of such loans. Moon has agreed to forfeit $14,708,000, the amount of fraudulently obtained loans. Moon faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and for each of the 18 counts of bank fraud; and 20 years in prison on each of six counts for destruction of records in a federal investigation. U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles, Jr. scheduled sentencing for November 24, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. Today’s announcement is part of efforts underway by President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) which was created in November 2009 to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud. Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations. Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed more than 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,700 mortgage fraud defendants. For more information on the task force, visit www.stopfraud.gov. United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein praised the SBA—OIG, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, FBI and FDIC—OIG for their work in the investigation. Mr. Rosenstein thanked Assistant United States Attorneys Leo J. Wise and Marty Clarke, who are prosecuting the case.

法律

2016-50/4389/en_head.json.gz/22521

John Dodd John L. Dodd has been handling appeals throughout the State of California, on behalf of both appellants and respondents, as well as writ petitions, since 1989. Mr. Dodd is a California Certified Appellate Specialist and is experienced in civil, family, trust and estate, juvenile, parental rights, criminal and adoption appeals. He has filed briefs in every District of the California Court of Appeal, both in Northern and Southern California. He also has expertise in preparing Petitions for Review for the California Supreme Court on behalf of individuals and businesses and has filed briefs in the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.Mr. Dodd attended the University of California at Davis and obtained hisBachelor of Science in Law and Juris Doctor degrees from Western State University in Fullerton, California. He also studied International Law and Legal History at Downing College, Cambridge University, in Cambridge, England. While in law school, he won the “Best Oralist” award in moot court and participated on the Jessup International Law moot court team. He was an editorial board member and staff writer for the Law Review and was awarded the American Jurisprudence Awards in Property Law and Criminal Procedure.Mr. Dodd was a staff attorney at the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, and worked in tort defense and appellate law firms before opening his own practice in 1989. Originally a combined civil litigation and appellate practice, Mr. Dodd’s practice has been devoted exclusively to appellate matters and legal research for over fifteen years.Mr. Dodd was admitted to the California Bar in 1986 and the United States Supreme Court in 1990. He also is admitted to practice before United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits.He also has been active in bar association and community affairs for many years. He has served as a member of the California Advisory Commission to the United States Commission on Civil rights since 2007. In 2004 John served as the Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners, State Bar of California, after completing three years as a Committee Member. He served from 1998 to 2001 on the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE), State Bar of California. Prior to that, he served for a year on the State Bar’s Committee on Appellate courts and has assisted in drafting questions for the Appellate Specialization Exam.More locally, Mr. Dodd was a member of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Bar Association for six years, from 1996 to 2002 and served on many committees, including the Conference of Delegates, the Ethics and Professionalism Task Force, the Judiciary Committee Task Force, and the Investment Policy Committee. He was the President of the Orange County Barristers in 1996 and served for many years on that board. Mr. Dodd was the chair of the Orange County Bar Association’s Appellate Section in 1994 and the Program Chair in 1993.Mr. Dodd participates in community affairs at the local, state and national level. He has been active in the Federalist Society, currently serving on the Executive Committee of the Civil Rights Practice Group. He was President of the Orange County Lawyer’s Chapter from 2004 through 2008 and has been a board member of that chapter for over 15 years.He also has served several terms as President of the Orange County Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution, as well as “Chancellor,” or chief legal officer, of the California Society, and served as President of the California Society for the 2011-2012 term. Presently, he is Chancellor General of the National Society, Sons of the American Revolution.Mr. Dodd has achieved the Martindale-Hubbell “AV Preeminent” rating, the highest possible, as well as being selected a Super Lawyer, and a Top Attorney in Orange County by Orange Coast Magazine as well as in Southern California by Los Angeles Magazine. × Email John Dodd Call John Dodd 17621 Irvine Boulevard

法律

2016-50/4389/en_head.json.gz/22533

TOPN › H › Helium Gas Act TOPN: Helium Gas Act 0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | ZWhat's in a popular name?Laws acquire popular names as they make their way through Congress. Sometimes these names say something about the substance of the law (as with the '2002 Winter Olympic Commemorative Coin Act'). Sometimes they are a way of recognizing or honoring the sponsor or creator of a particular law (as with the 'Taft-Hartley Act'). And sometimes they are meant to garner political support for a law by giving it a catchy name (as with the 'USA Patriot Act' or the 'Take Pride in America Act') or by invoking public outrage or sympathy (as with any number of laws named for victims of crimes). History books, newspapers, and other sources use the popular name to refer to these laws. Why can't these popular names easily be found in the US Code? How the US Code is built.The United States Code is meant to be an organized, logical compilation of the laws passed by Congress. At its top level, it divides the world of legislation into fifty topically-organized Titles, and each Title is further subdivided into any number of logical subtopics. In theory, any law -- or individual provisions within any law -- passed by Congress should be classifiable into one or more slots in the framework of the Code. On the other hand, legislation often contains bundles of topically unrelated provisions that collectively respond to a particular public need or problem. A farm bill, for instance, might contain provisions that affect the tax status of farmers, their management of land or treatment of the environment, a system of price limits or supports, and so on. Each of these individual provisions would, logically, belong in a different place in the Code. (Of course, this isn't always the case; some legislation deals with a fairly narrow range of related concerns.) The process of incorporating a newly-passed piece of legislation into the Code is known as "classification" -- essentially a process of deciding where in the logical organization of the Code the various parts of the particular law belong. Sometimes classification is easy; the law could be written with the Code in mind, and might specifically amend, extend, or repeal particular chunks of the existing Code, making it no great challenge to figure out how to classify its various parts. And as we said before, a particular law might be narrow in focus, making it both simple and sensible to move it wholesale into a particular slot in the Code. But this is not normally the case, and often different provisions of the law will logically belong in different, scattered locations in the Code. As a result, often the law will not be found in one place neatly identified by its popular name. Nor will a full-text search of the Code necessarily reveal where all the pieces have been scattered. Instead, those who classify laws into the Code typically leave a note explaining how a particular law has been classified into the Code. It is usually found in the Note section attached to a relevant section of the Code, usually under a paragraph identified as the "Short Title". How the LII Table of Popular Names works.Our Table of Popular Names is organized alphabetically by popular name. You'll find three types of link associated with each popular name (though each law may not have all three types). One, a reference to a Public Law number, is a link to the bill as it was originally passed by Congress, and will take you to the LRC THOMAS legislative system, or GPO FDSYS site. So-called "Short Title" links, and links to particular sections of the Code, will lead you to a textual roadmap (the section notes) describing how the particular law was incorporated into the Code. Finally, acts may be referred to by a different name, or may have been renamed, the links will take you to the appropriate listing in the table. Helium Gas ActHelium Gas ActSept. 1, 1937, ch. 895, 50 Stat. 88550 Stat. 885, ch. 895Classification Pub. L. SectionStatusUnited States Code TitleSectionAuthorizes Elim.50161, 163, 164161 Rep.50165 Elim.50166 Toolbox Stay Involved LII Announce BlogLII Supreme Court BulletinMake a donationContribute contentBecome a sponsorGive feedback Find a Lawyer

法律

2016-50/4389/en_head.json.gz/22541

County, School Board Claim Victory In OCES Case Apr 29,2011 by DispatchAdmin BERLIN — The ongoing legal battle between the Worcester County Board of Education and a private contractor hired to complete certain elements of the long-since completed Ocean City Elementary School is heading back to Circuit Court. The Maryland Court of Appeals this week rendered an opinion in Worcester County Board of Education vs. Beka Industries, Inc., agreeing in part on some elements of the case, while disagreeing on other salient issues. Essentially, the state’s highest court ruled there were reversible errors made at both the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals level and remanded the case back to the Worcester County Circuit Court where it began in 2007. The complex legal saga actually began back in 2004 when the Board of Education hired Beka to do site work during the construction of the new OCES. In August 2005, the school board became unsatisfied with the pace of Beka’s work and replaced the company with another contractor to finish certain components within the scope of the roughly $1.8 million contract. In October 2007, Beka filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the school board seeking repayment of the entire amount it estimated it was due for the work completed on OCES. In October 2008, visiting Worcester County Circuit Court Judge Robert Karwacki awarded Beka $1.1 million in the case, which the school board quickly appealed. In February 2010, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, essentially agreeing with several of the pillars of the school board’s appeal and remanded the case back to Circuit Court. However, Beka attorney David Gilliss petitioned the Court of Appeals to review the case and the state’s highest court in June agreed to listen to the arguments from both sides. The case has many complex features, the most important of which is the interpretation of the often-evoked doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects governmental agencies from lawsuits and big settlements in civil cases. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court level for a new trial because it believes the “school board was precluded from presenting evidence on its recoupment claim and Beka may have been awarded impermissible delay damages under the contract.” Local officials were claiming victory this week after the Court of Appeals issued its opinion. The County Commissioners were pleased with the opinion because the high court’s ruling on the sovereign immunity issue essentially gets the county off the hook for the $1.1 million original award that has been held by the court. “This is great news for the county and the Board of Education because it now has to go back to the Circuit Court, which will determine if there are any damages,” said County Attorney Sonny Bloxom. “If it all washes out, any judgment in the case will now be paid by the state. As soon as it was remanded back to the Circuit Court for a new trial, the $1.1 million held by the court for many months will be released back to the county.” While school board officials are satisfied with the high court’s sovereign immunity waiver opinion, they are more pleased they will get a chance to present arguments in favor of its recoupment claims and against Beka’s claims for delay damages. “We’re pleased to get the opportunity to argue the case again at the Circuit Court level,” said attorney Jim Almand. “From our standpoint, the Board of Education firmly believes Beka did not earn the judgment awarded the first time around and no less than 10 appellate judges have since ruled the Circuit Court judge committed certain reversible errors.”

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2

Divorce on the Rise in Arab States Last year, a report mentioned that 40 % of Emirati couples end up getting divorced. The UAE has the highest divorce rate in the entire Arab world! The article said that infidelity is the major reason why marriages don't last long in the UAE. One of the things the article mentioned was online infidelity, i.e. looking at pornographic web sites and chatting with women online.The below report by Olivia Olarte in Khaleej Times, said that Egypt has the highest divorce rate, with every six minutes, there will be a divorce!Divorces in Saudi Arabia, a highly conservative 'Muslim' nation soared 30% in 2008 over 2007, 24,428 divorces! ABU DHABI - Despite the social stigma attached with divorce, official figures indicate that divorce is a rising phenomenon in the Arab society. According to the January issue of ‘999’ magazine, a publication of the Ministry of Interior (MoI), out of every thousand marriages in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), there are 33 divorces. Egypt has the highest rate, with divorce taking place every six minutes. Egypt is followed by Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Morocco, said Khalifa Mohammed Al Mehrazi, Family Relations advisor at Dubai Courts. In the UAE, there is no comprehensive study on the exact number of divorce cases, however, according to the Minister of Social Affairs Mariam Al Roumi, estimates show that there are some 18,000 divorced women and widows in the country. Statistics in Sharjah show that divorce cases increased to 34 per cent in 2008 from 26 per cent in 2001. UAE nationals made up 60 per cent of the cases. ‘999’ reported that the Ministry of Social Affairs is planning to conduct a study on the rise of divorce cases in the UAE after mounting concerns on this issue was expressed by the Federal National Council (FNC). “The main cause of divorce is debt,” stated Dr Mohammed Suleiman Al Faraj, Fatwa (Islamic Verdicts) advisor at the Abu Dhabi Courts Department, Family Guidance. “Other causes are bad treatment, family interference from outside, violence and drunkenness and living with the family of one of the partners,” added Dr Al Faraj. The difficulty of the woman to balance work and family commitments, conflict in nationality and social traditions and suspicions about the partner’s behaviour are also contributory factors to divorce, said Al Faraj. In the first nine months of 2009, the Family Guidance division at the Abu Dhabi Courts dealt with 4,970 cases of family dispute in which 4,656 or 94 per cent of the cases were resolved. During the same period, 3,550 new cases were registered, out of which 29 per cent ended with no solution while 12 per cent found an out of court settlement. Al Mehrazi said many of the divorcing couples are often ignorant of how they want the marriage to end and how they want to live after the divorce. “Divorce sometimes creates bigger problems than the marriage itself. It can take five years for the situation to resolve itself, in two thirds of cases (and) the main victims are the children,” he said. He added that divorce can be particularly traumatic for women who face the challenge of not knowing how to best deal with the crisis as well as the uncertainty of their role after the divorce. However, Al Mehrazi said “Many divorcées have proved themselves capable of overcoming the ordeal and living successfully and helping their children achieve their potential too.” He advised divorcées take the opportunity to continue their university studies, become active in social and charity organisations and encourage their children to do the same. “We have to change the prevailing concept about divorce and its consequences. Divorce should be regarded as a new beginning in life and not the destruction of the life of a woman and her children. Any woman can make a new start and Islamic law has taken care of divorce and its aftermath,” Al Mehrazi concluded. UAE's Shaikh Eisa trial verdict Humam Khalil al-Balawi - The CIA Triple Agent Are Arabs only footnotes in history?

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/78

PA Notary BlogHeader RightSearch this website Bonds & Insurance President’s Column You are here: Home / Motor Vehicle / New Law Involves Driver License Requirements and Restrictions for Junior DriversNew Law Involves Driver License Requirements and Restrictions for Junior Drivers December 13, 2011 by PAN 6 Flares Gov. Corbett has signed Act 81, a new law that institutes changes to the Vehicle Code involving graduated driver’s licensing requirements, passenger restrictions for junior drivers and passenger restraint laws. The law will take effect on Dec. 24, 2011. Act 81 increases supervised, behind-the-wheel skill building for learner’s permit holders less than 18 years of age from 50 hours to 65 hours. Ten of the added hours must consist of night driving, while the other five hours must be driven in poor weather conditions. The new law increases retrictions on the number and age of passengers a junior license holder may transport. As of Dec. 24, for the first six months after receiving their junior driver’s license, a driver is not permitted to have more than one passenger under the age 18 who is not an immediate family member (brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, adopted or foster children living in the same household as the junior driver) unless they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. After the expiration of the first six months from issuance of the junior driver’s license, if they have not been convicted of a driving violation or been partially or fully responsible for a reportable crash, they may have up to three passengers under age 18 who are not immediate family members without a parent or legal guardian present. If they have any convictions or are partially or fully responsible for a reportable crash while a junior driver, they are once again restricted to one passenger. Act 81 also dictates that drivers and occupants in a vehicle who are under the age of 18 must wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt, and children under the age of eight must be securely fastened in a child restraint system. Failure to comply with the new law’s seat belt provisions is a primary offense, meaning that a driver can be pulled over and cited solely for that violation. Fro more information on the New Teen Driver Law 2011, visit the PennDOT Web site at www.dmv.state.pa.us and click on the button titled “New Teen Driver Law 2011.” Filed Under: Motor Vehicle Primary SidebarFollow Us  Notary Associations Pennsylvania Association of Notaries Notary Resources PA Dept. of State Copyright © 2016 ·Genesis Sample Theme - Genesis Framework by StudioPress - WordPress - Log in

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/92

No Mercy for ACCA Enhancement Based on Juvenile Crimes By William Peacock, Esq. on February 14, 2013 2:58 PM Paul Everett Rich III was just a wee lad of 14 when he committed his first crime: robbery with a dangerous weapon. That case was adjudicated and later "dismissed" as that term is used in Oklahoma Courts. Two serious crimes later and a trip to a nightclub with a Bersa Thunder strapped to his hip, and he was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He pleaded guilty to the charge and then faced a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminals Act, which includes "juvenile delinquency involving the use of or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device" in its definition of prior "violent felonies." He appealed on two grounds. He first argued that -- because the juvenile charge was "dismissed" by the court -- it should not count for ACCA purposes. Second, he argued that the ACCA violates substantive due process by considering these older, juvenile adjudications. Dismissed Juvenile Charges At the end of his probationary period, the judge in Rich's juvenile case dismissed the charge. Unfortunately for Rich, dismissal in Oklahoma Juvenile Court parlance simply means to terminate jurisdiction and close the case. It is not the same thing as expungement or nullifying the charge ab initio. While the case itself may be over, it still exists on the record. Under the Fifth Amendment, no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This substantive due process protects individuals from conduct which "shocks the conscience or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Rich argued that the sentencing enhancement deprives him of substantive due process because it places no age limits on convictions. In contrast, the Federal Rules of Evidence and Sentencing Guidelines each have age limits for considering older offenses. Unfortunately, the Tenth Circuit was unsympathetic to his arguments, finding no constitutional issue with considering older convictions. The court cited its own unpublished prior decision in a similar case, as well as other circuits' conclusions, which all find that the ACCA's treatment of older and juvenile convictions comports with the Constitution. Furthermore, the court took pains to point out that the sentencing enhancement is not based on a single juvenile offense alone. Rather, Rich had to violate a law as a child, then commit two more violent felonies, plus possess the gun in the present case, before the ACCA applied. "Regardless of the inability of minors to fully understand the consequences of their actions, adults facing enhanced sentences based, only in part, on acts committed as juveniles have had the opportunity to better understand those consequences but have chosen instead to continue to offend." United States v. Paul Everett Rich III (Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals) AEDPA Deference Despite Prosecutor's Improper Closing (FindLaw's Tenth Circuit Blog) Felon-in-Possession Priors: Propensity Evidence or Intent? (FindLaw's Tenth Circuit Blog) Armed Career Criminal Act, Due Process Rights, juvenile crime, United States v. Paul Everett Rich III Go To U.S. Tenth Circuit Main Page >> About U.S. Tenth Circuit U.S. Tenth Circuit features news and information from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which hears appeals from U.S. District Courts in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. This blog also features news that would be of interest to legal professionals practicing in the 10th Circuit. Have a comment or tip? Write to us. Subscribe to U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case law updates Family Law (12) Recent 10th Circuit Decisions UNITED STATES v. LLANTADA SIERRA CLUB v. OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CORDOVA v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UNITED STATES v. BURKHOLDER Search U.S. Tenth Circuit 10th Cir. Rules That Colorado Non-Profit Needn't Disclose Donors 10th Cir. Backpedals, Declares Colorado's Tax Reporting Law Is Okay Atkins Diet Doctor Going to Prison for Tax Evasion: 10th Cir. When Does a Campaign Ad Qualify as an 'Electioneering Communication'? Professor Discrimination Case Remanded by Tenth Cir. This page contains a single entry published on February 14, 2013 2:58 PM. AEDPA Deference Despite Prosecutor's Improper Closing was the previous entry in this blog. 11 Congressmen Submit Amicus Brief in Hobby Lobby Obamacare Case is the next entry in this blog.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/160

Income Tax A charge imposed by government on the annual gains of a person, corporation, or other taxable unit derived through work, business pursuits, investments, property dealings, and other sources determined in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code or state law. Taxes have been called the building block of civilization. In fact, taxes existed in Sumer, the first organized society of record, where their payment carried great religious meaning. Taxes were also a fundamental part of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. The religious aspect of taxation in Renaissance Italy is depicted in the Brancacci Chapel, in Florence. The fresco Rendering of the Tribute Money depicts the gods approving the Florentine income tax. In the United States, the federal tax laws are set forth in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). History The origin of taxation in the United States can be traced to the time when the colonists were heavily taxed by Great Britain on everything from tea to legal and business documents that were required by the Stamp Tax. The colonists' disdain for this taxation without representation (so-called because the colonies had no voice in the establishment of the taxes) gave rise to revolts such as the Boston Tea Party. However, even after the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the main source of revenue for the newly created states was money received from customs and excise taxes on items such as carriages, sugar, whiskey, and snuff. Income tax first appeared in the United States in 1862, during the Civil War. At that time only about one percent of the population was required to pay the tax. A flat-rate income tax was imposed in 1867. The income tax was repealed in its entirety in 1872. Income tax was a rallying point for the Populist party in 1892, and had enough support two years later that Congress passed the Income Tax Act of 1894. The tax at that time was two percent on individual incomes in excess of $4,000, which meant that it reached only the wealthiest members of the population. The Supreme Court struck down the tax, holding that it violated the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states by population ( pollock v. farmers' loan & trust, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S. Ct. 912, 39 L. Ed. 1108 [1895]). After many years of debate and compromise, the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913, providing Congress with the power to lay and collect taxes on income without apportionment among the states. The objectives of the income tax were the equitable distribution of the tax burden and the raising of revenue. Since 1913 the U.S. income tax system has become very complex. In 1913 the income tax laws were contained in eighteen pages of legislation; the explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was more than thirteen hundred pages long (Pub. L. 99-514, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2085). Commerce Clearing House, a publisher of tax information, released a version of the Internal Revenue Code in the early 1990s that was four times thicker than its version in 1953. Changes to the tax laws often reflect the times. The flat tax of 1913 was later replaced with a graduated tax. After the United States entered World War I. the War Revenue Act of 1917 imposed a maximum tax rate for individuals of 67 percent, compared with a rate of 13 percent in 1916. In 1924 Secretary of the Treasury Andrew W. Mellon, speaking to Congress about the high level of taxation, stated, The present system is a failure. It was an emergency measure, adopted under the pressure of war necessity and not to be counted upon as a permanent part of our revenue structure…. The high rates put pressure on taxpayers to reduce their taxable income, tend to destroy individual initiative and enterprise, and seriously impede the development of productive business…. Ways will always be found to avoid taxes so destructive in their nature, and the only way to save the situation is to put the taxes on a reasonable basis that will permit business to go on and industry to develop. Consequently, the Revenue Act of 1924 reduced the maximum individual tax rate to 43 percent (Revenue Acts, June 2, 1924, ch. 234, 43 Stat. 253). In 1926 the rate was further reduced to 25 percent. The Revenue Act of 1932 was the first tax law passed during the Great Depression (Revenue Acts, June 6, 1932, ch. 209, 47 Stat. 169). It increased the individual maximum rate from 25 to 63 percent, and reduced personal exemptions from $1,500 to $1,000 for single persons, and from $3,500 to $2,500 for married couples. The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), part of President franklin d. roosevelt 's New Deal. imposed a five percent excise tax on dividend receipts, imposed a capital stock tax and an excess profits tax, and suspended all deductions for losses (June 16, 1933, ch. 90, 48 Stat. 195). The repeal in 1933 of the Eighteenth Amendment. which had prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcohol, brought in an estimated $90 million in new liquor taxes in 1934. The Social Security Act of 1935 provided for a wage tax, half to be paid by the employee and half by the employer, to establish a federal retirement fund (Old Age Pension Act, Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620). The Wealth Tax Act, also known as the Revenue Act of 1935, increased the maximum tax rate to 79 percent, the Revenue Acts of 1940 and 1941 increased it to 81 percent, the Revenue Act of 1942 raised it to 88 percent, and the Individual Income Tax Act of 1944 raised the individual maximum rate to 94 percent. The post-World War II Revenue Act of 1945 reduced the individual maximum tax from 94 percent to 91 percent. The Revenue Act of 1950, during the Korean War. reduced it to 84.4 percent, but it was raised the next year to 92 percent (Revenue Act of 1950, Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 994, Stat. 906). It remained at this level until 1964, when it was reduced to 70 percent.The Revenue Act of 1954 revised the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, making major changes that were beneficial to the taxpayer, including providing for Child Care deductions (later changed to credits), an increase in the charitable contribution limit, a tax credit against taxable retirement income, employee deductions for business expenses, and liberalized depreciation deductions. From 1954 to 1962, the Internal Revenue Code was amended by 183 separate acts. In 1974 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) created protections for employees whose employers promised specified pensions or other retirement contributions (Pub. L. No. 93-406, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 829). ERISA required that to be tax deductible, the employer's plan contribution must meet certain minimum standards as to employee participation and vesting and employer funding. ERISA also approved the use of individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to encourage tax-deferred retirement savings by individuals. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) provided the largest tax cut up to that time, reducing the maximum individual rate from 70 percent to 50 percent (Pub. L. No. 97-34, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 172). The most sweeping tax changes since World War II were enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This bill was signed into law by President ronald reagan and was designed to equalize the tax treatment of various assets, eliminate tax shelters, and lower marginal rates. Conservatives wanted the act to provide a single, low tax rate that could be applied to everyone. Although this single, flat rate was not included in the final bill, tax rates were reduced to 15 percent on the first $17,850 of income for singles and $29,750 for married couples, and set at 28 to 33 percent on remaining income. Many deductions were repealed, such as a deduction available to two-income married couples that had been used to avoid the "marriage penalty" (a greater tax liability incurred when two persons filed their income tax return as a married couple rather than as individuals). Although the personal exemption exclusion was increased, an exemption for elderly and blind persons who itemize deductions was repealed. In addition, a special capital gains rate was repealed, as was an investment tax credit that had been introduced in 1962 by President john f. kennedy . The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, the first budget and tax act enacted during the Clinton administration, was vigorously debated, and passed with only the minimum number of necessary votes (Pub. L. No. 103-66, Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 312). This law provided for income tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent on varying levels of income and for the taxation of Social Security income if the taxpayer receives other income over a certain level. In 2001 Congress enacted a major income tax cut at the urging of President george w. bush. Over the course of 11 years the law reduces marginal income tax rates across all levels of income. The 36 percent rate will be lowered to 33 percent, the 31 percent rate to 28 percent, the 28 percent rate to 25 percent. In addition, a new bottom 10 percent rate was created. (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38.) Since the early 1980s, a flat-rate tax system rather than the graduated bracketed method has been proposed. (The graduated bracketed method is the one that has been used since graduated taxes were introduced: the percentage of tax differs based on the amount of taxable income.) The flat-rate system would impose one rate, such as 20 percent, on all income and would eliminate special deductions, credits, and exclusions. Despite firm support by some, the flat-rate tax has not been adopted in the United States. Computation of Income Tax Regardless of the changes made by legislators since 1913, the basic formula for computing the amount of tax owed has remained basically the same. To determine the amount of income tax owed, certain deductions are taken from an individual's gross income to arrive at an adjusted gross income, from which additional deductions are taken to arrive at the taxable income. Once the amount of taxable income has been determined, tax rate charts determine the exact amount of tax owed. If the amount of tax owed is less than the amount already paid through tax prepayment or the withholding of taxes from paychecks, the taxpayer is entitled to a refund from the IRS. If the amount of tax owed is more than what has already been paid, the taxpayer must pay the difference to the IRS. Calculating the gross income of restaurant employees whose income is partially derived from gratuities left by customers has led to disputes with the IRS and employers over how much they should contribute in federal insurance contribution act ( fica ) taxes. Although customers pay these tips directly to employees, federal law deems the tips to have been wages paid by the employer for FICA tax purposes. Employers are imputed to have paid large sums of money they never handled and for which they no way of ascertaining the exact amount. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Fior D'Italia. 536 U.S. 238, 122 S. Ct. 2117, 153 L. Ed. 2d 280 (2002), upheld the IRS "aggregate method" of reporting tip income. Instead of requiring the IRS to make individual determinations of unreported tips for each employee when calculating FICA tax, the Court held that the IRS could make employers report their gross sales on a monthly statement to help determine tip income. Employees also must report their tip income monthly on a form. The IRS then uses these two pieces of information to calculate what the employer needs to contribute in FICA tax. Gross Income The first step in computing the amount of tax liability is the determination of gross income. Gross income is defined as "all income from whatever source derived," whether from personal services, business activities, or capital assets (property owned for personal or business purposes). Compensation for services in the form of money, wages, tips, salaries, bonuses, fees, and commissions constitutes income. Problems in defining income often arise when a taxpayer realizes a benefit or compensation that is not in the form of money. An example of such compensation is the fringe benefits an employee receives from an employer. The Internal Revenue Code defines these benefits as income and places the burden on the employee to demonstrate why they should be excluded from gross income. Discounts on the employer's products and other items of minimal value to the employer are usually not considered income to the employee. These benefits (which include airline tickets at nominal cost for airline employees and merchandise discounts for department store employees) are usually of great value to the employee but do not cost much for the employer to provide, and build good relationships between the employee and the employer. As long as the value to the employer is small and the benefit generates goodwill, it usually is not deemed to be taxable to the employee. The value of meals and lodging provided to an employee and paid for by an employer is not considered income to the employee if the meals and lodging are furnished on the business premises of the employer for the employer's convenience (as when an apartment building owner provides a rent-free apartment for a caretaker who is required to live on the premises). However, a cash allowance for meals or lodging that is given to an employee as part of a compensation package is considered compensation, and is counted as gross income. An employer's payment for a health club membership is also included in gross income, as are payments to an employee in the form of stock. An amount contributed by an employer to a pension, qualified stock bonus, profit-sharing, Annuity ,or bond purchase plan in which the employee participates is not considered income to the employee at the time the contribution is made, but will be taxed when the employee receives payment from the plan. Medical insurance premiums paid by an employer are generally not considered income to the employee. Although military pay is taxable income, veterans' benefits for education, disability and pension payments, and veterans' insurance proceeds and dividends are not included in gross income. Other sources of income directly increase the wealth of the taxpayer and are taxable. These sources commonly include interest earned on bank accounts; dividends; rents; royalties from copyrights, Trademarks. and Patents ; proceeds from life insurance if paid for a reason other than the death of the insured; annuities; discharge from the obligation to pay a debt owed (the amount discharged is considered income to the debtor); recovery of a previously deductible item, which gives rise to income only to the extent the previous deduction produced a tax benefit (this is commonly referred to as the tax benefit rule and is most often used when a taxpayer has recovered a previously deducted bad debt or previously deducted taxes); gambling winnings; lottery winnings; found property; and income from illegal sources. Income from prizes and awards is taxable unless the prize or award is made primarily in recognition of religious, charitable, scientific, educational, artistic, literary, or civic achievement; the recipient was chosen, without any action on his or her part, to enter the selection process; and the recipient is not required to render substantial future services as a condition to receiving the prize or award. For example, recipients of Nobel Prizes meet these criteria and are not taxed on the prize money they receive. In some situations a taxpayer's wealth directly increases through income that is not included in the determination of income tax. For example, gifts and inheritances are excluded from income in order to encourage the Transfer of Assets within families. However, any income realized from a gift or inheritance is considered income to the beneficiary—most notably rents, interest, and dividends. In addition, most scholarships, fellowships, student loans, and other forms of financial aid for education are not included in gross income, perhaps to equalize the status of students whose education is funded by a gift or inheritance and of students who do not have the benefit of such assistance. Cash rebates to consumers from product manufacturers and most state Unemployment Compensation benefits are also not included in gross income. Capital gains and losses pose special considerations in the determination of income tax liability. Capital gains are the profits realized as a result of the sale or exchange of a capital asset. Capital losses are the deficits realized in such transactions. Capital gains and losses are determined by establishing a taxpayer's basis in the property. Basis is generally defined as the taxpayer's cost of acquiring the property. In the case of property received as a gift, the donee basically steps into the shoes of the donor and is deemed to have the same basis in the property as did the donor. The basis is subtracted from the amount realized by the sale or other disposition of the property, and the difference is either a gain or a loss to the taxpayer. Capital gains are usually included in gross income, with certain narrow exclusions, and capital losses are generally excluded from gross income. An important exception to this favorable treatment of capital losses occurs when the loss arises from the sale or other disposition of property held by the taxpayer for personal use, such as a personal residence or jewelry. When a capital gain is realized from the disposition of property held for personal use, it is included as income even though a capital loss involving the same property cannot be excluded from income. This apparent discrepancy is further magnified by the fact that capital losses on business or investment property can be excluded from income. Consequently, there have been many lawsuits over the issue of whether a personal residence, used at some point as rental property or for some other income producing use, is deemed personal or business property for income tax purposes. Taxpayers age 55 or older who sell a personal residence in which they have resided for a specific amount of time can exclude their capital gains. This is a one-time exclusion, with specific dollar limits. Consequently, if future, greater gains are anticipated, a taxpayer age 55 or older may choose to pay the capital gains tax on a transaction that qualifies for the exclusion but produces smaller capital gains. Even though a capital gain on a personal residence is realized, it may be temporarily deferred from inclusion in gross income if the taxpayer buys and occupies another home two years before or after the sale, and the new home costs the same as or more than the old home. The gain is merely postponed. This type of transaction is called a rollover. The gain that is not taxed in the year of sale will be deducted from the cost of the new home, thereby establishing a basis in the property that is less than the price paid for the home. When the new home is later sold, the amount of gain recognized at that time will include the gain that was not recognized when the home was purchased by the taxpayer. Deductions and Adjusted Gross Income Once the amount of gross income is determined, the taxpayer may take deductions from the income in order to determine adjusted gross income. Two categories of deductions are allowed. Above-the-line deductions are taken in full from gross income to arrive at adjusted gross income. Below-the-line, or itemized, deductions are taken from adjusted gross income and are allowed only to the extent that their combined amount exceeds a certain threshold amount. If the total amount of itemized deductions does not meet the threshold amount, those deductions are not allowed. Generally, above-the-line deductions are business expenditures, and below-the-line deductions are personal, or non-business, expenditures. The favorable tax treatment afforded business and investment property is also evident in the treatment of business and investment expenses. Ordinary and necessary expenses are those incurred in connection with a trade or business. Ordinary and necessary business expenses are those that others engaged in the same type of business incur in similar circumstances. With regard to deductions for expenses incurred for investment property, courts follow the same type of "ordinary-and-necessary" analysis used for business expense deductions, and disallow the deductions if they are personal in nature or are capital expenses. Allowable business expenses include insurance, rent, supplies, travel, transportation, salary payments to employees, certain losses, and most state and local taxes. Personal, or nonbusiness, expenses are generally not deductible. Exceptions to this rule include casualty and theft losses that are not covered by insurance. Certain expenses are allowed as itemized deductions. These below-the-line deductions include expenses for medical treatment, interest on home mortgages, state income taxes, and charitable contributions. Expenses incurred for tax advice are deductible from federal income tax, as are a wide array of state and local taxes. In addition, an employee who incurs business expenses may deduct those expenses to the extent they are not reimbursed by the employer. Typical unreimbursed expenses that are deductible by employees include union dues and payments for mandatory uniforms. Alimony payments may be taken as a deduction by the payer and are deemed to be income to the recipient; however, Child Support payments are not deemed income to the parent who has custody of the child and are not deductible by the paying parent. Contributions made by employees to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or by self-employed persons to keogh plans are deductible from gross income. Allowable annual deductions for contributions to an IRA are lower than allowable contributions to a Keogh account. Contributions beyond the allowable deduction are permitted; however, amounts in excess are included in gross income. Both IRAs and Keogh plans create tax-sheltered retirement funds that are not taxed as gross income during the taxpayer's working years. The contributions and the interest earned on them become taxable when they are distributed to the taxpayer. Distribution may take place when the taxpayer is 59 and one-half years old, or earlier if the taxpayer becomes disabled, at which time the taxpayer will most likely be in a lower tax bracket. Distribution may take place before either of these occurrences, but if so, the funds are taxable immediately and the taxpayer may also incur a substantial penalty for early withdrawal of the money. Additional Deductions and Taxable Income Once adjusted gross income is determined, a taxpayer must determine whether to use the standard deduction or to itemize deductions. In most cases the standard deduction is used because it is the most convenient option. However, if the amount of itemized deductions is substantially more than the standard deduction and exceeds the threshold amount, a taxpayer will receive a greater tax benefit by itemizing. After the standard deduction or itemized deductions are subtracted from adjusted gross income, the income amount is further reduced by personal and dependency exemptions. Each taxpayer is allowed one personal exemption. A taxpayer may also claim a dependency exemption for each person who meets five specific criteria: the dependent must have a familial relationship with the taxpayer; have a gross income that is less than the amount of the deduction, unless she or he is under nineteen years old or a full-time student; receive more than one-half of her or his support from the taxpayer; be a citizen or resident of the United States, Mexico, or Canada; and, if married, be unable to file a joint return with her or his spouse. Each exemption is valued at a certain dollar amount, by which the taxpayer's taxable income is reduced. Tax Tables and Tax Owed Once the final deductions and exemptions are taken, the resulting figure is the taxpayer's taxable income. The tax owed on this income is determined by looking at applicable tax tables. This figure may be reduced by tax prepayments or by an applicable tax credit. Credits are available for contributions made to candidates for public office; child and dependent care; earned income; taxes paid in another country; and residential energy. For each dollar of available credit, a taxpayer's liability is reduced by one dollar. Refund or Tax Owed Finally, after tax prepayments and credits are subtracted, the amount of tax owed the IRS or the amount of refund owed the taxpayer is determined. The taxpayer's tax return and payment of tax owed must be mailed to the IRS by April 15 unless an extension is sought. Taxpayers who make late payments without seeking an extension will be charged interest on the amount due and may be charged a penalty. A tax refund may be requested for up to several years after the tax return is filed. A refund is owed usually because the taxpayer had more tax than necessary withheld from his or her paychecks. Tax Audits The IRS may audit a taxpayer to verify that the taxpayer correctly reported income, exemptions, or deductions on the return. The majority of returns that are audited are chosen by computer, which selects those that have the highest probability of error. Returns may also be randomly selected for audit or may be chosen because of previous investigations of a taxpayer for Tax Evasion or for involvement in an activity that is under investigation by the IRS. Taxpayers may represent themselves at an audit, or may have an attorney, certified public accountant, or the person who prepared the return accompany them. The taxpayer will be told what items to bring to the audit in order to answer the questions raised. If additional tax is found to be owed and the taxpayer disagrees, she or he may request an immediate meeting with a supervisor. If the supervisor supports the audit findings, the taxpayer may appeal the decision to a higher level within the IRS or may take the case directly to court. Further readings Adams, Charles. 1998. Those Dirty Rotten Taxes: The Tax Revolts that Built America. New York: Free Press. Cataldo, Anthony J. and Arline A. Savage. 2001. U.S. Individual Federal Income Taxation: Historical, Contemporary, And Prospective Policy Issues. New York: JAI. Chirelstein, Marvin A. 2002. Federal Income Taxation: A Law Student's Guide to the Leading Cases and Concepts. 9th ed. New York: Foundation Press. Ivers, James F. ed. 2003. Fundamentals of Income Taxation. 4th ed. Bryn Mawr, Pa. American College. Willan, Robert M. 1994. Income Taxes: Concise History and Primer. Baton Rouge, La. Claitor's. Source: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com Category: Forex Similar articles: How to Prepare Corporation Income Tax Return for Business in CanadaThe Truth about Income InequalityUS tax filing: Help for NRIs on how global income is taxedHow To Use Dividends For Retirement IncomeHow to Analyze Balance Sheet and Income Statement Categories:

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/318

Investiture Held for Ole Miss Law Alumna Debra Brown Makes History in Mississippi By: Alana Dandridge Oxford, Miss.– Debra M. Brown, an alumna of the University of Mississippi School of Law, is the first African American woman to be sworn in as a U.S. District Judge in Mississippi. Brown will preside over the Northern District, which includes 37 counties. The investiture ceremony for Brown was held June 20, 2014 in Greenville, Miss., at the Washington County Convention Center. Guests at the ceremony included U.S. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker and former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Reuben V. Anderson. Richard Gershon, dean and professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law, said that the law school is always proud of graduates who make a positive difference as lawyers. “Judge Brown has proven herself as a dedicated professional of the highest integrity. Her appointment proves that you can do anything with a degree from our law school,” Gershon said. After graduating law school in 1997, Brown became an attorney at Phelps Dunbar LLP. According to Mississippi Public Broadcasting, Brown was also a shareholder in the Jackson law firm Wise Carter Child & Caraway. “Brown was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in fall 2013,” as stated in the Clarion Ledger. Judge Brown will preside over courthouses in Aberdeen, Oxford and Greenville. Posted in: Alumni, Uncategorized

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/321

« Former Solicitor General Drew Days III Will Retire From MoFo | | The Morning Wrap » Judge Blocks Enforcement Of Tax Provision In Cigarette Trafficking Law A federal judge in Washington on Monday blocked enforcement of a provision in a new cigarette trafficking law that required remote sellers of tobacco products to pay state and local taxes in advance of a sale. Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of Washington federal district court granted a preliminary injunction staying enforcement of the tax provision in the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act. Click here for the ruling. The judge said the provision may violate due process rights because it subjects a nonresident of a state to certain taxes regardless of the person’s contact with the jurisdiction. The lead plaintiff, Robert Gordon of New York, sold cigarettes and tobacco products online, proclaiming that he passed on discounts to consumers because he did not pay state taxes. Represented by Baker Botts, Gordon sued the government in June 2010 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Since then, Gordon has only sold tobacco products in a brick-and-mortar store in upstate New York and via telephone orders. Lamberth on Monday upheld the law’s ban on shipping tobacco products through the U.S. mail. Gordon, a member of the Seneca Indian tribe, has relied in recent months on a small shipping company that delivers to select zip codes in six states, Lamberth said in his ruling. The mail ban, Lamberth said, advances “the legitimate government interests of reducing underage tobacco use and cigarette trafficking.” But the judge said Gordon is likely to win on his claim that the law’s tax provision violates due process rights. Lamberth said the law “appears to impose a new, independent duty on the delivery seller by requiring that they ensure that the applicable state and local taxes are paid.” A lawyer for Gordon, Baker Botts appellate litigation partner Aaron Streett in Houston, said Monday evening that a ruling in favor of the tax provision “would have set a very dangerous precedent giving the government the ability to essentially tax Internet transactions. In that sense, the ruling is a significant win.” Still, Streett said, he is disappointed Lamberth upheld the constitutionality of the mail-ban in the new law, which became effective in June 2010. “The mailing ban was enacted for the purpose of bankrupting Internet retailers that were cutting into the profits of big tobacco companies,” Streett said. “We are disappointed the court didn’t see it that way.” Lamberth said in the 28-page opinion that “regardless of whether Congress may have been influenced or motivated by a purpose other than those it stated, the Court must uphold the Act ‘if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.’” U.S. Justice Department lawyer Gerald Kell of the Civil Division’s consumer litigation office, was not immediately reached for comment this evening. The government could decide to challenge Lamberth’s injunction against the tax provisions in the new law. Posted by Mike Scarcella on December 05, 2011 at 06:22 PM in Balancing Act, Crime and Punishment, Current Affairs, Justice Department , Legal Business, Lobbying, Personal Finance, Politics and Government, Supreme Court , Travel, Web/Tech | Permalink

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/342

In Padilla case, no life sentence The judge cited harsh military detention to justify a lighter term of 17 years in prison. By Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / Jose Padilla, a former Taco Bell employee from south Florida who converted to Islam and attended an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years and four months in prison for his role in what prosecutors say was a global conspiracy to wage violent jihad.No evidence was presented at Mr. Padilla's four-month trial linking him to a specific violent act – either planned or carried out. But prosecutors said his attendance at the training camp demonstrated his intent to engage in terrorism. They called him a "trained Al Qaeda killer," and said life in prison was "the only appropriate punishment." US District Judge Marcia Cooke disagreed, authorizing a substantial downward departure from federal sentencing guidelines that called for 30 years to life in prison. She justified the lighter sentence in part because of Padilla's earlier detention without charge and severe interrogation as an enemy combatant in a South Carolina military prison."I do find that the conditions were so harsh for Mr. Padilla that they warrant consideration of the court's fashioning of a sentence in this case," Judge Cooke told the hushed courtroom.The lighter sentence was a significant setback for federal prosecutors."The crimes here are serious," Cooke said. But she added, "There is no evidence that these defendants personally maimed, killed, or kidnapped anyone in the United States or elsewhere."The judge stressed that Padilla's sentence and those handed down for two codefendants would serve as a warning to others that support for violent activities overseas "will not be tolerated."Despite Padilla's lower prison sentence, the three convictions in the case mark an important victory for US government officials working to stanch the flow of money and other support from America to various terror groups operating overseas, legal analysts say. It puts individuals who may be sympathetic to Al Qaeda or other violent overseas groups on notice that the government will take aggressive action against those perceived to be helping America's armed enemies abroad.But the Padilla case also represents a threat to civil liberties, according to defense lawyers and other analysts. If upheld on appeal, the case against Padilla and his two codefendants could empower federal prosecutors in the future to target outspoken American Muslims for their political advocacy in support of militant efforts in the Arab and Islamic worlds."The government has not made America any safer. It has just made America less free," William Swor, attorney for co-defendant Kifah Jayyousi, told the Associated Press.Padilla, Mr. Jayyousi, and Adham Hassoun were convicted in August of participating in a US-based support cell for what prosecutors characterized as a wide-ranging militant Muslim conspiracy to wage religiously motivated terrorism in troubled areas around the world.Mr. Hassoun and Jayyousi were found guilty of providing money, equipment, recruits, or other support to Muslim groups operating in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Lebanon, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Padilla was identified in the conspiracy as a recruit who attended the training camp.In addition to sentencing Padilla to 17 years in prison, Cooke sentenced Hassoun to 15 years and eight months, and Jayyousi to 12 years and eight months.Defense lawyers had argued in the trial and during a seven-day sentencing hearing that prosecutors were relying on an overly broad reading of murder-conspiracy and material-support laws.Lawyers for Hassoun and Jayyousi said their clients were motivated by a desire to send humanitarian aid to Muslims under attack overseas. Padilla's lawyer said his client traveled to the Middle East to study Islam and learn Arabic. He said the government presented no evidence of Padilla's intent to support violent jihad, or participate in it.Padilla's long legal ordeal began in June 2002, when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced in a press conference that American officials had foiled a plot to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. President Bush ordered Padilla, a US citizen, to be held without charge as an enemy combatant. Padilla was imprisoned for 3-1/2 years in a military brig in South Carolina where he was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including extreme isolation and sensory deprivation. Mental-health experts who have examined Padilla say he is suffering from significant psychological damage from his treatment in the brig.Lawyers challenged the constitutionality of Padilla's military detention. They argued the case all the way to the US Supreme Court. But in 2004 the high court dodged the central issue, handing down a procedural ruling that required the lawyers to relitigate their case from the beginning in South Carolina.A year and a half later, when it appeared that a sympathetic Supreme Court was about to take up Padilla's case a second time, the Justice Department shifted him from military custody into the criminal-justice system on terror-conspiracy charges. The move mooted Padilla's constitutional challenge.It also prevented the courts from examining the legality of the interrogation techniques that had been used against Padilla in the brig. Lawyers in Miami appointed to represent Padilla in the criminal case charged in a pretrial motion that Padilla had been tortured. But Cooke declined to examine the torture allegation.At trial, Padilla's lawyers tried to emphasize what they said was a lack of evidence linking their client to terrorism.Prosecutors did not attempt to use any information obtained from Padilla during his brig interrogation. Had they done so it would have required judicial examination of interrogation techniques used against Padilla. US officials have backed away from the "dirty bomb" allegations. Some have suggested instead that Padilla was plotting to blow up occupied apartment buildings. But prosecutors in the Miami trial presented no evidence of Padilla's involvement in any specific terror plot.Although Padilla's prison sentence ends one chapter of the Padilla saga, Padilla's story is far from over.Despite the conviction in Miami, lawyers have filed civil lawsuits in South Carolina and California seeking to hold current and former Bush administration officials legally accountable for what they charge were violations of Padilla's civil and constitutional rights during his imprisonment in the brig.In addition, all three defendants in the Miami case are expected to appeal both their convictions and their sentences.Prosecutors objected to portions of Cooke's sentencing decisions, but they did not announce whether they will appeal the sentences. Life in prison for Padilla? Sparks fly in Padilla sentencing hearing

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/395

| Kolbeck v. Kramer Kolbeck v. Kramer Decided: November 22, 1965. WAYNE B. KOLBECK BY WALTER A. KOLBECK, SR., GUARDIAN AD LITEM, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,v.GEORGE A. KRAMER, MASON W. GROSS, PHILIP B. BEWLEY, DEFENDANTS, AND RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT For modification -- Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman. Opposed -- None. [46 NJ Page 47] Plaintiff was denied admission to Rutgers, The State University when he refused to submit to vaccination for smallpox. N.J.S.A. 18:14-52 permits a board of education to exclude pupils not vaccinated and authorizes the board to exempt therefrom a pupil whose parent or guardian objects in writing upon the ground that the proposed vaccination interferes with the free exercise of his religious principles. In harmony with that policy the University requires vaccination subject to exemption on religious grounds. The trial court ordered the University to admit plaintiff, Kolbeck v. Kramer, 84 N.J. Super. 569 (Law Div. 1964), and we heard the University's appeal before the Appellate Division acted upon it. Plaintiff is now a student elsewhere. We called for an affidavit of his present intentions to determine whether the cause is moot. His affidavit disavows an intent to pursue the application here involved but does profess an interest in graduate work at the State University. In these circumstances an adjudication of the controversy seems appropriate to the end that if such further application is submitted and the University's policy still provides for the exemption here claimed, the University, in considering the merits of such further application, shall not be concerned with the question whether plaintiff's claim for exemption rests in religious conviction. We think it enough to say the trial court's finding that plaintiff's objection to vaccination in fact rested upon religious [46 NJ Page 48] principles is amply supported by the proof. In its origin, the difficulty was largely semantic. At least the trial court could correctly so view it and thus find plaintiff's earlier expressions squared with his later, more precise statement of his belief. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to the claimed exemption under the University's stated policy. The University challenges some of the trial court's theses, especially the discussion of the respective powers of the State Board of Education and the University's Board of Governors. In the light of our view of the controversy, we need not consider that issue, and it is therefore reserved. The judgment is modified and preserved for the declaratory value to plaintiff described above.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/416

Connie Mack IV on Education Senate challenger; Republican Representative (FL-14) Voted YES on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program. Congressional Summary:The SOAR Act award five-year grants on a competitive basis to nonprofit organizations to carry out an expanded school choice opportunities to students who are District of Columbia residents and who come from households: receiving assistance under the supplemental nutrition assistance program; orwith incomes not exceeding 185% of the poverty line. Provides funds to the Mayor of DC, if the Mayor agrees to specified requirements, for: the DC public schools to improve public education, and the DC public charter schools to improve and expand quality public charter schools. Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:[Rep. Bishop, R-UT]: In 1996, Congress insisted upon a charter school program in DC. You will hear from both sides of the aisle recognition of the great value that that program has, and justifiably so. There is a waiting list in DC for those charter schools. This bill increases the percentage of funding going to charter schools in the District. In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship was instituted, at the insistence of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this scholarship afforded them. There were 216 kids at the time scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed; the bill remedies that. Opponent's Argument for voting No:[Rep. Hastings, D-FL]: In the last 41 years voters have rejected private school vouchers every time they have been proposed. In 1981, 89% of the people in a referendum in DC voted against vouchers. So how dare we come here to tell these people that we are going to thrust upon them something they don't want without a single public official in this community being consulted. Congress' oversight of the District is not an excuse for political pandering to the Republicans' special interest of the day du jour. Reference: Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (SOAR); Bill HRes186 ; vote number 11-HV200 Voted NO on $40B for green public schools. Congressional Summary:Make grants to states for the modernization, renovation, or repair of public schools, including early learning facilities and charter schools, to make them safe, healthy, high-performing, and technologically up-to-date. Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. BETSY MARKEY (D, CO-4): This legislation will improve the learning environment for our children, reduce energy costs and create new jobs across the country. Green schools not only save school districts money but also teach the importance of sustainable living to children at a young age. Opponent's argument to vote No: Rep. GLENN THOMPSON (R, PA-5): We all know our Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. The bill we're debating today would add an estimated $40 billion in new spending. And despite the majority's hollow promises of fiscal responsibility, there's nothing in the legislation to offset this hefty price tag with spending reductions elsewhere. This is just more of the same borrow and spend, spend and borrow policy that we've seen under this majority and this administration. Reference: 21st Century Green Schools Act; Bill H.R.2187 Voted YES on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. Amendment to preserve the authority of the US Supreme Court to decide any question pertaining to the Pledge of Allegiance. The bill underlying this amendment would disallow any federal courts from hearing cases concerning the Pledge of Allegiance. This amendment would make an exception for the Supreme Court.Proponents support voting YES because:I believe that our Pledge of Allegiance with its use of the phrase "under God" is entirely consistent with our Nation's cultural and historic traditions. I also believe that the Court holding that use of this phrase is unconstitutional is wrong. But this court-stripping bill is not necessary. This legislation would bar a Federal court, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing any claim that challenges the recitation of the Pledge on first amendment grounds. If we are a Nation of laws, we must be committed to allowing courts to decide what the law is. This bill is unnecessary and probably unconstitutional. It would contradict the principle of Marbury v. Madison, intrude on the principles of separation of powers, and degrade our independent Federal judiciary.Opponents support voting NO because:I was disappointed 4 years ago when two judges of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our Pledge, our statement of shared national values, was somehow unconstitutional. I do not take legislation that removes an issue from the jurisdiction of this court system lightly. This legislation is appropriate, however, because of the egregious conduct of the courts in dealing with the Pledge of Allegiance. By striking "under God" from the Pledge, the Court has shown contempt for the Congress which approved the language, and, more importantly, shows a complete disregard for the millions of Americans who proudly recite the Pledge as a statement of our shared national values and aspirations. No one is required to recite the Pledge if they disagree with its message. Reference: Watt amendment to Pledge Protection Act; Bill H R 2389 Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. This vote is on a substitute bill (which means an amendment which replaces the entire text of the original bill). Voting YES means support for the key differences from the original bill: lowering student loan interest rates; $59 million for a new Predominantly Black Serving Institution program; $25 million for a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program; provide for year- round Pell grants; and repeal the Single Lender rule. The substitute's proponents say: The original bill has some critical shortcomings. First and foremost, this substitute will cut the new Pell Grant fixed interest rate in half from 6.8% to 3.4%, to reduce college costs to those students most in need.It would also establish a new predominantly black-serving institutions programs to boost college participation rates for low-income black students, and a new graduate Hispanic-serving institution program.As we saw from 1995 to 2000, the questions employers were asking was not your race, not your ethnicity, not your religion, they wanted to know if you had the skills and talents to do the job. Most often today, those skills and that talent requires a higher education. A college education is going to have to become as common as a high school education. The substitute's opponents say: I feel it is not totally the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for all of higher education. The substitute has three critical flaws.1.The name itself, "Reverse the Raid on Student Aid." Don't believe the hype. Not one student in America will receive less financial aid under our bill. Not one.2. This amendment does not retain the $6,000 maximum Pell Grant award that our legislation has. In fact, they stay with the same old $5,800 maximum award. 3. It says that we are going to have a 3.4% interest rate for 1 year that is going to cost $2.7 billion, but it has no offsets whatsoever. How do they pay for it? They don't tell us. Reference: Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act; Bill HR 609 Amendment 772 Click here for definitions & background information on Education. Click here for a profile of Connie Mack IV. Click here for SenateMatch answers by Connie Mack IV. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Education in The Forum. Click here for a summary of Connie Mack IV's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other FL politicians. Other candidates on Education: Connie Mack IV on other issues: FL Gubernatorial:Rick ScottFL Senatorial:Bill NelsonDave WeldonMarco Rubio FL politicians

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/417

234 U.S. 245 - United States v. First National Bank of Detroit Minnesota Homethe United States Reports234 U.S. 234 US 245 United States v. First National Bank of Detroit Minnesota 234 U.S. 245 UNITED STATES, Appt.,v.FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT, MINNESOTA. UNITED STATES, Appt., NICHOLS-CHISHOLM LUMBER COMPANY, the Minneapolis Trust Company, and Hiram R. Lyon. Company, and Hovey C. Clark. Nos. 873, 874, 875. Decided June 8, 1914. These suits were brought by the United States in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota against the appellees, to set aside certain conveyances under and through which the appellees claimed title to lands, particularly described, in the White Earth Indian Reservation in Minnesota. The decree of the district court (which had succeeded the circuit court) in the first two cases in favor of the government was reversed by the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, while the decree dismissing the bill in the last case was affirmed (208 Fed. 988). By the treaty of March 19, 1867 (16 Stat. at L. 719), creating the White Earth Indian Reservation, the Chippewas of the Mississippi ceded all their land in Minnesota, except certain described tracts, to the United States, and the government set apart the White Earth Reservation for their use, and provision was made for the certification to each Indian of not to exceed 160 acres of the land to such reservation in lots of 40 acres each, upon the cultivation of 10 acres, provided, that the land should be exempt from taxation and sale for debt, and should not be alienated except with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and then only to a Chippewa Indian. The act of February 8, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 388, chap. 119), provided for the allotment of land in the Indian reservations in severalty to the Indians, and that (§ 5) upon the approval of the allotments patents should issue therefor in the name of the allottees, which should be of the legal effect and declare that the United States held the land for twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom the allotment was made, or, in case of his death, of his heirs, according to the laws of the state or territory where the land was located, and that, at the expiration of that time, the United States would convey the same to the Indian or his heirs in fee, discharged of the trust, and free of all charge or encumbrance whatsoever; provided that the President of the United States might, in his discretion, extend the period, and provided that any conveyance or contract touching the lands before the expiration of the trust period should be null and void. The Nelson act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stat. at L. 642, chap. 24), provided for the relinquishment to the United States of that part of the reservation remaining after the allotment, subject to the act of February 8, 1887, supra, in severalty, to the Chippewa Indians in Minnesota, the act to become operative only upon the assent of a certain number of Indians being obtained. By the act of February 28, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 794, chap. 383), the allotments were limited to 80 acres to each Indian; but by the Steenerson act of April 28, 1904 (33 Stat. at L. 539, chap. 1786), the maximum allotments of the White Earth Reservation were made 160 acres. The acts of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 325, 353, chap. 3504), and March 1, 1907 (34 Stat. at L. 1015, 1034, chap 2285), in what is known as the Clapp amendment, removed the restrictions upon alienation as respects mixed-blood Indians, but left the matter, so far as full bloods were concerned, to the Secretary of the Interior. The government relied, in the first case, upon its title to a certain parcel of land as a part of the public domain set apart as the White Earth Reservation, and the fact that, although, under the various acts of Congress above mentioned, authority was given to segregate certain parcels of land from others in the reservation, and to allot them to members of the band, and O-bah-baum, an Indian woman of that tribe, had been given a trust patent, as provided for by the act of February 8, 1887, supra, and had given a mortgage to the defendant in that case upon such land, she had no right or authority so to do. It prayed that the mortgage be annulled, as being a cloud upon the government's title. The allegations of the complaints in the second and third cases are the same, except that the allottee in the former is named Bay-bah-mah-ge-wabe, and in the latter Equay-zaince, and in both cases that there are outstanding warranty deeds and mortgages, that there were intermediate parties not made parties of record, and that an accounting was asked for timber already cut, and an injunction from cutting standing timber. The defendant in the first case, besides denying that the reservation was a part of the public domain, and alleging that the property was that of the Indians, and that, after selection, the allottee acquired a feesimple title, notwithstanding the acts of Congress, particularly set up the fact that O-bah-baum is a mixed-blood Chippewa Indian, and one of the class referred to in the Clapp amendment, and therefore emancipated from the pretended supervision of the government, and able to transfer her property as a citizen of the United States. The defendant also alleged that, under the facts, the Indians having made affidavit that they were mixed bloods and the good faith of the defendant, the government should be required to place the defendant in statu quo before the relief asked could be granted. The lumber company, defendant in the second case, and the defendants in the third case, filed answers of similar purport, with the additional averment that, under the facts stated, the matter relating to the timber was immaterial; but, if the court found against defendants' title, they would account for the timber cut by them. By stipulation or introduction in evidence the following facts were made to appear: The three Indians here involved are adult Chippewa Indians, residing upon the White Earth Reservation. O-bah-baum has some white blood, derived from a remote ancestor, but not to exceed one thirty-second; Bay-bah-mah-ge-wabe has one sixteenth of white blood, and Equay-zaince has one eighth of white blood. A question having arisen with reference to the construction of the term 'mixed blood,' as used in the treaty of September 30, 1854 (10 Stat. at L. 1109), between the United States and the Chippewa Indians of Lake Superior and the Mississippi, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in a letter to the Indian agent at Detroit, Michigan, said that 'the term 'mixed-bloods' has been construed to mean all who are identified as having a mixture of Indian and white blood. The particular proportion of each blood is therefore immaterial, where the provision is so broad as that stated in the treaty.' The Indian agent at the White Earth Reservation, after the passage of the Clapp amendment, came to Washington to consult the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and was referred by him to the Land Division; and, after discussing the situation with a man represented to be in charge of such matters, it was agreed that the act did not require a showing of any definite quantum of foreign blood to constitute a mixed blood, and to his knowledge this was the construction generally adopted by those who dealt with the Indians on the White Earth Reservation. The Chief of the Land Division at the time of the passage of the Clapp amendment testified that, to his knowledge, no question was raised as to the quantum of foreign blood. In a communication dated October 6, 1910, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Special Assistant to the Attorney General and the special Indian agent at Detroit, Minnesota, expressed the belief that the attorneys for the government were going to contend that the term 'mixed blood' should be interpreted to embrace only those of half or less of Indian blood, and cited a certain act of the United States (of February 6, 1909, 35 Stat. at L. 600, chap. 80) in which the term 'Indian' was defined to include the aboriginal races inhabiting Alaska when annexed to the United States, and their descendants of the whole or half blood, which act concerned the sale of liquor or firearms to an Indian or half breed. They also cited certain treaties with the Chippewas wherein it was shown that half breeds are persons of less than half blood, and not regarded as Indians or members of the Chippewa nation: article 3 of the treaty of July 29, 1837 (7 Stat. at L. 536), article 4 of the treaty of October 4, 1842 (7 Stat. at L. 591), article 4 of the treaty of August 2, 1847 (9 Stat. at L. 904), article 6 of the treaty of February 22, 1855 (10 Stat. at L. 1165), and article 4 of the treaty of March 19, 1867 (16 Stat. at L. 719), from which it was summarized that in these treaties persons classed as half breeds or mixed bloods, or less than half blood, were not recognized by the government or the Chippewas as Indians entitled to the rights and privileges of Chippewa Indians unless by special provisions of treaties, as theretofore shown. The Second Assistant Commissioner, in his reply of November 19, 1910, stated that the Office was inclined to give the expressions 'full bloods' and 'mixed bloods' their ordinary meaning, which would be more reasonable than to hold that the term 'full bloods' included those of admitted pure blood and others above the half blood. It was also said in his letter, however, that a conference would be had with the Department of Justice, and further advice given. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs said that he had never given an official construction to the term 'mixed blood.' It was stipulated that, in administering the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Clapp amendment, and especially in issuing patents thereunder, the Department had not required any statement as to the quantum of foreign blood, but had issued patents upon the showing that the applicant was a mixed blood. Several instances were shown by the records of allotments having been made to allottees on the White Earth Reservation having but one sixteenth or one thirty-second of Indian blood, while other instances were shown where allotment had been denied because applicant was of 'doubtful blood.' A white man who had resided for a long time among the Chippewa Indians stated that in the early period the terms 'mixed blood' and 'half breed' were synonymous, applying to one of mixed white and Indian blood, irrespective of the percentage, and that later the term 'mixed blood' was more commonly used, while the term 'half breed' was applied to one having nearly equal parts of white and Indian blood. The general impression of business men in and about the White Earth Reservation was that any Indian who had white blood in his veins was a mixed blood. Several very elderly Indians testified, however, that the Indians regarded the term 'mixed blood' as applying to those having practically half white and half Indian blood. The district court, after stating that the question was one of first impression, said that Congress intended competency to be the test, and came to the conclusion that an Indian having an admixture of one eighth white blood might come within the term, but that beyond that the white blood would not affect the capacity of the Indian to manage his own affairs, and therefore dismissed the bill in the third case and entered a decree in favor of the complainants in the other two cases. The circuit court of appeals reached the conclusion that every Chippewa Indian having an identifiable mixture of other than Indian blood, however small, is a mixed-blood Indian, and all others are full-blood Indians within the meaning of the Clapp amendment, and accordingly reversed the decree of the district court in the first two cases and affirmed the decree in the third case. Solicitor General Davis and Messrs. C. C. Daniels and W. A. Norton for appellant. [Argument of Counsel from page 252 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Ransom J. Powell, George T. Simpson, and Ernest C. Carman for appellees. Statement by Mr. Justice Day: [Argument of Counsel from pages 253-257 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Day, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court: Before the transfers here complained of, and while the lands were held in trust, subject to the provisions of the act of February 8, 1887, supra, the Clapp amendment was passed, having the purpose of removing the restrictions upon alienation in certain cases. This act provides: 'That all restrictions as to the sale, encumbrance, or taxation for allotments within the White Earth Reservation in the state of Minnesota, heretofore [amended March 1, 1907, the word 'heretofore' being substituted for the word 'now'] or hereafter held by adult mixed-blood Indians, are hereby removed, and the trust deeds heretofore or hereafter executed by the Department for such allotments are hereby declared to pass the title in fee simple, or such mixed bloods upon application shall be entitled to receive a patent in fee simple for such allotments; and as to full bloods, said restrictions shall be removed when the Secretary of the Interior is satisfied that said adult full-blood Indians are competent to handle their own affairs, and in such case the Secretary of the Interior shall issue to such Indian allottee a patent in fee simple upon application.' It is at once apparent from reading this act that it deals with two classes,—adult mixed-blood Indians, concerning whom all restrictions as to sale, encumbrance, or taxation are removed, and full-blood Indians, whose right to be free from restrictions shall rest with the Secretary of the Interior, who may remove the same upon being satisfied that such full-blood Indians are competent to handle their own affairs. This case turns upon the construction of the words 'mixed-blood Indians.' It is the contention of the government that mixed blood means those of half white or more than half white blood, while the appellees insist, and this was the view adopted by the circuit court of appeals, that the term 'mixed blood' includes all who have an identifiable mixture of white blood. If the government's contention be correct, it follows that, for the purposes of this suit, all of less than half white blood must be regarded as full-blood Indians, all others as mixed bloods. Upon the appellees' contention the line is drawn between full bloods as one class, and all having an identifiable admixture of white blood as the other. If we apply the general rule of statutory construction that words are to be given their usual and ordinary meaning, it would seem clear that the appellees' construction is right; for a full blood is obviously one of pure blood, thoroughbred, having no admixture of foreign blood. That this natural and usual signification of plain terms is to be adopted as the legislative meaning in the absence of clear showing that something else was meant is an elementary rule of construction frequently recognized and followed in this court. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358, 399, 2 L. ed. 304, 317; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662, 670, 32 L. ed. 1060, 1063, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 651; Dewey v. United States, 178 U. S. 510, 521, 44 L. ed. 1170, 1174, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 981. Interpreted according to the plain import of the words, the persons intended to be reached by the clause are divided into two, and only two, well-defined classes,—full-blood Indians and mixed bloods. There is no suggestion of a third class, having more than half of white blood or any other proportion than is indicated in the term 'mixed blood,' as contrasted with full blood. If the government's contention is correct, the Indians of full blood must necessarily include half bloods, and mixed bloods must mean all having less than half white blood, and none others. Such construction is an obvious wresting of terms of plain import from their usual and well-understood signification. But the government insists that to effect the legislative purpose the words must be interpreted as the Indians understood them, and cases from this court (Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1, 44 L. ed. 49, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Starr v. Long Jim, 227 U. S. 613, 57 L. ed. 670, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358) are cited to the effect that Indian treaties and acts to which the Indians must give consent before they become operative must be interpreted so as to conform to the understanding of the Indians as to the meaning of the terms used. The justice and propriety of this method of interpretation are obvious and essential to the protection of an unlettered race, dealing with those of better education and skill, themselves framing contracts which the Indians are induced to sign. But the legislation here in question is not in the nature of contract, and contains no provision that makes it effectual only upon consent of the Indians whose rights and privileges are to be affected. Evidently this legislation contemplated in some measure the rights of others who might deal with the Indians, and obviously was intended to enlarge the right to acquire as well as to part with lands held in trust for the Indians. The government refers, in support of its contention, to reports of congressional committees, showing after effects of this legislation, which was followed, as the reports tend to show, by improvident sales and encumbrances of Indian lands and wasteful extravagance in the disposition of the proceeds of sales, resulting in suffering to the former proprietors of the lands sold and mortgaged. But these after effects can have little weight in determining the meaning of the legislation, and certainly cannot overcome the meaning of plain words used in legislative enactments. If the effect of the legislation has been disastrous to the Indians, that fact will not justify the courts in departing from the terms of the act as written. If the true construction has been followed with harsh consequences, it cannot influence the courts in administering the law. The responsibility for the justice or wisdom of legislation rests with the Congress, and it is the province of the courts to enforce, not to make, the laws. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 294, 52 L. ed. 1061, 1067, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 464; United States ex rel. Texas Portland Cement Co. v. McCord, 233 U. S. 157, 163, 58 L. ed. ——, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550. The government further insists that its interpretation of the act is consistent with its policy to make competency the test of the right to alienate, and that the legislation in question proceeds upon the theory that those of half or more white blood are more likely to be able to take care of themselves in making contracts and disposing of their lands than those of lesser admixture of such blood. But the policy of the government in passing legislation is often an uncertain thing, as to which varying opinions may be formed, and may, as is the fact in this case, afford an unstable ground of statutory interpretation. Hadden v. The Collector (Hadden v. Barney), 5 Wall. 107, 111, 18 L. ed. 518, 519. And again, Congress has in other legislation not hesitated to place full-blood Indians in one class and all others in another. Marchie Tiger v. Western Invest. Co. 221 U. S. 286, 55 L. ed. 738, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578. In that case this court had occasion to deal with certain sections of the act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 137, chap. 1876), providing that no full-blood Indian of certain tribes should have power to alienate or encumber allotted lands for a period of twenty-five years, unless restrictions were removed by act of Congress. By § 22 of the act all adult heirs of deceased Indians were given the right to convey their lands, but for the last sentence of the section, which kept fullblood Indians to their right to convey under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. Therefore all adult heirs of any deceased Indian other than a full blood might convey, but the full blood only with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. In this important provision the restrictions were removed as to all classes of Indians other than full bloods. In other words, there as here, the Indians were divided into two classes,—full bloods in one class and all others in the second class. Furthermore, the appellees' construction accords with the departmental construction, as shown by the facts stipulated. Such was the construction given by the Indian Commissioner to the treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. at L. 1109, wherein provision was made for mixed-blood Indians among the Chippewas, and the Indian agent at Detroit, Michigan, was instructed by the Indian Commissioner that the term 'mixed blood' had been construed to mean all who are identified as having a mixture of Indian and white blood. Such was the interpretation of the Department of Interior, in the first place, at least, in administering the matter under the Clapp amendment. It is true that the government representatives at Detroit, Minnesota, were of the opposite opinion, for the reasons we have stated above, and that the Second Assistant Commissioner, in his reply, while reaching the conclusion we have, stated that he would confer with the Department of Justice. While departmental construction of the Clapp amendment does not have the weight which such constructions sometimes have in long-continued observance, nevertheless it is entitled to consideration,—the early administration of that amendment showing the interpretation placed upon it by competent men having to do with its enforcement. The conviction is very strong that if Congress intended to remove restrictions only from those who had half white blood or more, it would have inserted in the act the words necessary to make that intention clear; that is, we deem this a case for the application of the often expressed consideration, aiding interpretation, that if a given construction was intended, it would have been easy for the legislative body to have expressed it in apt terms. Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679, 689, 24 L. ed. 558, 561; Union Nat. Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621, 627, 25 L. ed. 188, 189; Tompkins v. Little Rock, & H. S. R. Co. 125 U. S. 109, 127, 31 L. ed. 615, 624, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 762; United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co., 232 U. S. 399, 410, 58 L. ed. ——, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337. Congress was very familiar with the situation, the subject having been before it in many debates and discussions concerning Indian affairs. This was a reservation inhabited by Indians of full blood and others of all degrees of mixed blood, some with a preponderance of white blood, others with less, and many with very little. If Congress, having competency in mind, and that alone, had intended to emancipate from the prevailing restriction on alienation only those who were half white or more, by a few simple words it could have effected that purpose. We cannot believe that such was the congressional intent, and we are clearly of opinion that the courts may not supply the words which Congress omitted. Nor can such course be induced by any consideration of public policy or the desire to promote justice, if such would be its effect, in dealing with dependent people. We reach the conclusion that the Circuit Court of Appeals rightly construed this statute, and its decrees are affirmed.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/421

Learn More About Administrative Law in Avondale Estates, Georgia Homeadministrative lawgeorgiaavondale estates Avondale Estates is a city in DeKalb County, Georgia, United States. The population was 2,609 at the 2000 census. Avondale Estates was founded in 1924 by George Francis Willis, who purchased the entire village of Ingleside to create a planned community. The city was named after Stratford-upon-Avon, England, birthplace of Shakespeare. Downtown buildings were designed in a Tudor style to reinforce this image, as were many of the houses in the city. Community amenities such as a lake, tennis courts, clubhouse, and a swimming pool were built for residents. The city is also known for the first Waffle House, which opened its doors Labor Day weekend of 1955. Administrative Law Lawyers In Avondale Estates Georgia Answers to administrative law issues in Georgia Federal court opinions concerning administrative law in Georgia 186 US 238 Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Company v. J Forrest Manning E J 325 US 589 State of Nebraska v. State of Wyoming 104 US 171 Porter v. Graves 106 US 272 Fink v. O'Neil 108 US 436 Clark v. Barnard Homeadministrative lawgeorgiaavondale estates

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/540

Federal judge nixes Pennsylvania gay marriage ban William Thomas Cain/Getty Images A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage, joining a host of other federal and state courts that have done so since the Supreme Court last year ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act. "We now join the twelve federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage," U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III said. The ruling comes one day after a judge declared Oregon's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. Jon Terbush

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/656

Metal theft laws burden recyclers byMark Henricks When three employees of Georgia recycling companies were arrested and charged with violating the state’s new metal theft prevention laws last summer, it provided a graphic illustration of what recyclers have feared. Namely, that the proliferation of laws to discourage metal theft is making criminals out of recyclers who fail to follow sometimes burdensome requirements such as taking names, addresses, driver’s license numbers, automobile license tags, photographs and even fingerprints of dealers who offer them recyclable metals. “They’re essentially deputizing scrap recyclers and holding scrap recyclers responsible, which seems unfair, and certainly does nothing to stop theft,” said Danielle Waterfield, assistant counsel for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) in Washington, D.C. The Georgia arrests suggest that this concern has some foundation, because they did not appear to involve any thieves or stolen metal. Instead, they were undercover operations in which a police officer masquerading as a dealer offered to sell metal and, when the recordkeeping requirements set forth by the new law weren’t met, arrested the recycling employee. While acknowledging that metal theft laws have a legitimate purpose, Waterfield questions their methods. “Unfortunately, the laws are not going after the thieves,” she said. “With few exceptions, they are focused on administrative restrictions and requirements on scrap metal dealers with the idea that scrap metal dealers take on a law enforcement function.” Wisely or unwisely, lawmakers have been very active in creating laws targeting metal theft. In 2007, approximately 33 states had such laws. In 2012, 48 states have enacted legislation, mostly establishing recordkeeping and other requirements on dealers, with the goal of preventing metal theft. Today only North Dakota and Alaska lack such laws. Everyone agrees that what’s propelling the wave of legislation is a wave of theft. As commodity prices rose around 2008, thefts mostly of copper began rising. The National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), which tracks insurance claims, said that the number of metal theft claims grew more than 80 percent between the beginning of 2009 and the end of 2011. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that metal theft cost businesses $1 billion per year, which suggests the figure may be much larger now. Thefts occur from unoccupied buildings, construction sites, utility substations, private homes and almost anywhere there are sizable quantities of lightly guarded metal, especially copper. Air conditioning units are popular targets because of their copper content and have been stolen from businesses, apartment buildings, homes, churches and schools. Frank Scafidi, spokesman for the NICB, said that the thefts create not only costs and inconvenience, but also safety and environmental issues. One theft involved stripping wiring from an airport’s perimeter lighting system, for instance. “It put the airport in the dark,” Scafidi said. The NICB also reports that unoccupied buildings have exploded after gas lines were stolen, thieves have darkened highways by stripping cables from utility poles, and even tornado warning sirens have been silenced. One way lawmakers have dealt with these problems is to require recyclers to keep better records. Today, recyclers may need to do anything from checking identification to videotaping transactions. The requirements can be difficult and costly to follow. For instance, one Georgia dealer described spending $35,000 on a new video system to record metal purchases. Waterfield said the most burdensome rules, which have been enacted by some of the most aggressive legislators, require dealers to inventory purchased metals for days or weeks in case law enforcement needs the material to investigate or prosecute a crime. Similar rules have long governed pawnshops, but Waterfield said the scrap industry can’t do it that way. “Scrap dealers don’t have the real estate to hold the scrap material,” she said. “And it’s traded on a commodities market and prices change throughout the day. You can’t predict what the price is going to be the next day. You could lose your shirt.” Aside from posing problems for dealers, metal theft laws can confuse metal dealers, including consumers as well as those who make living collecting scrap metal. Georgia recyclers, for instance, report many calls from consumers wondering whether they can recycle household metals without licenses or other requirements. Another argument against new laws is that they aren’t likely accomplish much because existing law aren’t enforced and few of the new laws provide for enhanced enforcement. “If you’re going to have enforcement, then you have to have the bodies or enforcers to enforce with,” Scafidi said. However, he said law enforcement agencies are generally experiencing budget crunches that constrict rather than expand their capabilities. “They don’t have the luxury to deal with what might be a new enforcement item in their community,” Scafidi said. Despite the questions about fairness and effectiveness, more laws are coming. Legislators in New Jersey are considering whether add license plate recording to dealers’ responsibilities and ban the use of transferable checks for purchases. California authorities are developing an online database of metal sales. Waterfield said a federal metal thefts law that came up during the last Congress may resurface as well. ISRI would like to see a move toward reconsidering how metal thefts are prevented, with the help of taskforces in each state involving all stakeholders, including recyclers, law enforcement and property owners. The organization hasn’t drawn up a model bill, Waterfield said, because circumstances differ too much between jurisdictions. ISRI is, however, planning to conduct a study that will determine effects different types of laws have on metal thefts. Meanwhile, she said the group will continue to try to educate recyclers about the stakes, the public about the new rules and legislators about recyclers’ view of the issue. She said, however, that restrictions are almost sure to get tighter before they get looser. “This is not going away,” she said. “And it is vitally important that industry is engaged in the process. Otherwise these laws will be enacted without the industry’s consent and they are extremely burdensome because lawmakers don’t understand the business. If industry members don’t make the effort to educate and inform, then they’re going to be crushed under extremely burdensome regulation.”

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/657

The Aftermath of the Kelo Ruling By Janet Levy One year ago, on June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court opened the floodgates for the abuse of eminent domain by state and local authorities with its Kelo v. City of New London decision. That decision held that private property could be taken by government agencies and turned over to private developers under the guise of 'economic development.' Since that time, private property seizures by local municipalities and state authorities have increased dramatically. According to a recent report issued by the public—interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, 5,783 properties have been seized or threatened with seizure nationwide within the last year, compared to only 10,281 properties over the five—year period from 1998 to 2002. This rise in eminent domain seizures indicates a significant change in the relationship of American citizens to private property. It also represents an alarming weakening of Constitutional protections under the Fifth and 14th Amendments, which protect citizens from unlawful seizures. These protections were ignored in the Kelo case, which arose after the City of New London, Conn., faced with a declining tax base and a forecast of limited growth, devised a development plan in 2000 to 'further economic development' for the area. A hotel, conference center, state park, new residences and office space were part of the plan, as was the demolition of over 100 private residences. In order to proceed with their development plans, the municipal government used the New London Development Corporation, a private, non—profit entity under city control, to acquire the necessary land in New London's Fort Trumbell neighborhood. Although 15 residents refused to sell, the City of New London ordered the residences condemned and seized for the project. Suzette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the case, was an eight—year resident of Fort Trumbell who had made extensive improvements to her home with its waterfront view. Another petitioner, Wilhelmina Dery, had been born in her home in 1918 and lived there her entire life. Her married son had purchased the home next door and also lived there with his family for decades. The 15 property owners who were determined not to sell their homes sued the State of Connecticut and brought the first eminent domain case heard by the high court in over 20 years. Historically, eminent domain has been limited by the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment restricts the federal government from the taking of private property except for 'public use' without 'just compensation.' The 14th Amendment extends those same restrictions to state and local governments. Those rights were only slightly modified in a previous, 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, Berman v. Parker. In that case, the court allowed property seizure for private development, but only to eliminate blighted or depressed areas. However, when the court in its 5—4 Kelo decision agreed with the City of New London, it substantially expanded the definitions under which property could be taken and essentially removed existing Constitutional protections for private property. The Kelo decision expands the powers of government granted in the Berman ruling to include private development for the much broader purpose of 'economic revitalization.' Economic revitalization often benefits the community at large, but more specifically and significantly it enriches private developers who often are the impetus behind new development. For example, documents obtained after the Kelo decision under the Freedom of Information Act link the City of New London with development efforts by drug manufacturer, Pfizer Inc. Pfizer completed a $300—million research facility on adjacent land, and sought redevelopment of Fort Trumbell and active use of eminent domain as long ago as 1997. The Kelo decision paved the way for the expropriation of prime real estate, such as view properties and waterfront locations, and provided legitimacy to over—hyped projects proposed by large developers. It made it easier for government to condemn private property under the rationale that a proposed use for the property could produce more taxes or jobs and revitalize a 'blighted' area. Although municipalities view eminent domain as an important tool for economic revitalization, many citizens groups view it as a legalized form of abuse of individual rights by the government. Many projects are approved based on the overstated promises of developers who are well connected to local politicians. In the immediate aftermath of the Kelo decision, private property rights advocates predicted that certain populations, the elderly, poor and minorities, would be disproportionately affected by the decision, as would certain property classifications. Those classifications now at risk to politicians' whims and the influence of powerful, private developers include houses of worship — exempt from taxes and which contribute no revenues to economic revitalization — farms, small businesses and private residences. Since Kelo, those predictions have come true. The overwhelming majority of development projects undertaken by municipalities within the last year involved the displacement of low—income residents. Local and state authorities have continued the trend of seizing residences and replacing them with more upscale ones. Several instances exist nationwide of upscale hotels replacing small businesses and shopping malls replacing private homes. In addition, as noted in the Institute for Justice report, at least 16 churches have had to make way for private development and agricultural land has been taken for retail development. Since Kelo, property owners have been afraid to refuse to sell their land voluntarily because government now has the power to condemn it and take it away from them. As a result, competition has arisen among developers who scour private land for their projects. The threat of condemnation has also made blight a self—fulfilling prophecy as property owners, unsure of court outcomes, defer maintenance and improvements while they await court rulings. More than 10 subsequent court decisions have cited Kelo as a precedent in rulings against owners and in favor of municipalities over proposed, property seizures. Meanwhile, more than 85% of Americans support reforms to protect their property from eminent domain abuses, according to various national surveys. In response, 31 state legislatures have passed laws curbing eminent domain abuse since Kelo. A bi—partisan effort to strengthen private property rights, H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, has been sponsored by James Sensenbrenner (R—WI), Henry Bonilla (R—TX), Maxine Waters (D—CA) and John Conyers (D—MI). The bill passed (376 to 38) in the House in November but has been stalled in the Senate. H.R. 4128 contains provisions to deny federal economic development funding to state and local governments that abuse eminent domain for private commercial development, as in the Kelo case. The bill limits private property takings to cases in which the continued use of the land by existing owners is considered harmful and a threat to public health and safety. On the one—year anniversary of the Kelo decision, President Bush issued an Executive Order that 'federal agencies cannot seize private property except for public projects such as hospitals and roads.' This gesture was largely symbolic, however, because the federal government has a limited role in such projects. But U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R—TX) applauded the order, explaining that 'the protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and a distinctive aspect of our form of government.' Cornyn decried the Kelo ruling as 'a radical departure' from the decisions relating to private property rights over the last 200 years. He welcomed the president's order as 'an important step toward righting that wrong.' Janet Levy is the founder of ESG Consulting, an organization that offers services for conservative political causes and issues related to terrorism and national security. Ms. Levy has been a contributor to Front Page Magazine.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/776

Jury recommends life for Dixon Jurors returned to Muskingum County Common Pleas Court Tuesday evening and announced their recommendation. Alison Matas LaFonse Dixon Jr. looked at the jurors who convicted him of aggravated murder last week and told them their decision was based on lies. “How can a man be called a monster that you don't even know?” he asked. He and others took the stand Tuesday for the sentencing phase of his trial in Muskingum County Common Pleas Court. By Tuesday evening, jurors had made up their minds. They recommended sparing Dixon from the death penalty and instead having him serve life in prison with no chance of parole. Dixon showed no emotion as the decision was announced around 7:40 p.m. The jury deliberated about 5 1/2 hours. The same jury last week convicted the 34-year-old Canton man of killing 29-year-old Canton resident Celeste Fronsman in August 2012. Dixon was found guilty on Thursday of aggravated murder, aggravated arson and kidnapping. Judge Kelly Cottrill will formally sentence Dixon on Nov. 4. Dixon, along with Katrina Culberson, 22, and Monica Washington, 25, beat Fronsman, strangled her and then set her ablaze before leaving her for dead along a rural road in Muskingum County, according to testimony. A motorist found her begging for help. Fronsman died in Columbus two days later. Culberson and Washington have both pleaded guilty and took deals that keep them from the death penalty. They await sentencing. In their closing remarks earlier in the day, county prosecutors and Dixon’s attorneys told jurors state law requires they determine whether kidnapping and arson outweigh Dixon’s character when deciding whether he should be put to death. The murder, they said, should be taken out of the equation because Dixon is already going to prison because of his conviction. Muskingum County Prosecutor Michael Haddox rehashed Dixon’s role in the homicide, telling the jury that while Dixon might not have been the instigator of the crime, he had a part in the beating, strangling and burning. Defense attorney Isabella Dixon, who is not related to the defendant, explained to jurors the death penalty is not about revenge or retribution, so it’s not an automatic sentence. “This is not an eye for an eye,” she said. “It’s not. You might want it to be, but it’s not.” Earlier Tuesday, Dixon, as well as his friends and family, lobbied the jury to spare his life. The witnesses, most of whom are from Canton, described Dixon as a loving father and as a man who had to grow up before his time, following the death of his own father. His mother, Lisa Blakely of Canton, also talked about a house fire 24 years ago that killed Dixon’s older sister, saying it left him numb. “He went on, but he didn’t like no one to talk about his sister,” she said. Dixon stared down at his desk, wiping away tears. Blakely told jurors she later became addicted to crack cocaine, using it as a crutch to help her through her depression from losing a child. She never neglected her sons, however, she said. Dixon’s girlfriend and the mother of his youngest son, Canton resident Amanda Lancaster, talked directly to jurors and said she wouldn’t describe her relationship with Dixon as perfect. But, she said, they had fun together cooking and watching television, and Dixon took care of her when she struggled with post-partum depression. She said Dixon had never been unfaithful to her. During earlier testimony, prosecutors and witnesses said Culberson and Dixon had a relationship. Isabella Dixon asked Lancaster whether LaFonse Dixon’s life still had value. Lancaster started to say she couldn’t imagine what his death would mean for her son. Judge Cottrill offered her a tissue as she burst into tears. Both of Dixon’s brothers, as well as his 13-year-old biological son and the 16-year-old boy he considers to be his son, took the stand, all saying Dixon had never exhibited violent behavior and had offered them money or emotional support when it was needed. Dixon’s youngest brother, Kris Dixon, of Canton, said after their father died, LaFonse Dixon acted as both his best friend and his father. Kris Dixon called his relationship with his brother the best relationship he ever had. He said his brother’s life has more value now that it’s “on the line” and that it makes him think more seriously about the advice LaFonse Dixon gave him. “He’s like a star right now,” Kris Dixon said. No psychologist testified. The prosecution did not call any witnesses or question any of Dixon’s family and friends. In an unsworn statement, a defiant Dixon said he was remaining firm and proclaimed his love for his mother and brothers. “Your big brother stands here as a man facing this world,” he said, his voice raising. He paused intermittently to collect himself, holding back tears as he talked about losing his own father and being a father to “three beautiful boys.” Dixon apologized to his family and girlfriend, specifically telling Lancaster he should have left Culberson alone. He told jurors he wanted to fight, scream and lash out about his conviction but that it wasn't in his nature. Fronsman was “a beautiful and intelligent person,” Dixon said. “It was a blessing that I got to spend the time with Celeste that I did.”

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/876

Judge Orders Stay of Proceedings in Eight NCUA MBS Suits April 30, 2013 • Reprints In a sweeping order that delays proceedings on eight pending NCUA lawsuits against Wall Street banks over mortgage-backed securities sold to failed corporate credit unions, U.S. District Judge John W. Lungstrum said this week he will wait for the result of an appeals court ruling, citing concerns about the time and expense of litigation. “The 1oth Circuit’s opinion (applied to each of these cases) could result in the dismissal of all claims with respect to a number of certificates, including the dismissal of all claims against certain defendants,” the Kansas City, Kan.-based Lungstrum wrote Monday in reference to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. That appellate court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on two related NCUA securities cases in Denver on May 8. The stay of proceedings applies to NCUA suits against RBS Securities, Wachovia Capital Markets, J.P. Morgan Securities, UBS Securities, Barclays Capital, Credit Suisse, Bear, Stearns & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank. All sold securities to the failed U.S. Central FCU, which was located in Lenexa, Kan. The NCUA claims the banks did not fully disclose the risks associated with the securities. In opposing the stay, the NCUA said the delay could be detrimental to the discovery process. However, Lungstrum said the time and expense that could be avoided if the appeals court rules in favor of the appealing banks “significantly outweigh” the NCUA’s concerns. The bank defendants have argued that the NCUA failed to file the suits within a three-year statute of limitations that they say began when U.S. Central and other corporates first purchased the mortgage backed securities. However, the NCUA has countered that the statute of limitations should have begun when it placed the corporates into conservatorship. The NCUA has come under criticism for entering into contingency agreements with law firms handling the cases. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) asked NCUA Inspector General William DeSarno in October 2012 to determine if the NCUA violated Executive Order 13433, which prohibits federal agencies from entering into contingency agreements. DeSarno said the NCUA did not violate the executive order, and further said the fees charged by the firms were reasonable. Despite the criticism, should the cases be dismissed, the NCUA’s contingency agreements might be a blessing, because attorneys typically only collect a percentage of the settlement, rather than billing by the hour. To date, the NCUA has collected $335 million in settlements from suits over securities sold to failed corporates. « Prev

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/911

Upper Darby man gets jail time on gun rap in Montco By CARL HESSLER JR., [email protected] NORRISTOWN – A Delaware County man is facing time behind state prison bars on a weapons charge stemming from a 2012 incident in Limerick. Zakee T. Rembert, 21, of the 300 block of Beverly Boulevard, Upper Darby, was sentenced in Montgomery County Court to three-to-six years in state prison after he pleaded guilty to a felony charge of person not to possess a firearm in connection with the March 2012 incident. Judge Gary S. Silow imposed the sentence as part of a plea agreement. An investigation began about 8:53 p.m. March 27, 2012, when Limerick police stopped a Chevrolet Cobalt near the entrance to the Costco store at 14 Lightcap Road for an alleged moving violation as well as an equipment violation, including overly-tinted windows and swerving, according to a criminal complaint. When a police officer approached the vehicle, which was operated by a female, he detected the scent of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, according to the arrest affidavit filed by Limerick Police Officer Timothy DiGregorio. When an officer was attempting to identify the three occupants of the vehicle, the rear passenger, later identified as Rembert, gave information that could not be verified with a records check, according to the criminal complaint. After the front passenger, whose information also allegedly didn’t check out, was taken out of the car, police asked the rear passenger, Rembert, to exit as well, court papers indicate. Rembert allegedly pulled away from the police officer, stumbled on a curb, and then ran toward the Costco, according to the arrest affidavit. Police gave chase in their squad cars and observed Rembert running through a field toward Evergreen and Lightcap roads, according to court papers. A police officer eventually was able to detain Rembert across the street from the dirt field. After he was detained, police smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from Rembert, according to the criminal complaint. Rembert was placed in one police car but transferred to another at the original scene of the car stop. After Rembert was transferred, police allegedly discovered 13 individual packages of a “green, vegetable-like substance” that later tested positive for marijuana, according to court papers. Additionally, after a search of the field Rembert allegedly ran through, a .22-caliber Ruger revolver was recovered, loaded with six hollow-point rounds of ammunition, according to the arrest affidavit. In a criminal complaint, authorities alleged Rembert was prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. Other charges of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possessing marijuana, resisting arrest and giving false identification to authorities were dismissed against Rembert as part of the plea agreement. However, Rembert, who also listed an address along Hartranft Avenue in Norristown, also pleaded guilty to a retail theft charge in connection with a June 3, 2013, incident at a Lord & Taylor store in Upper Merion. The judge sentenced Rembert to three years’ probation in connection with the incident.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1043

Student editors face legal exposure Andrea Behling Zhengnan Shi FULL DISCLOSUREIn addition to being a full-time student at UW-Whitewater and editor-in-chief of The Royal Purple student newspaper, Andrea Behling works 20 hours a week as a page designer at The Gazette. WHITEWATER—Andrea Behling was in the midst of final exams last spring when she received notice she was being sued. The suit named her, as editor of the UW-Whitewater student newspaper, as being responsible for articles published two years earlier. Behling then found out the university would not represent her in court. The story reveals the largely unrecognized legal liability that college journalists face and the strange relationships between colleges and their student newspapers. The relationships put student journalists in danger of being sued, and that threat could have chilling effects on their journalistic efforts—as it has in this case. The story begins in 2011 when the UW-W student paper, The Royal Purple, published articles about university faculty member Zhengnan “Charles” Shi. The articles repeated allegations made in court documents, which alleged Shi had made threatening comments to colleagues. Those allegations and others led to Shi being banned from campus for much of 2011, according to court documents. Court documents indicate Shi had difficulties with colleagues and superiors, and the statements he was accused of making apparently reflected his frustrations with that situation. The allegations were later found to be without merit, and the ban was lifted in December 2011. Shi subsequently was fired in 2012 for what Chancellor Richard Telfer told him was poor teaching. Shi appealed his firing, and that lawsuit is now before the state District 4 Court of Appeals. Shi, representing himself, filed a separate lawsuit against Behling in May 2013, alleging the Royal Purple's inaccurate articles harmed him in 2011. Behling was not editor when the articles were published, but she is editor now, and that is why Shi sued her. “I have to name the current top officer as the entity for my litigation,” Shi said in an email, and Behling happened to be the editor at the time he filed his suit. Shi said in an email that he tried to resolve the matter before taking it to court. Behling said Shi had approached her in summer 2012 and asked her to publish a follow-up article. He apparently wanted it known that the 2011 allegations had been found to be without merit. Behling said the UW-W administration would not comment, so she decided not to publish a story that did not have the administration's side of the story and could not verify Shi's side. Shi kept asking what was going on with the article, and the newspaper's adviser at the time, a faculty member, advised her not to respond, saying Shi would go away, Behling said. Shi's last message to Behling was “I'll see you in court,” Behling said. That day, she took the old articles off the newspaper's website. Months later, Behling received the court summons. She went to UW-Whitewater Communication Department Chairman Kim Hixson, who said he would refer the matter to higher authorities. “I thought this was something the university would deal with,” Behling said. She called the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, which advised her to talk to the university. She also called the Student Press Law Center, which offered to help her get a lawyer if the university did nothing. Behling turned to UW-W Vice Chancellor Jeff Arnold, who told her UW-W could not represent her but could offer legal advice. “Jeff Arnold said, 'I'm really sorry you're in this situation, but we can't help you because our attorney is not allowed to represent newspapers,'” Behling recalled. Behling was feeling desperate. It didn't help that this came the same week as final exams. “There were a lot of tears,” she said. Behling said she went to the chancellor's office unannounced and told them, “You guys need to help me.” Arnold and Chancellor Richard Telfer talked to her and called Godfrey & Kahn, a Wisconsin law firm that specializes in media law. One of the firm's attorneys, Sherry Coley, agreed to represent Behling for free. In the paper's last edition that spring, Behling published a retraction, just to be safe, she said. Coley, meanwhile, bargained with Shi, offering him publication of a letter to the editor in the fall. Shi did not agree, but he asked for financial statements from Behling, the Royal Purple and Behling's parents, Behling said. The suit went to a July 22 hearing in Walworth County Court, where Coley successfully argued that Shi had not met the requirements of the state defamation statute. Coley argued that Shi had failed to meet most of the law's requirements for requesting a retraction and showing exactly what the untrue statements might have been, and the judge agreed. The judge dismissed the case, but Shi appealed, and the appeal is pending. Coley agreed to represent Behling for the appeal only if she paid a fee and if the Royal Purple would buy libel insurance, Behling said. Hixson told her the Royal Purple could pay the $1,000 toward her lawyer fee. The paper's new adviser is working on buying the insurance. University officials would not comment on the events surrounding the suit against Behling, on advice of the UW System's legal counsel. The university provides offices and pays utilities for the paper. It provides an adviser, covers the paper's printing costs and handles the paper's accounts, officials said. But the university is not the paper's publisher. It doesn't exercise editorial control, said university spokeswoman Sara Kuhl. The UW System's general counsel's office says student organizations are not directly a part of the system, so the system cannot represent them, Arnold told The Gazette. The relationship between the paper and university is odd but not unusual, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center. A university cannot be a student newspaper's publisher because that would take away the paper's editorial independence, LoMonte said. When lawsuits against universities get to court, the judge always throws them out because the universities can't be held responsible for the newspapers' content, LoMonte said. Then the people bringing lawsuits see the papers have no money, and the cases are dropped. Except in this case. LoMonte said it's unheard of for an editor to be sued for something that didn't happen on her watch. “At end of the day, I think that she'll quite clearly be able to escape personal liability because she had no connection to the defamatory statements,” LoMonte said. “… But, unfortunately, she's going to have to go through the motions of fighting it in court to prove that.” Looking back, Behling thinks it was irresponsible for the paper not to have libel insurance, but LoMonte said many student papers don't have it. The problem with insurance is that it could make the paper a target because the insurance could pay where the paper could not, LoMonte said. The Royal Purple faculty adviser, Carol Terracina-Hartman, said she is working on a form that student editors would sign, advising them that they and their parents could be sued for something in the paper. “I guarantee you they are not aware of that structure, and that's something they need to be aware of,” Terracina-Hartman said. Staff reporters who work for the paper as part of a university class have some legal protection from the university, but editors do not, said Terracina-Hartman, who has been associated with several student publications at universities. Behling, meanwhile, is still the editor, and she said this experience has made her careful about choosing news article topics. She said she asked her staff to talk to her if they're not comfortable about putting something in the paper. She's nervous about editorials, too. “We're almost trying to avoid any possible situation that would have an outcome that would anger someone,” she said. This story was revised Nov. 21, 2013, to reflect the following correction: POOR TEACHING WAS REASON GIVEN FOR SHI'S FIRING An earlier version of this story did not accurately report the circumstances that led to UW-Whitewater professor Zhengnan "Charles" Shi being banned from campus in 2011 and fired in 2012. According to court documents and Shi, this is the proper series of events: -- In 2010, Shi was accused of making threatening statements and was investigated by local and federal law enforcement officials, who found no reason to arrest him. -- In February or March 2011, Shi was banned from campus, apparently in connection with the same allegations involving threatening statements. These statements were later found to be without merit. The ban was lifted in December 2011. -- In 2012, UW-Whitewater fired Shi. Chancellor Richard Telfer cited poor teaching as the reason for Shi's dismissal. Shi rejects that characterization of his teaching and is contesting his firing in court. The case has not been resolved.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1163

Labor: The incredible value of stand-alone confidentiality agreements Confidentiality or non-disclosure “policy” cannot provide the same protection as a stand-alone agreement By Russ SizemoreOctober 7, 2013 If your company has information that helps it compete (and all do), don’t overlook one simple measure that can help protect that information, and all that goes with it. One of the simplest measures for protecting a company’s intellectual capital, including information about its competitive position with critical customer and supplier relationships, is simply not used widely enough. Using a brief stand-alone confidentiality agreement, broadly across the workforce, can help set a backstop against departing employees being scot free to take their knowledge and relationships “across the street” to a competing employer. It happens all the time — employees leave one employer to join a competitor. The departing employees immediately pursue similar activities and actively solicit the first employer’s customers and vendors, and their quick success shocks the first employer. Such employees need not be the most highly placed executives or even the lead salespeople; they just happened to know where to go, who to see and what to say. Accordingly, the first employer cries foul and calls counsel, demanding some immediate action. But, for whatever reason, these are often employees who never signed any employment agreement with the first employer. What can be done if there is no non-compete agreement, no non-solicitation of customers restriction and no other restrictive covenant protecting the first employer from such competition? The most obvious fallback under such circumstances, where no restrictive covenant applies, is to look for the employees’ misappropriation of “Trade Secrets” and the use of confidential information. In such a situation, a brief stand-alone agreement, set up during the on-boarding process, or even supplied later in the course of employment, can make a significant difference. And the absence of such an agreement can make taking any legal action against such employees much more difficult. A brief stand-alone confidentiality agreement focused on protecting the most basic and universal areas of confidential and proprietary information—typically customer and vendor information, product, pricing, marketing and strategic planning information, and “methods of doing business” information—is something every employer should consider as part of the on-boarding process for every employee who will have access to and use such information. A few observations can make this point crystal clear. First, it is important to understand that a confidentiality or non-disclosure “policy” cannot provide the same protection as a stand-alone agreement. A policy, especially a policy about what information a company regards “confidential,” combined with policies about other employment matters collected in an “employee handbook,” is typically not an agreement. A policy about confidential information is simply a statement about the employer’s expectations for its employees. An employee’s acknowledgement about such a policy is just an acknowledgement that the employee knows about those expectations. Even if there is a signed acknowledgment of the handbook or the policies (and typically a signed acknowledgment says simply that the employee received the handbook, is supposed to become familiar with the contents, and agrees to follow the policies), this is really just an acknowledgment of receipt. It most typically means that if an employee fails to comply with the policies, he knows that he may be disciplined or fired in response to such non-compliance. Such a “policy” statement, even with an acknowledgement page, will not create a contract enforceable in a court; and with former employees, it hard to see any connection or lasting impact. Employers typically can’t sue for damages, or seek injunctive relief, in relation to a policy. And of course, on the other side, employers should be very wary of ever contending that handbook policies carry the force of an agreement on either party. Employers often get in trouble with policy statements about “progressive discipline” when they seek to immediately terminate an employee for a particularly egregious violation of policies. Most employers work hard to ensure that such policies do not create contractual entitlements, and certainly do not want a handbook to modify an employment-at-will relationship. The last thing most employers would want to do is to hold up a handbook and contend that it’s an agreement that a court should interpret and enforce. Second, the specific, explicit protection provided by a stand-alone agreement —the power to bring a lawsuit, to conduct discovery, to pursue monetary damages, and even to seek injunctive relief, can provide leverage in negotiations dealing with competitive activity by former employees. If it can be shown that the departing employees removed any information from the first employer, by taking materials, downloading files, or e-mailing to personal e-mail addresses on the eve of departure, or by taking action in the marketplace that would only be possible with such inside information, a stand-alone agreement will provide a straightforward breach of contract claim against such activity. With the leverage provided by the agreement, the first employer may be able to demand and extract significant concessions from the new employer or dramatically restrict the activities of the departing employees. Third, to the extent that an employer is considering a claim that former employees have taken statutorily protected “Trade Secrets,” such that additional damages or fees may be available as remedies, one of the first questions that will be raised is whether the employer exercised “precautionary measures,” “reasonable under the circumstances,” to preserve the confidentiality of its sensitive competitive information. A helpful Exhibit 1 for the first employer will be the confidentiality agreement that all of its employees are asked to sign at the onset of employment. In the absence of such an agreement, the first employer will be fighting an uphill battle to prove in fact that it does exercise precautions to protect its sensitive information, and that failure may doom any claim that it has information that rises to the level of a “Trade Secret.” There is one trap for the unwary with such confidentiality agreements. There has been recent movement from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) criticizing nondisclosure policies or agreements that restrict the sharing of basic identification and contact information about other employees. In one recent opinion (Quicken Loans, Inc. and Lydia E Garza), the NLRB found that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by using an employment agreement that defined proprietary confidential information as including “personnel information including, but not limited to, all personnel lists, rosters, personal information of coworkers” and “handbooks, personnel files, personnel information such as home phone numbers, sell phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses[.]” In this case, the NLRB reasoned that such restrictions prohibited employees from disclosing to each other the names, wages, benefits, addresses or telephone numbers of each other and that this would substantially hinder employees in exercising their rights under the NLRA to engage in concerted activity. Consequently, employers should not cast the net too wide by including all employee information as confidential and restricted. Instead, employers should target sensitive, not otherwise publically available business information, such as customer and supplier lists and preference information; product, pricing, marketing and strategic planning information; and “methods of doing business” information. Having this simple agreement in the bag, broadly used with relevant employees, can be a game-changer when departing employees turn out to be more dangerous than anticipated. « Prev Russ Sizemore Russ Sizemore is a member of Moore & Van Allen PLLC’s Employment & Labor practice group. He serves as an extended member of his clients’... This Other Big CFPB Case Tests the Scope of Agency's Investigative Power Human Rights Claims Against Chiquita for Funding Colombian Paramilitaries Will Proceed in U.S. Court Labor and Employment 1642 labor 508 National Labor Relations Board 249 NLRB 180 NLRA 62 Quicken Loans Inc. 3 Lydia E Garza 2 Join the Conversation

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1253

Law Society calls for effects of proposed second home supplement to be monitored Lawscot News signup Get the latest news from the Scottish legal profession News release (489) Rss Feed Lawscot News (41) Rss Feed Professional practice updates (1) In-House Lawyers (15) Rss Feed Videos (28) New lawyers news (41) Rss Feed Professional support newsletter (9) Rss Feed Law Matters (10) Rss Feed Brussels Agenda (30) Brussels office updates (13) Current issues (91) Rss Feed Scam alerts (2) Rss Feed Legal aid (6) Opinion (12) For the public (3) Student blog (19) Equality and diversity (12) In-house lawyers blog (4) Archive 07 March 2016 | tagged News release The Law Society of Scotland has said the effects of an additional tax on second homes should be monitored closely to ensure that people who are simply trying to move house are not caught out by the proposed new charge. The Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill proposes a 3% tax supplement that will apply to the total purchase price of an additional residential property purchase above £40,000. The stage 3 debate on the Bill takes place tomorrow, Tuesday, 8 March. Isobel d’Inverno, convener of the Law Society of Scotland’s Tax Committee, said: “We understand the Scottish Government’s policy intent behind the new tax on second homes. However we want to be sure that the tax is fairly applied and will not penalise people unnecessarily. “The Bill has been amended to provide some protection for people who are simply moving from one home to another but experience a delay in concluding the sale of their previous home. “However we have concerns that the proposed grace period may not be enough, resulting in purchasers who do not intend to own a second home and do so only because of an unanticipated delay in the sale of their former home still having to pay the additional 3%. They would be able to apply to claim it back once the sale has concluded, but this creates an additional administrative burden for both the purchaser and Revenue Scotland as well as presenting funding issues for the purchaser. This is a particular concern for the purchase of homes below £145,000, where the supplement would be payable even though no LBTT was due. “Given rules around determining the main residence on the basis of facts, we also have concerns that separated or divorced partners might end up with a jointly owned property for a lengthy period, an ex-partner unable to buy out the other ex-partner. We believe consideration should be given to offering relief in such cases. “The Land and Building Transaction Tax is one of the first new taxes to be devolved to Scotland. It’s important that the additional dwellings supplement work as well as possible from the outset.” This Scottish Government Bill was introduced into the Scottish Parliament by the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, John Swinney MSP on 27 January 2016. The Law Society of Scotland response is available to read on its website: LLBT response

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1268

Court of Appeal Confirms that Waste Licences Can Only Be Transferred in Accordance with the Statutory Scheme In a recent case, the Court of Appeal has affirmed on appeal the High Court’s ruling that a waste licence granted to an operator under the Waste Management Acts is personal to that operator and is not transferable by private arrangement, as any other conclusion would undermine the objectives of that legislation. The recent judgment in Environmental Protection Agency v Midlands Scrap Metal Company Ltd1 will be of interest to waste licence holders and those operating licensed facilities. The question arising for decision was whether a waste licence granted to a particular operator under the terms of the Waste Management Act 1996 (“the Act”) was personal to that operator or whether another entity might be lawfully permitted by that licence to operate the waste facility in question. Midland Scrap Metal Company Ltd (“Midland Scrap”) was convicted in the District Court of an offence contrary to s39(1) and s39(9) of the Act of disposing of or undertaking the recovery of waste at a facility other than in accordance with a waste licence granted under the Act. A waste licence existed in respect of the facility but it had been issued to a different briefing company, Greenstar Materials Recovery Ltd (“Greenstar”), who had ceased operations there. Midland Scrap had then taken over the facility and had recommenced activity which itself did not comply with Greenstar’s licence conditions. In its defence, Midland Scrap had argued that Greenstar remained the licensee. As such, Greenstar was obliged to comply with the licence conditions and was liable for any breaches of the licence. Midland Scrap stated that it operated the facility by way of private licence or agreement from Greenstar and under Greenstar’s waste licence. It was pointed out that Greenstar had been prosecuted in respect of Midland Scrap’s activities, pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined. This was a recognition that the activities were being carried out under Greenstar’s licence, albeit not in compliance with the conditions of that licence. Midland Scrap had pointed to the wording of s39(1) of the Act which provides: “(1) …[A] person shall not dispose of or undertake the recovery of waste at a facility, on or after such date as may be prescribed, save under and in accordance with a licence under this Part …that is in force in relation to the carrying on of the activity concerned at that facility.” It had argued that there was nothing in the provision which imposed an obligation on a person to hold a licence but the obligation was rather instead to carry out the activity in accordance with a licence and that the arrangement between the two companies here was common within the industry. Decision of the Court The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments holding that when considering s39 in isolation and the Act as a whole, it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that a waste licence was personal to the holder and not transferable by private arrangement. There were three fundamental reasons for this: s39(1) was careful to use language that presupposed that the licence was awarded to a particular entity by the EPA. If that licence could be transferred unilaterally by Firm A to Firm B, it would be hard to say that Firm B was operating “under and in accordance with” that licence since it had never been awarded to Firm B in the first place; s40 of the Act required proof of the personal fitness of the proposed licensee. It was necessarily implicit from s40 that the licence was personal to the holder. If it were otherwise, this section could be readily circumvented through the expedient of some form of private licensing system as between the holder of the licence and its delegate; and s47 of the Act envisaged the transfer of a licence to another person or entity, but only by means of a statutory procedure which itself involved a review of the proposed transferee’s fitness and suitability. The only possible reading of this was that a licence was personal and that it was not simply the activity which was licensed. Rather it was the identified activity to be carried out by the licensee which was licensed. Moreover, the fact that the Oireachtas provided for this scheme of statutory transfer excluded by necessary implication a purely private arrangement between the holder of the licence and a proposed transferee. The court concluded that while there might be no express prohibition on the private transfer of licences between a licensed holder and third parties, this was, if not impliedly prohibited, at least rendered ineffective in law by the Act. Any other conclusion would undermine the entire objective and scheme of the Act which, in common with most licensing regimes of this kind, necessarily envisaged that the grant of any statutory licence would be personal to the holder. This decision affirms the High Court decision from January 2015 and upholds the position that the transfer of waste licences should be carried out with the consent of the EPA in accordance with the statutory scheme set out in the Act. The statutory scheme for waste licences in the Act and the licensing scheme under the Environmental Protection Agency 1992 (as amended) are similar, although the specific wording in the 1992 Act requiring a person to have a licence is different. Therefore, the principles in this case would have to be taken into consideration by the EPA and licence holders under that regime. Also, if, as the case suggests, the practice of a third party operating “under and in accordance with a licence” is common, the EPA and these “third party” holders of licences issued by the EPA will need to revisit their licence status and compliance. To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here. McCann FitzGerald - Elva Carbery, Michelle Doyle and Kevin Kelly Filed under Financial Services Regulatory Group Bulletin - December 2016 * Proposed new rules on FX contracts under MiFID II * Hard Brexit: What Would It Mean For Irish Agri-Food Producers? * When is “Close of Business”? * Anti-corruption and bribery penalties in Ireland

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1269

ERISA fiduciaries must continuously monitor 401(k) investment choices The U.S. Supreme Court has held unanimously that a plan fiduciary has a continuing duty to monitor investments offered under a 401(k) plan, a duty that is separate and apart from the duty to exercise prudence in selecting investments in the first place. The Court overturned a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which held that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to a fund selection was time barred unless made within six years of the date the fund was originally selected for inclusion in the plan.Tibble v. Edison International The decision confirms that employers have a continuing duty to monitor the investments offered through their 401(k) plans and the fees attached to them. The Supreme Court declined to comment on what type of review a fiduciary must undertake to satisfy ERISA’s “prudent man” requirement, remanding the case to the 9thCircuit for further proceeding consistent with the Court’s analysis. This decision opens the door for additional litigation against plan sponsors who have failed to monitor investments on an ongoing basis. Edison International owns subsidiaries that generate and distribute electric power, and invest in energy services and technologies. Beginning in 1999, the company offered some retail-class mutual funds as part of its 401(k) plan, even though otherwise identical institutional-class funds that charged lower fees could have been offered. In 2007, Glenn Tibble and other employees sued the company under ERISA, claiming the company’s failure to offer identical funds with lower fees was a breach of its duty to manage the plan prudently for the exclusive benefit of its participants. The employees argued that by offering the higher cost funds, the company committed a “continuing violation” of ERISA. In affirming a district court ruling, the 9th Circuit found that ERISA’s statute of limitation bars claims filed more than six years after the date a fund is first offered under a plan and that there is no “continuing violation” theory under ERISA. The court of appeals held that the selection of an investment for inclusion started the six-year period and “only a significant change in circumstances” could give rise to a new breach of fiduciary duty. Legal Analysis In this case, the Supreme Court held that ERISA’s fiduciary duty is derived from the common law of trusts, which creates a continuing duty – separate and apart from the duty to exercise prudence in selecting investments in the first place – to monitor funds and remove imprudent investments. ERISA’s six-year statute of limitation had become a roadblock for participants challenging investment decisions, because many funds remain in a retirement plan’s fund line-up for years after their initial selection. Three federal circuit courts had held that plan fiduciaries are not liable for investments selected before this six-year window. The disagreement between the parties focused on the scope of the duty to monitor. But the Court declined to determine the scope required in these circumstances, recognizing only that under trust law, “a fiduciary is required to conduct a regular review of its investment with the nature and timing of the review contingent on the circumstances.” The case is remanded back to the 9th Circuit to determine if the company breached its fiduciary duty given the particular facts of the case. Significance For Employers For employers who maintain 401(k) plans, this decision confirms that there is a duty to monitor the investment funds offered under a 401(k) plan and the fees associated with those funds. If not previously undertaken, employers should review their practices with respect to selecting, monitoring, and removing funds offered under 401(k) plans. It’s important to ensure that the funds being offered to participants have been reviewed for the level of fees charged to the fund, the performance of the funds against their appropriate benchmarks, and the fiduciary’s adherence to the plan’s investment policy statement. With tougher Labor Department scrutiny on fees paid by 401(k) plan participants, it is more important than ever that employers maintain an active and sophisticated benefits committee to oversee the selection and monitoring of investments for their plans. Fisher Phillips - Sandra Mills Feingerts and Tabatha L. George Filed under The Clock Is Ticking - ACA Nondiscrimination Rules Will Take Effect January 1 * Don’t Read This: 2016 Workplace Law Year In Review * 3 Biggest Workplace Law Concerns For Breweries And Brewpubs * What Employers Need To Know About Mandatory Payroll Deduction Savings Programs * November 2016: The 7 Biggest Labor And Employment Law Stories

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1287

Opiate Abuse WhatDoUWannaDo? A house dividedLocal Cambodians dreamed of building their own temple. The project is now mired in accusations and counterchargesBy Lyle Moran, [email protected]: An artist's rendering of the temple and community center planned for a wooded parcel in Lowell's Pawtucketville neighborhood by the Community of Khmer Buddhist Monks Inc. Heated disputes among the project's leaders, centered around the possible mishandling of money, have led to the departure of two members of the project's executive committee, one involuntarily, as well as other former volunteers. Sun staff photos can be ordered by visiting our MyCapture site. LOWELL -- Bory Kem once regularly attended services at the Trairatanaram Temple in North Chelmsford, but the constant infighting and legal battles between the "upstairs" and "downstairs" factions made it impossible for her to find peace there. She left more than a dozen years ago. In the years since, Kem, an activist in the local Cambodian community, has held out hope she would find another place in the area where she and her family could pray and practice Buddhism free of tension. She returned to Lowell in November 2011 after a year in Cambodia and heard a Buddhist group was planning to build a temple and community center on a wooded parcel in the city's Pawtucketville neighborhood. She was eager to learn more. HAPPIER DAYS: Sam Meas, second from left, listens as fellow Community of Khmer Buddhist Monks Inc. executive committee member Samkhann Khoeun speaks during a meeting at The Sun in December 2011. With them are committee members Maya Men and Sambath Soum. Meas and Soum, who both left the committee last summer, have raised questions about the handling of the temple's finances. They are not alone. SUN FILE PHOTO / DAVID H. BROW Sun staff photos can be ordered by visiting our MyCapture site. She found out the effort was being led by the Community of Khmer Buddhist Monks Inc., who control the "upstairs" portion of the Chelmsford temple. Kem, 49, attended a Cambodian New Year's fundraising ceremony last April for the temple, met the project's leaders and assisted as a volunteer. "I was so excited and wanted to do everything I could for the temple," said Kem. But her feelings of hope about the effort have since been shaken. Heated disputes among the project's leaders, centered around the possible mishandling of money, have led to the departure of two members of the project's executive committee, one involuntarily, as well as other former volunteers.Advertisement The booted-out board member, former Republican congressional candidate Sam Meas, has filed a complaint with the Attorney General's Office. He is calling for an investigation into the CKBM's finances. Meanwhile, CKBM officials are steadfast that all money is properly accounted for and has been spent appropriately. The leader of the group has accused those seeking more financial transparency of not having the authority to do so and trying to divide the community. Former executive committee member Sam Meas says he and others grew more suspicious of the group's finances early last summer when committee member Maya Men, who was unemployed, told those involved with the project she purchased this home at 71 Varnum Ave. in Lowell. Men told The Sun she lives in the home, and that no temple money was involved. Sun staff photos can be ordered by visiting our MyCapture site. Now Kem, other supporters and potential donors are wondering who to believe about the group's finances, and whether the project will be a success. Search for answers The seeds of discontent among the eight-member executive committee overseeing the project were sown last spring. Sam Meas of Haverhill and Sambath Soum of Lowell, two of the four lay people on the board, sought answers about the CKBM's fundraising activities for months last year but could not get any. Soum and Meas were frustrated because they were assured that CKBM's finances would be audited independently. They never were. Soum, the executive committee member for operations, quit early last August because the information was not provided. Meas said he was told that since August 2011, the group had raised more than $300,000 toward its $10 million goal. Meas said he saw a bank statement last summer showing only $6,000 in the bank. Meas, who ran for office in the then-Fifth Congressional District in 2010, also was troubled that one of the three people he said controlled the temple money was publicly stating that she had purchased a Lowell home despite not having a job. Meas, as the project's executive committee member in charge of finances and budget, demanded last August to meet with the group's leaders to renew his request for an audit. The wait for information continued on the agreed-upon date of the gathering. One of the leaders Meas hoped to meet with because of her control of funds, executive committee member Maya Men, did not show. Meas said Venerable Sao Khon, head monk of the CKBM, met privately with another monk for two hours before emerging. According to Meas and Soum, Khon appeared and denied the request for an audit. He also accused Meas and others seeking the audit of "trying to start a revolution" in the CKBM community. Days later, Meas, 40, said he was removed from the temple project board by Khon. Soum, who had previously resigned, said a letter circulated in the community after the incident saying he was also kicked off the board. Complaint filed with AG In October, Meas, with the backing of a dozen or so former volunteers and project supporters, filed a complaint with the state Attorney General's Office. Meas' complaint calls for the office's Public Charities Division to investigate CKBM's accounting practices and compel CKBM to release to the public all revenues and expenses from August 2011 through August 2012. Meas said the CKBM raised $400,000 to $600,000 during the period he specified, primarily in cash. "Very little, if any of the monies from the donations, is deposited at the bank," Meas wrote in his complaint. "There is very little procedure and control in place to ensure that donations are recorded and spent as intended. There is very little in the form of any record keeping. There is no accounting ledger." Meas told The Sun he was troubled that only Men, Khon and executive committee member Nhem Kimteng had control of the group's money and would not let others know about how it was being handled. "The fact they are not disclosing the financial information with anyone shows there is something wrong and there might be malfeasance," Meas said in an interview. "The community and those who donated the money and volunteered to help deserve to know how much has been raised and how the money has been spent." Meas also said he was irked by the lack of financial transparency because training sessions for the project always emphasized openness and accountability. Samkhann Khoeun, the executive committee member in charge of training and public relations, led most of the sessions held every two weeks or so. "I felt like I was lied to and misled, and their intentions were not as pure as presented," Meas said. Soum, who joined the temple project as a volunteer in late 2011, said those in control of the funds kept promising a public accounting of the donations received, but never delivered. "What they promised to do they did not do, which was disappointing," said Soum, 45. "I just want the public to know the truth." Emalie Gainey, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley, said Coakley's office does not confirm or deny the existence of complaints to the office's Public Charities Division. Religious organizations are exempt from registering and filing documents with the attorney general's Charities Division. The CKBM, a religious group, also is not required to file an annual return with the Internal Revenue Service, according to the nonprofit tracker GuideStar. Purchase draws questions Meas said he and others grew more suspicious of the group's finances early last summer when Men, who lacked a job, began telling those involved with the project she had purchased a home in Lowell. The property, a white, single-family home at 71 Varnum Ave., was purchased last July. Public records show it was purchased by Men's son, Chantrea Pich, and Men's niece, Rachana S. Chek, for $250,000. Richard Boyle of Tyngsboro, who holds the mortgage on the CKBM's Pawtucketville land, financed the purchase. Chek and Pich took out a $200,000 mortgage from Boyle. Also raising eyebrows was that the deed for 71 Varnum Ave. listed Soum's address as having rights of survivorship. His permission was never sought. Men told The Sun she lives in the home, and that no temple money was involved in the purchase. But Meas said he remains skeptical because the sale was financed by Boyle, a man to whom CKBM is in debt. "I wonder how she got the money to pay for the house without a job," Meas said. Others had concerns, too Denys Meung and Sarith San both say they helped the CKBM put tools in place to track the fundraising and spending, but the group's leaders ignored the measures. As an example, Meung said a Cambodian New Year's event held last April raised approximately $100,000, but only $30,000 of it was recorded in the database system. The tools to track the group's monthly budget and spending were also not used, said Meung, who left the project in August. "The design was not supposed to be fishy, but the practice was fishy," Meung said. "I put my trust in them and felt I like I wasted my trust." In an email last August to San that The Sun obtained, Khoeun admitted the CKBM still needed to implement its accounts payable and receivable for the project. San set up and hosted a website for the CKBM, but he said he was only paid $2,000 of the $4,000 the CKBM agreed to pay him. He also said he has donated money and as of early January had not received any receipt or tax-deductible form acknowledging the donations. "Right now people who donated are frustrated," said San. "We want to know where the money has gone." CKBM offers defense Khon, through Khoeun, declined multiple requests for interviews for this story due to unspecified "other important matters." But in email answers he defended the CKBM's handling of funds. "It is not CKBM's policy to keep any intended funds for anything than what were stated publicly to our CKBM's members and supporters," Khon wrote. The CKBM declined multiple requests to provide The Sun with documentation verifying how much money has been raised or spent. As of late December, the CKBM says it had raised $500,000 for the temple, all of which has been deposited in the bank, said Khon. The money came from more than 5,000 supporters who have donated from $1 to $1,000. The CKBM says it has spent the money it has raised primarily to make mortgage payments on the 12 acres it purchased off Townsend Avenue for $1.25 million from Boyle in December 2011. The group agreed to make monthly interest payments of $5,000 on the $1.2 million mortgage beginning last January. Principal and interest payments will rise to close to $8,000 in 2013, according to public documents. If the CKBM pays off the mortgage by 2014, Boyle will reimburse them $175,000, said Khon. He says he believes his group is well on its way to meeting its goal. The group has also spent money on consultants, attorneys, architects, utilities, food and a variety of other costs. There are no paid staff or paid board members for the project, said Khon. Fundraising and spending has been tracked through hard-copy and electronic bookkeeping, according to Khon. "We have our records and bookkeeping in place," Khon wrote. "It has been set up and used for every special event and others accordingly." Despite multiple sources saying Men controlled the funds along with Khon, the head monk insists only monks control the money. Men, whom the temple project's website says manages the group's finances and coordinates fundraising, also said only the monks have control of project finances. Khon also is steadfast in his defense of his decision to reject Meas' and others' calls for an audit. He says the CKBM's bylaws include no clause calling for an outside audit, so if one was needed, the organization's board of directors would have to vote for one to take place. Meas was not a member of CKBM's board of directors, but a member of the temple project's executive committee. He "had no rights and privilege of demanding any drastic change to the CKBM's bylaws, organizational structure, and its operation," said Khon. The head monk, who is in his late 70s, also is critical of the way he says Meas treated him last August when calling for an audit, including Meas' threats to take his concerns to the media. Khon said Meas' actions toward him were insulting, irresponsible and incomprehensible coming from a "supposed educated, U.S. politician-want-to be." "Such unethical actions and behavior is unheard of in our Khmer tradition or among the Buddhist community; of course, with an except(sic) of the ultra communist Khmer Rouge regime in the 1970s, where the Khmer Rouge cadres killed a quarter of the entire Cambodian population by mass torture, execution, starvation, enslaved labor, imprisonment, and lack of any ... humanity," Khon wrote. Khoeun, the former executive director of the Cambodian Mutual Assistance Association, also did not take kindly to Meas' request for an audit. Following the proposal, Khoeun wrote an August email to Meas that he should go back to doing what he does best, running for political office. "We will not let any individual (be it the Buddhist monk or anyone else) with their harmful motives and agendas to ruin this community-driven development work that we have been working so very hard thus far, at all," Khoeun wrote. "Do mark my words carefully!" Khon said after the audit request he consulted with other Buddhist monks on the CKBM board of directors and decided to remove Meas from the executive committee to prevent further negative actions toward the CKBM. He did not acknowledge the letter kicking out Soum. Temple project continues Meas and Soum both say they don't want to bring down the project; they just want to make sure donated funds are properly accounted for and spent. Meanwhile, Khon said the CKBM has not given up hope that the project designed to serve as testimony to the resilience of Cambodians will see its way to fruition. The effort has drawn opposition from the Pawtucketville Citizens Council because of building and wetlands violations, and recently the state's Department of Environmental Protection denied the project by rejecting prior approvals it received from the city's Conservation Commission. The CKBM has since hired a law firm that specializes in environmental matters to appeal DEP's denial. "We hope and pray for a positive ruling within the next several weeks or months," Khon said. As for Kem, she says she is thinking about whether she wants to support the project anymore. She had planned this April to give $1,000 to the effort on behalf of herself, her four children and other relatives. But Kem is now having second thoughts. "I learned my lesson from the Trairatanaram Temple and I'm afraid they will go down that path," Kem said. "I don't want to get hurt again." Follow Lyle Moran on Twitter @lylemoran.Print Email Font ResizeReturn to Top Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1387

Archives – News | Jan. 5, 1997 High Court, 24 Years After Roe, Again Holds Life in the Balance TWO CASES—Compassion in Dying v. Washington and Quill v. Vacco—scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on Jan. 8 could result in a landmark ruling on physician assisted suicide, observers say. “We think this will be the Roe v. Wade of euthanasia,” said Walter Weber, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, a Washington-based conservative legal defense group that wrote an amicus or friend of the court brief that argues that states can outlaw assisted suicide. Weber and other opponents of a right-to-die hope the court will not issue a sweeping ruling that would legalize physician assisted suicide in the country, as Roe v.Wade did for abortion in 1973. Such a ruling would sharply limit voters' abilities to shape euthanasia-related laws in the states. “Whatever they rule will have wide implications,” said Mark Chopko, general counsel for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, which also filed an amicus brief. “For them to rule that there's a broad, unlimited right to choose death.… I just don't see that.” While there's a remote chance the Supreme Court will throw out the cases because the two people who sued for the right-to-die are already dead, most observers think the justices will hear the cases. With Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer relatively new to the bench and Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter forming a swing vote on abortion-related issues—which bear some similarities to the right-to-die cases—few observers were willing in the weeks leading up to the hearings to predict how the Supreme Court will rule. Lawrence Tribe, the Harvard University Law professor who is representing the right-to-die groups in the two cases, filed a 50-page brief that Richard Doerflinger, the associate director for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) pro-life directorate, called “forcefully argued, but pretty incoherent.” Tribe, according to Doerflinger, wrote that terminally ill people represent a special group of humans who deserve the right to kill themselves. “That puts them in a second class ghetto,” said Doerflinger. “The dynamics of the suicide of the terminally ill are thought of as fundamentally different” from that of able-bodied people. “When someone [able bodied] wants to commit suicide, it's considered a mental problem, but when a terminally ill person wants to die, it's considered a rational decision.” Such reasoning, Doerflinger argued, only reveals society's prejudice against the terminally ill and the value of their lives. He added that a right-to-die law would have to impose an “arbitrary” term that defines terminal illness. “If it means people who are 50 percent or more likely to die within six months, then you're dealing with some people who will be alive for years.” If it's people who are 90 percent or more likely to die within that time frame, he said, “almost all will be dead the next day.” Carl Anderson, vice president for public policy with the Knights of Columbus in Washington, said that two lower courts came to the same conclusions in both cases by using different logic. The 9th Circuit Court ruled in its Compassion in Dying decision that Washington state's law against assisted suicide was unconstitutional because the court ruled that, like abortion, assisted suicide is an “intimate and personal choice,” he said. The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York wrote an amicus brief favoring physician-assisted suicide, while asserting, however, that there are significant differences between the rights to abortion and euthanasia. “There are issues of bodily integrity and autonomy as well as participation in society and the life of the world” that make unborn children fundamentally different from terminally ill people, said Kathryn Kolbert, as attorney with the organization. In the Quill case, according to Anderson, the 2nd Circuit argued that just as New York residents can reject treatment to hasten death, to deny them the means to hasten death would be unlawful. To the 2nd Circuit Court, said Anderson, denying terminally ill people the right to suicide is a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause. The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's organization with 1.5 million members, filed a joint amicus brief on the cases along with the National Catholic Office for Persons with Disabilities. Most major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, filed amicus briefs arguing that the Supreme Court should uphold states' laws banning assisted suicide, according to Dan Avila, an attorney with the Indianapolis-based National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled. Several Protestant religious groups filed briefs opposing euthanasia, and two Orthodox Jewish organizations also filed briefs opposing physician assisted suicide. But numerous groups supporting physician-assisted suicide—including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council for Secular Humanism, the Hemlock Society, and the Unitarian Universalists—also filed friend of the court briefs, said Avila. Should the Supreme Court rule that physician-assisted suicide is a legal right, then it would take at least one or two decades of judicial decisions to clarify that right, according to Anderson. He predicted that more jurisprudence would come about from such a decision than has been produced in the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision. Even more ominous than the threat of legal ambiguity and the stain on the Supreme Court's reputation, would be the threat such a ruling would pose for the most powerless in American society, opponents of assisted suicide say. Paraphrasing fellow Catholic Alan Keyes, a radio show host and former ambassador who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, attorney Weber said: “People will begin to ask, ‘When is grandma gonna do the right thing?”’ and commit suicide. “Opening the door to [physician-assisted suicide] would bring substantial economic and social pressure on the disabled and elderly” to kill themselves because other people would consider them burdens, said Weber. He predicted such an outcome if the justices engage in “hand wringing and anguished questions about what to do about ending the suffering of the mentally handicapped and terminally ill,” during their questioning of Tribe scheduled for Jan. 8. Racial minorities and the handicapped might also be “shortchanged and put at risk by pressure on the medical and health care system,” since they are typically underserved by health insurance, said Anderson. He predicted that a Supreme Court ruling favoring physician-assisted suicide could open the floodgates to third-party decision making to hasten the deaths of mentally incompetent people. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that he had a compelling interest in the case not only as a pastor but as a terminally ill man. “He showed the value of living life and giving life,” said the NCCB's Doerflinger. “People who are terminally ill do the most important work of all. Everything is stripped away from them,” Doerflinger added. “They face the big human questions [such as] the ultimate existence of God, the meaning of life and relationships with other people. Many people are unprepared to face these issues because they haven't dealt with them during their lives. They need support from other people,” rather than the tacit consent that they should kill themselves. To show its support for the terminally ill and other groups that would be adversely affected by a decision favoring euthanasia, the National Catholic Office for Persons with Disabilities is sponsoring a vigil at 10 a.m. on Jan. 8, on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the two cases by June. William Murray is based in Kensington, Md.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1413

North Platte Bulletin - North Platte men sentenced for drugs, assault North Platte men sentenced for drugs, assault by Jay Huff (The North Platte Bulletin) - 9/24/2013 Mark Palm Peter Bailey, 26, of North Platte will stay in jail even though he has already served the sentence for possession of amphetamine that was handed down Monday. Bailey is also held in jail for violating parole from the Nebraska State Diagnostic and Evaluation Center. He was arrested in March 2012 for possession of amphetamine with intent to deliver and sent to the center, but was released sometime later. Bailey was arrested again in North Platte in April, when police stopped him in a GMC van for erratic driving. Bailey initially gave a fictitious name and while police were searching three passengers, he tried to run. He was caught and restrained. Items used to consume methamphetamine were found in the car and Bailey was carrying clonazepam without a prescription.Bailey was jailed in Lincoln County and served 130 days. In Lincoln County District Court on Monday, he was sentenced to 240 days for possession, but he had already accumulated 110 good time days, so his sentence is already served. Bailey pled guilty to the change and in exchange, additional charges were dropped -- obstructing an officer, false reporting, possession of clonazepam and assault on a confined person. Bailey is held without bond for the parole violation. He is projected to be in jail at least until Oct. 24, according to the Nebraska Department of Corrections. Palm sent to penIn other court action, Mark Anthony Palm, a 39-year-old transient, was sentenced the state penitentiary for at least 20 months and as long as five year for second-offense domestic assault. On May 26, Palm threatened two women near Hershey on the bank of the North Platte River. Investigators said Palm’s girlfriend and another woman were verbally assaulted and Palm grabbed his girl friend, threw her to the ground and said “I could kill you right now.”Lincoln County Attorney Rebecca Harling asked for a long prison sentence.“He has a substantial criminal history and has been to the pen for assault before,” Harling said.Defense attorney Michael Nozicka agreed that Palm had a long history but said his client is changing is ways. “He is trying to turn his life around and is willing to attend any programs available. When he’s not drinking he is a nice guy and works hard,” Nozicka said.Lincoln County District Judge Richard was not inclined to be lenient. “Your criminal history spans over 20 years,” Birch told Palm. “It is just awful and contains 14 arrests for domestic assault. There is nothing left to do but sentence you to the penitentiary.”Palm was convicted in 2012 for domestic assault from Hamilton County and was wanted on three active warrants, one each from Nance, Buffalo and Hall Counties.In other district court action Monday:• Keith Phelps, 46, of North Platte pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine and will return for sentencing Nov. 4.• Curtis Bohman, 46, pled not guilty to false imprisonment, third degree assault and aiding and abetting a burglary. • Donald Broeder, 57, of North Platte, accepted a plea deal. A charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm was reduced to attempted possession of a defaced firearm. Broeder pled guilty and was sentenced to 180 days in jail. his previous felony convicted was nearly 35 years ago.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1441

Public Home Marijuana and Hemp (Cannabis) Law View All Legal Topic Index Documents It is important to realize that changes may occur in this area of law. This information is not intended to be legal advice regarding your particular problem, and it is not intended to replace the work of an attorney. Oregon’s cannabis laws are both complex and in a state of flux. They are most easily discussed by compartmentalizing them into four broad areas: personal, medical, commercial and hemp. Since July 1, 2015, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana by adults 21 years old and older is legal anywhere in Oregon, except that its use is prohibited in public places and in public view. Adults, at their home, may also lawfully cultivate four plants per household (again, out of public view), and they may lawfully possess all of the following: eight ounces of dried flowers from the plants; 72 ounces of infused liquids; 16 ounces of infused solids; and one ounce of extracted oil. (Note that the oil must be purchased from someone with a license to extract the oil.) Beginning Oct. 1, 2015, adults 21 years or older will be able to purchase up to one-quarter ounce (7 grams) of marijuana, immature (nonflowering) plants, and seeds from medical marijuana dispensaries. These purchases will be tax free until Jan. 1, 2016, and then be taxed at a rate of 25 percent until that law ends on Dec. 31, 2016. It is anticipated that adult use dispensaries will be up and running by then. As of Aug. 1, 2015, most of this law is contained within Ballot Measure 91 (2014) as amended by HB3400 (2015). The law allowing adult sales at medical marijuana dispensaries is in SB460 (2015). Medical Use A person who suffers from a debilitating medical condition (from a limited list of mostly severe physical conditions and PTSD) and who has been so diagnosed by an Oregon licensed medical doctor or osteopath (an MD or DO) and who registers with the Oregon Health Authority is protected from arrest and prosecution under state laws so long as the patient with a registry identification card stays within the limits allowed, and does not do any of the prohibited things set forth in ORS 475.316. The limits are: six mature plants, defined, effective March 1, 2016, as flowering; until then, a mature plant is defined as being more than a foot tall or more than a foot wide or flowering; 18 immature plants or starts or seedlings, defined, until March 1, 2016, as less than a foot tall and less than a foot wide and not flowering. Starting March 1, 2016, there is no limit on the number of immature plants, starts or seedlings a patient may have. The patient can designate a caregiver and a grower who are similarly protected. Collectively, these three people may possess up to 24 ounces of “usable marijuana,” which includes hashish. A grower is only allowed to cultivate for four patients, but an unlimited number of patients may designate the same location for their growsite. Irrespective of who cultivates it, the patient owns all the medicine, until March 1, 2016; beginning on that date, the patient may choose to give the grower the ownership of the medicine. The patient may authorize himself or herself, or the caregiver or the grower to distribute any excess usable medical marijuana to a medical marijuana dispensary and be fully reimbursed. The dispensary, in turn, can reimburse the grower (who may also be the patient) and in turn be fully reimbursed by patients and their caregivers. As noted above, an unlimited number of patients may designate the same location as their growsite. Responding to the emergence of commercial medical cultivation and concerns about leakage out of state and large growsites in urban areas, the legislature imposed the following changes, effective March 1, 2016: Urban gardens in areas zoned residential are allowed 12 plants, unless there were 24 plants designated at that location by Jan. 1, 2015; in that case, all 24 plants are allowed. Other areas (not urban residential zones) are allowed up to 48 plants, unless there were 96 plants designated at that location by Jan. 1, 2015; in that case, 96 plants are allowed. Indoor medical marijuana growsites will be allowed to have up to 6 pounds of usable marijuana per mature plant, and outdoor marijuana growsites will be allowed 12 pounds per mature plant. Medical growsites will undergo a registration process starting March 1, 2016, which will include monthly reporting to the Oregon Health Authority on what is cultivated, possessed and distributed to patients and dispensaries. The Medical Marijuana Act is codified beginning at ORS 475.300. Administrative rules can be found at OAR 333-008-0000. These laws were also amended by HB3400 (2014). Commercial Licensing Most of the law regarding commercial licensing of adult use facilities is found in Ballot Measure 91 (2014), HB 3400 (2015) and future OLCC rules. The OLCC has announced that it expects to have draft rules ready by October 2015 and final rules ready by November 2015. Effective Jan. 4, 2016, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) must accept applications for four kinds of commercial adult use licenses: Production, Processing, Wholesale and Retail. A person or business entity will be able to hold all four licenses or choose to hold less than all four types. Note that medical marijuana growers, by participating in the OLCC production rules, will become able to distribute marijuana to OLCC-licensed retail outlets. The Legislature imposed a 2-year residency requirement for applicants, which will be in effect until Jan. 1, 2020. Industrial hemp is defined as Cannabis sativa with a crop-wide average THC concentration of less than 0.3 percent. Industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity with thousands of applications, including clothing, cosmetics, construction materials, food, fuel and paper. Production, possession and commerce in industrial hemp have been legal in Oregon since Jan. 1, 2010 (SB 676). In 2015, the Oregon Department of Agriculture finalized rules implementing the Oregon Industrial Hemp Program. The Oregon Department of Agriculture issues licenses to cultivate and process industrial hemp, as well as licenses to produce and sell agricultural hemp seed. Industrial hemp farmers are required to cultivate a minimum crop of 2.5 acres. Industrial hemp growers and handlers statutes are codified at ORS 571.300 to 571.315. Administrative rules can be found at OAR 603-048-0010. These laws were amended by SB 881 (2015). Important Caveats 1. Even though the rules and limits described above are state laws, the legislature, for the first time since the end of alcohol prohibition, has allowed cities and counties to opt out of some of these statewide laws. The laws concerning adult use and cultivation, processing and retail sales, as well as medical processing and medical dispensaries can be banned. How? In counties where 55 percent of the people voted against Measure 91 (all counties east of the Cascades, except for Deschutes and Wasco Counties), if a city or county bans state-licensed marijuana businesses by Dec. 31, 2015, then the people would have to collect signatures and have an initiative election in November 2016. In counties where less than 55 percent voted against Measure 91, the ban is automatically referred to the people for a vote in November 2016. 2. Marijuana possession, cultivation and distribution and use remain illegal under federal law. The current policy of the U.S. Department of Justice is to discourage enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substances Act in those states that have enacted medical and/or adult use laws consistent with eight prioritized concerns of the federal government, so long as those laws are “robustly enforced.” In January 2017, a new president will be sworn in and federal policy may change. 3. Other federal law problems include the inability of marijuana businesses to be able to use FDIC-insured banks and their inability to deduct “ordinary and necessary business expenses” (except for the costs of goods sold) from their federal taxes. This brief outline of the laws is just that, a brief outline. Consulting with an Oregon licensed attorney is strongly encouraged. Although penalties for noncompliance with what are complex regulatory schemes are becoming less severe, there is still a thin green line between being legal and being a criminal. Legal editor: Leland R. Berger, with assistance from Courtney Moran on industrial hemp, August 2015 Legal Information Topics Legal Information Topics View All Documents Consumer Rights/Remedies Disputes: Arbitration/Mediation Employment/Public Benefits Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transexual Rights Marijuana and Hemp(Cannabis) Law Oregon Law Traffic Law and Auto Accidents Youth Law Wills and Trusts Pamphlet Information Handbook for Jurors Bulk Pamphlet Order Form Getting Legal Help Lawyer Referral Service LRS Home Referral Request Form Modest Means Program Modest Means Info Modest Means Application Problem Solvers Info Do-It-Yourself Legal Info Restraining Order Hearings Summary Dissolution Low Cost Legal Help Public Defender Services Public Interest/Law School Clinics Military Assistance Panel MAP Info OregonLawHelp.org Client Services Client Assistance Office Getting Involved Volunteer Opportunities Legal Information for the Public Getting Legal Help

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1515

Adoption and Children Bill The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 205 and 207. Amendment No. 7, in page 33, line 20, leave out subsection (6). Jacqui Smith: Clause 58 outlines the conditions on the disclosure to an adopted adult of information held by the courts or by adoption agencies. With new clauses 7 and 8, it spells out our new proposals on disclosure of protected information. We made it clear when we introduced the Bill in October that the provisions on access to information were new and that we would welcome views on whether they struck the right balance. Following the weight of representations and with the benefit of having set up a Special Standing Committee to hear evidence, we are making significant changes to the provisions. The clause deals with the conditions for the disclosure of information about birth records held by the court. Under current law the adopted adult has a right, provided by section 51 of the Adoption Act 1976, to obtain information from the Registrar-General that enables him to access a copy of his birth certificate, which identifies his birth parents and their address at the time of the birth. The only exception is when the Registrar-General decides to withhold the information on public policy grounds; in such cases, the adopted person can challenge the Registrar-General's decision by recourse to the High Court. We have reviewed the existing right, taking into account the views of stakeholders and others and the Column Number: 740 concerns raised about the very small number of cases where unfettered access to birth records could pose a significant risk to the birth parent. Under the amended clause, the adopted adult will retain the right to access the information that he needs to enable him to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. We have broadly replicated but improved on the current legal position. The route of access will now be through the adoption agency. On making a request, the adopted adult would be able to obtain the information that he needs in order to acquire a copy of his birth certificate from his adoption agency. The only exception would be cases in which the adoption agency considered that exceptional circumstances justified recourse to the courts to withhold information, such as when there was a potential serious risk to the safety of those identified. In such a case, the adoption agency would have to seek the High Court's permission not to disclose the information. The High Court would make an order only if it were satisfied that the circumstances were exceptional. I hope that that change will allay the concerns that have been expressed, while still providing a safeguard whereby a court may give its consent, in exceptional circumstances, for information to be withheld. Amendment No. 204 amends clause 58(2), which provides that an adopted person has the right, at his request, to receive the information that is provided to his adoptive parents under clause 57. Under the Bill as originally drafted, that is the information that the adopters would receive at the time of the adoption order, but clause 57 has now been removed, to be replaced by new clause 6 for prospective adopters; consequently, the reference to section 57 information needs to be omitted. Amendment No. 205 will amend clause 58 to provide that the adopted person has a right, at his request, to receive the information that is necessary for him to obtain a certified copy of his birth certificate, unless the High Court orders otherwise. That is the intention that I outlined at the beginning. New subsection (2)(a) inserted by the amendment indicates that the High Court may make an order withholding the information if the circumstances are exceptional, and makes it clear that that would be done on an application by the adoption agency. The amendment also provides, in new subsection (2)(b), for the adopted adult to have a right to any prescribed information disclosed to the adopters by the agency under new clause 6. Finally, amendment No. 207 removes subsections (5) and (6) of clause 58 because the disclosure of protected information is now provided for in new clauses 7 and 8, to be discussed later, the intentions behind which I outlined in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Huntingdon in the sitting before Christmas and set out in my letter. That is the reasoning behind amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 207, which do make happen our intentions with respect to the new provisions on access to information, which we discussed more broadly before Christmas and earlier today. Tim Loughton: None of the amendments ''do make happen'', as the Minister puts it, what we would like to have happened a long time ago. This whole thing should never have happened in the first place. We will support the amendments. Doing so will make amendment No. 7, which is grouped with this, rather superfluous, so I shall not press it. 10.30 am The Minister has given a short explanation�great explanation would have been welcome�of the way in which the Registrar-General will withhold information on public policy grounds, to be challenged by the court. How many of the applications now going through adoption agencies does she envisage will be referred to the courts? I am pleased that the circumstance is exceptional, but what sort of circumstance are we talking about? How will it be monitored so that there is consistency across adoption agencies and the leave of the High Court is not overly sought? What numbers are we talking about? The process is expensive and cumbersome, so it would be useful to have more information about the nature of the exceptional circumstances and how the system of going through adoption agencies and producing birth certificates will work. While we are considering this set of amendments, the Minister might like to give us a few more practical examples. The intention is right, and we agree with the big U-turn that the Government have made, but we need a more detailed explanation of how the system will work. I shall be grateful if the Minister provides that. Jacqui Smith: The provision does not exactly replicate the current position with respect to access to birth records. One of the problems that we highlighted was the fact that it would be possible for somebody, without having gone through an adoption agency, to make contact directly with the Registrar-General in order to receive information that would enable him to access his birth record. We are proposing, as a refinement of that process, that access be through the adoption agency, allowing�as we all agree�for referral in very exceptional circumstances to the High Court. To obtain a copy of one's birth records, one will have to provide the information necessary for the Registrar-General to make the links between one's birth record and one's record of adoption. That would produce the information to enable access to one's birth certificate. The change is that the Registrar-General will provide the adoption agency with the information to enable it either to pass on the information to the individual or, in rare cases when there could be cause for concern�I shall give examples in a moment�to consider it. The Registrar-General has blocked the discharge of information in order to allow access to the birth certificate in one case since 1976, so the numbers are not significant. However, as we have previously argued, the matter could become marginally more significant in future. The exceptional circumstances with which we are concerned are those, for instance, that might entail a risk of death to the birth parents if the adopted person were able to identify them. The issue is not so much about numbers but the nature of Column Number: 742 the risk that such exceptional circumstances might involve. Tim Loughton: I appreciate fully what the Minister is saying, but who determines the risk? Is there not other provision in law, such as the issuing of injunctions or restraining orders and other action, if a risk is perceived? Every adopted child who came from an abusive home might be a risk to the parents in question, but only a tiny minority would prove to be so. Jacqui Smith: The previous difficulty was that the Registrar-General could determine whether a risk existed only if it was obvious from the circumstances of the approach for information. Because the adoption agency has much better information and understanding about the circumstances of the adoption and the potential relationship between the birth parents and the adopted person, it is in a better position to evaluate the potential for risk. However, the agency will not be able to make a decision depriving the adopted person of their right to a birth record. It will be able only to apply to the High Court for permission not to disclose the information. The court will then consider whether it is justifiable to withhold the information that would enable the person to obtain access to their birth record. A pretty high hurdle will have to be cleared. The adoption agency and the court will have to consider risk and the appropriateness of withholding the information. The Association of Directors of Social Services has provided some examples of cases of concern over the possibility of tracing and contacting individuals. One concerns an adopted person ''who had reached 18 years of age, and sought information which would lead to him finding out the whereabouts of his birth parents as he wanted to 'kill them'. Apparently he had been badly abused as an infant and had a facial disfigurement. He said 'every day when I look in the mirror it reminds me of what they did to me and it makes me very angry'. In a second example, an adopted Asian girl ''who was part of a very close knit family (which sought to exclude the authorities and any outsiders) was very seriously neglected as an infant over a significant period of time�indeed her doctors didn't think she would survive. The child was placed for adoption. Now that she is 18 she wants to trace her birth family: it is considered by the agency that she may be at risk if she does locate them as she is likely to be an extremely unwelcome visitor.'' Another point that has been made is that the vast majority of adoptions happen well after birth, so people inevitably know who their birth parents are. Also, the vast majority of adoptions are open, which is generally considered to be good practice. We are attempting to make provision for rare cases and exceptional circumstances. I have given information about the situation that has existed up until now, but I do not have an estimate of future figures. Perhaps the issue will never arise, but if it does, the circumstances might be so important as to necessitate the provisions in the clause. That justifies the balance that we have struck on access to birth records. There should be a right to access the information necessary to get one's birth record, and access should be through the adoption agency, which is best placed to know the particular circumstances. Column Number: 743 However, in exceptional circumstances, the High Court should still be able to prevent that right from being exercised. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 205, in page 33, line 11, at end insert� '(a) the information within section 54(1A)(a), unless the High Court orders otherwise, (b) any prescribed information disclosed to the adopters by the agency by virtue of section [Disclosing information during adoption process]. (2A) The High Court may make an order under subsection (2)(a), on an application by the appropriate adoption agency, if satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional'. No. 206, in page 33, line 16, leave out 'or section 76 information'. No. 207, in page 33, line 17, leave out subsections (5) and (6).�[Jacqui Smith.]

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1516

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, even if I were not an adviser to British Gas I would be torn by the amendments. On the one hand, as my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said, sustainable development is an important objective and one which we should all support. However, the question is: who should actually do it on any particular occasion? Is it really, as the amendments suggest, a matter for the gas regulator? A regulator's primary duties under the Bill are to ensure that people get gas, to promote competition and to ensure financial viability of the companies supplying and transporting it. I suggest that a duty to promote sustainable development sits very uneasily with these. Much of the contribution that I made in earlier debates on the Bill centred around regulatory discretion. I believe that there is quite simply too much and that the Bill has extended those powers still further. In my view, the regulatory structure cannot support such a wide-ranging power to determine possible policy issues. That is surely a matter for the Government. Indeed, my noble friend highlighted what governments both here and overseas are doing in that respect. Such a power would inevitably add to the uncertainty that already exists in the energy market. It is not beyond the wit of man to imagine a situation where a company has invested to enter the market and the market is then changed by a regulatory decision in the name of a personal interpretation of sustainable development. There would be little chance to appeal, even if the reasoning behind the situation were known. That cannot be right. However, I see that we shall be discussing that matter in relation to a later amendment. What is even more perplexing is that that duty would apply to the gas industry and not to other fuels. It could lead to restrictions on gas but leave competing fuels such as oil, which is even more polluting—in fact considerably more polluting—untouched. I support other amendments that the Government have brought forward to widen the environmental scope of the Bill. However, this proposal would be going a little too far especially—and I give my answer to my noble friend's question—in view of Clause 1(2)(b) where it is quite clear that the Secretary of State and the director shall have a duty: "to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons authorised ... to carry on any activities, and the efficient use of gas conveyed through pipes". I believe that that was one of the things that my noble friend requested. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister will, first, confirm what I have said; secondly, agree with me; and, finally, say what else the Government intend as a matter of policy in terms of the efficient use of gas. 3.45 p.m. Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble kinsman. I have no doubt—indeed, I am sure that we all agree—that we have a most important responsibility to future generations to maintain the environment and sustainable development. My noble kinsman made a very strong 18 Oct 1995 : Column 753 case for the amendment both to honour our international agreements and to look after the benefits of future generations in this country. I believe that there is a very real danger—perhaps this was emphasised and brought out by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale—that privatisation, successful as it has been, produces intense pressure for cost cutting and short-term profit-making in an increasingly competitive scene. That occurs sometimes at the expense of sustainable development and the environment. I therefore strongly support the amendment. Lord Peston: My Lords, before dealing with the substantial amendment, I thought that it might be useful if I were to say a word or two about interests. Your Lordships may wish to know that I am not a paid consultant of British Gas and, indeed, have never been a paid consultant of British Gas. Therefore, I do not and did not have anything to declare. However, I was, but am no longer, a non-executive director of a firm of which British Gas was a client, although I did not advise that company. On 29th March 1994 (at col. 1062 of Hansard) I intervened to make some remarks on the Government's then forthcoming plans for extending competition; indeed, the matter that we are debating today. Last week I was asked by a journalist whether I ought to have mentioned at that time in 1994 an indirect relationship with British Gas. My reply, off the cuff, was "Maybe". Having now looked at what I actually said at the time, I believe that my answer should have been simply, "No, I had nothing to declare". Without wishing to appear holier than thou, I am confident that, like all noble Lords, I acted ethically, and I shall continue to do so. I turn now to the amendment. I am in some difficulty in that respect because I am totally in agreement with the noble Earl about the importance of sustainable development. However, I am also in agreement with the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, that there is always a danger that the pressures of competitive business enterprise cause one to neglect some of those matters. It is important that we bear that in mind. My problem is the following. Perhaps in due course I will express it interrogatively. Although we support these objectives, is this a Bill in which we ought to start on this, so to speak? Is there anything special about gas that requires us to say, "This is where we put it into legislation"? I suppose that the answer to that is that this is the only Bill we have before us. If we want to include this measure somewhere, for the moment this is where we have to put it. I suppose that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, could say that this is a fairly innocuous amendment anyway. I am torn on this matter. If the Minister were to say "Yes" to his noble friend, I would not then want to say "No". However, my position is that I would rather see all of this incorporated in a more general form of legislation than start to deal with different bits of legislation. I find it hard to be what I would regard as sensible but supportive. I am not 100 per cent. persuaded that this is the best place for the measure but equally, wearing my economist's hat, I am not against it. I am trying to have it both ways as usual. Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to support the amendments spoken to by the noble Earl, as indeed I did in Committee. He has raised an important issue and we should seize every opportunity of emphasising it. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has raised a perfectly valid question. Are we right to introduce this provision in specific items of legislation rather than more generally? I do not know whether in the near future we will have any vehicle for a more general treatment of the subject. I therefore feel strongly that we should seize the present opportunity rather than wait for some uncertain future opportunity. Furthermore, I was much impressed with what the noble Earl had to say about the need to conserve and to use as efficiently as possible valuable natural resources, and gas is certainly one of those. I also agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, when he said that, while we are all generally in favour of competition, not least from these Benches, nonetheless the sudden change from a monopoly situation, in which a tradition of caring for the consumer has been inherent in the way in which gas has been supplied, to a competitive situation could well lead to cutting corners and seeking to increase margins, perhaps in conflict with these wider social considerations. Therefore I think that in a Bill of this sort affecting such a basic issue it is perfectly proper that the reference to sustainable development should be introduced in the way in which the noble Earl has suggested. Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have no particular technical interest in this Bill except that, it being a Bill and ultimately becoming an Act, it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to be accountable to Parliament for its conduct. Your Lordships will be aware that, within a different context altogether, there has been some discussion recently in another place as to the responsibility of a Secretary of State for policy on the one hand or for operations on the other. I would like to be clear in my own mind, because it is not clear from the Bill, who will be responsible to Parliament for the proper carrying out of the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill before your Lordships states, "The Secretary of State and the Director shall each have a duty to exercise the functions assigned to him by or under this Part in the manner which he considers is best calculated". I have searched through the Bill and I cannot find the delineation of duties in any particular regard specifically directed towards the Secretary of State on the one hand or the director on the other. Amendment No. 2 that has been so ably spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, mixes up the two. Amendment No. 2 states, "In so far as subsection (1)(d) above affects the Director, in performing ... he shall have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State". What happens if the Secretary of State gives the wrong guidance to the director? How will the delineation of responsibility be established between them? These are not extreme matters involving the rather graver matters implicit in the Prison Service, but they are matters of some significance. I would like to know just how we are going to delineate specifically the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for which he can be called to 18 Oct 1995 : Column 755 account by Parliament and those for which he is not responsible. I must apologise for having introduced this question of principle, but perhaps it might be convenient for the noble and learned Lord to clarify it at this time.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1608

Judge moves Hunter-NBPA suit to Los Angeles Billy Hunter has filed a lawsuit against the NBPA for defamation and breach of contract. Seth Wenig/AP SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A judge has granted the motion for change of venue to Los Angeles in former NBA players' association executive director Billy Hunter's lawsuit against president Derek Fisher and the union. Hunter filed the suit in Alameda County, but lawyers for Fisher, his publicist, Jamie Wior, and the NBPA argued it should be in Los Angeles, where they both live. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch agreed Thursday. Hunter, who was ousted in February, filed the lawsuit in May, seeking unspecified damages for defamation and breach of contract. The attorneys for the NBPA, Fisher and Wior issued a statement that said: "We are pleased that the court has transferred the case to Los Angeles, where it should have been filed, and now look forward to a hearing on the pending motions to dismiss the case.'' Copyright 2014 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Tags Billy Hunter NBPA nba players' association

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1742

Man to find out his jail time for bear spray incident Josh Pennell [email protected] Published on July 18, 2014 X Comments Michael Rakai On Monday, Michael Rakai will find out how much time he will spend in jail for spraying a man and a woman with bear spray. Rakai, 35, sat motionless in provincial court while the Crown and defense spoke to Judge David Orr about a possible sentence for Rakai. In December, he was found guilty of two counts of assault with bear spray, damaging property and possessing dangerous weapons. He was charged after an incident on Merrymeeting Road on April 9, 2013. Rakai — also known as “Hatchet” — sprayed Mace and swung a hatchet at a couple in the street and then smashed a window at the couple’s house. He claimed at the time it was to defend himself because the man was after him and was also swinging a bat at him. Rakai was scheduled to be sentenced in March, but didn’t show up at court. He was picked up by police in Bonne Bay and brought back to St. John’s. During Friday’s sentencing hearing, the defense said Rakai was originally from Saskatchewan and had been in this province for about five years. He and his girlfriend had moved to the Bonne Bay area to try and straighten his life out following the trial. He has been working at a fish plant in the area. Rakai has two children in Saskatchewan and one here, and his girlfriend is about to have another child. The defence said Rakai is bipolar and prior to the incident his last two remaining family members besides his own children — his mother and brother — were killed in a car accident. It was that incident that set his behaviour off, the defense argued. Rakai hasn’t been in a lot trouble since he moved to this province. He was found to be in possession of a weapon back in 1998, but the only trouble he’s been in since then has been a trespassing fine and a fraud-related charge for being in possession of a cheque. On Friday, when the judge asked if he wanted to address the court, Rakai, practically inaudibly, shook his head slightly and said no. As he was leaving court, though, he did have a few words to share. “Revenge is sweet. Just remember,” he said. It was unclear if he was speaking to the court or to the media in the room. Rakai will be getting federal time for his offences. Judge Orr will decide how much on Monday.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/1757

Judge scolds prosecutors in whistle-blower Medicare fraud investigation | Times Free Press Local Judge scolds prosecutors in whistle-blower Medicare fraud investigation by Todd South in Local Regional News U.S. District Judge Harry S. "Sandy" Mattice Photo by Dan Henry A federal judge has issued a scathing opinion in which he puts federal prosecutors "on notice" for keeping a Medicare fraud case under seal for four years, a delay he called "absurd." The opinion and documents in the long-running case were unsealed Friday by U.S. District Judge Harry S. "Sandy" Mattice. The case details a nationwide investigation of Cleveland, Tenn.-based Life Care Centers of America. Prosecutors allege the private health care company has bilked Medicare of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars since at least 2006 by providing unnecessary and often harmful therapies to justify higher billing. Life Care has more than 200 facilities in 28 states and was paid $4.2 billion in Medicare reimbursements from 2006 until 2011. In a letter to employees Friday the company disputed the allegations and claimed its therapy methods saved Medicare $400 million in that time period. Two whistle-blower lawsuits filed in 2008 by former employees were merged this year, and prosecutors officially took the case and pressed fraud charges this fall. The whistle-blowers are Glenda Martin, who worked at Life Care facilities in Chattanooga, Morristown and Elizabethton from 1993 until 2007, and Tammie Johnson Taylor, a former occupational therapist at a Life Care facility in Lauderhill, Fla. But the entire lawsuit was kept under seal from the time of the filings under seemingly false pretext, according to Mattice's opinion. Whistle-blower lawsuits are allowed to stay under seal for 60 days while prosecutors evaluate the case and determine whether the U.S. Department of Justice will get involved. Keeping the cases sealed is supposed to "prevent alleged wrongdoers from being tipped off that they were under investigation," Mattice wrote. But the prosecutors admitted they had begun settlement negotiations with Life Care in June 2010. The company's top officials were fully aware that they were being investigated. "The length of time this case has remained under seal borders on the absurd," Mattice wrote. Prosecutors were granted extensions by claiming the case was complex and resources limited. But, Mattice said in his opinion, investigators had interviewed more than 150 witnesses across the nation, issued 35 subpoenas, received 200,000 documents from the company and had assistance from lawyers in seven U.S. attorneys' offices, 10 Health and Human Services agents and four lawyers with the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice. Mattice took some responsibility for the lengthy extensions he and U.S. Magistrate Bill Carter granted, but he criticized prosecutors' methods. "Indeed, the Government's request appears to be an ambitious attempt to shield its case from scrutiny for as long as possible" while using the whistle-blower law's sealing ability as a "weapon," Mattice wrote. The prosecution team includes Elizabeth Tonkin, who works in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee in the Knoxville office, as well as attorneys from Washington, D.C., and Florida. The U.S. Attorney's office did not respond to a message seeking comment Friday. But Patrick Burns, a spokesman for the nonprofit Taxpayers Against Fraud, said the work that federal agents and prosecutors have to do on cases such as this one is extensive and can take years. "The truth of the matter is this is a serious charge," Burns said. "You don't want the government to yell fraud and then say, 'Oh, we made a mistake.'" Burns faulted the overall regulatory system's weakness for putting prosecutors in the position to have to spend so much time with the case under seal. "I understand where the judge is coming from," he said. "But I'm going to cut [prosecutors] some slack." Local attorney Max Bahner, whose law firm represents the Chattanooga Times Free Press and who petitioned to have the records unsealed beginning in September, called the length of time this case has been sealed "extraordinary" and something he had never seen in 50 years of practice in federal court. Bahner said Mattice's opinion could be published and cited by other federal judges for use in determining whether to allow whistle-blower cases to remain sealed. Near the end of his opinion, Mattice warned prosecutors that future whistle-blower lawsuits "will be met with significant scrutiny" when the government requests to keep them sealed. Students LAUNCH winning business plans Marion County OKs landfill contract

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2102

SB 313 AN ACT CONCERNING START-UP FARMERS WHO ARE VETERANS OF THE ARMED FORCES. This bill creates incentives for veterans to become farmers or involved with agricultural business. It does this by extending an exemption from the sales and use tax on personal property sold for use in agricultural production to veterans who are newly or recently engaged in the practice of farming. The bill also requires the departments of Agriculture, Veterans' Affairs, and Labor to collaborate to (1) encourage and assist veterans to start or expand an agricultural business and (2) provide education and training opportunities to them in farming and agricultural operations (see BACKGROUND). By law, a “veteran” is an individual honorably discharged or released under honorable conditions from active service in the U. armed forces. The statutes define “armed forces” to mean the U. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Air Force, their reserve components, and the state's National Guard under federal service (CGS § 27-103). Upon passage FARMER TAX EXEMPTION State law grants a farmer engaged in agricultural production as a trade or business an exemption (through a farmer tax exemption permit) from the sales and use tax for tangible personal property he or she uses or consumes exclusively for this production. In general, to qualify, the farmer must apply to the Department of Revenue Services (DRS) and show that he or she had a gross income from agricultural production during the preceding tax year of at least $ 2,500, or an average of at least $ 2,500 over the preceding two tax years, as reported for federal income tax purposes. Existing law authorizes DRS to waive this income requirement for someone who purchases an agricultural trade or business from a seller who was issued and held a valid farmer tax exemption permit at the time of the sale. The exemption is valid for two years after the purchase. A person with an exemption permit under these circumstances who does not work in agricultural production for two years after the purchase is liable for the tax. The bill extends the waiver to include veterans who never engaged in the practice of farming or did so for less than two years. By law, any applicant may be eligible for a farmer tax exemption permit if the applicant establishes, to the commissioner's satisfaction, that the he or she intends to carry on agricultural production as a trade or business for at least two years (Conn. Agencies Reg. § 12-412 (63)-1). If a person issued the permit under this condition does not work in agricultural production for two years after the permit is issued, or does not earn and spend more than $ 2,500 in the preceding year or on average over the preceding two years, he or she must pay the tax. If the person must pay under either of these conditions, he or she is ineligible for another income-requirement-waived farmer tax exemption permit. Farm Link Program The law requires the Department of Agriculture to establish, administer, and maintain a database (“Farm Link”) of farmers and agricultural land owners who intend to sell their farm operations or agricultural land. People interested in starting or expanding an agricultural business may authorize the department to enter their names, contact information, and business intentions into the database. The department must make reasonable efforts to link people with similar interests. It must also post educational materials about the program on its website. The material must include information about farm transfer and succession planning, family farm estate planning, farm transfer strategies, farm leasing, forming farm partnerships, and starting a farm business. COMMITTEE ACTION Select Committee on Veterans' Affairs Joint Favorable Change of Reference Environment Committee Joint Favorable

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2274

Homeowners worry tree could cause damage HOUSTON -- After last summer's drought, there are thousands of dead trees all around our area. But one of them is of particular concern to a homeowner in northeast Harris County. This tree survived the drought, but a lightning strike has caused major damage. Now the family that lives on the plot next door is worried the tree will cause major trouble, but can't seem to get it removed. Dead trees are easy to spot across our area, especially if one is next door to your home. Debra Jackson said, "It looks like, I don't know if it is lightning or something, the tree is beginning to die from the top and it is rotten and splitting." Debra and Calvin Jackson say they want the tree removed, so they tried to contact the property owner. Debra said, "I looked up and found the property is owned by the Sheldon ISD. I called the district and they referred me to an attorney's office because the lot is up for resale." But Debra says instead of getting the tree removed, the call led to frustration. She said, "Basically they said they don't have anything as far as maintenance or upkeep or things to do. Basically they were for selling the property, that's it." So we called Sheldon ISD and officials told us the taxing district controls the property. Officials there referred us to an attorney, who has yet to return our calls. It turns out the Jacksons did the right thing when it comes to getting the tree taken care of -- they contacted the owner to tell them of the problem. According to University of Houston law professor Richard Alderman, now that the problem is known by the owner, it's the owner of the tree who pays if there is a problem. "Usually the property owner knows all this is based on the owner knowing that the tree might fall," Alderman said. "You want to make sure that you do take steps." In the meantime, the Jacksons are waiting for the tree to be removed. "The tree needs to come down, but no one wants to take responsibility for it," Calvin said. The Sheldon ISD says they are looking into the situation. The next step for the homeowners would be to send the district a certified letter acknowledging that the district knows about the problem. That way if the tree does cause damage, the district can't claim it did know about the issue. Load Comments

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2277

Mom sentenced for dumping newborn in dumpster Shawn Kelli Sepulveda, 41, was sentenced to five years in prison for attempting to murder her newborn daughter by leaving her in a trash bin. September 24, 2010 12:00:00 AM PDT FULLERTON, Calif. -- A Laguna Nigel woman was sentenced Friday to five years in state prison for abandoning her newborn daughter in a dumpster.Shawn Kelli Sepulveda, 41, was found guilty in July of attempted murder and child abuse. The Orange County District Attorney's Office says Sepulveda tried to keep her pregnancy a secret from her husband because he is not the father. Her two other children were also kept in the dark. Then, on August 16, 2008, Sepulveda gave birth to the baby girl in her Laguna Niguel apartment. Prosecutors say a few hours later, Sepulveda dumped the baby in a nearby dumpster. Sepulveda's husband caught on and sent their daughter to look for the newborn. She found the child and the baby was taken into protective custody. Prosecutors say Sepulveda admitted to police that she knew she could have placed the baby up for adoption or surrendered her to a fire station, under the state's safe surrender law. The baby is in good health and living with Sepulveda's father, according to Deputy District Attorney Cyril Yu.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2295

Menu About SPA Justice, Law & Criminology About SPA SPA Success Story Departments & Research Centers Alumni Success Story Talila Lewis ’07 works tirelessly to help solve the world’s injustices By Traci Crockett Talila A. Lewis, SPA/BA ’07, is not your average young alum. Sure, she has a typical day job as a paralegal for the D.C. government, but Lewis also runs a non-profit, independently assists attorneys who serve Deaf clients, advocates for the rights of Deaf inmates and wrongfully convicted individuals, educates others about the Deaf community, created a community improvement group that provides volunteers to the local community, and just completed a two year stint as the director of a Deaf camp. Lewis readily admits that she doesn’t get much sleep. “My motto is ‘no excuses,’” she says. Helping Educate to Advance the Rights of the Deaf – or HEARD – is the nonprofit organization that Lewis created to advance the legal rights of Deaf and hard of hearing individuals. She co-founded a nonprofit that works with the DC Public Library to improve Deaf literacy. She also is heavily involved with Deaf communities in Central America. Her passion for service to others stems from a huge heart and her belief that everyone should work to help solve the world’s injustices. As a student, Lewis enjoyed getting to know her justice professors, several of whom, she says, continue to be influential. She would have appeared, to most, an average wonk – highly motivated, focused and intent on making a difference in the world. One thing, though, Lewis says would have surprised her classmates and professors: “I was homeless during some of my time at AU,” Lewis says, clearly neither proud nor ashamed. Looking back, Lewis recalls the secret that she kept even from her closest friends and mentors. Her positive attitude and resolute spirit surely kept Lewis going, even as she struggled to work three jobs and attend school full time “I would study at the library until it closed, then sleep in my van. In the morning, I would go to the gym, shower and go to class and work,” she explains. “Sure, people would have helped me if I asked, but it was not something I was inclined to discuss.” At AU, Lewis was accepted into the Justice Program Office’s clinical program, Agencies in Cooperation for Effective Services (ACES). ACES provides opportunities for students to work as interns in justice settings, usually as advocates for defendants, offenders and community re-entrants. “My inspiration to reform the legal system began with ACES,” Lewis recalls. As for her particular penchant for work with the Deaf, Lewis explains that she “fell in love” with Deaf culture while attending primary school with Deaf children. It was during her internship at the Public Defender Service, however, after she unearthed a wrongful conviction case involving a Deaf man who did not receive proper access to the legal system, that she realized her calling. Now Lewis is thinking about adding one more project to her list: helping AU students who may have trouble finding or maintaining housing, as she did. She believes that everyone should work toward improving their communities. “If we all work together,” she says, “I really do believe there’s nothing we can’t do.” She plans to continue her legal reform efforts as a public interest attorney—she will begin studies at AU’s Washington College of Law this fall. Facebook Like Button for this Page

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2390

| Commissions | CBCP Documents | Contact CBCP | General Info Statement of the Philippine Hierarchy onJuvenile DelinquencyYouthful crime is not something new in human affairs. But in our age the problem of juvenile delinquency has assumed such proportions as to cause grave concern to the community and to call for special comment and prompt remedy.To an alarming degree the records of wrongdoing reveal that the criminals are under 21 years of age, and many of them are under 18, a fact which is reflected in the unsavory notoriety which has gathered around the term "teen-age gang."The crimes involved run from general disorderliness and insubordination to acts of the gravest violence, not excluding murder. And the wave has spread its influence so widely that it has affected society at every level, and there is hardly a family with growing sons and daughters which does not feel apprehensive of its contagion. What are the reasons for this upsurge of youthful criminality? Obviously at the root of it is that primordial rebellion which we call original sin, which at all times and in all places has been prolific in wrongdoing. But why is this evil root producing such luxuriant fruit precisely now and precisely among our youth?Let it be said at the very beginning that it is a great mistake to treat juvenile delinquency as a malady detached from the body of society. There is juvenile delinquency because there is adult delinquency. And therefore its most basic cause is a decline in public and private morality, as its most fundamental remedy is a reformation of life at all levels of society. This is an unpleasant necessity that many reformers refuse to face, and as a result deserve from youth the scriptural rebuke: Physician cure yourself.Nevertheless, there are special reasons why the evil is flourishing in our day and these deserve mention and discussion.The first reason is to be found in the fact that hundreds of thousands of our boys and girls are growing up without serious religious formation. The first source of religious training for children should be the family. But with a very large fraction of the parents themselves products of the very system that creates juvenile delinquency, not much is to be hoped for from that source, until the parents themeslves seriously study and practice religion. Too many homes are without any religion except perhaps a few traditional observances that have lost most of their meaning. As a consequence, the children are raised in an environment devoid of Christian virtue. There is a lack of true love between husband and wife; an absence of proper esteem for honesty, truthfulness and chastity. The parents in too many instances seek their happiness elsewhere. They are constantly out of the house in quest of diversion, according to the potentialities of their income, at gambling tables, night clubs, or movies. The care of the children is confided to maids, houseboys, chauffeurs; or they are simply left to their own devices. Little effort is made to exercise parental authority; with cruel indulgence fathers and mothers yield to their children's every whim, spare them every hardship, pass over every misdeed. It is obvious that such a home is little prepared to fulfill its most important function of turning the child's heart and mind to God.Unfortunately, religious instruction outside the home can do little to compensate for these domestic failures. The number of priests is too few to allow pastors to take proper care of their flocks. And the schools are still far from offering a solution. It is true that religious instruction is authorized by law in our public schools but the implementation of the law is very frequently attended with grave difficulties.In many cases widespread poverty adds new occasion for the downfall of the young. Fathers and mothers are forced by the need of earning a livelihood to be frequently away from home for long periods. Housing conditions are often such as to deprive the members of the most elemental privacy, and are so restricted that children must of necessity spend most of their time in the streets. In the dire want that is a daily, nay, an hourly anxiety, thieving and other kinds of wrongdoing offer tempting avenues of income.It is not surprising if, in this absence of religion and in this favorable climate of poverty, bad motion pictures and bad literature, the two principle forces for juvenile delinquency, produce disastrous results.The late Pope Pius XI listed the harm wrought by evil motion pictures. "Everyone" he said, "knows what damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. They are occasions of sin; they seduce young people along the ways of evil by glorifying the passions; they show life a false light; they cloud ideals; they destroy pure love, respect for marriage and affection for the family." (Vigilanti Cura, June 29, 1936)Obviously not all motion pictures incur these strictures. But the number of harmful movies is so high as to bring discredit on the whole industry. Producers, distributors, theatre owners and advertisers must all share the blame for the evil. Advertisers especially play a peculiarly sinister role in this tragedy. In their efforts to attract the public to the theater, they often exceed all bounds of decency, and seem to think no means illicit if it serves their purpose. Newspapers which print their advertising are equally to blame for the harm that results. Bad literature is the accomplice of the movies in this campaign of corruption. Motion picture magazines are of course tainted with the same disease as the industry itself, holding up bad principles, false ideals and sinful people for the admiration and emulation of the young.Among other magazines the pictorials are outstanding offenders with their displays of indecency; but worst of all and most pernicious are the so-called comics where the young mind can drink in detailed descriptions of every sin and perversion in the annals of crime.Meanwhile, the community is largely content with lip-protests against these conditions. As soon as effective means are suggested to cope with the dissemination of moral poison and to promote the more effective teaching of religion, small but very vocal groups raise exaggerated claims for one liberty or another, insensitive to the much more important values that are in danger. On the other hand what does youth find in those circles of the community which should be expected to provide moral leadership? He sees prominent men in all walks of society leading immoral lives. He finds that they suffer no stigma therefrom but are received with open arms everywhere. He learns the callous doctrine that what succeeds is right. He observes that wealth and power are above the law; crime if committed by important men goes unpunished.We should not be surprised if in such circumstances young people listen with a certain cynicism to exhortations to virtue, whether at home or at school. And it is not strange that there exists a problem of juvenile delinquency; rather it is a wonder that it has been so long in gathering momentum, and that it is not even greater than it is.It is a consoling fact that in spite of this gloomy picture there is a solid mass of decent people in the country who refuse to bow to the pernicious influences just described. And it is they who are most alarmed at the deterioration of youth. Many of them are parents who try to provide a good, wholesome home for their children, to supervise their activities outside the house, and by word and example to cultivate in them a deep religious spirit. But their efforts are thwarted by the dangerous impact of the world outside their homes, by influences from which their best and most constant efforts cannot shield their children and against which they strive in vain to fortify them.The remedies for juvenile delinquency are suggested by the very sources of the evil.First, there must be a return to domestic virtues. The movement for the family rosary is a step in the right direction. Parents must be impressed with the necessity of cultivating a genuine home life in which the whole family participates. Fathers and mothers must endeavor to know, supervise and to an extent share the recreation of their sons and daughters. Great care must be exercised over the choice of companions. Parental authority must be maintained and obedience insisted upon, lovingly but firmly, with a condign punishment for disobedience. Children must be filled with a sense of responsibility and of their vocation to play a role in human society, for which they have an obligation to prepare themselves. Cooperation must be given to school authorities, and parents must keep themselves constantly informed of the conduct and application of their children at school.The state and all social agencies must lose no opportunity of insisting on the sanctity of marriage and the nobility of family life; that married life is something to be entered into carefully and prayerfully, since it is a vocation to provide citizens for the kingdom of heaven. Every influence must be brought to bear to prevent rash, ill-considered marriages and the unbridled promiscuity which inevitably occasions them.Especially we call upon the government to take effective steps to control those agencies of destruction: bad motion pictures and bad literature. These are protected by powerful vested interests, deaf to the voice of conscience and the appeal of public decency. The Church, the school and the home will make little progress against them unless the state awakens to its obligation to safeguard its citizens, especially those who because of inexperience and weakness are unable to protect themselves.But parents should not leave organized work exclusively to the state and social agencies. In many places in the world excellent results have been accomplished by the private group action of families who refused any longer to stand idly by while theatres, newspapers, newsstands, advertisers and other cardinal offenders in this matter worked to undermine the virtue of their children. These parents united in their resistance to the evil and first directed appeals to the offenders. When these failed, by the force of public opinion and other group sanctions they obtained a hearing and remedy.Another obvious step is to raise the standard of living among the poor, to provide employment, to pay decent wages, to make satisfactory housing available. All this will serve to alleviate the problem of juvenile delinquency. Though in general the proportion of crime among the poor is not greater than among the rich, the causes among the poor are more sharply economic and therefore admit more easily of an economic solution.There must be a great advance in the quality and quantity of religious instruction. More children must be given better instruction in their obligations to God and their duties as citizens. The law of religious instruction must be effectively implemented. This means on the one hand, that the government will not tolerate any efforts to sabotage its implementation, and on the other hand, the Catholics must be ready to put themselves at the disposition of their parish priests as teachers to provide this instruction.To these general measures, aimed at preventing the rise of delinquency, must be added specific remedies for the problem as it actually exists. Society must admit its obligations to the delinquent child and take a patient optimistic interest in his adjustment. To this end, clubs, recreational centers, parks, and guidance centers must be established and maintained. The official handling of youthful crime must avoid the two errors of excessive leniency and excessive severity. Young men and women must be made to understand that society will not tolerate attacks upon its well-being and existence from any source, and that wrongdoing will receive a swift, just and suitable punishment. On the other hand, the official handling of youthful crime should take into consideration the age of the offender, who should be tried by special courts, where the prevailing mood will be paternal. The offenders will be shielded during the process from contact with hardened criminals and other evil influences. Trained specialists should be employed to ascertain to what extent physical and psychic causes contribute to the delinquency, so that proper remedies may be provided. And finally by means of vocational training, apprentice programs and placement bureaus, skillful, gainful and interesting occupations should be made possible for those for whom idleness is the occasion of wrongdoing.In all remedies, general and specific, it cannot be too often emphasized that religion must be the basis of all true reform. The most fundamental reason why young people are delinquent is because they are offered no convincing reason for being otherwise. Elders, who "say and do not", urge respectability and civic virtue-- a kind of temperate sinfulness; but youth is not deceived by such hollow preaching. It is only the support which sound religious doctrine and practise give to the voice of conscience, with the example of Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother, which can hope to achieve any measure of success against the violent tempests of adolescent rebellion.The Hierarchy cannot end this statement without a word of warm praise for those persons who, whether in government, civic and religious agencies or in their private capacity are devoting themselves to the solution of this problem. We know that there are many public officials and private citizens who are thoroughly alive to the menace of the evil and are generously and unselfishly giving their time, talents and resources to its solution. It is certain that they will receive an abundant reward from Him Who always showed His predilection for youth.July 26, 1957, Feast of St. Anne, Mother of the Blessed Virgin MaryFor the Philippine Hierarchy:(Sgd.)+JUAN C. SISON, D.D. Apostolic Administrator, sede plena, Nueva SegoviaPresident, CWO Administrative Council

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2552

| People v. Allen People v. Allen ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT — FIRST DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,v.ALFRED ALLEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. RICHARD J. FITZGERALD, Judge, presiding. MR. JUSTICE DRUCKER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT: Defendant appeals from a sentence of five to nine years after the revocation of probation. The sole contention on appeal is that the sentence is excessive. The defendant was originally indicted for the offense of "theft from person" in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 38, par. 16-1. After a bench trial defendant was found guilty. The court admitted defendant to probation for a period of five years on the condition that he serve the first year in the House of Correction. On May 25, 1968, the defendant was observed by two police officers in the act of grabbing a purse from a lady. The victim fell to the ground and was cut on a piece of glass in the ensuing struggle. Defendant was apprehended by the police officers. Defendant was indicted and on October 10, 1968, he was tried and convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to serve five to nine years. On January 10, 1969, a hearing was held to determine if defendant's probation should be revoked. On the basis of defendant's conviction for attempted robbery his probation was terminated. In mitigation defendant's counsel asked only that the sentence to be imposed should run concurrently with the sentence for attempted robbery. The court sentenced defendant to a term of five to nine years with said sentence to run concurrently with his sentence for attempted robbery. The Illinois Supreme Court, in People v. Miller, 33 Ill.2d 439, 444, set forth the test for determining whether a sentence is excessive: "Where it is contended that the sentence imposed in a particular case is excessive, though within the limits prescribed by the legislature, we will not disturb the sentence unless it clearly appears that the penalty constitutes a substantial departure from the fundamental law and its spirit and purpose, or that it is not proportioned to the nature of the offense." People v. Smith, 14 Ill.2d 95. See also People v. Taylor, 33 Ill.2d 417, and People v. Davis, 111 Ill. App.2d 68. In the instant case the violation of probation involved the commission of a crime in which violence occurred. Further, the sentence imposed was within the limits prescribed by the statute. *fn1 We find no reason to reduce the sentence. ENGLISH and LEIGHTON, JJ., concur.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2590

Studying How The Blind Perceive Race By Kat Chow A biopic about the musician Ray Charles, who became completely blind by age 7, inspired Osagie Obasogie to research how blind people 'see' race. Color blindness is the dominant theory in courts, which says that for the law to be fair, it should be blind to race. Originally published on September 30, 2013 12:55 pm Law professor Osagie Obasogie walked into a movie theater to see "Ray," a biopic about the musician Ray Charles, and walked out with a question that would drive eight years worth of research. "I was really struck by how Ray Charles had this really interesting understanding of race throughout his life even though he was blind throughout his early childhood," says Obasogie, who teaches at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. "I just wanted to learn more about how blind people understood race. I never had thought about it." Obasogie started by interviewing 110 individuals who were blind since birth. His full research on the topic will be published in a book, Blinded by Sight: Seeing Race In The Eyes Of The Blind, that hits shelves in November. The professor mentioned that some of the individuals he interviewed took offense at the notion that sighted people would think blind people are unaware of race. And that not being aware of race somehow made blind people morally superior. Race factors into so much of our everyday lives, but as the professor discovered, it can mean even more to those for whom skin color isn't readily apparent. Beth Rival, president of the Connecticut affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind lost her sight at age 19. "You know, sometimes we're more sensitive [to differences in race]. It doesn't matter to me if someone's black or orange or whatever. It never has, except I did grow up where my parents were in a white neighborhood ... but those prejudices are with you depending on where you grow up." "What mattered to blind people most was the very trait that they could not directly perceive," said Obasogie. "And the reason why it mattered to them so much was because they were part of the social process and part of the social influences that teaches us to treat these differences as particularly important."Five Research Highlights 1. De-bunking "Color Blindness"Obasogie hopes that his research will debunk the notion of color blindness as applied to race. That is, the belief that race isn't a social or political issue, rather, it is something we see and is merely skin-deep. "The idea of color blindness as a metaphor plays upon a certain assumption on what race is and how it plays out in the blind community," Obasogie said. "So it's a metaphor that suggests that those who are blind or can't see race necessarily, kind of live in this racial utopia where they don't have to deal with this messy world of race because of their blindness." This racial utopia, Obasogie argues, doesn't exist. Color blindness, Obasogie says, pointing to affirmative action debates, is the predominant way in which courts talk about race. For the law to be fair, it should be blind to race. Think of the blindfolded Lady Justice holding her scales. 2. Blindness, Race And Dating Race impacts all relationships, but it does so in surprising ways when skin color can't be seen. One of those interviewed told the story of his friend, who is blind and white: "He was going to college and he had started working with a reader. She was very attractive to him, and he started seeing her. Then, somebody told him that she was black, and he broke it off. He broke off the relationship. He justified it by saying that it would not have worked, in the South, for a white man to be involved with a black woman." Obasogie also mentions a participant he calls Keith, a blind black man who said race is a major factor in his dating life. When meeting other blind people, Keith said they'd find a reason to touch his hair: "A lot of my black blind friends have sort of a joke because when someone doesn't know our race — especially the males — they'll find some way to reach out and touch our hair. ... People always come up with some kind of way to [touch our heads]. They'll massage you or do something ... I think [this happens] mostly in dating. You know, if they're going to make some decisions. I've seen people that seem sort of interested in someone and then discover that they're black and change their intentions. I go to a lot of the conventions now, the national conventions [for the blind]. And there are people trying to meet somebody [to date]. You can see that they're kind of pursuing somebody [that they find attractive]. And they'll go for the hair and then they'll change their mind. They're always still friendly ... but you're black." 3. Speech Isn't A Reliable Indication Of Race Obasogie considers voice and accent to be "secondary measures" that help clue a blind person in on someone's race. The professor found that while some of the people he interviewed said they relied on voice to determine a person's race, it wasn't always accurate, which could lead to some interesting situations. "Often an accent was an unreliable marker of difference — and they'd hear an accent and assume that person was of a certain race, but then were told that no, [the person] wasn't. So a number of blind people were told at a very young age to not rely on accents." (Obviously, this is just as true for those of us with sight. Speech is just not an accurate marker of someone's race.) Trying to play guess-the-accent can trip you up. But combining that with other senses, Obasogie said, like touch — for example, feeling differences in skin or hair textures — might help someone who is blind conjure a better sense of another person, almost a visual sense. 4. A Different Vision Of Race It's easy to understand that the notion of how blind people see race could prompt all sorts of interesting questions about what race means.Consider Dave Chappelle's "Blind Supremacy" skit from 2003, in which the comic plays Clayton Bigsby, a blind white supremacist who doesn't know he's black. Bigsby indulges in all sorts of gratuitous hate speech, bashing Latinos, Asians and blacks. He even goes to a KKK meeting dressed in a white robe and hood. Bigsby clearly doesn't know he's black. The joke, of course, is that Bigsby is in fact a member of the very group he so viciously hates. "While I think most people find [the Chappelle skit] funny because it seems utterly absurd, there's actually a lot more to it than most people realize in terms of portraying how race can be a polarizing issue in the blind community," says Obasogie. "Blind people aren't any more or less racist than anyone else. Indeed, part of the point of this project is that vision has very little to do with it. What matters are the social practices that train us to see and experience race in certain ways, regardless of whether we are sighted or not." 5. Blind People 'See' Race By Seeking Out Visual Information Obasogie emphasizes that blind people use a combination of cues to infer someone's race. Together, he believes these cues add up to a kind of visual description, a form of seeing. Put simply, when the color or someone's skin isn't easily detectable, some blind people rely on other cues that help create a visual; cues such as the texture of someone's hair.Bruce Sexton, who has been blind since birth, says it's natural for everybody — including the blind — to distinguish a person based on race. "I think that we do categorize and group based on the information that we have ... I come from a very diverse place and I still do group people based on their race, their ethnicity, their religion — anything, everything, really. Their education," Sexton says. "Maybe, as a disabled person, I think of it even more and I try to break free of the stereotypes that come with that grouping. Obasogie emphasizes "blind people are not uniquely preoccupied with race. Rather, the findings simply draw attention to the fact that race affects everyone's lives and that blind people are not exempt simply because they cannot see. Seeing and experiencing race is a social rather than merely visual phenomenon."Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. TweetShareGoogle+EmailView the discussion thread. © 2016 KNAU Arizona Public Radio

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2605

Prop. 8: Imperial County's role in defending gay-marriage ban questioned December 6, 2010 | 11:06 A federal appeals court on Monday began hearing arguments on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, said one of the issues before the court is whether Imperial County, where voters overwhelmingly supported Prop. 8, has the authority to intervene in the case and defend the initiative. Here’s an analysis he provided to The Times: If Imperial County can intervene and defend Prop. 8, then there would be no need for supporters of Prop. 8 to have standing to do so. But both Judge Hawkins and Judge Smith seem very skeptical of the authority of the deputy clerk to seek to intervene on behalf of Imperial County. Both stressed that the clerk is not seeking to intervene and a deputy clerk lacks the authority to do this. Judge Smith also has raised the issue of whether the clerk is a state officer or a local officer. If the clerk is a state officer, then the clerk would not have the authority to represent the state -- only the governor and the attorney general can do so. The clear sense so far is that all three judges are very skeptical of allowing Imperial County to intervene. As someone who has argued dozens of appellate cases, I empathize with Mr. Tyler, who represented a deputy clerk from Imperial County in seeking to intervene. It was clear from the time he came to the podium that none of the three judges thought that a deputy clerk has standing to represent the clerk or the county. He also made a major error in saying that the clerk was appointed and then having to correct himself and say that the clerk is elected. It is often difficult to read oral arguments to get a sense of the result, but the judges left little doubt that they do not believe that the deputy clerk has standing to represent Imperial County. This is important because if the supporters of Prop. 8 do not have standing and Imperial County cannot intervene to appeal, then the appeal must be dismissed for lack of standing. FULL COVERAGE: Judges question whether gay-marriage foes have legal standing Judges must decide whether backers of same-sex marriage have legal standing to appeal Arguments before court go well beyond gay marriage, Pepperdine professor says Photo: Erwin Chemerinsky UCI

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2608

Oral Argument in Arizona v. United States The oral argument today in the closely watched Arizona v. United States, involving the constitutionality of several provisions of Arizona's notorious SB 1070 that the DOJ argues are pre-empted by federal law and which the lower courts agreed. These four provisions at issue are: Section 2(B): requires every Arizona law enforcement officer to verify the immigration status of every person stopped, arrested, or detained if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country unlawfully; Section 3: criminalizes the failure to carry an “alien registration document;'" Section 5(C): criminalizes undocumented immigrants applying for employment or being employed; Section 6: authorizes warrantless arrests if based upon probable cause that a person has committed a deportable crime. During the oral argument Justice Sotomayor quickly interrupted Paul Clement, arguing for Arizona,with a focus on the controversial stop provision: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- could I interrupt, and turning to 2(B), could you tell me what the State's view is -- the Government proposes that it should be read on its face one way, and I think the State is arguing that there's a narrower way to read it. But am I to understand that under the State's position in this action, the only time that the inquiry about the status of an individual rises is after they've had probable cause to arrest that individual for some other crime? Sotomayor persisted raising the "critical" issue of how long and under what circumstances the state would detain someone. After some discussion, including queries by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, Justice Scalia asked whether any such problems were "immigration" problems or Fourth Amendment problems. Yet the questions on 2(B), in conjunction with Section 6, continued to dominate, until Justice Roberts shifted the inquiry: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, maybe it's a good time to talk about some of the other sections, in particular section 5(C). Now, that does seem to expand beyond the Federal government's determination about the types of sanctions that should govern the employment relationship. You talk about supply and demand. The Federal government, of course, prohibits the employment, but it also imposes sanctions with respect to application for work. And the State of Arizona, in this case, is imposing some significantly greater sanctions. Clement admitted that Arizona was imposing "different" sanctions, but that the state only targeted employment that was already prohibited by federal law, making it a "weak case for preemption." Later, Clement answered another question from Justice Sotomayor by saying that there was a "big difference" between "Congress deciding not as a matter of Federal law to address employees with an additional criminal prohibition, and saying that that decision itself has preemptive effect. That's a rather remarkable additional step." He then essentially argued that the Congressional immigration statutes were out-of-date. Roberts again took charge and turned the argument to Section 3, the state crime of failure to carry a registration document, which Clement argued was "parallel" to the federal requirements. Arguing for the United States, Solicitor General Verrilli had barely finished "may it please the Court," when Chief Justice Roberts posed this query: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Before you get into what the case is about, I'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about. No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it? I saw none of that in your brief. When Verrilli answered "That's correct," Roberts again repeated his statement: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. So this is not a case about ethnic profiling. Justice Scalia quickly articulated a states rights perspective. Responding to the federal government's position that "the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government," Scalia asked: JUSTICE SCALIA: All that means, it gives authority over naturalization, which we've expanded to immigration. But all that means is that the Government can set forth the rules concerning who belongs in this country. But if, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power? What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders? Chief Justice Roberts explicitly stated "I don't see the problem with section 2(B)," perhaps explaining his earlier effort to clarify that the case was not about "racial profiling." Yet the argument did return to this issue. VERRILLI: . . . . Now, we are not making an allegation of racial profiling; nevertheless, there are already tens of thousands of stops that result in inquiries in Arizona, even in the absence of S.B. 1070. It stands to reason that the legislature thought that that wasn't sufficient and there needed to be more. And given that you have a population in Arizona of 2 million Latinos, of whom only 400,000 at most are there unlawfully -- JUSTICE SCALIA: Sounds like racial profiling to me. GENERAL VERRILLI: And they're -- and given that what we're talking about is the status of being unlawfully present -- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you have the statistics as to how many arrests there are and how many -- and what the -- percentage of calls before the statute [SB1070]? The discussions of preemption were often less focused on Congressional intent than on generalized federalism concerns, although at one point Chief Justice Roberts seemed to highlight the only precedent that mattered. Attempting to engage in an analogy, Verrilli argued: . . . . if you ask one of your law clerks to bring you the most important preemption cases from the last years, and they rolled in the last -- the last hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports and said, well, they are in there. That -- that doesn't make it -- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What if they just rolled in Whiting? CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That's a pretty good one. The analogy was never completed. But if Arizona v. United States mimics Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, decided last May and upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act, we can expect a fractured opinion ultimately finding in favor of Arizona. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2012/04/oral-argument-in-arizona-v-united-states.html Oral Argument Analysis, Preemption, Supremacy Clause, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef016765b30e47970b Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oral Argument in Arizona v. United States:

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2683

| FREEDMAN v. MAGUIRE FREEDMAN v. MAGUIRE The opinion of the court was delivered by: EDELSTEIN Defendant moves to dismiss and for summary judgment in an action by plaintiff for breach of contract seeking, among other relief, specific performance, damages and an accounting. Plaintiff alleges an oral agreement, entered into in or about October of 1948, with defendant, a producer of oil and gas in Oklahoma and Texas, whereby the latter undertook to deliver to the former leases of a certain type and description, namely, upon properties which would reimburse plaintiff her total costs within two years from the completion and commencement of operation of the wells. under the contract as it is set forth the defendant further agreed that for those leases whose wells did not indicate by production records, upon completion and operation, that all of plaintiff's costs would be reimbursed within the two year period defendant would credit her account with those costs and thereupon invest the funds so credited in other of the defendant's leases upon the same terms and conditions. It is claimed that since the agreement plaintiff's investments have for the most part been placed in leases not meeting the contract specifications and that the defendant did not carry out his obligation to credit and reinvest. Defendant denies the existence of any oral agreement and contends that his transactions with the plaintiff are all evidenced by written purchase agreements which are inconsistent with the existence of any oral agreement. On December 3, 1951, the plaintiff instituted an action in the Supreme Court of New York to enforce her alleged agreement. Settlement negotiations were undertaken, and in December of 1951, in Florida, plaintiff avers that a second oral agreement was consummated, incorporating all terms and conditions of the prior agreement. Subsequently, the Supreme Court action was terminated with plaintiff executing a general release, prepared by the defendant, on January 9, 1952. Simultaneously with the execution and delivery of the general release was the execution of an agreement (dated November 30, 1951) concerning two specific leases. Plaintiff maintains that the second agreement was breached just as was the earlier one. Clearly, the causes of action set out in the complaint are sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss, and defendant is really pressing his motion for a summary judgment. He argues that the complaint may be disposed of as a matter of law on the basis of the statute of frauds. New York Personal Property Law, McK.Consol.Laws, c. 41, Sec. 31; New York Real Property Law, McK.Consol.Laws, c. 50, Sec. 259. Whatever merit the argument may possess with respect to the alleged original agreement, which was presumably consummated in New York, the complaint avers a second agreement constituting in itself a new contract. And, having been consummated in Florida, it presents a difficult conflict of laws problem to which the defendant has not addressed himself, and which, consequently, will not be resolved on this motion. See New York Annotations. Restatement of Conflict of Laws, Sec. 332. It is further contended that as a matter of law, the general release disposes of the case. The release, prepared on a printed form, contains typewritten exceptions of obligations of defendant to plaintiff growing out of the actual operations of oil and gas leases, and of 'any obligations created at or after the time of the execution of these presents.' That date of the execution of the release was January 9, 1952, and it would appear to be the plain meaning of the language that an agreement entered into the previous December is covered without being excepted. However, the defendant in his own affidavit states that the real consideration for the release is the agreement of November 30, 1951, executed and delivered simultaneously with the release. That agreement was by its terms limited to two specific properties, reciting that the parties had entered into other agreements covering other properties; and it further made provision for the delivery of 'a general release and discharge' of the defendant 'in respect of any matters or things growing out of the negotiations for the execution of' the agreements on the two described properties. Reading the release in the light of defendant's affidavit and of the November 30 contract lends some credibility to the plaintiff's contention that the release was limited solely to matters involving the two specified leases. A liberal construction of the rule against disturbing the plain meaning of the language in a written contract would acknowledge the principle 'that the sense to be enforced is the special sense, if any, which the parties have fixed upon; but let there be the most convincing proof that they have distinctly and mutually so agreed, and let this process of interpreting their actual words not be made a cloak for evading the other rule against substituting their extrinsic for their written terms.' Wigmore, 3rd ed., vol. IX, Sec. 2463, p. 207. Should such a position be adopted by the trial judge, a distinct issue of fact will be presented. I am not inclined, at this stage of the proceedings, to rule upon a point of admissibility of evidence which is more properly to be disposed of at the trial. Whether the oral agreement is so lacking in mutuality and definiteness as to be unenforceable, similarly, raises issues of fact, though they may appear to be simple of resolution. Likewise, an issue of fact appears over whether certain letters sent by defendant and 'signed' or 'accepted' by plaintiff are complete accounts stated covering all transactions between the parties or merely periodic statements showing leases from which an income was being received and amounts paid on account for various expenses in connection with those leases. Summary judgment, however, will be granted on the fourth cause of action. seeking damages for the defendants failure to proceed according to his representations about the drilling operations under one of the leases. Whether or not the writing which embraces the subject of those drilling arrangements is a contract to purchase which (with other similar writings) is inconsistent with any original oral agreement concerning the investment, credit and reinvestment of plaintiff's funds, it is in any event uncontradicted by the plaintiff's affidavit that the writing constitutes an agreement on drilling which is clearly inconsistent with the fourth cause of action. Similarly, judgment will be granted on the sixth cause of action, on the defendant's showing, without contradiction, that it is now moot. The defendant has also moved for an order joining the plaintiff's husband as a plaintiff on the ground that he is the real party in interest or a jointly interested party. The basis for the motion is an allegation that the husband has actually supplied the money involved in the transaction between plaintiff and defendant and has acted as though his wife's account were his own. But there is no assertion that plaintiff is not a real party in interest, nor is it contended that the husband's joinder is indispensable to the final determination of the case. See Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. 129, 139, 15 L. Ed. 158. And even assuming the husband's interest in the controversy, it does not appear that he is a necessary party. See State of Washington v. United States, 9 Cir., 87 F.2d 421, 427-428. The facts of the source of the money for the plaintiff's investments and of her husband's activities in those transactions do not, in themselves, require that he be summoned to appear in the action. Settle an order accordingly. 19530217

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2828

Home / News in Brief / Marra Named Legal Aid Award Winner Marra Named Legal Aid Award Winner By: Peter Vieth May 20, 2014 Christine E. Marra, a family and housing law attorney with the Virginia Poverty Law Center in Richmond, will receive the 2014 Virginia Legal Aid Award from the Virginia State Bar’s Access to Legal Services Committee. The award recognizes lawyers employed by legal aid societies licensed by the VSB. Recipients are chosen for their advocacy, quality of service, and impact beyond their service area. Marra began her legal career working with a legal aid program in the coalfields of Southwest Virginia. She was hired by the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society in Richmond, where she worked for thirteen years as a family and housing law attorney for the urban poor. In 2004 she joined the Virginia Poverty Law Center, which provides legal aid training and public policy advocacy. In nominating Marra, John E. Whitfield, executive director of Blue Ridge Legal Services Inc., said that Marra has done outstanding work leading the legal aid community’s advocacy in the areas of family law, children’s rights, and housing issues. State Sen. George L. Barker wrote: “For twenty-two years, (Marra) has worked to provide legal assistance to those who most need it and can least afford it.… I turn to her for counsel on issues related to poverty, housing discrimination, and access to education.” A nominating letter signed by seven members of the Virginia Poverty Law Center noted that Marra “has provided direct representation and legislative and regulatory advocacy on issues such as foster care, adoption, domestic violence, divorce, child support, public benefits and low-income housing. Her vigilance and persistence have led to reforms that make a measurable difference in the lives of Virginians who face hard times.” Marra graduated from the University of Virginia in 1988 and earned her law degree from the University of Richmond in 1991. The award will be presented during the VSB’s Annual Meeting June 13 in Virginia Beach. Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle 8:13 am Tue, May 20, 2014 Virginia Lawyers Weekly Peter Vieth Previous: Terminations: Self-auditing tips from hiring to firing Next: Lawyer covered for suspended colleague, VSB charges Leave a Reply Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment. Digital Edition

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2916

Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Savannah “No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar.” Abraham Lincoln Domestic Violence Minimized “Personality can open doors, but only character can keep them pen.” Elmer G. Letterman Domestic Violence - Georgia Anger Management Class Georgia – Anger Management Training Anger Management Course Black Women Seek Protection Closer to Home Run Date: 01/10/07 By Marie Tessier WeNews Correspondent African American women’s high rates of death at the hands of intimate partners lead advocates to cry out for more culturally sensitive, community-based services. Sixth in our “Dangerous Trends, Innovative Responses” eight-part series. (WOMENSENEWS)--Activists in the growing movement to support battered African American women say they agree on what's needed to stem domestic violence: more services that are culturally informed and integrated into victims' communities to help them overcome barriers to seeking help. "Color-blindness is not what you need if you're trying to serve diverse communities," says Oliver Williams, executive director of the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African-American Community at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. "The trend is toward an increase in community-based, faith-based and grassroots services." While the battered women's movement has long strived to serve all women, few projects can identify specific programs designed to reach out to diverse communities, Williams and others say. That can be a barrier to safety for black women, who tend to reach out for help through informal networks in their communities, such as a church, rather than consulting a shelter or hotline, Williams and other scholars and activists say. African American women face a higher risk for experiencing domestic violence than other women, according to the most recent data from the Justice Department. In fact, they are more than twice as likely to die at the hands of a spouse or a boyfriend. They are also at greater risk of more severe violence, according to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and the Bureau of Justice Statistics in Washington, D.C. "When you're talking about African American women, you're talking about everything bad about family violence, and then some," says Tonya Lovelace, executive director of the Women of Color Network, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence based in Harrisburg, Pa. "The way that communities of color experience violence is affected by our history, and by other issues." [See below for Editor's Note.] Research Sparse Research on domestic violence and African Americans is sparse, scholars and activists say. While some trends are generally accepted, it remains an open question how much race factors into higher rates of violence, scholars say. Much of the difference may simply reflect African Americans' disproportionate representation in lower-income groups. Some behaviors can be grouped by race, but differences can be deceiving, Williams says. "Black women are more likely to leave than other women, but they are also more likely to return," he says. "A lot of the reasons may speak more to poverty and a lack of resources, because a woman may just not have a different place to go." That's why many domestic violence agencies are increasing efforts to work with a wider variety of service providers in communities of color, advocates say. Organizations such as Atlanta's Black Church and Domestic Violence Institute, Williams' institute at the University of Minnesota and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence's Women of Color Network in Harrisburg, Pa., are all engaged in training domestic violence groups and community service agencies in each others' work. Much of the funding comes through the federal Violence Against Women Act, and much of the activity is coordinated and supported by the Violence Against Women Office at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. National groups such as the National Network to End Domestic Violence in Washington, D.C., and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence coordinate and facilitate the work. Income No Immunity While scholars and activists agree that higher rates of poverty among African Americans probably shape some statistics about violence, they are uniformly quick to point out that higher incomes do not immunize against domestic violence. An October 2006 article in Essence magazine, for example, details how Prince George's County, Md., the wealthiest predominantly black county in the nation, has a high rate of intimate partner homicide. According to the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, 48 people, mostly women, died there between 2001 and 2006 as a result of domestic violence, second only to Baltimore County, which had 72 deaths. One of the starkest realities for African American women is their vulnerability to homicide. And the risk of violence is higher for women in bigger cities, according to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for black women between the ages of 15 and 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Only young black men have a higher homicide rate, and only black men have a higher rate of intimate partner homicide than black women, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Barriers to Seeking Help Barriers to seeking help are believed to contribute to the higher rate of homicide for both women and men because violence has escalated to a greater degree before a woman can reach safety, scholars and activists generally agree. The homicide rate for black men has dropped more than for black women in recent decades, according to federal statistics. All the factors that contribute to greater violence probably explain the higher intimate partner homicide rate of black men, Lovelace says. "Black women get arrested more, we get convicted more, and we have had fewer places to go. The statistics don't account for self-defense." One of the biggest roadblocks to safety, says Tricia Bent-Goodley, a professor at Howard University in Washington, D.C., is the troubled, violent histories many black communities have with the police and social service agencies. That provides one more cultural barrier to seeking police intervention, even though African American women report intimate partner violence to the police more often--in 66.4 percent of incidents--than other women. In addition, black women face a greater likelihood of being arrested along with a perpetrator, and their children are more likely to end up in foster care when authorities are involved, Bent-Goodley said in a training Webcast last year. "If I'm being battered, the decision to pick up the phone to call for help is different for me," says Lovelace. "There are more black men incarcerated than there are in college, so that makes it a bigger burden, and I have to question whether he will be brutalized." Journalist Marie Tessier writes frequently about violence against women. Editor's note: Tonya Lovelace, Project Manager for the Women of Color Network, contacted Women's eNews after the posting of this article, expressing with deep concern that, absent the expanded context she provided in the interview, these quotations do not reflect accurately her beliefs about domestic violence and women of color. Lovelace was invited, and she agreed, to write a commentary further exploring this issue for February. Please watch for it. This series is supported by a special grant from Mary Kay Inc. WomensNews

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2983

Great Barrington's Magadini heading back to local court Monday, December 14, 2015 3:42 am By Derek [email protected] @DerekGentile on Twitter GREAT BARRINGTON — The town's most well-known homeless person has another court date. David Magadini, 68, of no known address, will be in court on Jan. 4 to answer to violations to a pair of "no trespassing" orders that were filed against him earlier this year. The two cases will both be heard that day, according to court documents. Magadini is already appealing seven other "no trespassing" orders for which he was sentnced to a month in jail in 2014. His appeal was heard last Monday in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Boston. A decision on that appeal is not expected for several months. In these most recent violations, Magadini is accused of trespassing at the Mason Library on Nov. 11 and at the Great Barrington branch of the Lee Bank on several occasions in October. According to the police report in the case, an employee of the Mason Library and her daughter were entering the library around midday when they noticed a pile of Magadini's belongings sitting on the handicap access ramp. She did not see Magadini, she said. As the victim was leaving, carrying a large container, Magadini approached her. Although Magadini usually moves around town at a relatively slow pace, "he was on me like a shot," the victim told Great Barrington police. Magadini demanded to know what was in the container. When the victim refused to tell him, he appeared to become angry. The victim said she was frightened by his behavior. He eventually left the area. In the second incident, an employee at the Lee Savings Bank on Main Street reported to police that Magadini had been sleeping in the vestibule of the bank for the past several days. Surveillance video showed him there on the early mornings of Oct. 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13. As a result of the incidents, Magadini was charged with two counts of violating a "no trespass" order and one count of disorderly conduct in connection with the incident at the library. Contact Derek Gentile at 413-496-6251.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/2989

Google Book Scanning Project Is Fair Use, Says Appeals Court On Friday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in an a long-running dispute over Google's efforts to scan tens of millions of books.In an important ruling that will expand the boundaries of fair use, the federal appeals hands the search giant a victory over the claims of copyright holders who insisted that the "Google Print" and "Library Project" went too far."Google's making of a digital copy to provide a search function is a transformative use, which augments public knowledge by making available information about Plaintiffs' books without providing the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by the Plaintiffs' copyright interest in the original works or derivatives of them," states an opinion written by 2nd Circuit judge Pierre Leval. Here's the complete opinion.The lawsuit was filed by the Authors Guild in 2005, a year after Google announced it was working with major libraries on a significant scanning project. At one point, the parties came to a $125 million settlement, but it was rejected by the judge as unfair to class members. The Association of American Publishers then came to their own settlement, and Google made changes to the project by making a smaller portion of books available for consumption online (with the rest available for purchase) and removing scanned books upon request. Book authors pushed forward with their own copyright claims.In November 2013, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Denny Chin granted Google's motion for summary judgment and spoke about the public benefit of what Google was doing, writing how "Google Books has become an important tool for libraries and librarians and cite-checkers as it helps to identify and find books."The case then went up on appeal, where it has been closely-watched with the Motion Picture Association of America, practically every labor guild representing authors in media and entertainment, and consumer groups weighing in. Since being heard by the 2nd Circuit last December, the dispute has only grown in importance with the television industry experiencing its own version of the book-scanning case in Fox's legal war with the media monitoring service TVEyes.Today, the 2nd Circuit looks at two main aspects of "Google Print": allowing users to search a book's text and allowing users to view snippets. The appeals court weighs that against the authors' contention that Google has usurped their opportunity to license these markets, and that Google has its own profit motivation. Analyzing these arguments in the context of the four factors that make up fair use -- the purpose and character of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken and the effect of the use upon the potential market -- the federal appeals court comes to the conclusion that the good outweighs the bad, that the limits of copyright authority must make way to public benefit. And along the way, the appellate court makes observations that could impact current and futures disputes like search and snippet functions not being recognizable derivative work rights.In sum, Leval writes, "The purpose the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google's commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use."This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3103

Man pays $30K in rent, faces evictionStory Highlights Foreclosure notices up 112 percent in 2008 Man pays $30,000 in rent: "Is somebody going to knock at the door and throw me out" Attorney says "there is very little in the way of protections for tenants" Mom lives in fear of eviction: "I don't have anywhere to go" Next Article in Living » Read VIDEO MAP By Thelma Gutierrez and Wayne Drash CNN LAGUNA HILLS, California (CNN) -- Charles Nelson has paid about $30,000 in rent since moving into a spacious four-bedroom home in August. He was stunned when a real estate agent knocked on his door recently and said the home was in foreclosure. Charles Nelson paid $30,000 in rent, yet he faces eviction because his landlord is getting foreclosed upon. His landlord had not paid the mortgage since he moved in and the bank is now demanding the house back. Nelson will also lose his $7,700 security deposit. When he confronted the landlord, he says, he was given a terse response: "That's none of your business." "I said, 'I beg your pardon. It is my business. I mean, is somebody going to knock at the door and throw me out -- throw my family out, or what?' " he said. Watch renters lose out big time in foreclosure » Nelson, the owner of PCH Auto Sales, lives in the upper-middle class enclave of Laguna Hills, south of Los Angeles, with his girlfriend and two sons from previous marriages. More than 100 miles away in the working-class city of Palmdale, Fai Nomaaea -- a 35-year-old mother of eight -- can relate. The single mom was cleaning the yard when a man handed her a notice of foreclosure. Like Nelson, she had been paying her rent on time every month. She now lives in fear every day. "I don't know what's going to happen the next day," she said. "I don't know if they're going to come to the door and tell us that we have to move, and I don't have anywhere to go." For Nomaaea, getting booted from the home presents another hardship: She lives on a fixed income and can afford about $1,200 a month in rent. It also means finding a new school for her children. Her 10-year-old daughter, Jeaah, said she prays to God every night. "I ask Him, I hope I get new friends and they like me and stuff, and that I like them back," the girl said. Stories like these are becoming more common, with renters becoming victims of the nation's mortgage meltdown through no fault of their own, experts say. iReport: Tell us how the economy is treating you "We know it's a growing problem," said Rick Sharga, vice president of marketing for RealtyTrac, a company that tracks foreclosures across the country. Don't Miss Mom forced to live in car with dogs When a relative in need wants to move in Issue #1: America's money Where tax rebate cash is headed "It really is a frightening issue for tenants that have no way of knowing until almost the last minute that a landlord is defaulting on a property." The number of households to receive foreclosure notices for the first quarter of 2008 was up 112 percent from the same time last year, according to RealtyTrac. See skyrocketing foreclosure filings » Sharga said that more than 38 percent of properties in foreclosure through the end of April were classified as "not-owner occupied," meaning they were second homes, investment homes or rental property. That's roughly 280,000 of the nation's 720,000 foreclosed properties. The hardest-hit areas are California, Arizona, Nevada and Florida. "What you had was dramatically overheated markets where people overextended themselves to buy overvalued properties and they used risky loans to get those properties," Sharga said. Foreclosure laws are governed state by state, and there is not much renters can do when their landlords get foreclosed on. There is no guarantee of being allowed to stay in the homes or ways to get their security deposits back. "There is very little in the way of protections for tenants," said Nadine Cohen, an attorney for Greater Boston Legal Services, which represents low-income people in Boston. "Many times, the tenants don't even know their buildings are being foreclosed." Cohen said some states in the Northeast have begun introducing legislation to protect renters from being evicted. A U.S. congressional bill that would have addressed the issue has been held up in conference committee. "People who are continuing to pay their rent are really victims of this mortgage foreclosure crisis and need to be protected. They haven't done anything wrong. They've lived up to the tenets of their lease; they paid their rent," said John Taylor, president CEO of National Community Reinvestment Coalition, which works to promote access to basic banking services. "It simply smacks against all that is fair in our democratic society for people who have no control over bad decisions of other people, but ... they're impacted by this." Sharga said that in many cases, renters want to buy the properties being foreclosed, but the banks force them out anyway. "It boggles the mind. ... We're dealing with laws and regulations that really weren't made with this kind of situation in mind," he said. Nelson knows all about that. He called the bank to offer to buy the home he's renting but was told that he has to move out first and then make a bid. Now, he lives day-to-day, not knowing when he'll have to leave. "There could be a knock on the door, saying we have 10 days, two weeks. I don't know." CNN's Traci Tamura and Gregg Canes contributed to this report. All About U.S. National Economy • Economic Issues Sound Off: Your opinions and comments Post a comment | iReport.com: Put your thoughts on video

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3211

Star Air owes $300K to drivers LawOSHAtruck driverstrucking industry November 29, 2013 A truck driver for Star Air Inc. was stopped by West Virginia State Police and cited for hauling an excess load without a commercial driver’s license, operating an overweight trailer, and driving without a logbook. Citations also were issued because the truck did not have its U.S. Department of Transportation number, company name, or home base displayed. The driver told a fellow company driver, who also was operating without the proper information displayed, about the citations. They both refused to drive until the issues were corrected. Subsequently, Star Air dismissed them. The terminated drivers contacted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and filed complaints against Star Air and its owner, Robert R. Custer, alleging that they had been fired in retaliation for activities protected by the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act’s whistleblower regulation. Akron Reserve Ammunition Inc. was also named in the lawsuit, because it also is owned by Custer and allegedly is the successor to Star Air. Now, the North Canton, Ohio-based carriers and Custer have been ordered by a Labor Department administrative law judge to reinstate the two drivers and pay back wages. The decision was upheld by the Administrative Review Board, which issues final decisions for the secretary of labor involving worker protection laws. The companies and Custer must pay the wrongfully terminated drivers an agreed upon amount of $302,000 over a three-year period. If they default on the payments, the court can order that the entire amount awarded be paid, which was $685,785.22. “These drivers were fired for trying to protect themselves and the driving public,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “No truck driver should be forced to drive while tired, sick or in violation of truck weight or hours-of-service requirements. OSHA will continue to defend America’s truck drivers against unscrupulous employers who unlawfully retaliate against drivers who assert their right to drive safely.” Drivers who believe they have been terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct can file a complaint with the secretary of labor for an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program. For more information, visit: www.whistleblowers.gov.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3243

en - English (sélectionné) Ce document n'est pas disponible dans votre langue et vous est proposé dans une autre langue parmi celles disponibles dans la barre des langues. Procédure : 2011/2524(RSP)Cycle de vie en séanceCycle relatif au document : B7-0067/2011Textes déposés : Débats : Textes adoptés : MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION 114k 69k See also joint motion for a resolution RC-B7-0043/2011 PE455.895v01-00 B7-0067/2011 with request for inclusion in the agenda for the debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law pursuant to Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure on Iran, in particular the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh Charles Tannock, Struan Stevenson, Marek Henryk Migalski, Tomasz Piotr Poręba, Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Ryszard Czarnecki on behalf of the ECR Group NB: This motion for a resolution is available in the original language only. European Parliament resolution on Iran, in particular the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh B7‑0067/2011 The European Parliament, – having regard to its previous resolutions on Iran, notably that of 10 February 2010; – having regard to its previous annual report of 23 November 2010 on human rights in the world 2009; – having regard to the joint statement by the EU and the USA of 8 February 2010 calling on the Iranian Government to fulfil its human rights obligations; – having regard to the Council statement on Iran of 10/11 December 2009; – having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Iran is a party; – having regard to the statement of 14 June by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; – having regard to the report of the UN Secretary-General of 23 September 2009 on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the statement on Iran issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 4 March 2010; – having regard to the statement on Human rights defenders in Iran by The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on 23 November 2010; – having regard to Rule 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure. A. whereas Nasrin Sotoudeh, a prominent human rights lawyer in Iran, was arrested on 4 September 2010 on charges of spreading propaganda and conspiring to harm state security; B. whereas subsequently, on 9 January 2011, Iranian authorities sentenced Nasrin Sotoudeh to eleven years in prison for charges that include "activities against national security" and "propaganda against the regime."; C. whereas Nasrin Sotoudeh has been barred from practicing law and from leaving Iran for twenty years; D. whereas Nasrin Sotoudeh is one of many Human rights defenders whom have been arbitrarily arrested, detained and imprisoned by Iranian authorities, including recently Shiva Nazarahari, co-founder of Committee of Human Rights Reporters and a prominent activist, who was sentenced On 7 January 2011 to four years in prison and 74 lashes; E. whereas the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay expressed on 23 November 2010 renewed concern for the fate of human rights activists in Iran and whom remains concerned that Nasrin Sotoudeh’s case is part of a much broader crackdown as a result of which the situation of human rights defenders in Iran is growing more and more difficult. 1. Expresses serious doubts as to the legitimacy, transparency and fairness of the trial that resulted in the sentencing of Nasrin Sotoudeh and to the proportionality of the sentence; 2. Calls on the Iranian Parliament to amend the Iranian law allowing the government to deny due-process rights, such as the right of defendants to adequate legal representation; 3. Calls for the immediate release of all those detained by the Iranian authorities for defending human rights within Iran; 4. Continues to be concerned that the human rights dialogue with Iran has been interrupted since 2004 due to a lack of cooperation from Iran, calls on the Iranian authorities to resume this dialogue with a view to ensuring the sustainability of those reforms and consolidate the involvement of all Iranian human rights defenders and civil society representatives in policy-making processes, reinforcing the role played by them in the general political discourse; 5. Remains greatly concerned that Iran has continued to suppress independent human rights defenders and members of civil society, and that serious violations of human rights have persisted, even increased; condemns the arbitrary arrest, torture and imprisonment of human rights defenders for their work, on the charge of "activities contrary to national security"; 6. Reminds the Iranian authorities that in order to develop fruitful relations with the EU, Iran must guarantee fundamental human rights and respect for the principles of democracy, freedom of expression and the rule of law, as this is a prerequisite for all countries which maintain political and economic relations with the EU; emphasises that the possible conclusion of a cooperation and trade agreement between Iran and the EU is contingent on respect for these values, 7. Calls on the Commission and Council to devise additional measures in the context of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and European immigration policy in order actively to protect Iranian human rights defenders; 8. Pays tribute to the courage of all those Iranian citizens who actively seek to defend the human rights of others; 9. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the High Representative, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the UN Secretary-General, the UN Human Rights Council and the Government and Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Dernière mise à jour: 18 janvier 2011Avis juridique

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3256

News & Events Testimony Congressional Testimony 2015 Congressional Testimony 2014 Congressional Testimony 2013 Testimonies Prior to 2013 "Progress and Challenges: The State of Tobacco Use and Regulation in the U.S." Statement ofMitchell Zeller, J.D.Director, Center for Tobacco ProductsFood and Drug AdministrationDepartment of Health and Human ServicesBefore theCommittee on Health, Education, Labor and PensionsUnited States Senate May 15, 2014INTRODUCTIONMr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Mitch Zeller, Director of the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss FDA’s activities in implementing the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (Tobacco Control Act), since it was signed into law on June 22, 2009.This January we marked 50 years since the first Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health, and how we’ve learned so much about tobacco use as the leading cause of preventable disease and death in this country. We’ve shifted the perception of smoking from an accepted national pastime to a discouraged threat to health—and more than halved smoking rates in this country. This year’s Surgeon General’s Report highlighted 50 years of progress in tobacco control and prevention, presented new data on the health consequences of tobacco use, and detailed initiatives that can end the tobacco epidemic in the United States.But the fact of the matter is, for all the progress we’ve made over these past five decades, tobacco-use remains the leading cause of avoidable death here in the United States and also around the world. Each year, more than 480,000 Americans lose their lives to tobacco-related illness. This recent Surgeon General’s Report also added new diseases to the list of those known to be caused by smoking: liver cancer, colorectal cancer, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as adding strokes caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. And each day in the United States, more than 3,200 youth under age 18 try their first cigarette and more than 700 youth under age 18 become daily smokers. If we fail to reverse these trends, 5.6 million American children who are alive today, will die prematurely due to smoking later in life. The Tobacco Control ActIn 2009, the Congress passed, and the President signed, the Tobacco Control Act, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to authorize FDA to oversee the manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of regulated tobacco products and protect the public from the harmful effects of tobacco product use. This new authority gave FDA comprehensive tools to protect the public from the harmful effects of tobacco use through science-based tobacco product regulation.FDA’s traditional “safe and effective” standard for evaluating medical products does not apply to tobacco products. With limited exceptions, FDA evaluates new tobacco products based on a public health standard that considers the risks and benefits of the tobacco product to the population as a whole, including users and non-users. Similarly, when developing regulations, the law generally requires FDA to apply a public health approach that considers the effect of the regulatory action on the population as a whole, not just on individual users, taking into account initiation and cessation of tobacco use.Under the statute, FDA had immediate authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The Tobacco Control Act also authorized FDA to deem other tobacco products to be subject to the Agency’s regulatory authority in Chapter IX of the FD&C Act. On April 24, 2014, FDA issued a proposed rule (the “proposed deeming rule”) to deem additional products that meet the statutory definition of a “tobacco product” (which includes “any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption” that is not a drug, device, or combination product under the FD&C Act) to be subject to FDA's regulatory authority.[1] Under the proposed rule, products that would be “deemed” to be subject to FDA regulation, include currently unregulated marketed products, such as electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), cigars, pipe tobacco, nicotine gels, waterpipe (or hookah) tobacco, and dissolvables not already under the FDA’s authority. Manufacturers of newly deemed tobacco products would be required, among other things, to:Register their establishments with FDA, report product and ingredient listings, and report harmful and potentially harmful constituents;Market new tobacco products only after FDA review;Make direct and implied claims of reduced risk only if FDA confirms that scientific evidence supports the claim and that marketing the product will promote public health; andNot distribute free samples.In addition, under the proposed rule, the following provisions would apply to newly “deemed” tobacco products:Minimum age and identification restrictions to prevent sales to underage youth;Requirements to bear certain health warnings; andProhibition of vending machine sales, unless in a facility that never admits youth.Issuing the proposed deeming rule was an important step forward in regulating these products, and finalizing the rule after a thorough review of comments is a priority for the Agency. Products that are marketed for therapeutic purposes will continue to be regulated as medical products under the FDA’s existing drug and device authorities in the FD&C Act. Between 2008 and 2010, FDA had previously attempted to address electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as unapproved drug/device combination products. FDA’s action was challenged, and ultimately the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that while FDA could choose to regulate e-cigarettes and other products “made or derived from tobacco” under its new tobacco authorities, it could not regulate these products under FDA’s drug and device authority. Sottera, Inc. v. Food and Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Finalizing the proposed deeming rule would bring these tobacco products under FDA’s regulatory authority.FDA welcomes comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. We asked for comment on a number of specific issues, on which we look forward to receiving input, research, data and other information from the public to help inform the development of the Final Rule.Accomplishments Since Enactment of the Tobacco Control ActIn the nearly five years since enactment of the Tobacco Control Act, FDA has made significant progress toward establishing a comprehensive, effective, and sustainable framework for tobacco product regulation that is designed to reduce the impact of tobacco on public health, to keep people, especially our nation’s youth, from starting to use tobacco, and to encourage consumers to quit. These major strides include, among other things:Establishing an initial framework for industry registration, product listing, and submission of information on ingredients and harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) in tobacco products and tobacco smoke;Requiring cigarette, roll-your-own, and smokeless tobacco product manufacturers to seek FDA authorization before marketing a new product or making changes to existing products;Implementing and enforcing the FD&C Act’s prohibition on the use of marketing terms for regulated tobacco products that imply reduced risk (such as “light,” “mild,” or “low”) without FDA authorization;Developing a process for the review and evaluation of applications for new, modified risk claims, and substantially equivalent (SE) tobacco products;Implementing and enforcing the statutory ban on cigarettes with certain characterizing flavors;Increasing regulatory science capabilities through research to better understand regulated products and patterns of tobacco use;Restricting access and marketing of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to youth;Implementing a compliance and enforcement program to ensure industry compliance with regulatory requirements; andEstablishing public education campaigns about the dangers of regulated tobacco products.These accomplishments demonstrate FDA’s commitment to effectively regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products and to advance tobacco product regulations appropriate for the protection of public health. Establishing the Center for Tobacco ProductsFDA’s first priority following the enactment of the Tobacco Control Act was creating the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP or the Center), FDA's first new center in 21 years. CTP oversees the implementation of the FDA tobacco program, and has been tasked with developing the scientific, regulatory, and public education infrastructure necessary to implement and track FDA’s goals for meaningful product regulation that will help reduce the harms associated with tobacco products and prevent initiation of tobacco use (particularly among youth). From a handful of employees in the fall of 2009, the Center has grown to nearly 500 employees, including regulatory counsels, policy analysts, scientists, researchers, management officers, communications specialists, and other professionals who are designing and implementing a comprehensive program of tobacco product regulation. Key objectives involved in launching CTP have included recruiting management officials to lead the Center, hiring skilled staff, setting up necessary infrastructure and technology resources, and putting in place processes to meet statutory deadlines and directives.During its start-up phase, FDA quickly established the foundation for meeting the many mandatory statutory deadlines included in the Tobacco Control Act. The law contains more than 20 statutory deadlines by which FDA was required to issue certain regulations, guidance documents, Reports to Congress, and a list of harmful and potentially harmful constituents, among other things. Most of these deadlines were in the first three years after the law went into effect. Therefore, even as the Center was establishing itself, creating infrastructure, and hiring appropriate personnel, it was required to develop a significant number of regulations and guidance documents on precedent-setting, complex issues. In addition, the Center was required to assess user fees, establish the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), and refer to TPSAC the issue of the impact of the use of menthol in cigarettes on the public health, within its first year. The Center met nearly all of the more than 20 statutory deadlines.CTP undertakes four broad categories of activities in carrying out its responsibilities and authorities under the Tobacco Control Act:reviewing submissions for marketing new tobacco products and developing the science base for product regulation;enforcing statutory and regulatory requirements to ensure regulated industry and tobacco products are in compliance with the law;developing and issuing regulations and guidance for industry; andengaging in public education and outreach activities about the risks associated with tobacco product use, and promoting awareness of and compliance with the Tobacco Control Act.I will briefly describe some of CTP’s accomplishments in each of these areas over the last five years, as well as note some of the challenges that we have faced in carrying out our responsibilities and authorities under the Tobacco Control Act.The Tobacco Product Review ProcessThe Tobacco Control Act requires manufacturers to seek FDA authorization before marketing a new tobacco product, including when modifying an existing product; the FD&C Act defines a “new” tobacco product as a product not commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007, or a product already on the market that is modified after that date. Products that were on the market on February 15, 2007, and which have not been modified, can continue to be marketed without FDA authorization. This review process gives FDA the ability to help ensure that the marketing of any new product, including a modified product, is appropriate for the protection of public health and allows for greater awareness and understanding of the changes being made to tobacco products. There are three ways a new tobacco product, including an existing product that is modified, can obtain FDA authorization for distribution or retail sale: a premarket tobacco product application; an application demonstrating substantial equivalence (SE) to certain commercially marketed products; or an application for exemption from demonstrating SE.Premarket tobacco product applications: One pathway for a new tobacco product to receive market authorization is through the Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) process.[2] Demonstrating substantial equivalence to certain commercially marketed products: Demonstrating SE to a product already on the market is a second pathway to marketing authorization under specific circumstances. Under the SE pathway, whenever an existing tobacco product is modified, the manufacturer must submit a report with sufficient scientific data and information to FDA to demonstrate either that the product characteristics, as compared to the predicate product, are the same or that the tobacco product has different characteristics but does not raise different questions of public health.[3] This means that products brought to market through this pathway should not present more harm to public health than a valid predicate tobacco product.Exemption from demonstrating substantial equivalence: The third pathway for new tobacco products is a request for an exemption from the SE requirements. This pathway is available for products modified by the addition or deletion of an additive or a change in the quantity of an existing additive, if FDA finds the modification of the product to be minor; FDA determines an SE report is not necessary to ensure that permitting the tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for the protection of public health; and an exemption is otherwise appropriate.[4]In addition to creating the pathways for marketing of new tobacco products, the statute directs FDA to evaluate and authorize marketing of modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs). MRTPs are tobacco products sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease. These include products whose labeling or advertising represents (explicitly or implicitly) that the product is less harmful or presents a lower risk of tobacco-related disease than commercially marketed tobacco products, or that the product or its smoke contains a reduced level of, presents a reduced exposure to, or does not contain or is free of a substance.In order for a tobacco product to make claims that the product “presents a lower risk of disease,” an applicant must show that the product will significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual tobacco users and benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account both users and non-users of tobacco products.There is also a “Special Rule” for certain MRTPs, such as those that claim to “present a reduced exposure to a substance.” FDA may issue an order for such products if, among other things, the order would be appropriate to promote the public health; the claims for the product are limited to claims that the product does not contain or is free of a substance, contains a reduced level of a substance, or presents a reduced exposure to a substance; scientific evidence to satisfy the lower disease risk standards cannot be made available without conducting long-term epidemiological studies; and the available scientific evidence demonstrates that a measurable and substantial reduction in morbidity/mortality among individual users is reasonably likely in subsequent studies.FDA review of a new product, including a modified product, requires scientific and technical expertise in order to assess how the product design, ingredients, and other characteristics impact the public health. Substantial equivalence is one pathway manufacturers can use to seek permission to market a new tobacco product. The primary pathway, however, is through the filing of a new tobacco product application. As of May 1, 2014, FDA had not received any complete premarket applications for new tobacco products for which we can commence a scientific review.As of May 1, 2014, FDA had received a total of 4,580 submissions seeking to demonstrate SE to a predicate product, including 3,578 “provisional” submissions that were received before March 23, 2011, and apply SE to products currently marketed in the United States. The remaining 1,002 applications are “regular” submissions for products not currently on the market.FDA is committed to carefully and thoroughly reviewing all submissions in order to protect the public health as required by the FD&C Act. FDA is also committed to a consistent, transparent, and predictable review process and to completing reviews of all new product applications in a timely manner.CTP has prioritized the review of regular SE submissions and has made progress in each of the three key steps in the SE review process: (1) jurisdiction review; (2) administrative review; and (3) scientific review. As of May 1, 2014, CTP has completed the jurisdiction review of 4,559 SE submissions and completed administrative review of 4,384 SE submissions and provided acknowledgment and, where appropriate, administrative advice and information letters to the applicants seeking information required for review. On March 24, 2014, CTP announced that we no longer have a backlog of regular SE reports awaiting review. CTP is starting review on regular SE reports as they are received. As of May 12, 2014, 257, or 25 percent of regular SE submissions have been resolved, either because CTP issued a determination (34 submissions) or because the submission was withdrawn (223 submissions). Fifty-seven percent of the Regular SE Report withdrawals reported to FDA were withdrawn after CTP issued an action letter which identified deficiencies in the submission.CTP has completed an initial evaluation of the 3,559 provisional SE reports to guide the order of review so that those products that remain on the market and present the highest likelihood of raising a different question of public health will be reviewed first. CTP has begun review of provisional SE reports and issued the first decisions on these reports on February 21, 2014. These decisions marked the first time that FDA used its authority under the Tobacco Control Act to order a manufacturer of currently-available tobacco products to stop selling and distributing them.[5] The products were found to be not substantially equivalent to predicate tobacco products, therefore under the Tobacco Control Act, they can no longer be sold or distributed in interstate commerce or imported into the United States.FDA has received 59 requests to consider certain products to be exempt from the SE requirements. To be considered for an exemption, requests must meet the requirements in the statute and regulations. CTP published a final regulation on the SE exemption pathway on July 5, 2011. FDA has refused to accept 35 requests for SE exemption because they did not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements. The remaining 24 requests are under administrative, eligibility, or scientific review.There are many factors that can affect the timing of a determination by FDA, including the completeness of an application or whether there is a need for manufacturers to submit more information or provide an additional explanation so that FDA can complete its assessment. It is important to note that there was a wide range of quality in SE reports submitted thus far by the tobacco industry. In almost all cases, reports that have been submitted lack both information referenced in FDA guidance documents to facilitate FDA review and information required by statute for FDA to make its determination. Examples of some of the general issues that FDA is observing across multiple applicants include:Reports containing contradictory statements, particularly about whether the product characteristics were the same or different;Reports identifying a predicate product that does not meet the statutory requirement;Reports lacking information to completely understand product composition, including information about the tobacco blend used in the product;Reports missing specifications on components used in the manufacture of the finished product;Reports with HPHC measurements that were scientifically inadequate or did not include information needed to evaluate data quality; andReports in which information on product design was incomplete, preventing a scientific assessment.In response to industry feedback, where possible, FDA has been taking steps that would streamline the SE review process, by:increasing opportunities for communication with industry by encouraging teleconferences between the assigned FDA regulatory project manager and the submitter;taking steps to facilitate quicker responses to questions;modifying the initial review for completeness to focus only on administrative issues, so that applicants can be notified more quickly about submission deficiencies;hosting webinars for tobacco manufacturers specifically to discuss the types of information that the Agency needs to complete the review of SE reports;issuing a September 2011 draft guidance document for public comment with responses to frequently asked questions about demonstrating SE of a new tobacco product; andlaunching a new section on the Agency’s website, providing comprehensive information on the pathways available to legally market new tobacco products, including SE.In addition to streamlining the SE review process, FDA is taking other steps to improve the timeliness of product reviews. In FY 2013, CTP increased the number of scientific staff by 38 percent, mostly to perform reviews. CTP plans to continue to hire many more scientists and expects the time required for review of SE submissions to get substantially shorter as CTP continues to improve the efficiency of its review process and as the quality of reports received from industry improves.In addition to hiring more scientific staff to perform reviews, last month, the Center established four performance measures that include time frames for review of regular SE Reports, review of Exemption from SE Requests, review of MRTP Applications, and for responding to meeting requests. Beginning on October 1, 2014, all four measures will be implemented. The interim time between now and October 1, 2014, will be used to develop tracking systems for monitoring progress in meeting the performance goals. As FDA gains more experience with reviewing provisional SE Reports, we intend to identify and implement performance standards for these submissions as well.Tobacco Regulatory ScienceCTP relies on the most current science to make regulatory decisions on tobacco products. The Center funds and uses scientific research to better understand tobacco products, how the differences in products change the behavior of users and non-users, how they cause death and disease, and how to best reduce the harm from these products.CTP has identified seven categories of research priorities:Product diversity – understanding the types of tobacco products and how their specific characteristics affect people’s use of these products, as well as their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about these products.Addiction – understanding what effect different levels of nicotine and other factors have on addiction.Toxicity and carcinogenicity – understanding how changes in tobacco products affect their potential for harm and ways to reduce that harm.Health consequences – understanding the risks of different tobacco products.Communication – finding ways to effectively convey information about the risks of using tobacco and about CTP's role in regulating tobacco products.Marketing – understanding the impact of tobacco product marketing and public education on people's attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and use. Economics and policy – estimating the economic impact of CTP's regulations; also understanding how CTP's actions change tobacco use and illness and death from tobacco use. CTP partners with other agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as with FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research, to continue to advance the regulatory science base. For example, CTP is partnering with NIH to support important research efforts, including:The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study: The PATH Study will help scientists learn how and why people start using tobacco, switch products, quit using tobacco, and start using it again after they’ve quit. By monitoring and assessing the behavioral and adverse health impacts of tobacco use in the United States, the PATH Study will add to the evidence base to inform regulatory decisions about the marketing, manufacture, and distribution of tobacco products. Because this is a longitudinal study following the same individuals, with appropriate consent, over years, FDA will be able to draw scientific conclusions on how users transition from the use of one product to another and from experimentation to regular use and how these choices impact the ultimate death and disease resulting from their use. The PATH survey went into the field in September 2013, the data will be available in the fall of 2015 for researchers by request, and the publicly-available baseline survey dataset is expected in spring 2016. Any publicly-released data will protect the identity of the participants.Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS): TCORS is a new research program designed to generate research to inform the regulation of tobacco products to protect public health. The program was initially funded in 2013 and will run up to five years. Essential elements of these centers include an overall focus on the high-priority tobacco regulatory program needs for CTP; three or more theoretically grounded, strong research projects with an integrative theme; the ability to respond quickly to emerging research questions through pilot projects; and a program for career development to train future generations of researchers in tobacco regulatory science. In addition, in response to the Court of Appeals decision on FDA’s rule requiring that all cigarette packages bear one of nine new textual warnings and include color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking, FDA is undertaking research to support a new rulemaking consistent with the Tobacco Control Act and actively working to move forward on this important issue.Compliance and Enforcement ActivitiesVigorous enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act and implementing regulations is carried out through tobacco retail compliance check inspections, inspections of domestic manufacturers and imported tobacco products, and surveillance and review of tobacco promotions, advertising, and labeling. CTP also provides compliance education and training to regulated industry.The FD&C Act instructs FDA to contract, where feasible, with the states, to carry out inspections of retailers in connection with the enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act; the retail inspection program provides a framework for a nationwide FDA enforcement strategy through the credentialing of more than 1,100 state and territorial officials and a comprehensive training program for these FDA-commissioned inspectors and program coordinators. CTP has awarded contracts for tobacco retail inspections in 48 states and territories, with awards totaling more than $93 million since the program began. Measurable accomplishments in the retail inspection program from 2009 through May 1, 2014, include:Conducting more than 289,000 compliance check inspections of regulated tobacco retailers utilizing state and territorial contractors;Issuing over 14,800 warning letters to retail establishments where violations were found during compliance check inspections;Issuing over 1,430 CMP administrative actions to retail establishments where subsequent violations were found during follow-up compliance check inspections; andDeveloping an online searchable database of retail compliance check inspection results.[6]Active and effective enforcement of tobacco laws and regulations governing the promotion, advertising, and labeling of tobacco products can help to protect the public health by preventing the sale and distribution of misbranded and adulterated tobacco products, including those with marketing and advertising materials that violate the requirements of the Tobacco Control Act. In this regard, FDA reviews and evaluates regulatory submissions that include tobacco product labeling, representative advertising, and consumer information materials; conducts routine monitoring of websites and publications that sell, distribute, promote, or advertise regulated tobacco products; and conducts surveillance of event promotion and sponsorship by tobacco manufacturers, distributors, or retailers.CTP has issued a number of letters to manufacturers requesting information regarding their marketing and advertising practices. For example, FDA has requested information on events that include the distribution of free samples of smokeless tobacco products, internet marketing activities, and other relevant information to determine compliance. From 2009 through May 1, 2014, FDA’s promotion, advertising, and labeling compliance and enforcement program has:Monitored approximately 3,000 websites and more than 74,000 publication issues where regulated tobacco products might be sold, distributed or advertised.Issued over 150 Warning Letters as a result of CTP’s monitoring and surveillance of tobacco advertising, labeling, and other promotional activities; andReviewed 38 smokeless tobacco warning plans and 13 smokeless tobacco warning plan supplements. FDA conducts biennial inspections of registered tobacco product establishments that manufacture regulated tobacco products in the U.S. market. These inspections are designed to determine compliance with requirements of the FD&C Act, including establishment registration, product and ingredient listing, packaging, labeling, and advertising requirements, and marketing authorization for new or modified risk tobacco products. In the area of manufacturing compliance and enforcement, through May 1, 2014, FDA has:Conducted more than 120 inspections of registered tobacco product facilities;Conducted more than 20 investigations that included sponsorship events and distribution of free sample events; andReviewed over 77,500 lines of imported tobacco products, completing over 1,100 field exams and more than 1,900 label exams, and refusing more than 70 entries, in collaboration with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). We have also issued four import alerts that directed many of these reviews and exams. CTP also provides compliance education and training to regulated industry to ensure that those who must understand the law and regulations have the resources to do so. In 2011, FDA started hosting live webinars to help educate regulated industry and encourage compliance with Federal tobacco laws and regulations. Public webinars allow retailers and small businesses to watch and ask live questions. Each webinar addresses a specific subject, including published guidance, and many of the webinars are archived on the Center’s website for future viewing. Industry can also suggest topics for future webinars.In addition, one of FDA’s initial activities was to establish the Office of Small Business Assistance within CTP to assist small tobacco product manufacturers and retailers in complying with the Tobacco Control Act. The office has a dedicated webpage, e-mail address, and staff to assist small businesses with their questions, comments, and concerns. “The Real Cost” and Other Public Education CampaignsThe Tobacco Control Act gives FDA the authority to educate the public about the dangers of regulated tobacco product use. To advance efforts to protect the public from the harmful effects of tobacco use, FDA is developing integrated, far-reaching, and evidence-based public education campaigns related to FDA's regulatory activities, including informing consumers about risks from tobacco use and preventing youth tobacco initiation, and promoting tobacco use cessation among youth.FDA has awarded multiple contracts for public education campaigns to conduct sustained, multi-media efforts that will enable FDA to educate the public, and vulnerable youth populations in particular, about the harms and risks of regulated tobacco products in order to help prevent youth initiation and encourage cessation. Specifically, these campaigns will equip the public with important facts about the health risks and addictiveness of regulated tobacco products and the HPHCs in regulated tobacco products.In February, we launched a national public education campaign to prevent youth tobacco use and reduce the number of kids ages 12 to 17 who become regular smokers. “The Real Cost” campaign is the first of several planned tobacco education campaigns; it targets the 10 million young people ages 12-17 who have never smoked a cigarette but are open to it as well as youth who are already experimenting with cigarettes and are at risk of escalating their use. “The Real Cost” campaign uses a comprehensive multimedia approach with compelling facts and vivid imagery esigned to change beliefs and behaviors over time, educate youth about the dangers of tobacco use and to encourage them to be tobacco-free.[7] Supported by the best available science, “The Real Cost” campaign will be evaluated to measure its effectiveness over time.In addition, FDA is overseeing a variety of research and analytic activities to strengthen and inform public education initiatives and efforts. This includes awarding a contract to conduct rigorous outcome evaluations on the effectiveness of individual FDA tobacco-related public education campaigns, overall messaging, and related communications activities. This combination of establishing and evaluating evidence-based public education campaigns will enable the Agency to implement effective models for educating the public about the risks and dangers of regulated products, and will also complement public education initiatives by our partner agencies, including CDC, on tobacco-related issues.Addressing Challenges and Advancing the Tobacco Control ActSome of the challenges that we have faced in these early years are the growing pains inherent in building a regulatory body from the ground up. FDA has worked through the logistical challenges of creating a new organizational structure, recruiting and hiring qualified staff with applicable experience in a short time frame, and developing the processes, procedures and dedicated information technology resources to carry out CTP’s important regulatory functions.There are challenges intrinsic to the regulation of tobacco products, which are markedly different from other products traditionally regulated by FDA. For example, FDA has created and validated entirely new scientific testing procedures for the measurement of HPHCs in tobacco products and tobacco smoke, and developed metrics for the evaluation of product applications, including the SE applications now under review. The responsibility given to FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products for the premarket public health review of tobacco product applications and reports is unprecedented. No other country’s regulatory agency has been given the responsibility to evaluate new tobacco products before they are marketed and determine which products will be authorized for marketing based on public health criteria. FDA also established and implemented a tobacco retail compliance program that is unique even within the Agency. Tobacco product regulation also involves the regulation of an industry that is new to Federal product regulation and often unfamiliar with and continuing to learn what is expected in the regulatory process.CONCLUSIONMoving forward, FDA will sustain the momentum needed to achieve its goals for reducing the harms and risks associated with tobacco product use. Despite the common misperception that decades of program and policy efforts have solved this problem, the reality is that tobacco use continues to be the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the United States. The total economic burden of cigarette smoking is estimated to be nearly $300 billion in annual health care and productivity costs. FDA will work to finalize the proposed deeming rule in a timely manner; expand the tobacco regulatory science base; continue to improve product review processes to enable the Center to make timely decisions; expand the compliance program to conduct enforcement in additional states; and develop and implement additional public education campaigns.In addition to the activities described above, FDA plans to explore the potential for tobacco product standards and is investing in research to support potential product standards to reduce product addictiveness, toxicity, and/or appeal.Roughly one in five adults still smoke. Those numbers are even higher in states like Kentucky and West Virginia, where smoking rates greatly exceed the national average.[8] FDA cares greatly about the 43 million addicted smokers, and one of our core goals is to reduce the harmfulness of tobacco products. We will explore all available regulatory science to do that. Perhaps the greatest opportunity FDA has to overcome this pressing public health problem is to dramatically decrease the access and appeal of tobacco products to youth. Ninety percent of smokers start smoking by age 18, and 99 percent start by age 26; and despite years of steady progress, declines in the use of tobacco by youth and young adults have slowed for cigarette smoking and stalled for smokeless tobacco use.[9] FDA intends to use the many tools at its disposal to continue the decline in tobacco use and to reinvigorate public determination to arrest the epidemic by making the next generation tobacco-free. The Agency remains committed to making tobacco-related death and disease part of America’s past, not its future.Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about FDA’s accomplishments and challenges in the five years since enactment of the Tobacco Control Act. I am happy to answer questions you may have. ____________________________________________________[1] See FDA, “News Release: FDA proposes to extend its tobacco authority to additional tobacco products, including e-cigarettes” (April 24, 2014), available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm394667.htm.[2] In September 2011, FDA issued a draft guidance document describing what the FD&C Act requires to be submitted in a new tobacco product application. The draftguidance also sought comment on the information to be included in the application that the agency would use to determine whether the marketing of a new tobacco product is appropriate for the protection of the public health, as determined with respect to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and non-users of tobacco products, and taking into account the impact on cessation and initiation.[3] Products that were first introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution between February 15, 2007, and March 22, 2011, and for which SE reports were submitted prior to March 23, 2011, can remain on the market unless FDA issues an order that they are “not substantially equivalent (NSE).” FDA refers to these SE reports as “provisional.” An SE report for a tobacco product submitted after March 22, 2011 is considered a “regular” report and the product covered by the application cannot be marketed unless FDA first issues an order finding the product substantially equivalent and in compliance with the FD&C Act. FDA issued a guidance document in January 2011 describing the content and data to be included in the report and the process for its review.[4] In July 2011, FDA issued a final rule on “Exemptions from Substantial Equivalence Requirements” that established the procedures for requesting an SE exemption.[5] http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm386707.htm [6] See FDA, “Compliance Check Inspections of Tobacco Product Retailers,” available at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oce/inspections/oce_insp_searching.cfm.[7] See http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/AbouttheCenterforTobacco-Products/PublicEducationCampaigns/TheRealCostCampaign/ucm384305.htm[8] See CDC, “Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,” at http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/list.asp?cat=TU&yr=2012&qkey=8161&state=All[9] U.S. Surgeon General, “Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General” (2012), available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/exec-summary.pdf. -

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3402

NewsBusiness The joint mortgage trap: Owning a home with someone else can be a problem if one wants to move and the other has flown. Ian Hunter reports Sunday 7 February 1993 00:02 BST LIZ RICHARDSON feels trapped. It is a problem shared by thousands of joint property owners who want to sell but cannot obtain the agreement of the other party.Ms Richardson, a nurse, bought her flat in Streatham, south London, with a friend in July 1988. They took out a 100 per cent mortgage with the Nationwide Building Society for the pounds 62,950 purchase price. 'Shaun never lived in the flat, we bought it as an investment,' Ms Richardson said. 'The understanding was that we would keep it for a couple of years and then sell it. A friend moved in and the rent was offset against Shaun's contribution to the mortgage repayments. Shaun agreed to pay the excess. 'Gradually he stopped paying, or the cheques he gave me bounced. Eventually I tried to contact him. I found out that he had broken up with his girlfriend and no longer worked for the same employer.' Her efforts to contact him have failed. She said: 'I continued to pay his share of the mortgage because I was frightened the flat would be repossessed.' She now wants to sell the flat, but legally needs Shaun's consent before a sale can go ahead. If Shaun cannot be traced, according to Denzil Lush, a consultant and solicitor with Anstey Sargent & Probert, an Exeter law firm, Ms Richardson should apply to the court to approve a sale under section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925. It states that if one owner refuses to agree to a sale 'any person interested may apply to the court for a vesting order or other order for giving effect to the proposed transaction'. Mr Lush advises co-owners in disputes to avoid going to court if possible: 'Litigation is often time-consuming and expensive.' A legally binding agreement made before two or more people buy a property together can obviate legal action. It should set out the circumstances in which one co-owner has the right to sell and what happens if a party dies or becomes unemployed. It should also cover buy-outs, making clear who has priority. Valuing each owner's share is often the greatest problem. Mr Lush advises that the agreement gives each party floating rather than fixed shares as each owner's contribution to the property can be taken into account until the time of the sale. Andrew Scott, a partner with Lane Fox, a London firm of surveyors, said: 'The relationship between the two parties will very much determine the extent to which costly professional advice should be taken. Unless the relationship is close and amicable, I would consider it imprudent to transfer an interest without property valuation advice, a structural survey and, in the case of leasehold property, landlord's consent.' If the relationship is amicable and the property in good repair, Mr Scott thinks an informal verbal opinion from four estate agents should be sufficient. 'Estate agents will normally give advice without charge. The best approach is to tell the agent the situation in order that the figure you are given represents his view of the actual selling price, as opposed to the asking price, which could be perhaps 10 per cent higher.' If the co-owners' relationship has deteriorated, each party should appoint his or her own valuer. This route is more formal and also more expensive. Whatever the route, the buying party should ensure a full structural survey is carried out before the sale is completed. 'Any property may have developed serious structural defects. This could leave the buyer with a substantial financial burden, which should be taken into account when agreeing a purchase price,' Mr Scott said. Denzil Lush is author of 'Co-habitation and Co-ownership Precedents', which is to be published next month.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3490

NYU LAW NEWS Paul Verkuil (LL.M. '69, J.S.D. '72) confirmed as chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States On March 3, Paul Verkuil (LL.M. '69, J.S.D. '72) was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate as chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). As chairman, Verkuil is tasked with rebuilding the ACUS, which was reconstituted in 2009 after being dormant for 14 years. ACUS makes recommendations to federal agencies concerning the efficiency, soundness, and fairness of their procedures. Verkuil was president of the College of William and Mary from 1985 to 1992 and dean of Tulane University School of Law from 1978 to 1983 as well as dean of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law from 1997 to 2001. He is currently a professor at Cardozo School of Law and senior counsel to Boies, Schiller and Flexner, where he oversees the firm's pro bono program and participates in antitrust and corporate governance matters. Posted on March 9, 2010 RELATED READINGMany NYU Law alumni answer call to serve in the Obama administration Since taking office in January, President Barack Obama has been calling upon numerous NYU Law alumni to join his administration. The following lists those named to top-level positions in shaping the administration's agenda: Kenneth Feinberg '70 was appointed a compensation czar who will have broad discretion to set the pay for 175 top executives at seven of the nation’s largest companies which received hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds. Founder and managing partner of Feinberg Rozen, Feinberg was the special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, which was established by Congress shortly after the attacks as an administrative alternative to litigation for the immediate victims. Participation in the fund included approximately 97 percent of the claims by families of the victims and those who were injured. The fund paid out more than $7 billion to 5,560 claimants through June 2004. Matthew Feldman '88 is advisor to the secretary of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry. Formerly a partner in the business reorganization and restructuring department at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Feldman advises U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, on reorganization efforts by auto manufacturers and suppliers. Louis Freeh (LL.M. '84) was sworn in as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, which provides recommendations and advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Freeh was the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under President Bill Clinton. Freeh previously held numerous positions in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, including chief of the organized crime unit and deputy and associate U.S. Attorney. He also served as a U.S. District Judge in the Southern District. Seth Harris ’90 was confirmed as deputy secretary of the Department of Labor. Harris was most recently a professor and director of labor and employment law programs at New York Law School. He served as the working group leader of the Obama Transition Projects Agency for the labor, education, and transportation agencies and also served as the chair for Obama for America’s labor, employment, and workplace policy committee and co-chaired the disability committee. During President Clinton's administration, Harris served as counselor to the secretary of labor and acting assistant secretary of labor for policy, among other policy-advising positions. David Kamin '09 has been appointed special assistant to Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Kamin worked for Orszag as part of the Obama OMB transition team. Raymond Kelly (LL.M. '74), New York City police commissioner, was sworn in as a member of the Homeland Security Council. Kelly has spent more than 30 years in the NYPD, serving in 25 different commands and as police commissioner from 1992 to 1994 and from 2002 to the present. He is the first person to hold the commissioner post for two separate tenures. Jon Leibowitz '84 was named chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the regulatory agency that reviews mergers and enforces consumer protection laws. A member of the FTC since 2004, Leibowitz championed the agency’s efforts to prevent makers of brand-name drugs from paying manufacturers of less expensive alternative medications to keep their products off the market. The FTC has filed numerous lawsuits to challenge these “reverse payments” in drug patent settlements, which the agency argues cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars per year in higher drug prices. Prior to joining the FTC, Leibowitz was a lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America, the movie industry trade group. He was also the Democratic counsel to the Senate Judiciary antitrust committee during his 14 years as a Senate aide. Cynthia Mann '75 has been named director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO) in the Department of Health and Human Services. Mann most recently served as a research professor and executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. She was previously the director of the Family and Children’s Health Programs at CMSO from 1999-2001. In that capacity she played a key role in implementing Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Shawn Maher '87 was named deputy director of legislative affairs for the U.S. Senate. He was previously the legislative director for Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) since 1997. Maher began his Washington career in 1989 as legislative director to then-Representative Joseph Kennedy II (D-Mass.), going on to become staff director and chief counsel for the House Subcommittee on Consumer Credit and Insurance under Kennedy. Laurie Mikva '83 has been confirmed as a board member of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). She served for nearly 30 years as a civil legal aid attorney and a public defender in Illinois and Maryland. LSC is the single largest provider of civil legal assistance for the poor in the nation. Established by Congress in 1974, LSC operates as a private, nonprofit organization to promote equal access to justice and to provide high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income Americans. Ignacia Moreno '90 has been nominated as assistant attorney general in the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. Moreno is a leading practitioner in the field of environmental and natural resources law, with over 18 years of experience in the federal government and in private and corporate practice. She is currently counsel, corporate environmental programs, at the General Electric Company, and she serves pro bono as general counsel to the Hispanic National Bar Association. Alison Nathan, the 2008-09 Alexander Fellow at NYU Law, was appointed associate White House counsel. Nathan, a specialist in procedure, federal courts, habeas corpus, and U.S. death penalty constitutionality, was a visiting assistant professor at Fordham Law School and an associate at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in Washington, D.C. She also served as national voter protection senior advisor to President Obama's presidential campaign, as well as a member of its LGBT Advisory Committee. As an Alexander Fellow at the Law School, Nathan examined the interest in finality as a key procedural value in American procedural law. Miriam Sapiro '86 was nominated as a deputy U.S. trade representative. She is the founder of Summit Strategies International, a consulting firm specializing in Internet policy, electric commerce, and international issues involving strategic planning and consulting. She has served in various roles in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Eric Schwartz '85 has been confirmed as assistant secretary for population, refugees and migration in the Department of State. He was previously the executive director of the Connect U.S. Fund, a foundation/NGO initiative focused on foreign and international affairs, and visiting lecturer of public and international affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. Between 2005 and 2007, he served as U.N. deputy special envoy for tsunami recovery, working to promote coordination, accountability to donors and beneficiaries, and best practices in the recovery effort. He also has served as a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and held various posts at the National Security Council. M. Patricia Smith '77 was nominated to be solicitor of the Department of Labor. As solicitor, Smith will serve as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis' general counsel, helping shape policy, oversee litigation, and coordinate the activities of the department's wage and hour division. Smith was previously the commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor and spent 20 years in the labor bureau of the New York State Attorney General's Office, the last 8 years there serving as bureau chief. Judith Halle Wurtzel '88 was named deputy assistant secretary of the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development in the Department of Education. She was most recently co-director of the Aspen Institute, which helps local, state, and national education leaders improve the education and life chances of poor and minority students. Wurtzel previously served as executive director of the Learning First Alliance, a partnership of leading national education associations formed to improve teaching and learning, and served in the Clinton administration as a senior advisor to the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and associate counsel to the president in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3625

Judge upholds Swenka’s two year sentence Submitted by admin on Sat, 12/28/2013 - 10:39am By Lori Lindner JOHNSON COUNTY– The two-year prison sentence for 20-year-old Zachary Lee Swenka will stand. On Monday, Dec. 16, Judge Stephen Gerard presided over the hearing of a motion for reconsideration of Swenka’s Oct. 24 sentencing to two years in custody for pleading guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Swenka was charged with the 2011 death of a Clear Creek Amana High School student, 14-year-old Mackenzie Lown, after the car Swenka was driving on the way home from a cross country team practice collided with an oncoming van. Lown was ejected from the vehicle in the crash and killed. Swenka and four others were passengers were injured, as were the occupants of the minivan, Bryan and Toni Cooling. The prosecution in the case maintained that Swenka, then 18, was driving with excessive speed and recklessness, thereby willfully causing Lown’s death. Last Monday, attorney Leon Spies presented new documents that were not considered as part of the original case. “There was important information about the circumstances of the offense that the court would have wanted to have known in its assessment as to what an appropriate sentence would be,” Spies told the court. New documents included letters of support on Swenka’s behalf, psychological evaluations, and a report from an accident reconstruction specialist that conflicted with the findings of the Iowa State Patrol on the crash details. “The document reveals, in the testament of Ray Knight, the foremost accident reconstructionist in the state of Iowa, that there were serious flaws in the examination of the accident by the Iowa State Patrol. Far from going 99 to 103 mph at the time he lost control, he was going 70 to 77 mph,” Spies said. Spies asked that a probationary sentence replace Swenka’s prison sentence. “Probation is not an act of lenience. It’s a substantial restriction of freedom, not forgiveness and not an endorsement of the offense,” Spies said. “Probation is punishment that will be felt by Mr. Swenka and his family, now and years to come.” Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness asked the court to uphold the original sentencing. “Nothing presented today changes the basic facts,” Lyness argued. “Mr. Swenka was driving at an excessive rate of speed. He drove off the side of the roadway and then proceeded to run into the van driven by the Coolings.” In the letters of support written by Swenka’s friends and family members, the prosecution said there were references that the defendant seemed to be expressing remorse, but “we have not heard that here today,” Lyness said. “We have yet to hear anything from Mr. Swenka to change the position of this court in terms of him taking responsibility.” Spies noted that in comments made during the sentencing hearing in October, one could “discern an apparent estimation that Zachary was not demonstrating remorse or accepting responsibility. He said to the court that his last recollection was that he was going 60 mph. Based on his post-accident loss of memory and also on the finding of Knight’s evaluation, that statement was not beyond the realm of possibility.” The question of whether or not Swenka expressed remorse for his part in the collision was a factor in comments made by Mackenzie Lown’s parents, Kelly Smith and Michael Lown, and, ultimately, by Judge Gerard. “To the Swenka family, I understand that you want a healthy son as any parent would,” said Smith, “but teaching your son not to admit his actions killed my daughter and not making him serve his punishment is wrong. I think it’s bad parenting.” To the defendant, Smith made an equally critical statement. “I don’t know how you can sit here and not admit to anything. Don’t you want to heal? Don’t you think it would make you feel better? I think admitting your actions killed my daughter is the first step to healing. It’s time to accept the responsibility and deal with the punishment,” Smith said. Michael Lown said regardless of the speed the vehicle was moving at the time of the crash, Swenka was still breaking the law. “It was your hands on the wheel and your foot on the gas. And it wasn’t the first time you’d done that,” Lown said. Judge Gerard took about 10 minutes to consider the evidence in the defendant’s exhibits, but said none of it changed the facts of the case. A finding of fact regarding the speed of the vehicle at the time of the crash was immaterial, he added, because Swenka had already pleaded guilty. Gerard acknowledged the concerns about whether or not Swenka had shown remorse for his conduct, but said that also did not impact his decision. “I have been in this position long enough to know there are many constraints that can be interpreted as a lack of remorse by those not part of the legal system. At no time have I felt, nor do I now feel, that in the defendant’s plea proceeding, his statements at the time of sentencing– or lack of statements today– to demonstrate that he has a lack of remorse for what happened in this accident,” Gerard said. However, Gerard said, witness testimony weighed heavily. “The court did view and still finds significant in the decision making the fact that the passengers in Zachary’s car were not willing participants in the impulsive, immature and reckless driving behavior, and that they were scared and fearful and that Zachary did not respond to that. The court has considered all the criteria to be evaluated in reaching a just and fair sentence,” said Gerard.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3628

Lawyer: Hernandez associate 'along for the ride' FALL RIVER, Mass. — A lawyer for an associate of former New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez charged as an accessory to murder says his client was just "along for the ride."Defense attorney John Connors suggested Thursday that Carlos Ortiz went out the night Odin Lloyd was killed because he was asked by the "superstar" ex-player. He said Ortiz was in the wrong place at the wrong time and didn't participate in the shooting.Connors said at a brief hearing in Fall River Superior Court he likely needs through February to go through voluminous amounts of evidence.Ortiz has pleaded not guilty to accessory after the fact. He's being held on $500,000 cash bail.Hernandez has pleaded not guilty to murder in Lloyd's death. The Boston man was dating the sister of Hernandez's girlfriend.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3736

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 422 and 423: Page 98, line 2, at end insert-- (“( ) an agreement with respect to the provision or retention, or financing, of regular scheduled railway passenger services operated by a London transport body; ( ) an agreement with respect to the provision or retention, or financing, of regular scheduled railway passenger services operated by a person other than a London transport body on track used for the provision of regular scheduled railway passenger services operated by a London transport body (whether or not the track is also used for other purposes);"). Page 98, line 10, at beginning insert-- (“In this section “London transport body" means-- (a) London Regional Transport; (b) Transport for London; or (c) a subsidiary of London Regional Transport or Transport for London; and, subject to that,"). On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 182 [Amendment of franchise agreements to take account of the Authority]: Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 424: Page 99, line 43, at end insert (“Transport for London,"."). On Question, amendment agreed to. 19 Oct 1999 : Column 1055 Clause 185 [PPP agreements]: Page 102, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert-- (“(2) At least one of the parties to the contract must be a relevant body for the purposes of this Chapter, that is to say-- (c) a subsidiary of London Regional Transport or Transport for London."). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 425 and I shall also speak to Amendments No. 425B in substitution for Amendment No. 425A, and to Amendments Nos. 428 to 433, 440 to 446, 449 to 451 and 467. This group of amendments is largely technical in nature and relates to the PPP agreements, key system assets and leases. The first section of this group of amendments--Amendments Nos. 425, 428, 429 and 467--extends LRT and TfL's powers under Clauses 185 and 189 to enter into PPP agreements and designate key system assets to London Transport and TfL subsidiaries. Amendment No. 425B, on public sector operators, replaces Amendment No. 425A which was put down on Wednesday last week and unfortunately omitted the key words “a PPP company". I apologise for having to make this correction at this late stage, but those words are essential in order that other sections of the Bill which refer to subsection (5) of Clause 185 are correct. Amendment No. 425B is necessary to allow the PPP agreements to be entered into while infrastructure companies are still subsidiaries of LUL and, as such, are classed as public sector operators. As currently drafted, Clause 185(5) excludes public sector operators from entering into PPP agreements. In regard to Amendments Nos. 430 to 433 on key system assets, we have been considering the burdens which Clause 189 of the Bill places on Transport for London and consider that the proposed arrangement may be unnecessarily bureaucratic. These amendments give TfL the choice of providing a register of assets or copies of the designation documents. Amendments Nos. 440 to 446 are mainly technical amendments, designed to avoid uncertainty in the treatment of PPP leases. Finally, Amendments Nos. 449 to 451 are technical amendments deleting provisions which were included in the Railways Act provisions on which Schedule 11 is based, but are not necessary for the PPP administration orders. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move. Earl Attlee : My Lords, the Minister has described this group of amendments as technical and, by implication, innocuous. Does he realise that if the House agrees Amendment No. 425, my Amendment No. 426 would be rendered defective? That annoys me 19 Oct 1999 : Column 1056 a little, but there we are. However, we shall look at these amendments very carefully to make sure that they are indeed technical. [Amendment No. 425A not moved.] Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 425B: Page 102, line 24, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert-- (“(5) If a party who undertakes to carry out or secure the carrying out of any or all of the work mentioned in subsection (3) above (a “PPP company") is a public sector operator at the time when the contract is made, that party must no longer be a public sector operator on the day following the expiration of the period of six weeks beginning with the day on which the condition in subsection (7) below is satisfied."). Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 426: Page 102, line 32, at end insert-- (“(8) Transport for London may only enter into a PPP agreement with any party after a process of competitive tendering has taken place, such tenders in an abbreviated form to be available for inspection by members of the public following the conclusion of the tendering process."). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 426 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. The amendment is designed to ensure transparency and prevent a cosy deal being struck on a politically-influenced basis by forcing the tendering system into the open but with proper safeguards to protect commercial confidentiality. It will ensure transparency and the best value for money for the public. As I intimated earlier, the last group of government amendments indicate that agreements may be signed by subsidiaries and not just TfL only. In view of that, I shall accept the Minister's criticism that my amendment may now be defective. I beg to move. Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this amendment has two separate strands. The first part relates to competitive processes and would not allow TfL to enter into a PPP agreement with a company unless it had run a tender competition. As a general point the Government agree that best value is normally achieved through having a competitive process. However, there are certain circumstances where there is particular merit in pursuing negotiations bilaterally. The discussions that London Underground is having with Railtrack, where the aim is to explore the scope for integration of the Underground's sub-surface lines with the national railway network, is such a case. We feel therefore that it would not be in the best interest of Londoners to impose an obligation of the type suggested. The second element of the amendment requires TfL to publish summaries of the tenders once the competition has been completed. It is not normal practice to publish details of tenders as much of the information they contain is commercially sensitive. We understand the desire for the award of contracts to 19 Oct 1999 : Column 1057 be undertaken in a way that demonstrably delivers best value to the public purse. But an obligation to publish a summary of tenders is not desirable. Rather, I can offer the reassurance that the competitive process will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office in the normal way. I therefore ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment. Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he able to tell the House whether other public bodies which have to deal with tendering publish the tenders? I am thinking particularly of local authorities which do not in fact publish summaries of tenders because, although the commercial aspects will not be discussed publicly, other aspects may be discussed in committee and therefore in public. Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read carefully what he said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 427: After Clause 185, insert the following new clause-- CONDITIONS FOR ENTRY INTO PPP AGREEMENT (“ .--(1) Before any PPP agreement is entered into the Secretary of State shall have carried out an economic assessment in respect of the life of the agreement which demonstrates that such PPP agreement represents value for money at least comparable to that which would have been available through a publicly financed arrangement." (2) Such assessment shall be published by the Secretary of State immediately after the relevant PPP agreement has been entered into."). The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 427 is a refinement of an amendment put forward from these Benches at Committee stage in July. It is designed to ensure that a public sector comparator is carried out for a PPP agreement before it is actually entered into, and then as soon as it has been entered into, it is published. An understanding of the risk being transferred by a PPP agreement is clearly crucial to an assessment of the benefits of PPP or PFI agreements. Many of the doubts about PFI agreements concern the question of whether the risk transferred to the private sector is adequate to justify the additional costs to the public purse of the PFI or PPP agreements. It is that which makes having a comparator compulsory in these circumstances of such crucial importance. At Committee stage the Minister said that there was no difference between us in principle as regards the carrying out of a comparator. He said: “We have no intention of proceeding with any aspect of the PPP unless we are convinced that the contracts offer best value for passengers and taxpayers". He went on to say, “We are committed to conducting a public sector comparator exercise".--[Official Report, 1/7/99; col. 561.] On that score there can clearly be no doubt. However, he took exception to the timing. He did not believe that there should be publication before the PPP agreement was entered into, and he objected to the exercise being carried out by the GLA. Hence the amendment allows 19 Oct 1999 : Column 1058 the Secretary of State to carry out the comparator and for that comparator to be published not before the agreement is entered into--there seemed to be a view that it was commercially sensitive to do it at that time--but afterwards. Therefore, having amended the amendment, so to speak, to ensure that it complies exactly with his requirements, I ask the Minister what objection there can be in principle to this being included on the face of the Bill? It is clearly of great importance that we have this clarity and transparency about any PPP agreement which is entered into. Equally, it is of vital importance that it should be established to be of at least as good value as any public financing. I look forward to hearing the Minister's acceptance that this is a sensible amendment and one which should be included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3890

Unlicensed builder from Grafton is fined, banned By Craig S. Semon TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF A Grafton man has been ordered to pay $111,000 in restitution after he contracted to perform home improvement projects without proper registration, failed to complete work and misappropriated thousands of dollars from consumers, Attorney General Martha Coakley said Thursday.On Tuesday, a default judgment against Kyle T. Buckminster, 47, of 9 Cherry Lane, South Grafton, was entered against him in Suffolk Superior Court by Judge Bonnie MacLeod. Under the judgment, Mr. Buckminster was ordered to pay an additional $35,000 in civil penalties and $12,600 in fees, and is permanently prohibited from engaging in home improvement or general contracting services without proper registration or license.In December, the AG’s office obtained a preliminary injunction against Mr. Buckminster.According to a complaint filed in November, the home improvement contractor’s license of Mr. Buckminster — who does business as Buckminster Construction, Kyle Buckminster Fine Custom Carpentry and Finishing, Mid-Cape Construction and Fine Custom Carpentry, Blue Ocean Builders, and First Commonwealth Builders — was revoked in 2000, and he has never held a construction supervisor’s license. He has solicited work both as a home improvement and general contractor in Massachusetts.The lawsuit followed findings in August by the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation that Mr. Buckminster had been operating as a home improvement contractor without a license for four South Grafton customers in 2011. All of them claimed that Mr. Buckminster failed to fulfill his obligations under their home improvement contracts.The AG’s office alleged that even after the Consumer Affairs office ordered Mr. Buckminster to pay thousands of dollars in penalties and stop doing residential contracting services without the appropriate license, he continued to solicit work in Massachusetts by holding himself out as being licensed.It was also alleged that Mr. Buckminster misappropriated more than $40,000 from a fifth person for a construction project in West Yarmouth. The complaint further alleges that Mr. Buckminster failed to pay any of the $9,550 in penalties assessed by the Consumer Affairs office.The Home Improvement Contractor Law establishes a registration requirement for home improvement contractors. Consumers are advised to check with the consumer affairs office to make sure that any contractor they hire is currently registered, and to interview at least three contractors and request written, detailed estimates before hiring a home improvement contractor.Consumers who discover that a home improvement contractor is not registered should report the violation to the Attorney General’s Office.Attempts to find a working telephone number for Mr. Buckminster were unsuccessful yesterday.In addition to being contracted to perform home improvement projects without proper registration, Mr. Buckminster has a history of illegally practicing law, driving while his license was suspended and larceny.In March 2012, Mr. Buckminster was charged with driving while his license was suspended (subsequent offense) and, in June 2011, he was charged with two counts of larceny by check.In May 2005, Mr. Buckminster was charged with illegally practicing law and taking more than $3,000 from a Northboro couple who hired him. He was charged with two counts of unauthorized practice of law and two counts of larceny of property valued over $250 by false pretense. The alleged victims of the 2005 case complained to police in November that they had hired Mr. Buckminster to represent them in various legal proceedings, but he failed to take action and cashed their checks for approximately $3,400.Mr. Buckminster had been disbarred in July 1999. The state Board of Bar Overseers learned that Mr. Buckminster had been practicing law and initiated an order of contempt against him. The contempt order issued in March 2005 prohibits Mr. Buckminster from applying for reinstatement to the bar for at least 10 years.In addition, the order of contempt called for Mr. Buckminster to stop representing himself as a lawyer, to remove anything identifying him as a lawyer from stationery, business cards or other materials, and to stop accepting new cases.Mr. Buckminster was admitted to practice law in February 1992 and was administratively suspended in December 1996 for failure to register with the Board of Bar Overseers and failure to pay the registration fee as required by Supreme Judicial Court rules.In August 1998, after his suspension, he represented a client — who is his cousin — in a divorce, without notifying her of his suspension, according to the disbarment order. Mr. Buckminster also was alleged at that time to have used his client’s proceeds from the sale of a home for personal expenses and to never have deposited them in an escrow account as he led her to believe, according to the disbarment order.Mr. Buckminster later failed to comply with a subpoena to meet with the state’s bar counsel and failed to cooperate in the ensuing investigation, according to the 1999 order of disbarment. On May 24, 1999, Mr. Buckminster submitted his affidavit of resignation, which was accepted by the Board of Bar Overseers.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3918

Thomas brothers enter pleas of not guilty in federal court Former Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council chairman Michael Thomas, top photo, and his brother Steven Thomas, middle, bottom photo, arrive at federal court in New Haven Monday, Jan. 7, 2013. New Haven — The two Mashantucket Pequot brothers indicted last week on charges that they stole more than $800,000 from the tribe that owns Foxwoods Resort Casino pleaded not guilty Monday in U.S. District Court.Thirty-eight-year-old Steven Thomas, the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council’s treasurer, and Michael Thomas, 44, a former council chairman, were released on $100,000 bonds pending a trial that U.S. Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis tentatively set for March 12.The judge ordered both men to surrender their passports — Steven Thomas’ attorney, Richard Reeve, said his client has been unable to locate his — and confine their travel to Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Margolis also approved Steven Thomas’ travel early next month to Washington, D.C., on tribal business.The Thomases also were ordered to have no contact with government witnesses unless, in Steven Thomas’ case, his tribal employment requires it. In such instances, Steven Thomas is prohibited from discussing the case, according to a standard “no-contact” provision, which Reeve contested.As a tribal council member, Steven Thomas needs to have frequent contact with other council members, Reeve said, and also encounters other tribal members and tribal employees named on the list “on a daily basis.” The list of some 20 people, which was not made public, contains the names of many of Thomas’ friends, according to Reeve.“It’s a little too much Big Brother,” the attorney said.Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Mattei, the prosecutor in the case, disputed the claim that Steven Thomas has daily contact with most of those on the list and said there had been an occasion on which Thomas attempted to intimidate or threaten a witness.Reeves characterized the case against Steven Thomas as an “employment case” based on the government’s allegation that he accepted wages for work he did not perform.“This is not about the theft of federal funds,” Reeve said. “This is a case about wages … whether he was entitled to receive payments.”The three-count indictment against Steven Thomas alleges he stole more than $700,000 in tribal funds from January 2005 through June 2008 while employed as assistant director of the tribe’s Department of Natural Resources Protection. At the time, the department received more than $10,000 a year in federal funds.Michael Thomas chaired the tribal council from 2003 until August 2009, when his fellow councilors forced him off the council as the tribe’s financial straits came to light. Thomas had gone public with a controversial pledge to put payments to tribal government and tribal members ahead of the tribe’s obligations to its lenders. The tribe defaulted on more than $2 billion in debt in late 2009. It has yet to secure final approval of a plan to restructure the debt.In the indictment returned against him Friday, Michael Thomas is accused of stealing more than $100,000 in tribal funds from October 2007 through April 2009. While no details of his alleged wrongdoing surfaced in court, sources have said an FBI probe of tribal finances focused in part on his use of a tribal credit card.Approached outside the courtroom, Michael Thomas refused to comment, as did his federal public defender, Paul Thomas, who is not related to him.More than a dozen tribal members attended Monday’s court proceeding.If convicted of stealing from an Indian tribal organization, each Thomas brother faces a maximum prison term of five years and fines of up to $250,000. If convicted of stealing from an Indian tribal government receiving federal funds, each faces a maximum prison term of 10 years and a fine of up to $250,000 on each [email protected] Mashantucket Pequot Tribal treasurer Steven Thomas walks into the Federal Courthouse in New Haven Monday, Jan. 7, 2013. Former Mashantucket Pequot Tribal chairman Michael Thomas walks into the Federal Courthouse in New Haven Monday, January 7, 2013. Prosecutors recommend 27 to 33 months in prison for Michael Thomas Tale of the Thomases Former Mashantucket tribal councilor pleads guilty to stealing from tribe Thomas guilty of stealing from tribe Feds move to head off potential Thomas defense Jury to be chosen for trial of Michael Thomas Mashantucket Pequot treasurer seeks dismissal of indictment Sources: Mashantucket chairman says tribe funding Steven Thomas' defense Tribe should remove indicted official

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3923

Former New London police officer claims in lawsuit against city that he was forced to quit Published February 25. 2014 1:00PM | Updated February 26. 2014 12:24AM New London — A New London police officer who resigned last year amid allegations that he was under investigation by the city and state after a man accused him of planting drugs during an arrest is suing the city, the mayor and the police chief, claiming he was put under extreme duress and forced to resign.Roger Newton, a K-9 officer, was placed on administrative leave Jan. 6, 2012, when Lance Goode claimed that Newton had planted drugs on him during an Oct. 20, 2010, arrest.In his lawsuit, filed earlier this month, Newton claims he was never interviewed or questioned by anyone from the police department as part of an internal investigation. He said it wasn't until Feb. 8 that he was told to report to Chief Margaret Ackley's office on Feb. 10. He resigned from the force on Feb. 10.Among the other six counts in the lawsuit, Newton claims his procedural due process rights were violated, his privacy was invaded when the city intentionally painted him in a false, corrupt light, the city was negligent and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him, and the city is liable for his economic losses and damages.Newton's attorney, Christine Synodi, said her client was treated unfairly by the administration and was portrayed unfairly in the public. She declined further comment on the lawsuit.Police Deputy Chief Peter Reichard referred all comments to Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio, who said he would not comment on specific complaints alleged in the lawsuit, as it is the city's policy not to comment on pending litigation.He did say, however, that he was pleased to learn from the state NAACP that the U.S. Attorney's Office is reconsidering looking into complaints against the police department, including the Newton allegation."The only thing I could think about when I learned about this lawsuit is the case when the burglar falls through the skylight and then sues the homeowner," Finizio said.Newton claims that on Oct. 20, 2010, he pulled a vehicle over for a traffic violation. He recognized the driver as Lance Goode, a person who has more than 30 arrests for various crimes, the lawsuit says.The lawsuit says Newton called for backup, as Goode was known to assault officers. During the arrest, Goode gave permission to search the car. The lawsuit claims that when the glove box was opened, a clear knotted plastic bag containing various pills believed to be oxycodone fell to the floor, and Goode was placed under arrest.A year later, on Oct. 25, 2011, the narcotics unit told Newton to stop a car based on information it had regarding drug activity. The car was pulled over, and the driver was stopped and patted down. The stop was recorded on Newton's in-car camera and audio.The next month, various officers were called in for a training class by the New London state prosecutor's office on search and seizure procedures.Newton claims the class was centered on the Oct. 25 stop as an example of a bad stop and search. The lawsuit claims that Supervisory Inspector Philip Fazzino was abusive to Newton and even cursed at him. The class got so tense that the training was "disbanded," the lawsuit claims.On about Dec. 10, 2011, Goode obtained a video of his stop to use for defense purposes. Goode reviewed the video with Fazzino. The lawsuit claims that Goode and Fazzino believed that the video showed Newton planting drugs on Goode.Fazzino declined to comment on the allegations.Shortly thereafter, the narcotics safe used for K-9 training became the subject of an internal investigation. An audit of the safe found that no drugs were missing, the lawsuit claims.On Jan. 6, 2012, Newton said he became aware that he was the subject of an investigation that accused him of planting drugs. At that point, he was suspended with pay.Newton said he was required to turn in his badge, gun, car and dog, Kilo. His car, which was a subject of the investigation, was never properly preserved as evidence, the lawsuit says.The next day, the car was searched and 3 grams of marijuana were found.Newton was summoned to Ackley office's on Feb. 10. Based on statements made to his then-attorney, he was led to believe that his firing was imminent and felt pressured to resign."The meeting on February 10, 2012 was called for the purpose of intimidating Plaintiff with additional charges and further undue attention and publicity in order to force Plaintiff's resignation, the same being done without adequate investigation and without full disclosure of evidence in violation of his substantive and procedural due process rights," the lawsuit says.As part of a settlement agreement, Newton said Ackley agreed to sell him his dog, Kilo, for $500; to cease all internal investigations; and to hold no further press conferences regarding Newton.As a result of the allegations, Newton claims he was interviewed by state police, the state's attorney's Office and the FBI. The probe concluded there was no probable cause to arrest Newton, the lawsuit says."As a result of the widespread publication of the allegations against him and his resignation, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from public shame from members of the community, his peers and potential future employers who continue to refuse to hire him," the lawsuit claims.The lawsuit is seeking compensatory, punitive, economic damages, interest and cost, attorney fees and any other relief that the court deems appropriate.Goode has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit naming Newton, five other officers and the city.Last month, federal Judge Dominic J. Squatrito said the case "shall be trial ready June, 2014. If the parties feel a settlement conference would be beneficial, they should contact chambers immediately."The state NAACP is also asking for federal authorities to look into complaints against the police department, many of which came to light after Goode alleged that Newton planted drugs during his [email protected] NAACP hopeful complaints against New London police will get new look Goode says New London police questioned him about homicide New London police arrest Lance Goode NAACP decries inaction against former New London police officer New London officer who faced investigation resigns

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3962

Open house theft scheme in Limerick, East Norriton lands couple behind bars By CARL HESSLER Jr., [email protected] COURTHOUSE — They targeted real estate open houses during a recent theft scheme and now a Limerick man and a New Hanover woman, each who had previous burglary convictions, are headed back to prison. Megan Anne McCormick, 36, of the 2700 block of Stacie Drive, New Hanover, was sentenced in Montgomery County Court to three to six years in a state correctional facility after she pleaded guilty to charges of theft by unlawful taking and conspiracy in connection with multiple thefts that occurred at real estate open houses in 2013 in Limerick, East Norriton and Upper Providence. Jeffrey Douglas Ridenour, 33, of the 100 block of West Ridge Pike, Limerick, was sentenced to 1 ½ to five years in state prison after he pleaded guilty to taking part with McCormick in the October 2013 theft of jewelry during an open house at an East Norriton home. “They went into homes that were open for sale and would go throughout the home and steal different items like jewelry and leave the house without anyone realizing anything was gone for a couple of days,” said Assistant District Attorney Jeremy Abidiwan-Lupo, who sought state prison time against McCormick and Ridenour. Advertisement “They targeted people who trusted the community to come to their houses, just to look at the homes, and these two individuals took advantage of that trust and really violated their sense of privacy in a great way,” Lupo added. “They had a system of preying on open houses.” President Judge William J. Furber Jr., who sentenced McCormick, and Judge Steven T. O’Neill, who sentenced Ridenour, told the defendants they will be responsible for paying restitution, which has yet to be determined. The judges also ordered McCormick and Ridenour to undergo drug and alcohol treatment and counseling. With the charges, authorities alleged that on Oct. 6, 2013, McCormick and Ridenour, who court documents indicate have a child together, attended a real estate open house at a property in the 100 block of Hancock Boulevard in East Norriton after which the owner reported about $2,645 in jewelry went missing. “(The realtor) reported the couple walked around the second floor unsupervised for a short period of time and then exited the house,” East Norriton Police Sgt. David W. Boyer wrote in the arrest affidavit. “The thefts occurred on the second floor.” Authorities subsequently linked McCormick to other thefts during open houses in Limerick, Skippack, Trappe and Upper Providence between February and October 2013, according to court papers. “Jewelry was the primary stolen property in all incidents involving thefts,” Boyer and Upper Providence Detective Raymond D. Bechtel III wrote in a criminal complaint filed against McCormick. On Oct. 18, investigators searched McCormick’s residence and recovered “a large amount of jewelry” there, according to the arrest affidavit. Numerous pieces of the recovered jewelry were subsequently identified as having been stolen from the East Norriton home, court documents indicate. It wasn’t the first contact that McCormick and Ridenour had with law enforcement. In June 2011, Ridenour, then 30, was sentenced to three-to-six years in state prison after he pleaded guilty to a felony charge of burglary in connection with a February 2011 break-in at a Limerick business. Ridenour was on parole at the time of his latest arrest. In November 2012, McCormick, then 35, was sentenced to 11 ½ to 23 months in county jail and eight years’ probation after she admitted to participating with two others in a series of residential burglaries in several communities between September and November 2011, according to court records. McCormick also was on parole or probation at the time of her latest arrest. Follow Carl Hessler Jr. on Twitter @MontcoCourtNews

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/3987

August 26, 2011 > NUMMI and disabled auto workers settle NUMMI and disabled auto workers settle Submitted By Christopher HerreraA $6 million settlement has been reached in a case brought by disabled auto workers who claimed they were unfairly excluded from severance benefits when the New United Motor Manufacturing (NUMMI) plant in Fremont, CA, shut its doors last year. A motion for preliminary court approval of the settlement was filed today. If approved, the settlement will resolve a lawsuit - Cookson et al v. NUMMI, et al., C10-02931 CRB - that was filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on July 14, 2010. The suit alleged that NUMMI and Toyota violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying bonuses and transitional services to qualified workers who were on leaves of absence due to their own medical conditions.Many of the disabled workers had been employed at the plant for 25 to 30 years, yet their years of service at the plant were not considered in their severance package because of their medical leave status. This resulted in losses of up to $38,000 each."I worked for NUMMI for 25 years, but I was offered the same severance as a person who had worked one year," said plaintiff David Botelli. "The only reason I wasn't working was that I was injured on the job - I got hurt working for NUMMI. And when I was released by my doctor, NUMMI would not allow me to return."Plaintiff June Andrade reported that she was prevented from returning to work after recovering from surgery for an on-the-job injury, and was excluded from transitional employment services that were offered at the automotive plant. Andrade added, "I joined the suit because it wasn't fair to treat the disabled workers less favorably-we were all part of the NUMMI team."Former NUMMI workers also filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As a part of the settlement, NUMMI entered into a conciliation agreement with the EEOC.The NUMMI plant was the last remaining auto manufacturing plant on the West Coast. Home Protective Services

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4007

12 U 39/00 Oberlandesgericht Hamburg http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?id=1352 A Dutch seller and a Spanish company entered into a contract for the sale of equipment, as well as items for ice production, to be used in a café in Palma de Mallorca. The contract provided that the seller would make the equipment available in a ready for use condition and that any party failing to perform in total or in part the contract would pay a penalty. After the seller’s death, the buyer’s assignees claimed that the seller had delivered defective goods and had failed to make them available in a ready for use condition. Therefore, they requested the Court to order the seller’s heirs to reimburse part of the price already paid, as well as to pay the contractual penalty. The Court of first instance dismissed the buyer’s assignees’ action on the ground of lack of necessary parties to the proceedings. On appeal, the Court found that, since the contract contained a forum selection clause in favour of German Courts, and a contrary intent could not be inferred from the circumstances, the parties were held to have tacitly agreed on the application of German law. In particular, CISG had to be applied to the case at hand, it being the part of substantive German law governing international sales contracts. In addition, the Court considered the claim for reimbursement of part of the purchase price unjustified both under Art. 81(2) and Art. 50 CISG. After examining, in the light of Art. 8(2) CISG, the letters sent by the buyer to the seller, the Court concluded that they did not constitute a notification of lack of conformity and, therefore, that the buyer had lost its right to rely on Art. 39 CISG. Consequently, the buyer’s assignees were not in a position to declare the contract avoided under Art. 49(1)(a) CISG for the purpose of claiming either reimbursement of the purchase price under Art. 81(2) CISG or a price reduction under Art. 50 CISG. Nor could the contract clause according to which the seller was obliged to make the equipment available in a ready for use condition be interpreted as a warranty for lack of defects and thereby as derogating from the requirements set out in Art. 39 CISG. Moreover, the Court affirmed that in the case at hand no fundamental breach had occurred that would entitle the buyer to ask for avoidance (termination) of the entire contract (Arts 25 and 49 CISG). It was undisputed that the inventory provided was capable of operating to some extent and had indeed been used by the buyer. For this reason, and because no partial avoidance had been declared by the buyer, the Court did not address the issue as to whether declaration of avoidance of the contract had been timely and effective pursuant to Art. 49(2)(b)(i) CISG. However, the Court held the buyer’s assignees entitled to recover the contractual penalty. In so doing, the Court left open the problem as to whether an exemption from the obligation to pay the contractual penalty should be decided on the basis of CISG or on the basis of the applicable domestic law, given that in the case at hand neither system would release the seller from its obligation. With respect to CISG, the Court pointed out that an exemption would only be allowed if proper installation had been impossible due to an unforeseeable impediment beyond the seller’s control (Art. 79(1) CISG) or conduct by the buyer (Art. 80 CISG). Finally, in considering whether the revocation of assignment of contractual rights by the buyer’s assignees was effective, the Court referred to Art. 16 CISG which provides that a declaration of intent may only be revoked before the other party dispatches an acceptance and concluded that in the case at hand the revocation was not possible. Finding that Art. 78 CISG also applies to contractual penalties stipulated in sales contracts that are governed by CISG, the Court granted the buyer’s assignees interest, in accordance with the relevant provisions of German law, that had accrued accruing from the time of payment of the contractual penalty.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4008

49 C 502/00 Amtsgericht Duisburg http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?id=715 An Italian seller and a buyer of Italian nationality but with place of business in Germany were in a long-standing business relationship for the sale of cardboard packages for pizza. Seller and buyer entered into a sales contract. The buyer, as it usually did, paid the price in advance. The seller handed over the cardboard packages to a transportation company that then delivered the goods. At the delivery a substantial part of the goods were damaged and could not be used for their purpose. Relying on the fact that the seller, during the course of their business relations, had twice granted the buyer a credit when goods arrived damaged at the buyer’s place of business, the buyer sent an invoice for the price of the damaged goods to the seller. The seller however this time did not grant a credit to the buyer. After a subsequent delivery of goods that were not damaged, the buyer refused to pay the price of the subsequent delivery, claiming set-off with its alleged counterclaim deriving from the previous contract. The seller filed a claim against the buyer for payment of price. The Court held that the contract was governed by CISG, since seller and buyer had their place of business in two different contracting States, irrespective of their nationality (Art. 1 CISG). As to the question of set-off, the Court noted that it is a matter not expressly settled in CISG. It found that though it is generally acknowledged that set-off between claims deriving from the same sales contract is admissible under CISG, the disputed claims derived from different sales contracts. The Court considered that this is a question not expressly settled in CISG and not to be solved by way of interpretation, therefore it applied the relevant domestic law according to Art. 7(2) CISG (Italian law). The Court found that the buyer had no right to set-off. Moreover, the Court found that the buyer had no right to a credit due to a practice established between the parties according to Art. 9 CISG, because the granting of a credit on only two occasions during a longer business relationship did not suffice to establish a practice. According to the Court, Art. 9 requires a behavior that is regularly observed and therefore of a certain duration and frequency relating to the length of the business transaction involved. Furthermore the Court held that the buyer had no right to damages under Art. 45 (1)(b), 74 CISG because the seller had performed its duty of delivery according to Art. 31(a) CISG. Under Art. 31(a) CISG the seller was obliged only to hand over the documents to the carrier. Since the buyer failed to produce evidence for an alleged agreement on the place of performance being at the buyer’s place of business, for which he carries the burden of proof, the general rule of Art. 31(a) CISG applied. Moreover the Court found that according to Art. 36 CISG the seller was not liable for the non-conformity of the goods, which occurred after the passing of risk. According to Art. 67 CISG the risk had passed to the buyer with the handing over of the goods to the carrier. The seller was not bound to hand over the goods at a particular place as the buyer failed to produce evidence for such an agreement. The buyer was ordered to pay the price plus interest, at the rate determined by Italian domestic law (without having to decide whether this happened by virtue of a special connecting factor, that is the creditor’s place of business, or by virtue of the law otherwise applicable to the contract).

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4049

Judge orders Fairfax terror suspect to remain in jail until his trial By Spencer S. Hsu Tuesday, July 27, 2010; A Fairfax man accused of trying to join an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group in Somalia poses a danger to the community and his family and will remain in jail until trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis ordered Monday. Zachary A. Chesser, 20, dressed in a green prison jumpsuit for a half-hour hearing, argued through his attorney, Michael Nachmanoff, that he had no criminal history, had met with FBI agents at least four times since May 2009, had given up his U.S. passport and was no more a threat to flee than after those meetings. But Davis ruled that did not justify his release given the seriousness of the charge against him: providing material support to a U.S.-designated terrorist group, al-Shabab, a violent Islamist insurgency seeking to topple Somalia's fragile United Nations-supported government. The judge, ruling in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, cited Chesser's alleged statements to the FBI that he was "willing to die for Islam" and twice tried to travel to Somalia to join al-Shabab as a "foreign fighter." One of those included a July 10 attempt in which Chesser was stopped along with his 7-month-old son from boarding at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport because he is on a federal no-fly list. "An individual who has no concern for his own life probably has little concern for the lives of others," Davis said. "It's all right if he wants to put his life in danger, but if he's not going to look out for his 7-month-old son, then this court is going to do so." Prosecutor John Gibbs also cited Internet posts by Chesser that advocated fighting religious disbelievers, e-mail communications with radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi and an April online warning to the creators of the "South Park" animated satire, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, that they could face assassination for irreverently depicting the prophet Muhammed. Gibbs added another detail, saying that after Chesser had allegedly told the FBI that he intended to join al-Shabab and found out he was on a no-fly list, he offered in a July 21 meeting to help the FBI as an informant -- on condition that he be allowed to travel to Somalia. Prosecutors formally entered into the case an FBI affidavit filed to obtain search warrants for Chesser's apartment and car Wednesday, the day he was arrested, that was disclosed last week. The FBI reported that Chesser told an agent that he could be considered one of the most influential members "in the Jihadi community" in the Washington area. The FBI alleged that Chesser also posted the U.S. Army Ranger Handbook and the Transportation Security Administration's standard operational practices for airport screening, and encouraged conducting "fake operations" such as leaving bags that appear to be suspicious packages in public places to "desensitize" federal agents. Prosecutors also filed notice that they intend to submit evidence gleaned from searches and electronic surveillance conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4055

Smoking in the Car with Children Posted: Thu 6:32 PM, Feb 05, 2004 | Updated: Thu 6:32 PM, Feb 05, 2004 Lighting up a cigarette with a child in the car could become a criminal offense in Georgia. Lawmakers are considering a smoking ban in private vehicles to help protect young children from smoke related health problems. Georgia lawmakers say children need more protection from the dangers of secondhand smoke, and want to make it illegal to smoke in a car with a child present. Monica Austin, a mother of three, and director of a daycare center, says she doesn't think the proposed bill would be effective. "Regardless of whether they are in they're car or at home they are going to smoke," says Monica. Smoking in a car with a child under four, without rolling down the windows would be against the law. Glenda Bay, a smoker and mother of three, says the bill infringes upon rights in someone's personal property. "I don't think it's right for people to smoke in cars or home with their children, don't think it's right. But as far as taking rights away I don't think that's right, people should be smart enough to know they have little ones in the car," Glenda Bays says. "I fell like that's more private, we are going into people's private lives, private sector where they feel most comfortable," Monica says. Austin says she appreciates the legislature's effort to protect toddlers, but for the smokers, the threat of losing their rights needs to be their motivation to quit for themselves and for their children. The bill would allow police to pull folks over who break the law and issue a $15 fine. Georgia would be the first state to ban smoking.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4073

March2014Volume87Number3 Mar 01, 2014ArchiveIssueArticlesArticles TopicsView All TopicsCourts/Judiciary Quickly find case law to bolster your arguments. Family Law Casenotes and Quotes is a handy compilation of family law cases since 1977. It's updated 3 times a year so you always have the most current info. The November 2016 supplement includes four new casenotes. Order your copy today!Since 1982, The Wisconsin Rules of Evidence: A Courtroom Handbook has helped trial lawyers and judges find applicable rules of evidence, available commentary on those rules, and relevant case law when they needed them most. It can do the same for you. Plus, it's newly revised for 2017. Order now!The Wisconsin Governmental Claims and Immunities Handbook is your guide to the world of governmental tort litigation - and now it's been updated for 2017. If you deal with claims against government entities, this is the book for you!Are you current on Wisconsin's PROM laws? The Wisconsin Public Records and Open Meetings Handbook is newly updated as a 5th edition with the latest case law and court opinions. Get yours today!Think of it as an encyclopedia for lawyers. The WI Attorney's Desk Reference contains recent case law and legislation impacting 11 practice areas and 35 topics. Treat yourself to a copy this holiday season. A Conversation on Supreme Court Term LimitsThe Judicial Election Steering Committee is working to amend the term of office for Wisconsin Supreme Court justices as a way to promote a fair and impartial judiciary and improve the administration of justice for Wisconsin residents. In this conversation, learn how the Judicial Task Force arrived at its proposal and what the steering committee is doing to encourage its acceptance.EmailPrintSaveComments (0)FacebookTweetlinkedInGoogle+ In fall 2011, State Bar President Jim Brennan created a Judicial Task Force to study and report to the Board of Governors on ways the State Bar might promote a fair and impartial judiciary to improve the administration of justice for all Wisconsin residents. The task force worked for approximately a year and a half debating various options. In the end, it recommended amending the Wisconsin Constitution to change the term of office for Wisconsin Supreme Court justices to a single elected 16-year term. In September 2013, the task force presented its recommendation to the Board of Governors, which overwhelmingly voted to support the change. Upon passage of the policy position, State Bar President Patrick J. Fiedler created a Judicial Election Steering Committee to educate the membership, the legislature, and the general public about the proposed constitutional amendment. [See the accompanying sidebar to learn about Judicial Election Steering Committee and Judicial Task Force members.] For More Information Judicial Task Force’s Report and Recommendation Speakers are available to address your local civic group or attorney organization; please email org judicialselection wisbar wisbar judicialselection org. Join members of the task force at PINNACLE’s Litigation, Dispute Resolution and Appellate Practice Institute, May 23-24, at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee. If you are registered for the Institute, plan to attend this session on Thursday, May 23, 3:50 – 4:30 p.m. A Wisconsin Lawyer reporter interviewed Joe Troy, task force chair and steering committee vice chair, and task force members Tom Shriner, Christine Bremer Muggli, and Catherine Rottier; and John Orton, steering committee chair, to learn more about the proposal. It might be helpful to give a little background on the task force. For instance, how was it established and how did it operate? Troy: When Jim Brennan approached me about serving as chair, I knew that the composition of the task force would be very important. We needed a group of well-respected and thoughtful attorneys who had a passion for the law and a just legal system. It was equally important that the committee be a mix of both conservative- and liberal-oriented members who would be willing to listen and respectfully debate the issues. I also felt that keeping this initial group small would facilitate our ability to fully discuss the issues and find opportunities to meet frequently. The year and a half that the four of us studied, debated, found consensus, wrote, and finally presented our ideas has been among the most fulfilling professional experiences of my career. “If sitting supreme court justices continue to run for office while they are in office, they will inevitably continue to be politicians.” – Christine Bremer Muggli Rottier: We agreed right from the start that we did not want to produce a report or a recommendation that was going to sit on a shelf somewhere and collect dust. Everyone was on board with making a recommendation that could be adopted and would improve our highest court and the public’s perception of it. Shriner: The task force believed that the recommendation had to be politically realistic: something the state legislature would consider. We thought that if we could get two plaintiff’s attorneys and two defense attorneys with diverse backgrounds to agree on a proposal, then we might be on to something that could work for our state. How did you determine that changing the length of the term for a supreme court justice was the right answer? Bremer Muggli: The task force was able to look at a number of nationwide studies on a variety of topics, from judicial campaigns to merit selection. The reality is that each state is different, and judicial elections should be different from partisan political elections. We wanted to enhance the idea that the judiciary is a separate branch of government whose most important role is to enforce the rule of law. If sitting supreme court justices continue to run for office while they are in office, they will inevitably continue to be politicians. “Everyone was on board with making a recommendation that could be adopted and would improve our highest court and the public’s perception of it.” – Catherine Rottier Rottier: This is what the “Wisconsin Idea” is all about. Our state has always been a leader in new and innovative ideas. No other state does it this way, so we would be unique and, more important, a leader in promoting a good-government solution to a real problem. Shriner: Once justices get elected, they will know that they will never have to be a politician again. They won’t need to raise money or potentially be beholden to anyone. A single term of sufficient length will improve the collegiality among the justices and, we think, the public’s trust in a fair court. How did you end up with the proposal for a single 16-year term? Troy: The task force believed the single extended term was the best solution for the court and public, but the length of the term required much more deliberation. Ultimately, we concluded that a 16-year term was best for a number of reasons. First, the average term of a justice over the last half century was more than 13 years, so the new term length would not shorten the service of most justices. Second, we wanted the term to be long enough to attract a wide variety of individuals, but not so long as to grant anyone a life term. Finally, 16-year terms would allow stability and continuity within the court. Shriner: Only one elected justice in the last 96 years has lost a reelection bid and only four incumbents running after being appointed by the governor have been defeated. The proposal gives a new justice plenty of time to get up and running and will allow each justice the opportunity to create a long-lasting judicial legacy. “The incumbents will serve out their current terms and then will have the same option as everyone else of running for a single 16-year term.” – Thomas Shriner There are some in the legal community and on editorial boards who advocate for a merit selection system. Did the task force consider merit selection? Bremer Muggli: We did study merit selection and had considerable, serious conversations about the pros and cons of such a system. Our conclusion was that a merit selection system just wasn’t politically feasible. Throughout our state’s history, judges have always been elected, and we don’t see that changing anytime soon. Rottier: Going to a merit selection system doesn’t mean you are getting rid of elections. Every merit system includes retention elections, which can be just as nasty and political as the judicial elections we have seen in our state over the last few years. You don’t have to look any further than Iowa to see how bitter and divisive a retention election can be. We haven’t even mentioned the political problems surrounding selection committees or review processes, which we found in many merit selection states. We think that our proposal is better because it is politically neutral and has a chance of passing the legislature and being adopted by a popular referendum. “We need to start having good conversations about how we want our highest court to be perceived by the public, as well as how it should operate.” – Joseph Troy The judicial campaigns over the last 10 years have been getting more and more expensive. Wouldn’t the cost and the stakes be even higher for a longer, single term? Shriner: We all brought ideas and suggestions on how we could deal with the substantial amount of money being funneled into judicial elections over the past few years. The U.S. Supreme Court largely controls the future of campaign finance laws, and any of our efforts to cap expenditures in judicial elections would most likely be futile. Our focus was to create a proposal that we as a state could control. We concluded that the best solution to the perception that justices running for reelection are not independent is to create a system that ensures that once a justice is in office, serving on the court, he or she won’t have to worry about funding a reelection campaign. It will give the public confidence that justices are making their rulings based on their reading of the law, not to avoid opposition in a future campaign or to guarantee future campaign contributions. Judicial Task Force Members Joseph M. Troy, task force chair (and steering committee vice chair), U.W. 1980, is a partner at Habush, Habush & Rottier S.C., Appleton, and a former Outagamie County Circuit Court judge. He is on the faculty of the National Judicial College and the Center for Justice and the Rule of Law. He was chair of the Public Trust and Confidence Task Force in 2000, sponsored by the State Bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the Wisconsin League of Women Voters. He currently is chair of the State Bar Litigation Section. Christine Bremer Muggli, Loyola Chicago 1978, is a partner at Bremer & Trollop S.C., Wausau. She is past president of the Wisconsin Association for Justice and has served on its board since 1991. She is past president of the Wisconsin Civil Justice Education Foundation and currently is chair of the Justice Fund. She was appointed to Governor Doyle’s Advisory Council on Judicial Selection. She currently serves on the board of the State Bar’s Litigation Section. Catherine M. Rottier, U.W. 1986, is a partner at Boardman & Clark LLP, Madison. Her practice involves all facets of civil litigation, primarily on the defense side. She is a member and past chair of the Litigation Section board and has served in all officer positions for the Western District Bar Association and Wisconsin Defense Counsel. Thomas L. Shriner Jr., Indiana 1972, is a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, where he has an active trial and appellate practice. He is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, a former member of the State Bar Board of Governors, and a past president of the Seventh Circuit Bar Association. He is an adjunct professor at Marquette University Law School, teaching civil procedure and federal courts, and a member of the Wisconsin Judicial Council. Judicial Election Steering Committee Members The steering committee includes the four task force members above plus the following: John Orton, Marquette 1981, steering committee chair, is a partner at Curran, Hollenbeck & Orton S.C., Mauston and Wisconsin Dells. He is a member of the State Bar Board of Governors, the Litigation and Administrative and Local Government Lawyers sections, and the Wisconsin Association for Justice. John E. Danner, Iowa 1979, is a partner in Harrold, Scrobell & Danner S.C., Minocqua. He is a member of the State Bar CLE, Bench/Bar, and Bar Membership committees. He also is a board member of Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co., the Oneida-Vilas-Forest County Bar Association, and the Iowa State Bar Association. Michael J. Cohen, Marquette 1986, is a shareholder with Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols S.C., Milwaukee, and serves on the firm’s Executive Committee. He concentrates his practice on complex commercial litigation. He is the past president of the Milwaukee Bar Association and currently serves on the Milwaukee Bar Association Foundation board and the State Bar Board of Governors. He has been active in a leadership role with the Milwaukee Justice Center. Brett H. Ludwig, Minnesota 1994, is a litigation partner at Foley & Lardner LLP in the Milwaukee office, where he practices in general civil litigation and complex business disputes and chairs the office’s Pro Bono Committee. He is a member of the Milwaukee Bar Association, serving on its Professionalism Committee; the Ozaukee County Bar Association; the Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association, serving on its Pro Bono and Civil Practice committees; and the Seventh Circuit Bar Association. He also serves on the State Bar Board of Governors. Laura Verhoff, U.W. 1997, is a partner at Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, Madison, where she practices in the areas of estate and trust planning and administration and litigation and serves on the firm's board of directors. She also is an adjunct professor at the U.W. Law School, where she teaches introduction to estate planning. In addition to serving on the Judicial Election Task Force, she is a District Nine Governor for the State Bar's Board of Governors, vice-chair of the Policy Committee, and a member of the LRIS Committee. She also is a board member and fund-raising chair for the Wisconsin Equal Justice Fund Inc. Bremer Muggli: Sixteen years will also reduce the frequency of elections over time, from an average of once every year and a half to once every two and a half years. And we know that many highly qualified candidates don’t want to subject themselves or their families to negative campaigns. A fixed term with no possibility of reelection should attract good candidates, who are willing to run once in the interest of public service but who don’t want to get on the current reelection treadmill. So what happens if this proposal passes and a justice is elected to a fixed term, but leaves office before the term expires? Rottier: There is no change recommended to the current constitutional provision for gubernatorial appointments. The governor will maintain appointment power to fill judicial vacancies. And those appointees will still run in the following open spring election. This isn’t an area where there have been a lot of problems historically. A number of very able and distinguished justices got their start on the court by appointment. Over time, the longer term should spread out the time between supreme court elections, which would create more open election dates and shorter “appointed” terms before election. If voters don’t like the governor’s appointees, then they will continue to have the ability to vote them out. How will the proposal affect the current elected justices? Shriner: It won’t affect the current justices in any way. We’ve made the proposal quite clear that it doesn’t apply to the justices who are in office when it takes effect. The incumbents will serve out their current terms and then will have the same option as everyone else of running for a single 16-year term. This feature, along with retaining the gubernatorial appointment to fill vacancies, keeps the proposal as politically neutral as it can be. It doesn’t benefit any one candidate or one party over another. The only change is that any justices elected after its adoption won’t be able to serve on the supreme court beyond the end of their 16-year elected terms. The task force report indicates that collegiality will be improved by the single-term proposal. Can you explain how? Troy: Put yourself in the shoes of a justice who is planning to run for reelection. How would you feel if the justice who sits right next to you on the bench or in conference is publicly or privately opposing your reelection or actually helping recruit your next opponent? That is what happens now. The governor and legislature are political by constitutional design because the purpose of those elective offices is to carry out the popular will in the laws and policies of the state. But once elected to the high court, justices are supposed to dedicate themselves to the rule of law and the rule of law alone. That’s why our national framers provided life terms for federal judges. Partisanship creates bad blood and interferes with collegiality. That’s something we can live with in the political branches, but want to significantly reduce in the judicial branch. We want to free justices from the demands and distractions of the politics of reelection for themselves and each other. Justices should vigorously debate and defend their convictions about the law, but we should not continue a system that breeds personal resentment and animosity. The politics of reelection are at least a distraction from the court’s mission and, as we’ve seen, can be the catalyst for the destruction of collegiality. What is your plan to get this passed? Orton: President Fiedler appointed our steering committee to help move this policy position forward. A proposed constitutional amendment must be adopted by two successive legislatures and then ratified by the voters in a referendum. This is a long process, and for good reason, as constitutional change should never be taken lightly. Originally, we had hoped to present this proposal to the current legislature, but we quickly thought better of that. We noted, first, that the short legislative session scheduled this spring didn’t afford much opportunity for consideration of the amendment this year and, second, that it was critically important, as an initial matter, to inform and educate our members regarding this proposal and the solid policy reasons supporting it. The Board of Governors overwhelmingly supported this proposal. However, without the support of the general State Bar membership, this proposal doesn’t stand a chance in the legislature. Therefore, during the coming months, we intend to really make an effort to educate our members about this proposal. If our members agree with us that this is an excellent proposal, we will then present it to the legislature that takes office in January 2015 and make a determined push to get it approved. Troy: It was gratifying to see the Board of Governors show overwhelming support of the plan. Now we need their help and help from the membership. We need to start having good conversations about how we want our highest court to be perceived by the public, as well as how it should operate. We as lawyers love the rule of law, and we love our system of justice, so the time is right for attorneys to find a better way. Not everyone will agree, but if we continue to stand on the sidelines, things won’t get better.​

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4075

Category: People What is the Best Way to Conduct a People Search? People searches may be conducted online using a computer. Even individuals who are older and less computer-savvy should be able to search for people on the Internet. L. S. Wynn Edited By: L. S. Wynn The Internet provides a surprising variety of ways to conduct a people search. With a little diligence, it's usually not difficult to find information about friends, ancestors, coworkers, classmates and family members. The first step for a person conducting a search is to determine what type of information he or she is looking for. Someone who is primarily interested in obtaining contact information, will likely find the search to be relatively easy; he or she simply needs to visit an online white page directory. To use online white pages, a person should enter as much information as he or she has on hand. The first name and last name will probably be needed, along with a state or city. People who do not receive their desired results in the first attempt can try making the query slightly more general, either by omitting the city or first name. In so doing, he or she is expanding the scope of the search, but one side effect is that he or she is likely to receive many more hits that will take longer to sift through. Also, if the subject that the person is searching for has a common name, he or she may receive a significant number of results. Ad Online white pages usually provide telephone and address information; some may also include an email address if it is available. The databases are rarely purged, so the information may be outdated or there may be multiple entries for a particular person. In some instances, there is enough information to track a person's path from one residence to another. There are many online white pages, and people can find the most suitable one using their favorite search engine. Those who are searching for information that white pages do not provide can perform their search elsewhere. Surprisingly, ordinary search engines sometimes reveal very interesting information about individuals. While the searcher may not find the address or telephone number that he or she is looking for, the person can often discover the subject's place of work, club affiliations or hobbies and interests. Plenty of names show up on race results pages, conference attendance lists or on the minutes/agendas of community meetings. This information can help the searcher craft further search queries to uncover even more information. People can also take their people search to the many specialized services that can assist them in their quest. Someone who is conducting the search to learn about his or her ancestors will find that there are a whole host of sites specifically targeting genealogical information. With these genealogy services, a person will usually specify the surname and locality, and search through the records to uncover data. There are other services that target special types of relationships, such as databases that specialize in listing information of former students. The searcher simply navigates to his graduation year and finds his school, and he can get contact info about his former classmates. These services are particularly valuable because browsing through lists of former friends remind a person of people he forgot you knew. Classmate lists can also help solve the maiden-name problem; suppose, for example, that the searcher knows an old friend's maiden name, but did not know her name after she got married. Other specialty search services include those that focus on lawyers, physicians, college alumni, and realtors. If a searcher knew that someone went to a particular university, he or she might try searching through the alumni lists. Alternatively, if he or she knew that an old friend was planning on becoming a doctor, the person can search through a physicians directory to try to track the individual down. Some of these databases are only available to particular groups of people, however, and they may not be available to the general public. If these sources do not help a person complete his or her people search, there are paid services that provide much more information. Paid services collect information from a wide variety of sources that are not easily available, such as court records, real estate records, and magazine subscription information. By tying all of this information together, they can construct detailed profiles of almost everyone. These services usually charge a flat fee and provide surprisingly detailed reports. The privacy implications of all of this publicly available information are worth mentioning. Not too long ago, people could live anonymously and their personal information was their own. In the age of the Internet and expansive databases, disparate information can be combined to expose a wealth of data about a particular person. People who don't want their private information to be publicly available have to be extremely diligent and disciplined. In some cases, individuals can ask that their information be removed from certain databases. The trend of collecting more and more information about people is primarily fueled by companies who use the information to help them target their wares. For a company that is trying to sell legal pads, for example, mailing advertisements to the general public would be prohibitively expensive. If the marketing campaign could be targeted at lawyers only, advertising conversions would likely increase. For this reason, it is unlikely that this trend will subside absent substantive legislative intervention. Ad What Is an Anonymous Search Engine? What Is the Person Specification? What are College Alumni? What is a Phone Tree? What is a Maiden Name? What is a Surname? What is a Census? BioNerd @ShadowGenius Although malevolent genius hackers are relatively few and far between, I think that just one could do a lot of damage if he or she had access to all this info. ShadowGenius Businesses have massive databases that they pay good money to access and understand trends of societies, demographics, families, and social groups. These are all fed by the massive amount of information on the internet and in bank accounts. If we were fully aware of the extent to which we are documented, we may well be alarmed. We shouldn't be, however, because these figures are all for the general market, and nobody is interested in exploiting individuals, but only large groups. Catapult There are many people search sites out there today that could be rightfully accused of taking advantage of people or exploiting their information. While many people are aware of sites like Facebook having fairly lax, if not totally nonexistent "privacy" policies; however, there are other sites that find your information this way and find ways to further collect it. A friend of mine recently emailed many of her friends about an online "phone book" site that somehow had amassed everything from addresses to property house values and credit scores for some of its "members", who in this case were just people who data had been mined and placed on the site. While it might be all but impossible to keep yourself secret and private on the internet, remember that you can at least be judicious in how much information you willingly release, and know you have the right to complain about people using your information when you did not give it to them.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4082

Obama, DNC elude citizenship lawsuit deadline Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 12/01/2008 @ 10:35 pm In Front Page | Comments Disabled Attorney Philip J. Berg President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Convention have let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate to document his eligibility for office. While the Federal Election Commission waived its right to respond to the complaint on Nov. 18, the solicitor general’s office is refusing to say whether the waiver was also filed on behalf of Obama and the DNC. Berg filed his petition on Oct. 30, and according to procedure, a response from the defendants was due today. But when WND contacted the U.S. Supreme Court and the solicitor general’s office, officials referenced the FEC’s waiver and dodged any questions about Barack Obama and the DNC filing separate responses. America’s Right blogger and legal writer Jeff Schreiber has followed the case closely. “There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond,” Schreiber speculated. “First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg’s petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg’s lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response.” But one thing that is not clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents, he added. FEC attorney Gregory G. Garre is listed as the only name under “Attorneys for Respondents.” There are no additional attorneys listed for Obama or the DNC – and the waiver was filed by “respondents Federal Election Commission, et. al,” suggesting the response was on behalf of other defendants as well. Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a “natural-born American” as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND’s petition demanding the release of his birth certificate. “As it were, the FEC’s attorney, Gregory Garre, is with the Solicitor General’s office, and does not represent Obama or the DNC,” Schreiber wrote. “While attorneys acting on behalf of a group of defendants or respondents is not necessarily rare, the difference here is the involvement of the Solicitor General’s office, a federal office.” Court documents show the Federal Election Commission waived its right to respond on Nov. 18. Berg told America’s Right he was taken aback when he learned that the FEC – a federal regulatory agency – had filed the waiver. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us,” he said. “I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist. “However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the solicitor general’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama. Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2008/12/82492/ Click here to print. © Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4184

PUBLIC LAW 99-498—OCT. 17, 1986 tions the income of which is exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, (iii) made on a loan that 26 USC l et seq. has been outstanding for at least 5 years, and (iv) is made prior to October 1, 1991; and "(6) include in any contract such other covenants, conditions. Contracts. '• or provisions necessary to ensure that the purposes of this title will be achieved. "(c) COMPUTATION OF ALLOWABLE DISCOUNTS.—The Secretary shall compute the discount which may be offered to a borrower as an inducement to early repayment under subsection (b)(5) in an amount determined by the Secretary to be in the best financial interests of the Government, taking into account the yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States having maturities comparable to the remaining term of such loan. "(d) NONDISCRIMINATION BETWEEN BORROWERS IN OFFERING DISCOUNTED PREPAYMENT.—(1) If the Secretary offers a discount as an inducement to early repayment under subsection (b)(5), such offer shall be available without regard to whether the borrower is delinquent or in default on the loan on or before October 1, 1986, but the Secretary shall refuse to make such offer to a borrower that becomes delinquent or goes into default after that date. "(2) The discount offered shall apply, in the case of a borrower that complies with paragraph (1), to the entire amount outstanding on the loan (including any amount owed with respect to payments that are overdue). REVOLVING LOAN AND INSURANCE FUND "SEC. 733. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is created within the Treas- 20 USC ll32d-2. ury a revolving loan fund for the purpose of making and insuring loans under this part (hereafter referred to as the 'fund') which shall be available to the Secretary without fiscal year limitation. The total of any loans made from the fund in any fiscal year shall not exceed limitations specified in appropriations Acts. "(b) MANAGEMENT OF FUND.—(1) The Secretary shall transfer to the fund appropriations provided under section 702 to provide capital for making loans. Interest and principal payments on loans, and any other moneys, property, or assets derived from activities under this part shall be deposited in the fund. "(2) All loans, expenses, and payments pursuant to operation of this part shall be paid from the fund, including expenses and payments in connection with sale, pursuant to section 302(c) of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, of participa- 12 USC 1717. tions in obligations acquired under this part. At the close of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall pay interest on the cumulative amount of funds paid out for loans under this part less the average undisbursed cash balance in the fund during the year. The interest rate shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the average market yield on outstanding Treasury obligations of maturity comparable to the average maturity of loans made from the fund during the month preceding each fiscal year. Interest payments may be deferred with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, but interest payments so deferred shall themselves bear interest. If the Secretary determines that moneys in the fund exceed the present and prospective needs of the fund, the excess may be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4258

› Burnet v. A. T. Jergins Trust Burnet v. A. T. Jergins Trust 288 U.S. 508 (1933) U.S. Supreme CourtBurnet v. A. T. Jergins Trust, 288 U.S. 508 (1933)Burnet v. A. T. Jergins TrustNo. 541Argued February 15, 16, 1933Decided March 13, 1933288 U.S. 508CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 1. A city made an oil and gas lease to a private party, covering part of a tract owned by the city and used by it for water supply and other purposes. Under the lease, the oil and gas recovered were sold by the parties jointly and the proceeds were divided in stated proportions between them. Held that a federal tax on the receipts of the lessee was not invalid, since the subject taxed was so remote from any governmental function that the effect of the exaction on the city's activities was inconsiderable, and its collection was consistent with, and did not trench upon, the immunity of the state as a sovereign. P. 288 U. S. 514. 2. In determining net income under the Revenue Act of 1921, capitalized expenses for drilling and developing oil wells may not be deducted from gross income as depreciation allowance. United states v. Dakota-Montana Oil Co., ante, p. 288 U. S. 459; Petroleum Exploration v. Burnet, ante, p. 288 U. S. 467. P. 288 U. S. 516. 61 F.2d 92 reversed. Certiorari to review a judgment reversing a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, 22 B.T.A. 551. Page 288 U. S. 512 MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. Prior to 1911, the City of Long Beach, California, procured water from companies owning and operating Page 288 U. S. 513 artesian wells on lands lying outside the city. The service proving inadequate and unsatisfactory, the municipality in 1911 acquired these lands, comprising about 600 acres, and the appurtenant systems, and has since used the tract for water supply and other purposes. In 1922, oil was discovered in the vicinity, and the respondent was organized under the law of California with the intention of obtaining an oil and gas lease on the lands in question. The city leased to the respondent 140 acres, the agreement stipulating that the lessee should receive 60 percent of the proceeds of oil and gas recovered, and the city 40 percent. As permitted by the lease, the oil and gas produced have been sold under a contract made by the city and the respondent as joint vendors. The trust has derived substantial income from the lease. Upon audit of the taxpayer's returns for the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, the Commissioner, by formal written notification, proposed a deficiency in income taxes for those years. The respondent appealed to the United states Board of Tax Appeals, raising two issues: (1) whether its income derived from the lease was immune from taxation, and, if not, (2) whether capitalized expenses for drilling and developing its oil wells were to be returned through depletion allowance, as ruled by the Commissioner, or by way of depreciation. The Board held the income taxable and the intangible development costs recoverable through depreciation charges. The Circuit Court of Appeals, upon cross-petitions for review, decided that the income from the lease was immune from federal income tax, and therefore found it unnecessary to pass upon the matter of depreciation allowance presented by the Commissioner's petition. 61 F.2d 92. Both questions are raised by the petition for certiorari. The respondent, in support of its claim of immunity, relies upon the principle that a tax upon instrumentalities of the states is forbidden by the federal Constitution; Page 288 U. S. 514 that, by clear implication, the means employed by the general government to carry into operation the powers granted to it are exempt from taxation by the states, as are those employed by the states exempt from taxation by the general government. The principle is settled by a wealth of authority, and has been applied in varying circumstances; has been recently fully discussed and the authorities collected and commented upon in decisions of this Court (Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514; Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 U. S. 216; Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Board of Equalization, and Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, ante, p. 288 U. S. 325), and no purpose would be served by a repetition of what was there said. The revenue acts do not discriminate between the respondent and others similarly situated in the imposition of the income tax. If the respondent is exempt from the exaction, the conclusion must follow, because the tax directly burdens the functions of the state acting through the City of Long Beach. Considerations which have led to the condemnation of taxes in other circumstances are here absent. The levy is not upon the property of the municipality, nor upon the income it derives from its property, is not upon the city's share of the oil recovered, the lease, or the gross income therefrom. The law measures the assessment by the net income of the respondent, whose operations are carried on in a private, and not in a public, capacity for the personal gain of its cestuis que trustent. The government asserts that the incidence of the tax is so remote from the activities of the municipality as to have no substantial adverse effect upon them. The respondent insists that, as lessee of the lands in question, it is a governmental agency, and any tax laid upon its income directly burdens governmental functions. In Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, supra, this Court said (p. 269 U. S. 522): Page 288 U. S. 515 "Just what instrumentalities of either a state or the federal government are exempt from taxation by the other cannot be stated in terms of universal application." And further: "As cases arise, lying between the two extremes, it becomes necessary to draw the line which separates those activities having some relation to government, which are nevertheless subject to taxation, from those which are immune. Experience has shown that there is no formula by which that line may be plotted with precision in advance. But recourse may be had to the reason upon which the rule rests, and which must be the guiding principle to control its operation. Its origin was due to the essential requirement of our constitutional system that the federal government must exercise its authority within the territorial limits of the states, and it rests on the conviction that each government, in order that it may administer its affairs within its own sphere, must be left free from undue interference by the other. . . ." It was there pointed out that, while in one aspect the extent of the exemption must finally depend upon the effect of the tax upon the functions of the government alleged to be affected, still the nature of the governmental agencies and the mode of their constitution may not be disregarded in passing upon the question of tax exemption. An agency may be so intimately connected with the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty by the government that any taxation of it would be a direct interference with the functions of government itself. In Baltimore Shipbuilding Co. v. Baltimore, 195 U. S. 375, it was said: ". . . it seems to us extravagant to say that an independent private corporation for gain, created by a state, is exempt from state taxation, either in its corporate person or its property, because it is employed by the United states, even if the work for which it is employed is important and takes much of its time. "Page 288 U. S. 516 The statement holds true as well when the positions of the sovereigns are reversed. The application of the doctrine of implied immunity must be practical (Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 85 U. S. 31, 85 U. S. 36), and should have regard to the circumstances disclosed. We think that, in the present instance, the subject of the tax is so remote from any governmental function as to render the effect of the exaction inconsiderable as respects the activities of the city. Compare Alward v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 509, 282 U. S. 514. Its collection is not inconsistent with, and does not trench upon, the immunity of the state as a sovereign. The income of the respondent from the lease is not immune from federal income tax. The respondent relies upon Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501, and Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, as authorities binding upon us and requiring a decision in its favor. In both of those cases, the sovereign was acting as the trustee of an express trust with regard to the lands leased. In both, the burden upon the public use was more definite and direct than in the present case. As said in the Coronado case, the doctrine of Gillespie v. Oklahoma is to be applied strictly, and only in circumstances closely analogous to those which it disclosed. The decisions relied on cannot be held to be authority upon the facts presented by this record. The petitioner also asserts that the Board of Tax Appeals was in error in holding that the cost of drilling should be amortized by way of depreciation charges, and not through the statutory allowance for depletion. The identical issue is involved and settled in favor of petitioner by United states v. Dakota-Montana Oil Co., ante, p. 288 U. S. 459, and Petroleum Exploration v. Burnet, ante, p. 288 U. S. 467. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4313

Jessie's Law~End Micra ! ← Back to the cause I was told that the worst thing that can happen to a human being is to have to bury her child. When Jessie died a part of me died with her and I will never, ever be the same.But then, it got worse. I learned after days of unanswered questions that Jessie's death was not only preventable, a simple Antibiotic would have saved her life. An antibiotic that would and should have been prescribed had the ER done the test they claimed was done. We were sent to the ER by our physician to rule out a possible bacterial infection in her blood. After hours of waiting, 3 vials of blood drawn and an x-ray. The doctor returned and said the test results are negative for septic and that she probably just has a flu like virus that has located in her knee. He said it should last for about 3 or 4 days and to keep giving her the Motrin and return if she worsens.Within 2 days she was gone. The night we rushed her again to the ER the infection had taken over her body and it was too late. My Jessie had died. None of it made sense. What did she die of, they said she had the flu. We were under medical care. What had happened to her. Days later my answer came.CDC comes back with what killed Jessie and Dr. Evans original diagnosis was correct. Jessie died of Septic Syndrome due to disseminated Group A Streptococci a bacterial infection that could have been treated with antibiotics. The bacteria infection was found in her heart, lungs, and tonsils, liver and in the macrophages (inside the blood vessels in the skin around the wound).Gross Medical Negligence? Malpractice? Wrongful Death? I then decided to call the top attorney's in the Bay Area, thinking I would have my pick of the best. I made my first call, and then it was like I was stabbed again, because of a law called MICRA which stands for the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. I was told California was the first state to put this law in place in 1975 to cap pain and suffering at $250,000. This was supposed to help stop the increase of medical insurance premiums for doctors.How did MICRA affect us? After several calls we discovered that we were probably not going to be able to get an attorney. Jessie's case is a wrongful death case. She is a child and not a wage earner so she is not eligible for actual damages. The price tag on my sweet little girl was $250,000 and that is it. Despite the strong merits of the case, attorneys were not taking it, calling it "a bad business decision." With the countless hours of preparation, taking depositions and the cost of medical experts to testify, the $250,000 cap was simply not sufficient funds with which to argue a case.We are not alone. We were learning on a daily basis what a small unlucky portion of the population already knew: falling victim to medical negligence in a capped state is a double tragedy. As we networked with other victims we learned more and more about the unfairness of MICRA. Other non wage earners like seniors, stay at home moms, young adults who have not established a career yet, and minorities, are just as vulnerable as children.We feel quite strongly that caps, especially in cases like Jessie's, are unconstitutional. We feel that because the law forces the attorney's to look at WHO the victim is and not the MEDICAL ERROR in question that it violates "equal protection under the law."To our surprise, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in effect, confirmed our feelings when it struck down that state's $350,000 cap in a very important ruling handed down on July 14, 2005. I use to think MICRA just needed to be amended now I feel it should be eliminated!This law is an ugly secret to the public and has been kept in place because of the powerful interest money behind it. I cannot help but wonder how many people gave up on trying to get an attorney, because they kept getting turned down. The silent cries, that were never heard, the pleading of a broken heart in pain that is beyond description.Because of who Jessie was, my child, my beautiful precious little girl, in the Law of Micra she is worth $250,000. Her life ended. In your family. In this situation, who would they say was worth only $250,000. Help us change this outdated law that only protects the insurance companies. Related Issues Cause started on Nikki B Marie

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4369

« Back to News Print This Not So Super Tuesday Opponents of affirmative action thought they could ban it in 5 states this Election Day. Now they can only hope for 3. A look at what might be ahead. By Scott Jaschik May 6, 2008 Comments To listen to Ward Connerly last year, 2008 was going to be a crucial year in his fight against affirmative action. While the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 upheld the legality of some forms of affirmative action in college admissions, the justices didn't make it mandatory. And so Connerly set out to replicate the successes he had with state ballot measures in California, Washington State and Michigan. He identified five new target states and vowed to get affirmative action banned in each one, calling Election Day 2008 the Super Tuesday of his movement.Connerly may have had reason to be confident. Once his proposed bans on affirmative action have made it onto ballots, they have never lost. And he managed to defeat affirmative action in states that are, on the red-blue continuum, very much blue. This year's targets were a mix of red and purple.So far this year, however, defenders of affirmative action are the ones winning. First last month in Oklahoma and then on Sunday in Missouri, proponents of affirmative action bans failed to submit enough signatures to get on the state ballots this fall by required deadlines. In one state, Colorado, the measure has qualified for the ballot and campaigns are still going on in Arizona and Nebraska. In both of those states -- each with early July deadlines for submitting petitions -- organizers said Monday that they would qualify, but they also acknowledged not yet being close. Nebraska's push has only about 20 percent of the required signatures.So what's going on? Has the tide turned, as some defenders of affirmative action hope? Or has the movement against affirmative action simply run into administrative hurdles it didn't count on and may not have been prepared to face in five states at once?While both sides in the debate have their own analyses, one thing that they agree on is that defenders of affirmative action may have their greatest advantage before items reach the ballot. When the movement to use state referendums to ban affirmative action started, many educators hoped they would prevail to defend the practice in actual elections. That view is no longer much expressed -- and even people who strongly believe in affirmative action are less likely these days to predict that the public will reject ballot proposals as written by Connerly. But qualifying for state ballots is tricky, with requirements that vary from state to state. Defenders of affirmative action have made it clear that they will scrutinize as many signatures as possible and file suits if necessary to challenge signatures. As a result, proponents of the ballot measures have set goals much higher than the totals needed to qualify -- as they expect some signatures to be successfully challenged. And legal maneuvering has also become effective.Take Missouri, for example. Opponents of affirmative action said that they had more than 20,000 signatures on top of the required 150,000 or so that would be needed to place the measure on the ballot. But they said that they expected enough successful challenges that they didn't want to submit the petitions with relatively little margin for error, as would have been the case at this late date. Instead, they will start again, hoping for 2010 elections.Tim Asher, who led the Missouri effort for the ballot item, blamed the inability to collect enough signatures on Robin Carnahan, Missouri's secretary of state, who rewrote the ballot language submitted by Asher and his allies. A state judge later rejected Carnahan's language, but the petition drive didn't begin until after that dispute had been resolved. Signatures could have been collected earlier, but only using Carnahan's language, and the opponents of affirmative action didn't want to start again if -- as they predicted -- they eventually won the language fight."We lost months in court that we could have used to get the petitions," said Asher.He predicted that the measure would be back and would win in 2010. Asher, formerly director of admissions at North Central Missouri College, said he was inspired to help the movement in part because he saw scholarships at the community college that favored some groups over others. "I was concerned over whether this is something I should be involved in," he said.But defenders of affirmative action see other lessons in the Missouri experience. "I believe that failing to obtain enough signatures to support the petition is a clear message from the citizens of Missouri," said ReNee Dunman, director of equal opportunity and affirmative action at Old Dominion University and president of the American Association for Affirmative Action.Dunman said that Missouri officials were correct to challenge the language proposed in the petition drive. She noted that by including phrases like "civil rights" in the names of the measures, opponents of affirmative action adopt language that has been used by advocates for minority students over the years. She also noted that Missouri's secretary of state had been trying to draw attention to the reality that certain programs would be eliminated under the measure."It has always struck me as strange," Dunman said, that critics of affirmative action like general statements on ballots rather than saying exactly what programs they would like to end. She said it was important for defenders of affirmative action to "fight for transparency" because "when people have all the information, they are supportive."Should the measure be on ballots in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska, the debates could be different from those that played out in California and Michigan. In those two states, admission to the flagship public universities is extremely competitive and there was considerable focus on who was getting in and why. While admissions are competitive at places like the University of Colorado at Boulder, these institutions are not the same and some are quite different. Arizona State University, for example, expands enrollment to admit all qualified undergraduate applicants, so the image of rejected white applicants -- an image successfully used in past campaigns against affirmative action -- may be less powerful.Where the impact is more apparent, however, may be in professional school admissions. Officials in all three states predicted that the immediate aftermath of a vote to end of affirmative action could be most visible there.Marc Schniederjans, a professor of business at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and chief spokesman for the effort to ban affirmative action in his state, said that "I get some of my volunteers from people whose children and grandchildren were blocked by quotas" from being admitted to the university's law and medical schools. Asked if he could demonstrate that there are quotas at the institutions, he said, "you know how they operate," adding that professional schools use "goals" as code words for quotas.He also said that there were basic issues of fairness in universities spending money on programs for people of specific racial groups. "We have counties that have virtually no African Americans living in them, but tax monies are used for African Americans or others to come to Nebraska from out of state for college," he said.In Arizona, a more ethnically diverse state than Nebraska, the executive director of the group pushing for the elimination of affirmative action points to himself as a symbol of sorts. One wouldn't necessarily guess that someone with his name, Max McPhail, is Asian American. McPhail noted that he was born in South Korea but adopted and raised by a white family in the United States. He said he was raised never to think of himself as being Asian or white or "anything but an American citizen." When he applied to college and enrolled at Michigan State University, McPhail said, he never checked any of the race or ethnicity boxes on various forms.McPhail said that he believes Arizona's less competitive admissions standards won't result in the kinds of black and Latino enrollment drops that California saw when it banned affirmative action. But even if that happens at professional schools, McPhail said, it is beside the point. He said that diversity should mean many things, but that it has come to mean just race -- and that he is frustrated by the way people use the term. "It's a horrible disservice to everyone to view diversity as about race," he said. "I don't think the government should be engineering what a classroom should look like."In Colorado and the two states where the measure may yet qualify for the ballot, university systems are responding in different ways. The University of Colorado Board of Regents discussed the measure in private and reviewed a report identifying up to 100 programs in the system that might have to change if the measure is approved. Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the system, said that the regents "have not taken an official stance, and the early indications are that they won't." He said that the affected programs include many scholarship and outreach efforts. A complicating factor, he said, is that in some cases, programs were set up for specific purposes by donors, who wanted a focus on particular groups.In Nebraska, the Board of Regents adopted a resolution opposing the initiative. The resolution states that the universities there use only "narrowly tailored" measures that include race and ethnicity, and that such measures are legal and educationally valuable.Doug Kristensen, chancellor of the University of Nebraska at Kearney and a former speaker of the Nebraska Legislature, said it was important to be realistic about why people sign and approve referendums -- and about the flaws in that system.Whether the issue is affirmative action or state finances or something else, Kristensen said, items get on the ballot based on how much money groups spend to hire petition teams, and how organized and persistent those teams are. "The battleground occurs out in front of the grocery store. If they can get in your face and they don't have to explain it, and they don't have to be correct about it, many people will sign to get them to go away," he said. So items get on the ballot irrespective of whether they are good public policy. Nebraska-Kearney's Doug Kristensen In the legislative process, he noted, there is room to amend bills, to find compromise, to carve out exceptions -- all features that are missing in a referendum. "There is never meaningful debate," he said.In a meaningful debate about this measure, Kristensen said, he would point out that universities can hardly be seen as having admissions or other policies that limit access to Nebraska students, most of whom are white. At Kearney, he said, 86 percent of the students are from the state, and 80 percent of students are white, while 9 percent are international, 4 percent are Latino and the remainder either do not identify their race or don't fit into a single category.At Kearney, he said, educators feel an obligation "to help students who come from fairly homogeneous communities out into a global economy," and that means they benefit from having outreach programs and scholarships that help recruit more Latino students, for example, without denying spaces to anyone from the local community who meets requirements.If the affirmative action ban passes, he said, university administrators don't just eliminate programs that clearly are in violation, but have to guess about programs that might be vulnerable to a legal challenge. The university's scholarships are color-blind, but the university helps private groups that distribute funds based in part on race and ethnicity to promote diversity. The university runs some outreach programs that overwhelmingly attract Latino students."If we organize things like that, and we spend the state's money, what is a very worthwhile benefit is now placed in jeopardy" if the referendum passes, he said. "Is there an automatic ban? No. It's all how it gets interpreted. But do I continue to help organize these things and worry about defending them? Am I going to want to litigate that? Probably not."He said that if people understood the "unintended consequences" of these measures -- such as potentially making it impossible for private donors to help minority students in certain ways -- they might not be so quick to support a ban.One irony about the debate over the ban, some observers said, was that a more significant shift in public discussion of affirmative action may be taking place in the presidential campaign, with more subtlety than is evident in the discussions of bans.Richard D. Kahlenberg, author of The Remedy: Class, Race and Affirmative Action, said that he believes that voters will continue to approve bans if they are placed on ballots. "When these initiatives make the ballot, they win," he said. Kahlenberg said that supporters of affirmative action may be disappointed if they read too much into the Missouri and Oklahoma victories, which may have more to do with organization than philosophy.But Kahlenberg said that the historic development in 2008 isn't the Connerly initiatives, but the statements of Sen. Barack Obama, who has several times answered questions about his daughters, saying that they may not deserve to benefit from affirmative action and that poor white children do. Obama has spoken of himself as a defender of affirmative action, but has added class as a factor -- to make some people eligible for help, and others not."He's really trying to find a third way on the question as he presents himself as a candidate who is post-racial," Kahlenberg said. While Obama has not suggested throwing out programs now in place, his arguments represent "a huge break from the traditional Democratic Party's orthodoxy on race," Kahlenberg said.If both Obama and some of these initiatives are before voters in the fall, Kahlenberg said, "he's going to continue to be asked about these issues." Read more by

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4574

Supreme Court Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the Importance of Women Justices Tue, 07/08/2014 - 12:04pm — Bernardita Days after the Supreme Court handed down its damaging 5-4 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS issued an order that underscored the danger that Hobby Lobby poses for women’s health. In Wheaton College v. Burwell, SCOTUS temporarily granted relief to Wheaton College, a religious institution that is “categorically” opposed to providing contraceptive services, from the contraception coverage compromise solution that the Court explicitly endorsed in Hobby Lobby. The order says that Wheaton may be exempt from submitting a form that would inform the government that they object to covering birth control. Wheaton College argued that submitting this form would make it “complicit in the provision of contraceptive coverage.” The temporary order indicates that the Court’s majority may accept this problematic argument. In what Think Progress called a “blistering dissent” to the order, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — joined by the two other female Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — sharply criticized the order. Sotomayor wrote in the dissent: “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today.” While this order is temporary until the case may be heard in front of the Court, the female Justices’ strong dissent demonstrates not only the division within the Court, but also the importance of having diversity on our courts. Women on the bench provide a critically important perspective on all cases, but especially those that deal with women’s lives. It is more important than ever, when women’s rights are under assault, that women are more fairly represented at all levels of government. PFAW Foundation Fair and Just Courts C3 Hobby Lobby SCOTUS Supreme Court Wheaton College Ruth Bader Ginsburg Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan religious discrimination Reproductive Rights Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Wheaton College v. Burwell Women's Health women's rights Ordinary Americans Not Getting a Fair Shake from Justice Samuel Alito -- And They Know It Tue, 07/08/2014 - 7:32am — Ben Samuel Alito being on the Supreme Court is proving to be a bonanza for various far-right interests on a growing list of issues. PFAW Read more Fair and Just Courts C4 Lilly Ledbetter Samuel Alito Supreme Court Samuel Alito: A Movement Man Makes Good on Right-Wing Investments Mon, 07/07/2014 - 9:55am — Peter This post originally appeared on Huffington Post Politics. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ended this Supreme Court session with a bang, writing the majority opinion in two cases that gave for-profit corporations the right to make religious liberty claims to evade government regulation and set the stage for the fulfillment of a central goal of the right-wing political movement: the destruction of public employee unions. Neither of the decisions were particularly surprising. Samuel Alito is the single most pro-corporate Justice on the most pro-business Court since the New Deal. Still, Alito’s one-two punch was another extraordinary milestone for the strategists who have been working for the past 40 years to put business firmly in the driver’s seat of American politics. Many would suggest that the modern right-wing movement began with the failed presidential bid of Barry Goldwater. But there’s a strong case to be made that it begins in earnest with a 1971 memo by Lewis Powell, who argued that American businesses were losing public support and called for a massive, continuing campaign to wage war on leftist academics, progressive nonprofit groups, and politicians. The memo by Powell, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court via a nomination by Richard Nixon, inspired a few very wealth men like Adolph Coors, John M. Olin, and Richard Mellon Scaife, who set about creating and funding a massive infrastructure of think tanks, endowed academic chairs, law schools and right-wing legal groups, including the Federalist Society, which has nurtured Alito’s career. Chief among the right-wing movement’s tactics has been building sufficient political power to achieve ideological dominance over the federal judiciary. As activists like Richard Viguerie recruited foot soldiers to help win elections for the GOP, the Federalist Society built the intellectual foundations for an extreme conservative legal movement that would gain traction when its members won confirmation to the federal bench. That process began in earnest during the Reagan administration and reached new heights during the George W. Bush administration with the ascendance to the Supreme Court of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Samuel Alito was, is, and always has been a man of the movement, an ideological warrior with a clear set of goals. His commitment to achieving those goals by any means available to him is reflected in his record in the Reagan Justice Department, the White House Office of Legal Counsel, as an appeals court judge, and now as a Supreme Court justice, where he is helping to wage a legal counterrevolution aimed at reversing hard-won advances protecting workers, the environment, and the rights of women, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBT people. He remains an active part of the political and legal movement that shepherded his rise to power. The Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo steered Alito’s Supreme Court nomination through the White House and Senate. Alito has returned the favor, participating in numerous events for the Federalist Society even after he became a member of the Supreme Court. He has shown no concern about positioning himself as part of the movement, telling listeners at a Federalist Society dinner in 2012 that the Obama administration is promoting a vision of society “in which the federal government towers over people.” He has also helped raise funds at events for the right-wing American Spectator Magazine (where he mocked VP-elect Joe Biden), the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and the Manhattan Institute. Alito’s class at Princeton was the last all-male class at the university, and when Alito was angling for a promotion within the Reagan-Meese Justice Department in 1985, he bragged that he was a “proud member” of Conservative Alumni of Princeton, a group that aggressively fought the university’s efforts to diversify its student body by accepting more women and people of color. (He developed a surprisingly thorough amnesia on the topic between his Justice Department days and his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.) At the Justice Department, Alito was part of a team that pushed to limit civil rights protections and advance a right-wing legal ideology. Even in that hothouse of right-wing activism, he was an outlier, unsuccessfully trying to push Ronald Reagan to veto an uncontroversial bill against odometer fraud on the grounds of federalism. Alito argued that it is not the job of the federal government to protect the “health, safety, and welfare” of Americans. He continued to push that kind of federalism argument as a judge, dissenting from a ruling that upheld a federal law restricting the sale of machine guns. On the Third Circuit Court of Appeals he was often the lone dissenter staking out far-right interpretations of the law that consistently sacrificed the rights and interests of individuals to powerful corporate or other institutions. Among the right-wing movement’s key long-term goals — from the Nixon era up until today — has been to rig the system to prevent progressives from being able to win elections and exercise political influence. They have sought to “defund the left” by starving government agencies and progressive nonprofits of funds and by weakening or destroying organized labor, which is a crucial source of funding and organizing efforts for progressive causes and candidates. For example, the DeVos family pushed anti-union “right to work” legislation in their home state of Michigan, and the Koch brothers and their political networks have poured massive resources into the political arm of the movement, exemplified by politicians who, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, are hell-bent on the destruction of public employee unions. Alito’s recent decision in the Harris v. Quinn case was just the latest step towards that goal. In that case, Alito and his conservative colleagues invented a new employee classification in order to declare that one class of workers paid by the state are not subject to the same labor laws as other public employees. The decision was prefigured in a 2012 case, Knox v. SEIU, in which Alito led an attack on unions by deciding to answer a question that had not even come before them in the case. In essence, he and the other conservative justices argued that a system that allows workers to opt out of assessments for unions’ political work was suddenly unconstitutional, and required an opt-in. Justice Sotomayor slammed the Alito decision for ruling on an issue which the SEIU had not even been given an opportunity to address. That kind of right-wing activism moved People For the American Way Foundation’s Paul Gordon to write that the Court’s conservative judges “might as well have taken off their judicial robes and donned Scott Walker T-shirts in their zeal to make it harder for unions to protect workers.” In his Harris decision, Alito went out of his way to invite right-wing legal groups to bring a more far-reaching case, one that would finally give him and his pro-business colleagues an opportunity to take a sledgehammer to public employee unions by eliminating, in the name of the First Amendment, the requirement (specifically upheld by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago) that workers benefitting from a collective bargaining agreement help pay for the costs of negotiating that kind of agreement. That would devastate union financing, sharply limiting their ability to protect their members and potentially setting up a death spiral as fewer employees would see the benefits of joining (and paying dues to) the unions. Not coincidentally, this would also severely weaken the progressive political organizations and parties that unions have long supported. Movement conservatives have long looked forward to checking that off their “to do” list. Alito’s determination to re-write federal law in ways that strengthen corporate power and undermine workers’ rights was also on display a few years earlier, when he wrote an indefensible opinion — joined by his conservative colleagues — in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Alito ignored judicial precedent, common sense, and the clear purpose of the law in order to create an unreasonable deadline for making a pay discrimination claim, one that would be insurmountable for someone who was not immediately aware that they were being discriminated against. Lilly Ledbetter, a loyal Goodyear employee who learned she had been paid less than male colleagues for years, was, in the words of law professor and PFAW Foundation Senior Fellow Jamie Raskin, “judicial roadkill along the highway in the majority’s campaign to restrict, rewrite, and squash anti-discrimination law.” Alito also wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in last year’s Vance v. Ball State decision, which made it easier for companies to avoid liability in discrimination cases by declaring that someone who directs an employee’s day-to-day activities doesn’t count as a “supervisor” unless they have power to take “tangible employment actions” against them like firing them. As in the Ledbetter case, Alito ignored how workplaces really work in order to reach his result. In Hobby Lobby, the other blockbuster case this week, Alito wrote a decision declaring, for the first time ever, that for-profit corporations have “religious exercise” rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In order to do so, Alito had to ignore common sense (for-profit corporations don’t have religion), to say nothing of the clear historical record and explicit statutory language that RFRA was intended to return the state of the law to the era before the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith (which many believed undermined protection for religious minorities). In the face of all evidence, Alito argued, in Ginsburg’s words, that RFRA was “a bold initiative departing from, rather than restoring, pre-Smith jurisprudence.” In an effort reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s “applies only in this case” approach to Bush v. Gore, Alito argued that his ruling was “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate” and applied solely to closely held corporations. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t let him get away with it, calling Alito’s ruling “a decision of startling breadth.” Having created an entirely new legal avenue by which closely held for-profit companies (which includes about 90 percent of American businesses, hiring more than half of the nation’s workforce) can try to evade regulation, Alito has undoubtedly generated excited activity in right-wing legal organizations who are likely to use the ruling to try to claim exemption from anti-discrimination laws for business owners that oppose homosexuality or gender equality, or perhaps for evangelical business owners who believe the Bible opposes minimum wage laws and collective bargaining. And he gave no limiting principle on extending RFRA to for-profit corporations, leaving open the question as to whether an enormous publicly-traded corporation like IBM or GE would also count as a “person” with religious liberty rights under RFRA. Alito’s insistence that the Court must accept the plaintiff’s claim of “substantial burden” on religious free exercise based on their belief that some forms of contraception cause abortion — in spite of the consensus of the medical and scientific establishment to the contrary and Justice Ginsburg’s explanation of why that belief does not translate into a “substantial burden” — was prefigured by an argument he made when working in the Office of Legal Counsel, where he helped write a memo arguing that, in spite of anti-discrimination provisions, employers in federally funded program could exclude people with AIDS regardless of whether or not their “fear of contagion” was reasonable. Given that the Hobby Lobby case has been trumpeted by the right as a victory for “religious liberty,” it is worth noting that, in this year’s 5-4 Town of Greece decision, Alito joined his conservative colleagues in a decision that showed little regard for the religious beliefs of citizens of minority faiths whose public town board meetings were consistently begun with sectarian prayers. During consideration of his nomination to the Supreme Court, the editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution had written that Alito would be “likely to further erode the protections that have kept the majority from imposing their religious views on the minority.” Alito also joined the Court’s 5-4 majority in last year’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, another long-pursued goal of the right-wing movement. That decision, in Shelby County v Holder, is another example of the step-by-step shift in the law being pursued by the conservative justices. Shelby was built in part on a 2009 Voting Rights Act decision in which the Court declined to vote on the constitutionality of the provisions they threw out in Shelby, but in which Chief Justice John Roberts included language about “constitutional concerns” that he would later cite in Shelby. Earlier in his career, Alito made clear that he disagreed with Court decisions that established the crucial “one man, one vote” principle that undergirds many voting rights protections. As a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito has demonstrated the traits of the right-wing movement from which he emerged: he denounces judicial activism while aggressively pursuing it; he is willing to twist laws, precedents, and established processes in order to advance his political goals; and he has often demonstrated contempt for those who disagree with him, as when he rolled his eyes and shook his head while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent in the Shelby County case. Much of the initial news coverage of the Hobby Lobby and Harris cases focused on the description of them by their author as being “limited” rather than “sweeping” in scope. That ignores the clear evidence from those cases, and from the record of the Roberts court, that Roberts and Alito are playing a long game. They have decades in which to relentlessly push the agenda that has been fostered by right-wing legal and political groups for the past four decades. Their one-step-after-another dismantling of campaign finance law, from Citizens United to McCutcheon, makes it clear that Roberts and Alito see the value of patience and of presenting a public image of restraint while carrying out a revolution. But a revolution they are pursuing, one in which the First Amendment’s protections for religious freedom and free speech are manipulated in the service of undermining religious liberty, the rights of workers, and the ability of the government to regulate corporate behavior. PFAW Fair and Just Courts Samuel Alito Supreme Court Another Damaging Supreme Court Term Thu, 07/03/2014 - 10:12am — Paul The Roberts Court issued a number of damaging rulings this term, favoring the powerful and shaping the law to fit a far right ideology. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts C3 Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions Alito Leads Latest Attack on Unions Mon, 06/30/2014 - 3:54pm — Paul Alito and his conservative colleagues have already made clear their political zeal to harm public sector unions. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts C3 Samuel Alito Elena Kagan harris v. quinn Knox v. SEIU labor rights Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions unions Did Hobby Lobby Majority Undercut Its Own Argument? Mon, 06/30/2014 - 1:39pm — Paul The majority contradicts its own rationale for why Hobby Lobby won't open the floodgates to RFRA claims by large, publicly-traded corporations. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts Religious Liberty C3 discrimination Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions Hobby Lobby Opens Up a Minefield Mon, 06/30/2014 - 11:13am — Paul The Hobby Lobby ruling opens the door to handing even more power to large corporations, including the power to ignore anti-discrimination laws. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts Religious Liberty C3 Ruth Bader Ginsburg contraception discrimination Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions Roberts Court Strikes Down Clinic Buffer Zone Law Thu, 06/26/2014 - 4:55pm — Paul With the Chief Justice writing the majority opinion, the Roberts Court votes to strike down a Massachusetts clinic buffer law. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts C3 Abortion First Amendment protests Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions GOP Obstruction Leads to Supreme Court Ruling on Recess Appointments Thu, 06/26/2014 - 1:05pm — Paul Today's Supreme Court ruling on recess appointments case came about only as a result of the GOP's campaign of obstruction and nullification. PFAW Read more Fair and Just Courts C4 gop obstruction NLRB v. Noel Canning nullification Obstruction Obstructionism recess appointments Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions Roberts Court Upholds but Limits EPA's Authority to Regulate Greenhouse Gases Mon, 06/23/2014 - 2:22pm — Paul In a mixed ruling, the Roberts Court shuts down some avenues of greenhouse gas regulation, while upholding others. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts C3 Environment greenhouse gases Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions Still In Store from the Supreme Court in 2014 Mon, 06/02/2014 - 7:47am — Paul There is about a month remaining before the end of the Supreme Court’s current term, which is expected to be at the end of June. The Roberts Court has already done great damage in the cases it has decided so far. The far-right’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC drove another dagger into the heart of our democracy by empowering the wealthiest and most powerful among us to exercise even more control over our election. Town of Greece v. Galloway continued the arch-conservatives’ goal to undermine the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. But there are many important cases remaining to be decided over the next several weeks. Depending on how the Court rules, the entrenched power imbalance already harming our democracy could be significantly worsened. Recess appointments and sabotage of the executive branch: NLRB v. Noel Canning. This case has the potential of completely remaking the president’s recess appointment authority from how it has been understood and exercised since the 1800s. The recess appointment power has long been used by presidents of both parties during all kinds of recesses, not just those occurring annually between sessions of Congress. And it has always been used to fill vacancies regardless of when those vacancies first became open. But that may soon change. It’s important to note that this case arose out of far-right conservatives’ efforts to nullify laws they don’t agree with. In this case, the laws in their crosshairs were those protecting workers, which they sought to undermine by preventing the National Labor Relations Board from having enough members to conduct business. Specifically, Republicans blocked the Senate from holding confirmation votes on President Obama’s nominees to the NLRB, finally provoking him to make recess appointments in January of 2012. This was during a vacation period when the Senate was meeting for pro forma sessions for a few minutes every few days, a practice that came about for the specific purpose of preventing recess appointments. The Supreme Court has been asked to answer several questions: (1) Can a recess appointment be made only during the recess between two sessions of Congress (which occurs once a year and can last only a split second), or can it be made during any recess? (2) Can the Senate use pro forma sessions to turn what would otherwise be a recess into a non-recess, thereby preventing recess appointments? (3) Is a recess appointment limited to those vacancies that first became open during the same recess during which the appointment is made? Attacks on public sector unions: Harris v. Quinn. This case is about home care personal assistants (PAs) in Illinois, who provide in-home care under two of its Medicaid programs to people with disabilities and other health needs. But it has the potential, should the Roberts Court wish, to deliver a crippling blow to public sector unions nationwide. Illinois PAs are classified as state employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and work under a common “agency shop” agreement: If the employees in a particular group choose to have a union represent them, the government employer recognizes that union as their exclusive representative. When the union carries out its collective bargaining functions, it does so on behalf of all the employees, regardless of whether they actually join the union. Members pay dues to support this activity on their behalf. To prevent “free riding,” the law requires non-union members to pay their fair share to support the basic collective bargaining activities being done on their behalf, but not to support non-collective bargaining activities such as political campaigning with which they might disagree. The Supreme Court has long recognized that such arrangements for public employees are consistent with the First Amendment, dating back to a 1977 case called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. But that precedent is threatened in this case as petitioners – backed by the anti-worker National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation – call for the Roberts Court to overrule Abood. According to the PAs who brought this case, the arrangement violates their First Amendment freedom to choose with whom to associate. They also claim that exclusive representation violates their right to petition the government on matters of public policy, since the subject of their negotiations is the functioning and budgets of state Medicaid programs. As Justice Kagan noted during oral arguments, this “would radically restructure the way workplaces across this country are run,” imposing so-called “right to work” regimes on all public employment throughout the United States. In so doing, it would substantially drain the coffers of public sector unions, which has been a longtime political goal of conservative extremists. Unfortunately, the far-right Justices on the Roberts Court have already demonstrated their eagerness to join in the political attack on workers. Two years ago, in Knox v. SEIU (another case involving public sector unions), they severely undercut another longtime precedent that had enabled public sector unions to protect workers’ rights by deciding an issue that wasn’t before them, ruling against the union on an issue that it had not even had a chance to argue. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, the majority was acting in violation of the Court’s own rules to achieve this result. Whether they will show a similar eagerness to undercut public sector unions remains to be seen. Corporate religious liberty rights: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. These cases have the potential to give religious liberty rights to for-profit corporations, and to empower their owners and managers to ignore laws on health insurance coverage, employment discrimination, and other areas based on their religious beliefs. Under the Affordable Care Act and HHS guidelines, employers generally have to provide certain preventive health services, including FDA-approved contraception, to women employees. The cases challenging this requirement involve several companies and their owners. Conestoga Wood is a for-profit corporation with 950 employees, owned by members of the Hahn family. Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts chain store with over 500 stores and about 13,000 full-time employees, owned by members of the Green family. The Greens also own a corporation called Mardel, a chain of 35 for-profit Christian bookstores with about 400 employees. The Greens and the Hahns have religious-based opposition to the use of some of the contraceptives covered by the law. They claim that the law violates not only their own religious freedom, but also the religious freedom of the large for-profit corporations they run. The primary law at issue in the cases is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), enacted in 1993. Under RFRA, a federal law cannot “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it advances a compelling government interest in the least restrictive manner. A key question for the Justices is whether a for-profit corporation is a “person” covered by RFRA. Unsurprisingly, before this litigation, no court had ever found that for-profit corporations have religious liberty interests either under RFRA or under the First Amendment. Yet a divided Tenth Circuit ruled for Hobby Lobby: They concluded that since corporations have First Amendment political speech rights under Citizens United, it follows that they also have First Amendment religious rights, and that RFRA should be interpreted to include them as “persons.” As PFAW Foundation Senior Fellow Jamie Raskin has written, “the outlandish claims of the company involved would not have a prayer except for Citizens United, the miracle gift of 2010 that just keeps giving.” The next question is whether the coverage requirement is a substantial burden on the families’ (and possibly corporations’) exercise of religion, even though they are not forced to use or administer the contraception, or to affirm that they have no religious objection to it. Since the ones providing the health insurance are the corporations and not the individual owners, a ruling in favor of the owners would have implications for a concept basic to American law: that a corporation is a legally separate entity from its owners. If the Justices find a substantial burden on the corporations or their owners, then they will determine if the government interest (furthering women’s health and equality) is a compelling one, and if the coverage provision advances that interest in the least restrictive manner. While a victory for either the corporations or their owners would directly harm women’s health, it could also open the door to employers being able to exempt themselves from other laws that they have religious objections to, such as anti-discrimination protections. Women’s Access to Reproductive Health Clinics: McCullen v. Coakley. The Court is being asked to overrule a 2000 precedent upholding buffer zones around reproductive health clinics. The current case involves a Massachusetts law that creates a 35-foot buffer zone around such clinics (with exceptions for employees, patients and others with business there, and people passing through on their way somewhere else). Anti-choice advocates claim this violates their freedom of speech because it restricts only people with a particular viewpoint. The lower courts disagreed, citing the 2000 case of Hill v. Colorado, where the Supreme Court upheld a buffer zone making it illegal to approach within eight feet of people at clinics for the purpose of counseling, education, or protesting. (This applied anywhere within 100 feet of the clinic.) That 6-3 decision analyzed the law as a content-neutral regulation of speech that was reasonable in light of the importance of protecting unwilling people’s right to avoid unwanted conversations and their right to pass without obstruction. However, two of the conservative Justices in the 6-3 majority have been replaced by far more conservative Bush nominees: Rehnquist (by Roberts) and O’Connor (by Alito). Since Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissented in the 2000 case, there may very well be five votes to not only strike down the Massachusetts buffer zone but also to overrule Hill completely. As noted in an amicus brief that PFAW Foundation joined, the Massachusetts law applies to people regardless of the content of their speech and is a content-neutral way to ensure that women can enter the clinics to exercise their constitutional rights. The law does not prevent abortion opponents from approaching women who are more than 35 feet from the clinic entrance (as opposed to the Colorado law, which prohibited unwanted close contact anywhere within 100 feet of the clinic). And the record in this case shows that anti-choice advocates have consistently been able to distribute literature to individuals approaching clinics, as well as to have quiet conversations with them. Nevertheless, many felt after oral arguments that five conservative justices were likely to strike down the Massachusetts law. If they do, we will see if they also overrule the 2000 precedent, opening the floodgates to another era of efforts to block women from exercising a deeply personal constitutional right. Regulating greenhouse gases: Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (and several companion cases). In these cases, industrial interests and their allies are attacking the EPA’s ability to effectively regulate their greenhouse gas emissions. In Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles, since they easily fit within the CAA’s broad definition of “air pollutant.” This ruling, resisted by the Bush Administration, allowed the Obama Administration to adopt regulations on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks in 2010. Under the EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the Clean Air Act, once EPA regulation of a pollutant from mobile sources (like cars and trucks) goes into effect, that pollutant is automatically subject to regulation under EPA rules for stationary sources (like factories and power plants). Those regulations involve permitting requirements for facilities emitting pollutants over statutory thresholds. But greenhouse gases are emitted in far greater volumes than other pollutants, and millions of industrial, commercial, and even residential sources exceed the statutory threshold. The EPA recognized that immediately adding these millions of stationary sources to its permitting programs would impose tremendous costs to both industry and to state permitting authorities. So in what is called the “Tailoring Rule,” the agency chose to move gradually, initially subjecting only the largest sources of emissions to mandatory greenhouse gas permitting, and planning a gradual phase-in for others, with planned rulemakings on how best to accomplish that phase-in. Industrial interests, the Chamber of Commerce, and their conservative allies in state government have challenged the EPA rules. They argue that since the addition of greenhouse gases to the stationary sources permitting programs would cause what they characterize as results not desired by Congress (such as bringing huge numbers of buildings, including churches, schools, bakeries, and large private homes into the programs), it means that greenhouse gases are not the type of pollutant to which these permitting programs apply. And that lets the major industrial contributors to greenhouse gas pollution off the hook. They also claim that the Tailoring Rule is a rewrite of the Clean Air Act, which only Congress can do. So we end up with hyperbolic right-wing talking points in Supreme Court briefs, like this from Southeastern Legal Foundation: This case involves perhaps the most audacious seizure of pure legislative power over domestic economic matters attempted by the Executive Branch since Youngstown Sheet & Tube [the 1952 case striking down President Truman’s seizure of steel mills during the Korean War]. As the Constitutional Accountability Center noted in their amicus brief supporting the EPA, the agency’s gradual approach satisfies rather than subverts the central purpose of the Clean Air Act: This is not a suspension of the relevant statutory provisions nor a failure to enforce the CAA as written. To the contrary, EPA is setting priorities based on both practical realities and its limited resources, biting off no more than it or, as important, the regulated entities themselves, can chew at any given time. This phase-in of the CAA’s requirements is not a rewrite of the statute, and it is fully consistent with the executive authority vested in the President by Article II of our enduring Constitution and the separation of powers evidenced in the Framers’ design. PFAW Foundation Fair and Just Courts C3 Supreme Court Scalia's Mistake Exposes His Ideological Agenda Tue, 04/29/2014 - 11:00pm — Paul Justice Scalia's factual error in an EPA case dissent suggests he is approaching cases with an overly ideological lens. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts C3 Antonin Scalia Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions Sotomayor's Schuette Dissent Tue, 04/22/2014 - 1:28pm — Paul Justice Sotomayor analyzes a state constitutional ban on affirmative action through the lens of history and the reality of race in America. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts C3 Sonia Sotomayor Michigan Affirmative Action Schuette v. BAMN Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions Jamie Raskin and Marge Baker Unpack the McCutcheon Case Fri, 04/04/2014 - 4:26pm — Paul PFAW members engage in a telebriefing and Q&A on the McCutcheon case. PFAW Read more Government By the People Fair and Just Courts C4 Jamie Raskin Marge Baker campaign finance McCutcheon v. FEC mone out voters in money in politics Supreme Court Applying McCutcheon's Logic to Voter ID Laws Fri, 04/04/2014 - 4:05pm — Paul If only the courts were as solicitous of the right to vote in elections as they are of the right to purchase them. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts The Right to Vote C3 campaign finance McCutcheon v. FEC money in politics money out voters in Supreme Court voter ID Voter ID laws voter suppression In McCutcheon Decision, Talk of Constituents Seems Out of Place Wed, 04/02/2014 - 2:47pm — Paul Chief Justice Roberts waxes eloquent about responsiveness to constituents in an opinion about responsiveness to non-constituents. PFAW Foundation Read more Government By the People Fair and Just Courts C3 John Roberts campaign finance McCutcheon v. FEC money in politics money out voters in Supreme Court Supreme Court's McCutcheon Decision is Great News for Billionaires Wed, 04/02/2014 - 1:41pm — Paul The American people should have the power to prevent government of, by, and for the wealthy. PFAW Foundation Read more Government By the People Fair and Just Courts C3 campaign finance McCutcheon v. FEC money in politics money out voters in Supreme Court Jamie Raskin Discusses Hobby Lobby and Corporate Religion Fri, 03/21/2014 - 12:29pm — Paul Artificial, for-profit corporations are now claiming to have religious liberty rights. PFAW Read more Fair and Just Courts Religious Liberty C4 Jamie Raskin Affordable Care Act Citizens United v. FEC Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius contraception corporate personhood First Amendment Religious Freedom Restoration Act Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Women's Health Roberts Court Leaves Workers and Employers Hanging Tue, 12/10/2013 - 12:44pm — Paul A case dismissal leaves intact a damaging lower court opinion whose questionable validity prompted the dismissal. PFAW Foundation Read more Fair and Just Courts C3 Stephen Breyer Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals labor rights Supreme Court union rights unions workers' rights

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4617

Highland Park Resident Charged With Terror Conspiracy Filed Under: Afghanistan, highland park, Oded Orbach, terrorism, weapons File Photo: Guns Generic(Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)File Photo: Guns Generic (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images) CHICAGO (STMW) — A Highland Park resident was arrested in Romania Feb. 10 and charged with conspiring to aid terrorists in Afghanistan by attempting to obtain and sell anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons to the Taliban, according to a complaint unsealed last week by the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York. Oded Orbach, of the 100 block of Winona Road, Highland Park, was one of seven individuals — two of whom are U.S. citizens — who allegedly tried to provide weapons, drugs or money to U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration sources who posed as Taliban representatives. Beginning last summer, the complaint alleges that Orbach agreed to sell weapons to the Taliban, including surface-to-air missiles to be used to protect Taliban-owned heroin labs from U.S. attack in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office news release. During October 2010 meetings held in Ghana, Ukraine and Romania, two other defendants and Orbach began arranging the sale of weapons through a co-conspirator described as a weapons trafficker affiliated with Hezbollah. At a meeting with the undercover DEA sources, Orbach allegedly “discussed specifications, pricing and the provision of training for the sale of various weapons, including, ‘surface-to-air missiles,’ anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers, AK-47s and M-16s,” according to the release. Some of the other defendants also allegedly agreed to “receive, store and move ton-quantities of Taliban-owned heroin through West Africa, portions of which they understood would then be sent to the U.S. Some defendants allegedly agreed to sell substantial quantities of cocaine that the Taliban could sell at a profit in the U.S.” Orbach was charged with two counts in the complaint, including conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists and conspiring to acquire and transfer anti-aircraft missiles. Orbach remains held in Bucharest, Romania, where he is being held pending extradition to the United States. The charges bring penalties that range from 15 years in prison for the first count to life in prison, with a mandatory minimum term of 25 years for the second. “As alleged, the defendants charged, including two U.S. citizens, were prepared to provide millions of dollars in dangerous narcotics and lethal weapons to men they believed represented the Taliban,” stated U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in the press release. “This alleged effort to arm and enrich the Taliban is the latest example of the dangers of an inter-connected world in which terrorists and drug runners can link up across continents to harm Americans.” The case was built by intercepting telephone and e-mail communications as well as a series of audio-recorded and videotaped meetings during several months in Ghana, Ukraine and Romania, according to U.S. prosecutors. Published reports state that Orbach is 52-years-old, was born in Israel and is the father of a recent Highland Park High School graduate. An individual hung-up after answering a phone call at Orbach’s Highland Park home Monday.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4678

UPDATE: Attempted Murder Charge In Shooting Share This: William C. Hoffman, Jr. Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center Police block off part of William Street in downtown Lawrenceburg as they respond to the shooting scene. Chris Bowling-Eagle 99.3 Update posted at 8:22 p.m.: A Lawrenceburg man who was allegedly involved in a shootout with police is being charged with Attempted Murder and other felonies. William C. Hoffman, Jr., 31, was the subject of a six hour standoff that occurred late last Thursday night, June 7 into the early morning hours Friday. Hoffman allegedly fired shots at the officers outside the Williams Street home he was barricaded in. He was wounded by a police bullet as law enforcement returned fire. No officers were hurt in the altercation. Hoffman had been held on a preliminary charge of Criminal Recklessness. On Monday, police filed six new charges in Dearborn Superior Court including Attempted Murder (Class A Felony), Attempted Aggravated Battery (Class B Felony), Attempted Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Class C Felony), Intimidation with a Deadly Weapon (Class C Felony), and Pointing a Firearm (Class D Felony). The suspect is now being held in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. He is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. for his initial hearing. Original story posted at 10:48 a.m.: (Lawrenceburg, Ind.) – Gunfire was exchanged between police and a domestic dispute suspect in Lawrenceburg on Thursday, June 7. According to Indiana State Police, Lawrenceburg Police first responded to 121 E. William Street to investigate a report of a domestic disturbance at about 8:43 p.m. Upon arrival officers encountered what they described as an “uncooperative male” later identified as William C. Hoffman, Jr. After initial contact with Hoffman outside the home he went back inside and then returned and confronted officers a second time with a firearm. At this time no shots were fired, however, he retreated back into the house again beginning the standoff. Officers negotiated with Hoffman encouraging him to give up. Then, just after 11:00 p.m. he began firing at officers who returned fire. Hoffman had been struck by a bullet from one of the officers. The Indiana State Police Emergency Response Team was called to the scene and at approximately 3:00 a.m. ERT members made entry into the house where they took Hoffman into custody without further incident. Hoffman, 31, suffered a gunshot wound to the back of one of his shoulders. He was transported to Dearborn County Hospital and later transferred to University Hospital in Cincinnati for further treatment. Once released from the hospital, Hoffman was held at the Hamilton County Justice Center in Cincinnati before he was extradited back to Dearborn County at Friday afternoon. Hoffman is facing a preliminary charge of Criminal Recklessness (Class D Felony). Other charges could be filed later. Hoffman has not yet made his initial appearance in Dearborn County court, meaning no bond has been set. Stand-off In Lawrenceburg Comes To An End

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4760

Louisiana Monks Win Casket Case Issues Louisiana Monks Win Casket Case Related Case Louisiana Caskets Press Release | July 21, 2011 J. Justin Wilson New Orleans, La.— A federal court today ruled (read the court’s decision) that Louisiana’s government-imposed monopoly on casket sales in the state is unconstitutional, closing the lid on the economic protection scheme and resurrecting an opportunity for local monks to provide for themselves by creating and selling their handmade caskets. The monks of Saint Joseph Abbey of Saint Benedict, La., and the Institute for Justice, which represents the order in court, had filed suit to fight Louisiana’s government-imposed casket cartel. Under Louisiana law, it was a crime for anyone but a government-licensed funeral director to sell “funeral merchandise,” which includes caskets. To sell caskets legally, the monks would have had to abandon their calling for one full year to apprentice at a licensed funeral home and convert their monastery into a “funeral establishment” by, among other things, installing equipment for embalming. The Honorable Stanwood Duval of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled, “Simply put, there is nothing in the licensing procedures that bestows any benefit to the public in the context of the retail sale of caskets. The license has no bearing on the manufacturing and sale of coffins. It appears that the sole reason for these laws is the economic protection of the funeral industry which reason the Court has previously found not to be a valid government interest standing alone to provide a constitutionally valid reason for these provisions.” The ruling continued, “With the advent of the internet, consumers can now buy caskets from retailers across the country including Wal-Mart and online retailers such as Amazon.com. This fact is salient in that Louisianians can indeed purchase from these out of state retailers who are not subject to the Act. Indeed, with the exception of an April 13, 2009 Cease and Desist Order issued to National Memorial Planning, the [Embalmers and Funeral Directors] Board has not issued any other Cease and Desist orders to out-of state casket retailers in the last ten years.” “This is a slam-dunk victory for the Abbey and for all entrepreneurs who simply wish to pursue their chosen occupation free of unreasonable government interference,” said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents the monks. “As the judge recognized, the real reason for this law was economic protectionism for the funeral industry cartel, and that is not a legitimate government interest,” he added. “We are absolutely thrilled that the court protected our economic liberty rights to provide caskets to willing consumers,” said Abbot Justin Brown, who heads up the Saint Joseph Abbey. “This is a great day for the Abbey, the U.S. Constitution, and all Louisianans. “ IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes added, “This is a constitutional victory for all of the Davids out there facing down the government Goliath. The monks of Saint Joseph Abbey are now an integral part of recent cases by federal courts across the country that protect the constitutional right to earn an honest living. If the State of Louisiana decides to appeal, we will vindicate economic liberty again, and we will keep going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.” IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor said, “The Constitution does not allow the government to keep you out of business just to make a cartel of industry insiders richer at the expense of consumers and other entrepreneurs. This is an opinion that will not only help our clients, but will also help other entrepreneurs nationwide who find their right to economic liberty violated by state and local regulators who often pass laws designed merely to protect existing businesses from competition. This is a great day for freedom.” In its ruling, the court wrote, “The Court finds no rational relationship between the Act and ‘public health and safety.’ No evidence was presented to demonstrate that requiring the purchase of caskets from licensed funeral directors aids the public welfare.” The decision continued, “The provisions of the Act as they relate to the retail sale of caskets by persons other than funeral directors do not protect consumers; the prohibition against Plaintiffs’ selling caskets does not protect the public health and welfare. The provisions simply protect a well-organized industry that seeks to maintain a strict hold on this business. . . . Likewise these laws violate the Equal Protection Clause, since the Act in essence treats two distinct and different occupations as the same.” Finally, the ruling stated, “In sum, the arguments made by defendants [those defending the casket cartel] are hollow . . . . There is no relation between the obtaining of a funeral license and the ability to manufacture and sell a casket. The only protection afforded by the Act is the economic protection of the funeral directors which this Court has held not to be in and of itself a rational basis for the Act under the Constitution of the United States for the reasons stated in its previous order.” JOIN THE FIGHT! Sign up for newsletters:

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4761

| Pedersen v. Dempsey Pedersen v. Dempsey OPINION FILED JUNE 2, 1950 NIELS PEDERSEN, APPELLANT,v.JOHN T. DEMPSEY, ADMINISTRATOR WITH WILL ANNEXED IN ESTATE OF ANTON M. SIMONSEN ET AL., APPELLEES. Appeal by petitioner from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN PRYSTALSKI, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second term, 1949. Order affirmed. Opinion filed June 2, 1950. Released for publication June 15, 1950. MR. JUSTICE SCHWARTZ DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. The petitioner, Niels Pedersen, filed a petition in the probate court of Cook county on December 30, 1948 to set aside an order of November 23, 1945, admitting the will of Anton M. Simonsen to probate. He alleged discovery of new evidence affecting the validity of page 2 of the will. The probate court denied the petition, and on appeal, the circuit court did likewise. It is from this order that petitioner appeals to this court. This is the second occasion on which litigation concerning this will has been before this court. In Dempsey v. Hass (Pedersen, Appellant), 334 Ill. App. 81, the proper construction of the will was under consideration. A conflict existed between pages 1 and 2. If the language of page 1 prevailed, Pedersen would be a residuary legatee. If page 2 prevailed, all legatees would participate ratably in the residue. This court decided that the petitioner was not entitled to the residue. At that time, he did not question the validity of page 2. A petition for leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court on September 20, 1948 (#30709) and three months later petitioner instituted this proceeding. The petition is in effect a bill in the nature of a bill to review and to contest a will. The question presented for decision is whether the probate court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition and vacate its previous order on proof of the facts alleged. [1-4] The Probate Act creates a statutory right and defines the jurisdiction within the limits of which that right may be enforced. The methods of contesting a will and the limitations thereof prescribed in the statute are jurisdictional. Spaulding v. White, 173 Ill. 127; Storrs v. St. Luke's Hospital, 180 Ill. 368, 373; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Brown, 183 Ill. 42; and People ex rel. Deynes v. Harriss, 333 Ill. App. 280. Those aggrieved by an order admitting a will to probate may appeal from that order or may file a bill to contest the will. The statute limiting the time for filing a bill to contest a will was first fixed at five years, then reduced to three, then to two, and ultimately to its present period of nine months. The reason for these reductions in the time within which the validity of a will may be questioned is the pressing importance of securing an orderly settlement of estates, to prevent embarrassment to creditors and others, and to avoid as much confusion as possible in the vast amount of property rights and titles that pass through probate. So important has this been deemed by courts and legislatures that neither fraud and concealment, nor the admitted incompetency of an attesting witness nor even the insanity of an heir can upset an order of probate after the time allowed. Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Brown, supra; Storrs v. St. Luke's Hospital, supra; Luther v. Luther, 122 Ill. 558; Masin v. Bassford, 381 Ill. 569; and Kessler v. Martinson, 339 Ill. App. 207. In matters of administration, however, such as the allowance of claims and of widows' awards, courts have permitted a flexibility neither possible nor desirable with respect to orders of probate. It is in respect of such matters that courts generally speak of the equity powers of the probate court. Schlink v. Maxton, 48 Ill. App. 471, affirmed 153 Ill. 447, 452; Heppe v. Szczepanski, 209 Ill. 88; and Tisdale v. Davis, 198 Ill. App. 116. Such cases are not germane to the question of limitation of time on the contest of a will. It has also been recognized that notice to heirs is jurisdictional, and on this basis an order admitting a will to probate may be set aside. This also is not applicable to the instant case. One case cited by appellants that deserves consideration is Waterman v. Hall, 298 Ill. 75. There, a bill to contest a will was filed within the statutory time. After an adverse decree, petitioner filed a bill for review on the ground of newly discovered evidence fraudulently concealed. The court held that a bill to contest a will is a suit in chancery and that as such, it proceeds as in other matters in chancery. The court said: "A bill of review is in the nature of a writ of error, and its object, as indicated by its name, is to have reviewed a decree in chancery rendered upon a former bill. . . ." The decision had the effect of establishing that the jurisdiction of a chancery court having attached, thereafter procedure by review was subject to the usual modes of chancery procedure. It has no application to the facts of this case. If, however, we were to sustain the petitioner on the question of the jurisdiction of the probate court, the petition would still be inadequate because it fails to show diligence in discovery or to present evidence of a conclusive and decisive character. Waterman v. Hall, supra, 81; Cohen v. Sparberg, 316 Ill. App. 140. Petitioner's principal ground for seeking to set aside the order of probate is that the paging numerals (1) and (2), were placed on the will by a clerk in accordance with a custom of the clerk's office, and that these numerals controlled the decision of the court. Petitioner alleges that he did not discover that these numerals were not placed there by decedent "until recent weeks." As only the testimony of attesting witnesses is admissible in the hearing in the probate court (Spangler v. Bell, 390 Ill. 152, 154), petitioner would not have been permitted to adduce evidence to support the facts he alleges. He could, however, have called the attention of the court to the fact that it was the clerk who had made the notations marking pages (1) and (2), if we assume that the court did not know that fact. Was this such conclusive evidence as he would have us believe? It is not at all clear that this induced or even influenced the decision of the court. At the time of the hearing, the court said: "It [that is, the second page] is dated the same day. There are pencil notations indicating that this is the second page." It is obvious from this that the court gave primary significance to the fact that the first and second pages bore the same date. The pencil notations to which the court referred might have been those notations which gave directions with respect to the disposition of decedent's personal affairs. The will was obviously prepared by a layman. It is full of alterations and interlineations which readily suggested the possibility of contest at the time it was first presented. The facts alleged, if true, were readily discoverable with reasonable diligence. Petitioner did not contest, however. Instead, he chose what he thought was a sound position that under a proper construction of the will as admitted to probate, he was entitled to the residue. The court having decided against him in that respect, he was stimulated to an investigation and the institution of the instant proceedings. It is well known to the courts that except for matters involving domestic relations, no litigation is more protracted and more violent than disputes over the estates of decedents. In the case of In re Estate of Blyman, 382 Ill. 520, the Supreme Court said: "William G. Blyman has been dead nearly six years. It is high time that litigation over the administration of his last will and testament terminate and that the estate be closed. The ends of justice have been satisfied, and the litigation should now terminate. This is the terminus." The language quoted is applicable to the instant case. We have not considered the defenses of prior adjudication or election of remedies, as we deem our findings on the questions herein discussed to be conclusive. The order of the circuit court of Cook county is affirmed. FRIEND, P.J., and SCANLAN, J., concur.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4764

| Savant v. Purdue Pharma Co. Savant v. Purdue Pharma Co. ROBERT G. SAVANT, PLAINTIFF,v.THE PURDUE PHARMA COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donald G. Wilkerson United States Magistrate Judge This matter is before the Court on the discovery dispute between the parties concerning various communications between the Plaintiff, Robert G. Savant, and his wife, Lois Savant. This discovery dispute was the subject of a conference held on November 8, 2005. The Defendants seek various letters that the Plaintiff had written to his wife during the relevant time period of this lawsuit. The Defendants argue that these letters are relevant because the Plaintiff has alleged damages due to depression and related issues with his family. The Plaintiff raised these issues in pages 102, 108, and 131 of his deposition. The Defendants also pointed out that, because subject matter in this case is based upon diversity, Illinois privilege laws apply. Illinois law provides that spousal communications are privileged with certain exceptions that are not relevant here. 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/8-801. However, the Defendants assert that by claiming damages for his mental state and his familial problems, the Plaintiff has waived this privilege and the letters must be produced. The Plaintiff, however, argued that he did not waive this privilege and that the letters are not discoverable. The Plaintiff has provided the subject letters for in camera inspection. It appears that the issue of whether the spousal communications privilege may be waived by the Plaintiff if he brings his mental state and family relationships at issue is a matter of first impression. The Court has found no authority that specifically applies to the circumstances of this case. As such, the parties are ORDERED to brief this issue. Specifically, the parties' briefs shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Whether the spousal communications privilege can be waived? 2. Whether the Plaintiff has opened the door to these communications? 3. Whether, and in what manner, the Plaintiff has waived this privilege? The briefs are due on December 2, 2005 and are limited to 10 pages.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4824

David A. Logan, one of nation’s longest-serving law deans, will return to full-time teaching at RWU Law after 11 successful years at its helm. LSAT Free Practice Test RWU Law Experiential Campus, 1 Empire Street, 4th Floor, Providence, RI 02903 Omni Providence Hotel ’It’s Just a Building’ – The Role of a Lawyer in Real Estate Development RWU Law, 10 Metacom Avenue, Bristol - Room 262 Washington, DC Area Info Session for Prospective Students RWU Law Alumni Reception Events Calendar » Today's Events » Trending@RWULaw Now "Defamation" Matters More Than Ever By Deborah Johnson Last week – just hours after the next President of the United States of America was announced – RWU Law students, faculty and staff (joined by undergraduates and University faculty and staff)... Follow RWU Law Law Newsroom BP justice law law school Pro Bono professor rhode rhode island Roger Williams RWU settlement supreme court more tags December 2016November 2016October 2016September 2016August 2016July 2016June 2016May 2016April 2016March 2016February 2016January 2016December 2015November 2015October 2015September 2015August 2015July 2015June 2015May 2015April 2015March 2015February 2015January 2015December 2014November 2014October 2014September 2014August 2014July 2014June 2014May 2014April 2014March 2014February 2014January 2014December 2013November 2013October 2013September 2013August 2013July 2013June 2013May 2013April 2013March 2013February 2013January 2013December 2012November 2012October 2012September 2012August 2012July 2012June 2012May 2012April 2012March 2012February 2012January 2012December 2011November 2011October 2011September 2011August 2011July 2011June 2011May 2011April 2011March 2011February 2011January 2011December 2010November 2010October 2010September 2010August 2010July 2010June 2010May 2010April 2010March 2010February 2010January 2010December 2009November 2009October 2009September 2009April 2009 Admissions » Lectures and Symposia » Home » Newsroom Print | Logan Will Return to Full-Time Teaching David A. Logan, one of nation’s longest-serving law deans, will return to full-time teaching at RWU Law after 11 successful years at its helm. Read Associated Press coverage (Boston Globe) Read Ed Fitzpatrick's column in the Providence Journal Read Rhode Island NPR coverage Read University Business coverage Bristol, R.I., Aug. 29, 2013 – As Roger Williams University School of Law begins a new year – and its 20th anniversary celebration – the dean who has led the school for half its existence announced today that he will step down at the conclusion of the academic year and return to teaching full-time. David A. Logan has headed RWU Law since 2003, which places him among the 15 longest-serving law deans in America. (The average deanship is four years.) Logan said his long tenure reflects a match that still works to this day. “From the moment I set foot on campus, I was impressed by the law school’s energy and potential,” Logan said. “I saw a talented faculty and staff and a solid student body, but also a clear need to help RWU Law build a reputation for quality in the bench, bar and legal academy.” By all accounts, Logan succeeded admirably. “It has been my distinct privilege to serve with Dean David Logan,” said University President Donald J. Farish. “He has been totally focused on making the law school the very best it can be, and he has been on the forefront of expanding its horizons in every direction. Much of the success of the law school is directly attributable to Dean Logan’s leadership of an exceptionally talented and committed faculty and staff.” Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell of the Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed: “David Logan has certainly made a positive mark on the Rhode Island legal community,” he said. “The law school has thrived under his leadership. He has also been instrumental in developing a close, mutually beneficial relationship with the Rhode Island Judiciary. On a personal level, I will miss his sage advice and good humor, but I am delighted to learn that he will continue at the law school as a professor.” Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin, who is a 1998 graduate of RWU Law and an alumnus of the University’s undergraduate criminal justice program, also spoke to Logan’s impact in the state’s legal community: “Dean Logan displayed foresight and an ability to identify trends, thereby ensuring the positive impact of the school on the region. He has positioned the school well for the future – and I am pleased to see that future includes continuing to instruct at the school. I have professionally and personally enjoyed our relationship throughout my tenure as Attorney General, and am pleased he will not only continue to be a resource for the office, but also for me personally.” Under Logan’s stewardship, the School of Law attained membership in the prestigious Association of American Law Schools (AALS) and saw marked improvement of graduate bar-pass rates and job placements – particularly in judicial clerkships, a key measure of law school success. During his tenure, the law school also launched important experiential learning opportunities, including the groundbreaking Pro Bono Collaborative, the Immigration Clinic and the In-House Counsel Externship program. “I particularly applaud David’s diligence in ensuring that every law student now has the opportunity to work in an externship or clinic setting prior to graduating, thereby obtaining the experience he or she will need to secure a position after passing the bar exam,” President Farish noted. Chief Justice Suttell added that these programs provide “much-needed legal services to low-income Rhode Islanders as well as a variety of hands-on learning opportunities to law school students.” Logan’s commitment to expanding the availability of legal services to underserved communities was recognized in such honors as Rhode Island Legal Services’ Equal Justice Award and the AALS’s Deborah Rhode Award for Pro Bono and Public Service. Logan’s decade at RWU Law also saw the school achieve an increasingly diverse faculty, staff and student body; in 2010, he won the Providence NAACP’s Community Service Award. He also helped raise the school’s profile. As a nationally recognized expert on mass torts, Logan has been frequently quoted in local, national and even international media. A popular teacher of torts law even during his deanship, Logan plans to stay on as a full-time professor at RWU Law. In the meantime, Farish noted that Roger Williams University is initiating a search for a Logan’s successor, with the expectation that the next dean will be in place well before the 2014-15 academic year begins. “The next dean will have the opportunity to build on what David has created,” Farish said. About David A. Logan: David A. Logan has been dean of Roger Williams University School of Law since 2003. From 1981 until 2003, he was a member of the faculty of Wake Forest University School of Law from 1981 - 2003, where he won awards for his teaching of Torts, Media Law, and Professional Responsibility. His publications, focusing on the intersection of tort law and the First Amendment, have appeared in major journals, including the Michigan Law Review and the Virginia Law Review. He is an elected member of the American Law Institute, and served as an Advisor to the Restatement (3d) of Torts. Prior to that, Dean Logan clerked for a federal judge and practiced with a major Washington, D.C. law firm, where he represented Native American tribes. Dean Logan is a frequent commentator on legal issues, having appeared on television (The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News, NBC Evening News, and Nightline), radio (Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Marketplace), and print media (Time, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Financial Times). Most recently, he has been widely quoted on the complex civil liability issues arising out of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- as close to the action as the New Orleans Times-Picayune, and as far-flung as the BBC and Voice of Russia. He was born in New York City and grew up in the Washington, D.C. area. He earned his B.A. from Bucknell University, his M.A. from the University of Wisconsin, and his J.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a varsity basketball player, head DJ of the campus radio station, and a music critic for Rolling Stone.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4826

Richard Susskind has a new book for new lawyers The author of the highly influential The End of Lawyers? has a new book to be released on March 1 called Tomorrow's Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future which is aimed specifically at both brand new and aspiring lawyers. A few advance reviews are available on Amazon here while the publisher's synopsis is below. In his latest book, Richard claims that legal institutions and lawyers are poised to change more radically over the next two decades than they have over the last two centuries. The future of legal service, he says, will be neither Grisham nor Rumpole. Instead, it will be a world of virtual courts, Internet-based global legal businesses, online document production, commoditized service, legal process outsourcing, and web-based simulated practice. Legal markets will be liberalized, with new jobs, and new employers, for lawyers. Tomorrow’s Lawyers is a guide to this future – for young and aspiring lawyers, and for all who want to modernize our legal and justice systems. It navigates the new legal terrain and offers practical guidance for those who intend to build careers and businesses in law. Tomorrow’s Lawyers is divided into three parts. The first offers an updated restatement of Susskind's views on the future of legal services, identifying the key drivers of change, and presenting strategies for coping with the radical changes in the legal market. In the second part, the author sketches out his predictions for the new legal landscape, including the future for law firms, the shifting role of in-house lawyers, and the coming of virtual hearings and online dispute resolution. The final part focuses on the prospects for aspiring lawyers, and equips young lawyers with penetrating questions to put to their current and future employers. (jbl). http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2013/02/richard-susskind-has-a-new-book-for-new-lawyers.html

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4862

Events Debate Over Cubans’ Arrival Heads To Federal Court By Hank Tester Filed Under: Cuba, Cubans, Florida, Immigration Follow CBSMIAMI.COM: Facebook | Twitter MIAMI (CBSMiami) — Lawyers for a group of Cubans currently in U.S. Coast Guard custody filed a motion in federal court to allow all of them to stay in the United States. The group of 21 reached the the American Shoal Lighthouse about five miles off Sugarloaf Key last week – spot that may or may not be considered U.S. soil. If it isn’t, they ‘ll be sent back. If it is, then they’ll stay under the Wet Foot, Dry Foot Policy. “Hopefully it will stop the Coast Guard from sending them back to Cuba,”said immigration attorney Virlenys Palma.”We are providing the pictures and the history of the lighthouse to say it is under U.S. territory and managed by the U.S.” Meantime, the Cuban migrants remain on board a Coast Guard Cutter at sea. Attorneys for the Cubans are relying on a 2006 federal court settlement in which a group of Cuban migrants made it to the old 7-Mile-Bridge and the judge allowed them to stay. It’s a ruling Cuban exile activist Ramon Saul Sanchez says sets precedent. But legal experts argue the previous federal judge simply agreed to a settlement to allow those Cubans to be given visas, but that the judge never weighed in on whether the bridge was considered U.S. soil. Amid the territory debate is also some confusion on who actually made it. Relatives in South Florida have given the Democracy Movement 38 names of those believed to have left Cuba at the same time but the Coast Guard found only 21. Family members learned the others may have been detained in the Bahamas. So the question remains – who is on board? Many of the relatives went to the offices of South Florida members of Congress Monday to plead for help. Congressman Carlos Curbelo says this is in the administration’s hands. Late Monday, Curbelo’s office told the Democracy Movement activists they are working with the Coast Guard to speed up the process of identifying those on board that cutter at sea. As for when there will be a decision on the matter, Palma says “normally we should get a status conference within the next 48 hours.” Hank TesterfacebookFollowHank Tester is a CBS4 News general assignment reporter. He joined WFOR-TV, CBS4 Miami in October 2015. Prior to joining CBS4, he was a general assignment reporter at WTVJ, NBC6, Miami, Florida. He began his broadcast news career behind the...More from Hank TesterComments

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/4894

Lawyer for Oregon school shooter seeks new sentence PORTLAND — It's been nearly 15 years since an Oregon teen fatally shot his parents and embarked on a deadly high school shooting spree. Now Kip Kinkel's lawyer is asking a state judge to toss out his nearly 112-year sentence, based on a ruling last summer by the U.S. Supreme Court that dealt with mandatory life in prison without parole for juveniles. Kinkel was just 15 when he killed two fellow students at Thurston High School in Springfield and wounded 25 others in May 1998. He earlier shot and killed his parents at home. The Oregonian reports that Kinkel agreed to accept a plea deal to serve 25 years for the fatal shootings. However, a judge sentenced him in November 1999 to 111 years and eight months without the possibility of parole, factoring in time for attempted murder counts. In a petition filed March 27, Kinkel's lawyer seeks a new sentencing hearing. Oregon's attorney general must respond by next month. State Justice Department spokeswoman Ellen Klem declined comment. The high court ruled 5-4 in Miller v. Alabama that the mandatory true life sentences for two 14-year-old boys — tried as adults and convicted of murder — violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The court left open the possibility that minors under age 18 still could be sentenced to life without parole, but only if the sentencing judge makes a finding that the penalty is appropriate, weighing the defendant's character and details of the crime. More than 2,000 juveniles are serving mandatory life sentences without parole in the United States, according to the Juvenile Law Center, a public interest law firm for children based in Philadelphia. In Oregon, seven inmates sentenced as juveniles are serving life in prison without parole. Three others are like Kinkel, juveniles who were tried as adults and sentenced to 80 years or more, according to state corrections records. In Kinkel's petition, attorney Andy Simrin argues that the nearly 112-year prison term is longer than the life expectancy of any human. He urges a Marion County judge to throw out Kinkel's sentence and order a new sentencing hearing. “He pleaded guilty and didn't try to evade responsibility for what he had done and asked for a lawful sentence,” Simrin wrote in the petition. Kinkel had filed a challenge to his sentence in federal court in 2011, saying he was mentally ill at the time of the shootings and the trial court should not have accepted his guilty plea without first ordering a mental health exam. That's now on hold, pending the outcome of the state petition, The Oregonian reported. Information from: The Oregonian, http://www.oregonlive.com I think this would be the only equitable reduction in sentence for Kinkel under any circumstances:1. For each person he killed, 1 month reduction in his sentence for each year of life he is able to return to the victim.2. For each person wounded, 1 month reduction in his sentence for each 1 year of living free of the pain, disabilities, psychological trauma and PTSD. 04:03 pm - Mon, April 29 2013 I like that idea, Seabiscuit! Act in haste, repent at leisure. Unless Kip can bring the dead back to life, he needs to serve his entire sentence. 09:47 am - Tue, April 30 2013

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/5002

« "At Sentencing, Youth Bares Soul, and Judge Bares His Pain" | | Friday follies: "Woman Faces Federal Jail Time Over Spilled Soda" » Getting tough on cybercrime This local press story covers notable federal sentencing news involving cybercrime. The piece is headlined "Leahy's Web crime bill to become law," and here are some excerpts:President Bush will soon sign into law a bill by Sen. Patrick Leahy to impose tougher federal penalties on criminals who steal people's identities and hack into businesses' confidential information. For the first time the law also gives identity theft victims the power to seek restitution for the money and time they lose fighting to restore their damaged credit. A recent survey by the Federal Trade Commission found that more than 8 million Americans fell victim to identity theft in 2005. In Vermont, the incidents are few, but the number grew from 159 in 2003 to 178 in 2006, according to the commission. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he became involved in the issue when he discovered how weak the criminal penalties were for cybercrime. "Instead of giving you the kind of token protection you have now, this bill allows federal prosecutors to move in on cybercriminals," Leahy said in an interview. "If somebody thinks they might actually have to go to jail, they may think twice about committing these crimes." Leahy's bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., enables federal prosecution of criminals who steal personal information from a computer even when the thief and the victim are in the same state. Under current law, federal courts have jurisdiction only in interstate cases. The legislation makes it a felony to employ spyware to damage 10 or more computers, regardless of the cost of the damage. It also requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and update its sentencing guidelines to get tougher on identity theft and other computer crimes. "Even though cybercrimes are virtual, their impact is measured in real dollars," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who helped write several key provisions in the bill. "Our laws must keep pace with the changes in Internet technologies in order to adequately protect our citizens and government." September 19, 2008 at 09:14 AM | Permalink TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2010534b1f394970b Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Getting tough on cybercrime:

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/5163

Home Laws UAE: Law to ban smoking in vehicles with children UAE: Law to ban smoking in vehicles with children By Newsmaster - Aug 20, 2013 335 0 SHARE The anti-tobacco federal law, which will come into force next year, will ban smoking in private vehicles if a child younger than 12 years is present in the car. The Ministry of Health has announced the executive regulations of the anti-tobacco flaw, which were approved by His Highness Shaikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, in the Cabinet’s Resolution No. 24 issued on July 21, 2013. The said resolution will come into effect six months from the date of its issuance. The regulations are part of the government’s efforts to establish an effective national anti-tobacco strategy to protect public health. The ban on the vehicles aims to protect children from being exposed to cigarette smoke. The law also aims to reduce smoking among youth. A study carried out in Abu Dhabi showed that 28 per cent of children aged 15 years and younger, are smokers, while 30 per cent of people aged 18 and above are smokers. The law bans any content that advertises tobacco products, such as newspaper advertisements, TV commercials and animations. It also bans importing tobacco products that are not in line with technical standards set by the UAE, and any violations regarding such imports can lead to a one year prison sentence and a fine ranging from Dh100,000 to Dh1 million, in addition to the confiscation of products. The law also provides specifications on the packaging of tobacco products. All products must now display a large warning label on the front to raise awareness on the dangers of tobacco, and not to mislead them. Violators will be fined Dh100,000 to Dh1 million, and the fines can be doubled if the offence is repeated. Tobacco products cannot be displayed near items marketed for children, or sportswear, health, food and electronic products. Tobacco products are also forbidden to be sold in locations that are 100 metres away from places of worship, and 15 metres away from kindergartens, schools, universities and colleges. Shisha cafes will also have to be at least 150 metres away from residential areas. The regulations also specify that these cafes’ working hours will be from 10am to 12pm. Shishas will not be served to customers younger than 18 years of age, and the cafes will be forbidden from delivering shishas to apartments. Growing or producing tobacco for commercial purposes will also be forbidden, and current manufacturing plants have been given a grace period of 10 years to sort out their situation, and tobacco farms have been given a two-year grace period. The UAE ratified the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), the first international treaty negotiated under the auspices of WHO, in November 2005. The UAE anti-tobacco law was drafted by the Ministry of Health in 2006. In December 2009, the UAE issued its own federal anti-tobacco law. source: khaleej times TAGSSmoking SHARE tweet Previous articleReports: Apple to launch a gold iPhoneNext articleParliament disrupted over missing coal ministry files NewsmasterNews and Information Management expert and more than 15000 news and Informative articles/interviews contribution. RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Smoking Kills More People Than We Thought: Study Thirdhand Smoke Is Real—And Risky to Your Health EFFECTS OF SMOKING Follow us!20,948FansLike338Subscribers+18,660FollowersFollow Social Success Stories

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/5347

Inside Civilitas June 1, 2012Vartan Oskanian is summoned by Armenia’s National Security Service (NSS) to give testimony as a witness in an investigation concerning money laundering (Criminal Code section 190, article 3) and involving the Civilitas Foundation and its founder, Vartan Oskanian.June 4, 2012Vartan Oskanian appears at the NSS office, at 18:30 to testify. The questioning lasts over three hours.June 11, 2012Vartan Oskanian makes a public statement concerning the criminal investigation against him, in which he states that the criminal investigation launched by the NSS has a political motive.In continuing the criminal investigation, the NSS also questions the former chief executive of Huntsman Building Products, Mr. Roy Harrison.June 12, 2012The NSS makes a public statement revealing certain details pertaining to the criminal investigation and refuting its political nature.Civilitas Director Salpi Ghazarian is summoned to the NSS to give testimony regarding the same criminal investigation. June 13, 2012Vartan Oskanian is invited again to give testimony at the NSS. During the meeting, Mr. Oskanian, on advice of counsel, refuses to continue to offer testimony as a witness since the text of the NSS announcement indicated that the NSS had already concluded that there is criminal activity, and Mr. Oskanian is implicated. GALA TV, a regional Gyumri-based television station, issues a statement of solidarity with Civilitas staff and states that the criminal investigation is politically motivated.An online initiative called iSupport Civilitas is launched on Facebook, calling on citizens to stand up for independent media and freedom of speech in Armenia, by supporting the Civilitas Foundation’s CivilNet online news channel.June 14, 2012US Ambassador John Heffern responds to a reporter’s question regarding the criminal investigation and he calls the events “troubling.”The ambassadors of the United States and Switzerland, as well as EU member states France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Romania visit the Civilitas Foundation to hear details of the processes directly from the director. In a separate meeting, the European Union ambassador to Armenia also visits Civilitas.June 15, 2012Civilitas Director Salpi Ghazarian visits the NSS at 10:00 am, in response to the summons received days earlier. She does not respond to questions citing the NSS announcement which clearly states that “Civilitas has violated …” certain laws and provisions, and therefore, on advice of counsel, she believes she is not a mere witness but is, according to the NSS, implicated in criminal activity. June 18, 2012A representative of the NSS visits the Civilitas Foundation, requesting official documents pertaining to the criminal investigation. Director of the foundation, Salpi Ghazarian provides the requested documents to the NSS representative. The programs development director of the Civilitas Foundation, Mr. Artashes Darbinian is presented with a request to give testimony as a witness regarding the criminal investigation. General Gorik Hakobyan, head of the NSS, in an interview with Armenpress, states that Oskanian, if innocent, should testify to prove his innocence.June 20, 2012The NSS invites Mr. Artashes Darbinian, Programs Development Director at Civilitas as a witness. He does not testify, based on the same grounds – that Civilitas has already been deemed in violation, and is a possible suspect.Vartan Oskanian appeals to the Prosecutor General, Aghvan Hovsepyan, asking him to “revisit the decisions and drop the criminal investigation in the absence of a suspect.”GALA TV, a regional television, based in the northeastern Shirak marz, and the Civilitas Foundation issue a joint statement whereby CivilNet.am reports and CivilNet will share selected content from GALA TV on its website. GALA TV, also the subject of political pressure, in 2007, offered its full support to Civilitas.June 21, 2012Vartan Oskanian receives a third summons from the NSS. That visit is delayed due to Mr. Oskanian’s participation in the National Assembly session.June 22, 2012The Civilitas Foundation appeals to Armenia’s Prosecutor General, Aghvan Hovsepyan, asking him to “revisit the decisions and drop the criminal investigation in the absence of a suspect.”The State Revenue Service serves notice that it will conduct a detailed investigation of Civilitas documents from the date of Civilitas’s registration, May 2008, through March 2012.NSS Director Gorik Hakobyan responds to a reporter’s question and again insists that Vartan Oskanian should give testimony, to prove his innocence.Civilitas Foundation board members are summoned to appear at the NSS.June 25, 2012Vartan Oskanian goes to the NSS for a third time. Accompanied by his attorney, Tigran Atanesyan, Oskanian again refuses to testify as a witness.June 27, 2012Vartan Oskanian’s lawyer Tigran Atanesyan receives that formal rejection of his complaint to the RA Prosecutor General against the criminal case opened by the NSS .June 28, 2012In line with the State Revenue Service (SRS) announcement of June 22, four representatives of the SRS come to Civilitas at 11:50 to check the foundation’s financial activities for the period 2008-2012. Civilitas Foundation director Salpi Ghazarian greets them and introduces them to Vahe Ghavalian, director of “Paradigma Armenia” which conducts accounting for the Civilitas Foundation. The State Revenue Service representatives leave for the office of “Paradigma Armenia” to carry out the inspection of documents there. June 29, 2012The State Revenue Service representatives return to “Paradigma Armenia” to continue their audit of the financial activities of Civilitas Foundation. The foundation became the center of attention when the NSS filed a criminal case initiated in connection with the foundation’s activities.July 2, 2012At “Paradigma Armenia”, the State Revenue Service inspectors continue checking the Civilitas Foundation accountsJuly 9, 2012The attorney representing Mr. Oskanian, who is similarly involved, according to the NSS filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance, asking that the National Security Service withdraw its decision based on which it opened a criminal file and began to conduct the investigation regarding money laundering and involving Civilitas.July 12, 2012The Civilitas attorney filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance, asking that the National Security Service withdraw its decision based on which it opened a criminal file and began to conduct the investigation regarding money laundering and involving Civilitas. The attorney representing Mr. Oskanian, who is similarly involved, according to the NSS, also filed a similar request on Monday, July 9.July 18The preliminary investigation of the criminal case by the National Security Service of Armenia concerning the Civilitas Foundation and its founder Vartan Oskanian is still in process.On July 18, Gagik Khachatryan, the Head of the State Revenue Committee signed an order according to which the checks in the Civilitas Foundation were extended for "10 consecutive working days."The State Revenue Committee representatives are carrying out checks of accuracy with the budget relations in the Civilitas Foundation since June 28th, 2012, and the time of the checks expires on July 18. According to law, the State Revenue Committee has the right to extend the inspection period for 10 more days.The National Security Service has requested additional documents from Civilitas Foundation founder Vartan Oskanian related to the criminal case.National Security Service has refused Vartan Oskanian’s appeal to publish documents related to the case, noting that "the appeal will be paid attention to in case of detailed testifying about the case”. July 23, 2012Judge Mnatsakan Martirosyan of Yerevan’s Kentron and Nork Marash Court of First Instance rejected the request by Vartan Oskanian to demand that the National Security Service reverse its May 25 decision to open a criminal case on money laundering, and involving Vartan Oskanian and the Civilitas Foundation.At the conclusion of the closed-door session, Oskanian’s attorney Tigran Atanesyan said that the court’s decision validates Mr. Oskanian’s insistence that this is a politically-motivated matter. During the hearing, Mr. Atanesyan said neither the investigator nor the prosecutor were able to present any serious evidence which backed the decision to open a criminal investigation.Mr. Oskanian also commented on the court’s decision. “It has now been two full months since the criminal case was opened. I would think that would have been sufficient time for the investigators to present convincing evidence, if of course such exist. But nothing has been done. After the verdict, I’m even more convinced that other than a political motivation, there is nothing at the basis of this case.”Mr. Oskanian’s hearing took place on the second day of the extended period that the Tax Service had requested in order to continue their investigation of Civilitas’s books. By law, the investigation that was to take place over 15 consecutive working days can be extended by 10 days. Thus, unless the investigation is frozen (for a period of 90 days is what the law allows) there should be a concluding assessment by the Tax Service by the second week of August.At the same time, the NSS has continued to call members of the Civilitas Board for questioning. On Tuesday, July 17, Ms. Karine Harutyunyan was the last one to appear.September 5The Appellate court, with presiding Judge Henrik Ter Adamyan, made the decision to reject the complaint of Vartan Osknaina’s representative Tigran Atanesyan against the decision of Kentron and Nork-Marash administrative districts First Instance Court.Oskanian's representative Tigran Atanesyan disputes the The decision by RA National Security Service to initiate a criminal case on 25.05.2012 on the characteristics of money laundering.The Appellate Court has justified the refusal of the appeal (complaint rejection?) on the fact that the complaint is groundless, however, according to Oskanian representative Tigarn Atanesyan states that the Court of Appeal has not answered to the arguments presented. Therefore, a complaint witht he same content has been submitted to the Court of Cassation. Share Civilitas Blog LIBRARIES AS CENTERS OF CIVIL SOCIETY The main objective of the project is to support and strengthen the public libraries in a number of rural and urban communities in Armenia, away from the capital, in order to transform them into true centers of community life providing a number of services to the population. Share Podcasts Speaking To Be Heard

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/5358

Council of Europe Portal WWW.COE.INT Language : EN Connect English français Human Rights Deputy Secretary General Chairmanship Committee of Ministers Parliamentary Assembly Congress of Local and Regional Authorities Commissioner for Human Rights Conference of INGOs Treaty Office 47 Member States EN Choose language English français Connect Search Avenue de l'Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Tel. +33 (0)3 88 41 20 00 Home The Commissioner Country monitoring Thematic work Human rights defenders Documents Activity Reports Country work Third party interventions Human Rights Comments Press News You are here: Commissioner for Human Rights/ View/Romania has to ensure a better protection to persons with disabilities, children and Roma Romania has to ensure a better protection to persons with disabilities, children and Roma Print Romania has to ensure a better protection to persons with disabilities, children and Roma Visit to Romania headline Bucharest 04/04/2014 Diminuer la taille du texte Imprimer en PDF Placement centre no4 for children and youth with disabilities, Snagov, Romania "I am seriously concerned by a number of reported cases of inhuman and degrading treatment of persons with disabilities living in closed institutions. Romania needs to set up an efficient national mechanism for the prevention of torture to safeguard the protection of the human rights of persons deprived of their liberty", said today Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, after his five-day visit to Romania. The Commissioner visited a residential institution in Tancabesti, near Bucharest, which hosts more than 50 infants, children and young people with disabilities. "Isolating children with disabilities in institutions like the one I visited cannot but lead to the deterioration of their health and to their social exclusion. Placing persons with disabilities in institutions perpetuates their stigmatisation and marginalisation, in violation of their right to live independently in the community, guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) by which Romania is bound. A strong commitment to de-institutionalisation and to promoting the autonomy of persons with disabilities is needed to overcome this regrettable practice". Measures should also be taken to replace substituted decision-making with supported decision-making for persons with psycho-social or intellectual disabilities. "Regrettably, recent changes in domestic legislation did not bring about the abolition of full incapacitation and plenary guardianship. I urge the authorities to align legislation with the CRPD so as to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life". The Commissioner welcomed the re-establishing of the National Authority for Child Protection and hopes that it will give a new impetus to the authorities' efforts to combat the negative trends of the past few years affecting in particular children from disadvantaged social groups, such as Roma and persons suffering from extreme poverty. The Commissioner was particularly worried about the situation of more than 80 000 children left behind by their parents who work abroad. "I urge the authorities to strengthen the protection of these children who are badly affected by the absence of their parents. Urgent measures should be taken in order to provide necessary health care and ensure the social inclusion of more than 5 000 street children living in deplorable conditions in Bucharest and other cities of Romania. In this context, the Health Ministry's plan of creating community health care centres is very positive." The Commissioner welcomed the measures taken by the authorities as of 2013, which have led to the registration of almost 5 000 Roma children and the issuing of identification documents to more than 30 000 adults. "I encourage the authorities to continue these efforts, which are essential for enjoying the fundamental social rights of access to health care and education." Commissioner Muižnieks noted with satisfaction the successful measures adopted by Romania to include Roma children and youth in the education system and to promote the teaching of the Romani language and Roma history in schools. "However, the reported school drop-out rate of Roma pupils, 36%, is still too high. I urge the authorities to allocate funds and make better use of the Roma mediators, a very useful tool of social mediation that originates from Romania, only half of whom are currently employed". Lastly, while noting with satisfaction the anti-discrimination framework existing in the domestic legislation and the work of the National Council for Combating Discrimination, the Commissioner urges the authorities to step up action against hate crimes. "I am concerned at the fact that Romanian authorities appear to underestimate the incidence of racist hate crime in the country, affecting primarily Roma. Despite continued reports of such crimes by NGOs and the media, in 2013 the courts handled no cases. Particular attention needs to be paid to the recording of hate speech and hate crime and ensuring that law enforcement officers and legal professionals are adequately and systematically trained to be able to recognise and effectively investigate and sanction crimes committed notably with a racist motive". The Commissioner's report following this visit is forthcoming. The Commissioner Previous Commissioners The mandate Thematic work Council of Europe Portal About Private office of the Secretary General Contact for the media Report fraud & corruption Council of Europe, Avenue de l'Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex, France - Tel. +33 (0)3 88 41 20 00 Disclaimer - © Council of Europe 2016 - © photo credit

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/5545

Emergency room liability law under attack Northeast Georgia Medical, other hospitals don't want rules to change [email protected] A slight change in the wording of Georgia’s malpractice reform law could make a big difference to hospitals and patients.The consumer advocacy group Georgia Watch is pushing for an amendment that would make it easier for patients to sue hospitals if they believe they’ve been harmed in the emergency room.Senate Bill 286 was introduced during the 2007 Georgia General Assembly session, but was not brought up for a vote. It’s expected to be reintroduced during the current session, which began Monday.The bill targets a provision in the tort reform law passed in February 2005, commonly called SB 3. That law says ER staff cannot be held liable for damages "unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the physician or health care provider’s actions showed gross negligence."SB 286 would replace "showed gross negligence" with "failed to meet the applicable standard of care."That may seem like mere semantics, but Georgia Watch director Allison Wall said the change would be significant from a legal standpoint."The most common definition of ‘gross negligence’ is ‘reckless disregard for the safety of a patient,’" she said. "But that’s almost impossible to prove in the emergency room. So basically, no attorneys are taking ER (liability) cases anymore, because they don’t believe they can win."The phrase "applicable standard of care" might be more precise. For example, an attorney could use medical records to show that a doctor failed to follow the standard treatment protocol for a specific diagnosis."This wording would at least give patients a chance at achieving accountability," Wall said. "Most people don’t know about SB 3, and they’re really shocked when they find out they don’t have any (legal) recourse."At the time the law was passed, hospitals argued they needed extra legal protection for ER personnel because of the unique circumstances. Patients often come into the ER with no known medical history and are unable to respond to questions, so doctors have to take their best guess about the safest course of treatment."The hospitals are absolutely right about those challenges," Wall said. "Patients do show up in the ER without any records. The part of the law about ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ I do feel is appropriate. Where I feel they crossed the line was with ‘gross negligence.’"She said the original draft of SB 3 did not include that phrase. "It got changed when the bill went to the House," she said. "The Georgia Hospital Association really wanted that wording."Kevin Bloye, spokesman for the GHA, said the language was necessary. "Ask any hospital how difficult it is to get physician coverage for emergency rooms," he said. "(This law) gave physicians the protection they needed to do their jobs and take care of patients and not have to worry about these exorbitant insurance premiums."Northeast Georgia Medical Center in Gainesville is among the 174 hospitals that comprise the GHA. Medical center spokeswoman Cathy Bowers said they are satisfied with the law as it is."We support Senate Bill 3, the significant tort-reform bill that was previously passed, and we are opposed to opening up the legislation to debate," she said.Jillian DePuma, spokeswoman for the Medical Association of Georgia, said the physicians’ organization also opposes any amendments to SB 3."MAG remains dedicated to protecting the tort-reform legislation passed during the 2005 session," she said.Bloye said any attempt to change SB 3 would create a "slippery slope.""It has served Georgia patients well and has enhanced access to care," he said. "There was a real crisis prior to 2005. We were seeing doctors leave the state (due to high malpractice costs)."Wall contends the bill has not achieved its desired goal."As far as I can tell, it hasn’t helped the hospitals," she said. "Before SB 3, they were saying, ‘Our costs are so high, we’re going to have to close down our (obstetric) units and trauma care.’ Now the law has been passed, and they’re still saying that."Bowers said it’s true that insurance premiums are still high."We have not seen a direct benefit at this point," she said. "Our malpractice costs have not decreased. But more professional liability insurance carriers have expressed interest in returning to the Georgia market, and we think this will benefit us in the long term."Walls said SB 286 is supported by at least 15 state senators, 10 Republicans and five Democrats, including the Senate majority and minority leaders. None of the co-sponsors are from Hall County."I think it’s the most simple bill to be introduced in the legislature this year," she said. "It’s just a one-sentence change, and it’s not retroactive."But Bloye doesn’t feel a change is needed, because he sees no evidence that SB 3 has harmed patients."I don’t think it takes away legal recourse from patients who have a legitimate claim," he said.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/5681

RPX intros first free search engine for patent information This search engine is the first of a series of tools enabling public access to patent market data and intelligence By Amanda CiccatelliMay 13, 2014 Did you know that patent litigation has cost companies around the world about $13 billion in defense expenses and settlements last year? That number is up from $5 billion in 2008. And something needs to be done about it. Fortunately, RPX Corporation, a provider of patent risk management solutions, has launched RPX Search, the first search engine to provide public access to a complete database that connects patent, litigation, and entity data. Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, any company can search RPX's proprietary database for patents related to litigations, look up co-defendants in a patent litigation, understand litigation campaigns, and create alerts to assess the potential risk from patent trolls. "When we founded RPX six years ago, we started gathering, indexing and correlating all patent-related data in the belief that every company should have this information at their fingertips to guide their patent strategy decisions," said John A. Amster, CEO and co-founder of RPX, in a statement. Since its founding in 2008, RPX has introduced efficiency to the patent market by providing an alternative to litigation. The San Francisco-based company's approach combines principal capital, patent expertise, and client contributions to generate enhanced patent buying power. RPX Search provides companies with access to all U.S. patents and applications, every patent litigation filed in a U.S. district court since 2000, and all patent owners and parties in litigations in a searchable database. Further, the search engine allows users to research current and past patent market data to better understand their patent risk. "More transparency of data should lead to lower legal and other transaction costs in the patent market,” said Amster. In fact, as of March 31, RPX invested over $810 million to acquire more than 4,300 U.S. and international patent assets on behalf of the 178 members of its client network in seven key sectors, including consumer electronics, E-commerce and software, financial services, media content and distribution, mobile communications and devices, networking, and semiconductors. For more on patent trolls, check out these articles: Alleged patent troll claims it owns podcasting DuPont supports the role of patents in innovation Igniting innovation in utilizing patent assets Apple-Samsung patent dispute trial continues « Prev Amanda Ciccatelli Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Contributing Writer for InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation, and more. She earned a B.A. in... Berkeley, MIT Clash Over Right to Profit From Gene-Editing Bonanza In Latest Patent Case, Supreme Court Asks How Much Is Enough for Induced Infringement Patents 1498 Intellectual Property 260 financial services 117 patent litigation 98 search engine 40 e - commerce 29 The Wall Street Journal 12 RPX Corporation 10 Join the Conversation

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/5736

Board ruled unconstitutional Ruling shouldn't effect MG plans Board ruled unconstitutional By KXII Staff | Posted: Wed 2:11 PM, May 02, 2007 | Updated: Wed 5:47 PM, May 02, 2007 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled the contingency board that approved funding to expand the Ardmore Air Park runway is unconstitutional. Earlier this year, an Oklahoma City attorney filed a lawsuit claiming the opportunity fund board violates separation of powers. The court agreed. The board includes the Senate Pro Tem, Speaker of the House, and Governor. Therefore legislators are conducting powers reserved for the executive branch. The Supreme Court’s ruling only applies to future grants approved by the board, so it should not affect runway extension, which is one of the incentives that helped bring in MG. "Hopefully it doesn't impact the air park or runway extension project. The ruling relates to the make-up of board, not act or fund created by that act," said Ardmore Development Authority president Wes Stucky. Plans for MG are moving full speed ahead. The ADA is submitting bids for runway extension. The deadline for those is May 15th. Drug search warrants in Fannin County nets nearly 30 behind bars Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/5750

Download our plug-in for Chrome to get customizable, real-time news alerts Ex-SAC Manager Martoma Wants Conviction Thrown Out By Benjamin Horney Law360, New York (February 28, 2014, 2:12 PM EST) -- Former SAC Capital Advisors LP portfolio manager Mathew Martoma asked a New York federal judge on Thursday to reverse his conviction for an alleged $275 million insider trading scheme, saying — among other things — that the government had failed to prove he committed a crime.In his Thursday memorandum of law, Martoma said that the government did not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that was guilty of any of the allegations. Additionally, Martoma said that the testimony of the government's star witness was unreliable, and... Elan Corporation, plc Sign up for our free Life Sciences newsletter

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/5764

Florida appeals court quashes order requiring Insurance Commissioner to testify On March 13, 2015, in Florida Office of Insurance Regulation v. Florida Department of Financial Services, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals quashed the trial court’s order compelling the deposition of the Florida Insurance Commissioner. The court found that even if the party seeking the discovery had exhausted all discovery tools in an attempt to obtain the desired information, the testimony sought was either unnecessary or available from other sources. The court also ruled that compelling the commissioner to testify regarding his opinions on hypothetical receivership decisions would violate the separation of powers doctrine. Underlying Facts The action was filed by the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS), acting as receiver for three insurance companies, against a major financial services firm (the Firm). The complaint alleged that the Firm was negligent in preparing inaccurate financial statements for the insurance companies, which were filed with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) in 2005. DFS argued that had the statements been prepared accurately, the insurance companies would have been taken into receivership in 2005 instead of 2006, and that harm was done to the companies because of the delay. Lower Court Decision The Firm made attempts to subpoena the commissioner and DFS made attempts to add him to its trial witness list. OIR successfully challenged those attempts by asserting that the information could be gained through sources other than the commissioner. At trial, DFS argued that neither party should be allowed to mention the commissioner’s failure to testify. However, the trial court reasoned that since the heart of the case was the argument that the commissioner would have referred the companies for receivership in 2005, it could not prevent the Firm from arguing that DFS had failed to meet its burden. The Firm then stated that it did not object to DFS adding the commissioner as a witness if the Firm could depose him. DFS added the commissioner to the witness list and the Firm subpoenaed him for deposition. OIR filed a motion to quash the subpoena and for a protective order precluding the commissioner from being added to the DFS witness list, which the trial court denied. The trial court found that the deposition testimony indicated that an insurance company cannot be referred to DFS for receivership without approval of the commissioner and that the information sought was not available from other sources. The OIR filed a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the discovery order requiring the commissioner to appear for a deposition. Appeals Court Opinion The appeals court overruled the trial court, emphasizing the hypothetical nature of the proposed deposition. The court noted that before requiring the head of a state agency to testify, a trial court must find that (1) the party seeking the testimony exhausted all discovery tools in an attempt to obtain the information sought and (2) the testimony sought is necessary and unavailable from other witnesses. The court held that the respondents met the first prong of the test but failed to meet the second. The court explained that in determining whether the second prong has been satisfied, one must look at the crux of the cause of action. In the instant case, DFS had to demonstrate that OIR would have recommended the insurance companies into receivership in 2005 if they had been provided with accurate financial information from the Firm. The testimony sought would be based on hypothetical facts equally available to all parties. In other words, the information would simply be the “opinion” of the commissioner based on those hypothetical facts, and not pertinent facts to which only the commissioner is privy. Since the commissioner never received the financial information in 2005, he did not have the opportunity to fully evaluate that information through the collaborative process. The pertinent facts, however, could be obtained through other witnesses. Moreover, the court found that compelling the questioning of agency heads regarding discretionary decisions they may have made while carrying out their duties raises serious separation-of-powers concerns. One issue is that the agency head is being questioned about hypothetical discretionary decisions based on an incomplete evaluation process that may relate to future decisions of the agency. Another issue is that subjecting agency heads to questions concerning what they might have decided in collaboration with others would preclude them from being able to reasonably exercise their statutory duties. Further, the precedent would not be limited to insurance company solvency, but could concern any party seeking damages by challenging a permitting decision that was allegedly based on incomplete information. The outcome in Florida Office is hardly surprising. The court expressed understandable concern over the widespread ramifications of allowing the depositions of agency heads in virtually every rule-challenge proceeding. Such a precedent would also create a significant deterrent to qualified candidates seeking a public service office. Other states, most notably California (e.g., Westly v. Superior Court, 125 Cal. App. 4th 907 (2004)), have also found the depositions of agency heads to be off limits. Generally, throughout the country, agency heads are not required to testify by deposition or at a hearing unless (1) the agency head had personal knowledge of information relevant to the case, (2) the testimony is essential to prevent prejudice and (3) the information cannot be obtained through other witnesses or documents. The Florida Office opinion suggests that had one or more of these three factors been present, the result might well have been different. In addition, two interesting questions are raised in footnotes in the court’s decision. First, what would have happened if the commissioner’s status as agency head had been challenged? Second, under Florida law, do the rationale and public policy considerations that favor shielding governmentalagency heads from having to offer testimony apply with equal force in thecorporate context? The Florida Office court explicitly left these questions unanswered. Doubtless, they will be the subject of future Florida decisions. Wilson Elser - James M. Kloss and Nicholas D. Freeman Filed under New York’s Nonexempt Wage and Salary Requirements Still in Play * Obesity as a protected class in employment law * Government Contractor Defense May Apply to Commercially Available Products * What Might a Sessions-Led Department of Justice Mean for the Cannabis Industry? * iSpy: tracking employees with GPS technology on mobile devices

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/6180

Permitting process under way for Brockton marijuana dispensary In Good Health Inc., the nonprofit that received a state license earlier this year to operate out of a warehouse at 1200 West Chestnut St., begins its city permitting process in earnest this week. BROCKTON – The grow lights at Brockton’s first medical marijuana dispensary could be warming up West Chestnut Street by next winter’s thaw.In Good Health Inc., the nonprofit that received a state license earlier this year to operate out of a warehouse at 1200 West Chestnut St., begins its city permitting process in earnest this week. The dispensary operator is scheduled to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday and the Conservation Commission on Thursday. After approvals from those boards, the next step would be site plan review before the Planning Board. “We look forward to the opportunity to further discuss our plans with these local boards and anticipate a February 1, 2015 opening,” In Good Health’s President & CEO David Noble said in an email. Noble originally said the plan was to open by the end of 2014. If the nonprofit receives city approval, it must then seek final approval from the state Department of Public Health. To get this far, the dispensary has faced a variety of financial and administrative hurdles, and must still contend with local officials and neighbors who could trip up its progress. “It’s not all cut-and-dried,” said Ward 3 Councilor Dennis Eaniri, who represents the dispensary’s neighborhood. Eaniri said the size of the facility – 16,000 square feet – is large enough to handle its anticipated volume of patients, but that the property itself is in poor shape and should be improved before the dispensary opens. “If I was going to lease a building I would want to make sure my building was spiffed up,” Eaniri said. Mark Abrams, co-owner of the property, declined to discuss the dispensary through a secretary. Co-owner Neal Abrams could not be reached for comment. Noble said he has been in contact with Eaniri and plans to re-pave sections of the parking lot. “It is an industrial building but we plan for the dispensary space to be attractive and inviting,” Noble said. “To the extent that any concerns emerge, we plan to be responsive in addressing them.” Jay Lynch, executive director of Brockton Area Arc, a nonprofit serving children and adults with developmental disabilities, said he is not sure if the organization will send anyone to the permit hearings, but that staff members have been discussing the dispensaries in meetings. “We’re waiting to see what happens,” Lynch said. Massachusetts voters approved a ballot measure in November 2012 that legalized medical marijuana. On Jan. 31, the state issued the first 20 of 35 total dispensary licenses. In Good Health replaced Douglas Noble as CEO before submitting its final application because his financial troubles, the Boston Globe reported in February. He was replaced by his son David Noble, an account manager for a medical equipment company and former nursing home administrator. Noble is joined by Barry Kirshner, serving as the nonprofit’s chief operating and chief financial operator. Kirshner is a CPA and former head of a plastics company. In Good Health had to show at least $500,000 in a bank account for its initial DPH approval. It must also pay Brockton a $5,000 application fee, up from the minimum $1,500 required by the state, according to the city clerk’s office. Beyond that, Noble said he does not have a host agreement with the city but is open to helping Brockton “meet its financial challenges.” “We plan to be an active supporter of local programs and a committed participant in this community,” Noble said. Mayor Bill Carpenter did not respond to requests for comment. His former campaign manager, Mark Lawton, unsuccessfully submitted an application for a dispensary in Brockton. Carpenter previously said he had problems with the state’s selection process, but that he would support In Good Health if it brought tax and water revenue into the city and was “done properly.” During the first year of operation, Noble said he anticipates $1.595 million in revenue and 500 patients served. The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Noble said he expects to hire 17 employees in the first year. Joseph Markman may be reached at [email protected].

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/6203

Off Topic Scott Peterson Verdict in <123456> Found [106] Posts :: Page 5 of 6 Heffanator ya the three guys that killed my classmate Megan showed no remorse for her murder. They're so cowardly. One guy ratted on one and recognized him as the killer, and they all admitted to being at the robbery but all 3 denied shooting her. They're so full of it and will get what's coming to them. I'd love to throw rocks at them. ha! Smooshie Welcome to the board michaelst. I'm curious....what makes you think we're all Americans in this thread? jawlaw Michael and rednose- are you like Scott's cousins or attorney or something! Geez..... I don't know what Scott does in his jail cell... however, I do know that he tried to strike up a romance with one of the jailors while he was awaiting trial for the murder of his wife and child. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.... There is NO doubt he killed them. Anyone who saw the evidence (circumstantial or not- IMO, who cares if it is circumstantial if he is guilty) has to know it. ***Edited By: jawlaw on 12/16/2004 6:06:42 PM***Reason: add lalayla If I were in Scotts shoes and was innocent, I wouldn't care if they gave me the death penalty. What would I have to live for, anyway. I don't believe he is innocent. He is cold and calculating. He has been since day one. jawlaw yep....if you heard his taped phone conversation with Frey when he was suppose to be looking for his wife and unborn child......... huntersmom Michael, I don't really think it's fair to generalize a country like that. It happens too oftan in our world. I think people have made mistakes in the legal system all over the world, not just the United States. And there are lynch mobs everywhere. I can remember a story about a young 3 year old boy brutally murdered by two 10 year olds in England. The boys were charged and placed in a detention center until they were 18. When they were 18, the court took it upon themselves to change the identies of these boys so no one would know who they were and harrass them after their release. They are now living out their lives in happiness, not having to worry about people knowing the terrible thing they did. But that little 3 year old boy will never see another day. I think that was a big mistake in the legal system in England, but I don't think England is a bad country for it. I just see it as something that happened and wasn't handled right. But it's definately not fair to generalize the whole country for it. Gina huntersmom, I remember that case and I totally agree with what you said. Michael, what gives you the idea that there was no evidence? I saw what I found to be enough circumstantial evidence and so did the jury. End of story. Does this make us a lynch mob country, I think not. Besides the fact that there are people on this forum from all over the world. He was tried and convicted on two counts of murder by a jury of his peers. That's how our legal system works. It may not always be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than some other things I've seen. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obvious believe he is innocent, and that's fine. But don't put me down for my opinion. I think he's guilty as sin and I have come to that conclusion over all of this time watching his actions as well as the trial reports and some things the jury didn't even get to see. Did you know that they had bloodhounds pick up Laci's scent from his house to the very dock at the marina where he was? Does that mean nothing? Forensic evidence is great, but there can not always be forensic evidence and IMO there was enough circumstantial evidence in this particular case. Aceyfacey2 "What bothers me most: If some day the Scott Peterson case is acquitted people of your sort would not even apologize but just remain in their huts" ---Michael People of your sort? What sort would that be? You know, Michael, it's not really fair to judge. Just because I live in the U.S. does not mean anything. You don't know anything about me just by knowing what country I am from. You really should keep your comments to yourself, as you know nothing and you are just categorizing a very large group of people because of your own personal views. You live in Europe? Good. Stay there and mind your own business. Oh, and have a nice day =-) halo611 He gets what he deserves. I just don't agree with giving the death penalty and then letting the convicted sit in jail for 10 to 20 years wasting our tax money. And... if Scott Peterson is innocent then why did he try to flee the country, have in his possession his brothers ID and change the color of his hair? Sounds to me like someone was running from the law. ALEXnKAI Ok...if you set aside the fact that Scott was having an affair and if you set aside the fact that he did not show remorse, what about his other actions that represented his guilt? The day after she dissappeared, he was entertaining his family. Cooking pasta and asking what kind of wine they wanted with their dinner. Talking about Laci in the past tense in interviews, trading in Laci's SUV, trying to sell the house they shared, filling the baby's room with junk, dying his hair blonde, caught with his brother's ID with $15,000 in cash....hmm....yeah, that's how innocent people act. Just ask OJ. jawlaw lol.... I was so upset over the OJ trial... and so afraid that the same thing might happen to Peterson, but thank God it did not turn out that way. I can't even begin to find the words of how it must feel for families when the husband, boyfriend... get away with it! So sad. rednosered Ya know people show their feelings in different ways ,so the way Scott chooses to deal with this ,he gets so called lynched or attacked by a bunch of people. I'll say again I don't think her murder was premeditated, it was a accident, and Scott covered it up. He derserves prison for covering up her murder.Also a person comes on here giving different viwes on the subject and you attack him. Real grown up.You people can't handle a difference of opinion. Aceyfacey2 Ya know people show their feelings in different ways ,so the way Scott chooses to deal with this ,he gets so called lynched or attacked by a bunch of people. I'll say again I don't think her murder was premeditated, it was a accident, and Scott covered it up. He derserves prison for covering up her murder.Also a person comes on here giving different viwes on the subject and you attack him. Real grown up.You people can't handle a difference of opinion. Rednosered, I like how you come on here and state your opinion like it is a fact. Sorry, accident? How do you accidentally kill someone? Whoops! Sorry hunny, got a little rough with you and your huge pregnant belly. I guess I shouldn't have hit you so hard. Please, give me a break. If I ever disappeared and my husband tried to sell my house and car a month later I'd say he wasn't too optimistic of my return. And rednose, you don't have to be everyone's savior. Let whoever is being "attacked" defend themselves. That person is not from this country but feels the need to come in here & let us know how we ALL are. Yeah, I don't think so. Gina Rednosered, as you said we are all entilted to our opinions. You included. This guy was not being attacked because he believes that Scott is innocent, he is being attacked because he came on here with post #1 and attacked us, our judicial system, etc. He could have stated his opinion as you did, without the rest. That's what has everyone upset. Heffanator Even if it was an accident, he still deserves whats coming to him, let alone doing it with forethought. Why would you cover up her murder instead of coming straight out? You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole. I personally think it was premeditated. He's just a scum bag. huntersmom Gina, that's how I felt as well. It doesn't matter to me who thinks Scott is innocent. There was even a time I thought the same. His post bothered me because he was generalizing the United States. Since 9/11 it seems like I hear generalizations about our country all the time. I have heard countries think we're arrogant, that we're just bullies and 'Christian crusaders' (that one really bothers me because we're defending our country against terrorism, how does that have anything to do with religion?) and sometimes it just really gets to me. Michael could have said he thought he was innocent without generalizing our country as a whole. rednosered Now it's time to let the thread die,no more can be said about the subject that hasn't already been said. jawlaw I have always been just rebellious enough to do the opposite of what I am told as long as it doesn't hurt anyone! Maybe we haven't said enough. IMO, if he accidentally killed her (whatever that means) he would have broken down at some point and admitted it. But just in case this ever happens to me (like someone else said in another post being sarcastic)... if my husband is having numerous affairs, tells one of them that he had lost is wife... carries on with her while his wife and unborn son is missing, sells the house, the car, has been fishing in the same exact spot where my body is found, tells a coworker that he knows the perfect way to kill someone and get away with it (with weights) and then they find it in his possession and he changes his appearance and tries to flee the country, please just go ahead and step in and tell them that he did it, even if it is just circumstantial evidence.... man it doesn't take a rocket scientist!!!!!!!! rednosered When I say accidently,that's exactly what it is . They got into a fight maybe about his affair,he told her maybe he was going to leave her,the fight became heated,maybe he hit her out of anger,she fell by hitting her head and died. Who knows. Then he covered it up. Just because of the way he appeared in trail does not mean he planned this.Men especially are great at hiding their feelings.That's what seperates women from men,women have more compassion then men.Because of what he did afterwards,he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. jawlaw Absolutely no evidence of that... prosecutors would have given that scenario had they had evidence. I'm not sure why you are so adamant that it was an accident since out of all the stupid things the defense attorney came up with to say happened to defend Peterson, accidentally killing her was not one of them. But oh well... << Return to General Topics

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/6261

Walgreens employee fired after what she said was diabetic attack reaches $180,000 settlement SAN FRANCISCO — Drugstore chain Walgreens has agreed to pay $180,000 to a diabetic employee who was fired after eating a $1.39 bag of chips before paying for it during what she said was an attack of low blood sugar. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the settlement with Walgreens on Wednesday. The commission filed a discrimination suit against the company three years ago on behalf of Josefina Hernandez after she was fired from a South San Francisco Walgreens in 2008. According to the suit, the 18-year Walgreens employee paid for the bag of chips the same day she ate them, but was nonetheless let go. Walgreens’ attorney Chris Murray said in a statement the settlement was consistent with the company’s commitment to accommodate the needs of employees with illnesses or disabilities. ,Walgreens Co.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/6362

Judge Dismisses Ten Commandments Case, Diverts 2 Others By SAMIRA JAFARIAssociated Press Writer PIKEVILLE, Ky. (AP) - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit regarding a display incorporating the Ten Commandments at an eastern Kentucky school district and rejected requests for summary judgment in two similar cases. The order, issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Jennifer B. Coffman, ruled the suit against Harlan County school is moot. The plaintiff, a student represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, no longer attends the school. Coffman refused to grant summary judgment in similar ACLU suits against McCreary and Pulaski counties in eastern Kentucky, where county officials put up the Ten Commandments as part of the "Foundations of American Law and Government" displays in their courthouses. Addressing both cases in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court said the framed displays in McCreary and Pulaski counties went too far in endorsing religion when they modified the displays with documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage." Those included the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible." However, the high court said Ten Commandments displays on government property are not inherently unconstitutional and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The ACLU sought a permanent injunction on the displays, which Coffman rejected in her ruling Friday. But she stopped short of ruling in favor of the defendants, saying the displays still endorse religion. Coffman ordered both sides to attend an Oct. 22 conference on the lawsuits with a magistrate judge. "The only question left is whether motivation (for the displays) is religious or educational in nature," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal defense organization based in Orlando, Fla., representing Harlan, McCreary, Pulaski and other Kentucky counties in similar cases. Attorneys for the ACLU of Kentucky didn't return messages from The Associated Press on Tuesday. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/6366

Five Firms Settle in AG's Pension Probe Ilya Marritz New York, NY — Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has obtained five more cash settlements in his probe of alleged corruption at the state pension fund. One of those settlements could increase the pressure on a prominent businessman with ties to the Democratic Party and Mayor Michael Bloomberg.Steven Rattner founded the Quadrangle investment firm in the year 2000. He left the firm last year to become President Obama's "car czar."On Thursday, Quadrangle distanced itself from its founder, calling his conduct "inappropriate, wrong, and unethical."Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says in 2003, Rattner hired a middleman with political connections to arrange investment opportunities with the state pension fund.In a statement to the political blogger Ben Smith, Rattner says he disagrees with Cuomo's characterization of events.But Cuomo says kickbacks were an accepted part of the culture at the pension fund."It's been going on for a long time. Everyone does it. Everyone knows about it. And no one does anything about it," he says.In the settlement, Quadrangle paid a combined $12 million to New York State and the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid all legal jeopardy. But the deal does not protect Quadrangle founder Rattner.Rattner's role is a touchy subject for Mayor Bloomberg. Quadrangle managed a big chunk of the mayor's personal fortune until earlier this year.

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/6376

Atticus Journal Reading Room > Public Relations Corporations, Social Responsibility and Public Relations Harold Burson's Speech at the Welcome Dinner of the 18th IPRA World Congress in Beijing, November 13, 2008 (condensed) My Fellow Practitioners of Public Relations: Never before has the world been so inter-connected, every region and every nation so dependent on other regions and other nations. It pleases me that public relations has thrived in this environment. But the lack of understanding and perspective of the roles of the corporation and public relations in this increasingly competitive economic and social environment troubles me. I worry also about a lack of understanding of corporate social responsibility. Accordingly, I have titled my talk "The Corporation, Social Responsibility and Public Relations." This speech draws heavily from a speech I made thirty-five years ago when I first used the term "corporate social responsibility." My purpose is to share my insights on the role of the corporation in society and the role of public relations in helping corporations fulfill both their business and social obligations. Actually, the corporation is a peculiar institution. We speak of it as though it is human. But the fact is, corporations per se don't think, they don't feel, they don't speak. Instead, corporations are really people who band together to pursue a business objective. People are different; therefore we should expect corporations to be different. The naturalist Henry Thoreau summed it up in a 19th Century essay: "It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience." While it should operate honestly and ethically, the corporation is not moralistic by nature; it's pragmatic. Mostly, it is conservative - dedicated to nurturing and growing shareowner assets. Its first duty, as I see it, is to manage its affairs properly and profitably. When it does that well, it is fulfilling its greatest obligation to society. It has a duty to compensate employees and reward investors fairly. It has a duty to create favorable and safe working conditions for employees and produce goods and services of value. It has a duty to deliver on its promises - to customers, to employees, to investors, to the community, in fact, to all stakeholders. A poorly managed corporation that fails to deliver on basic obligations cannot make up for inadequacies with good deeds that have little or no bearing on daily operations. Management should never forget that the corporation is a social as well as a business entity. No corporation has a monopoly on virtue; no corporation has a monopoly on sin. Some corporations have the capacity for both responsible and irresponsible acts, and sometimes can and will behave both ways simultaneously - just like people. I know of companies that set a high environmental standards, but pay little attention to promoting females to managerial jobs. I know of companies that are exceptional at hiring minorities, but lax in enforcing safety standards. The real measure for the socially responsible corporation is not organizing itself to lead social change; the real measure is whether it has organized itself to anticipate and to respond appropriately to social change. When to react to social change is a critical decision in which public relations plays a crucial role. Corporations which react early and voluntarily are, by and large, regarded as socially responsible - or, at the very least, responsive to social change. Those who wait until the deadline are usually stigmatized for being unresponsive to social needs and requirements. Timing is critical. I think most of us would agree that financial support of educational, health, cultural and other community activities is no longer sufficient for companies aspiring to social responsibility status. Make no mistake: I applaud corporations which support the philharmonic and modern dance and contribute to a new cancer wing at the local hospital. But such deeds, good as they are, are now taken for granted as acts of good corporate citizenship. In today's environment writing a check is not enough. The buying public no longer looks only to governments and well-financed foundations to solve major societal problems. Corporations are not only adapting themselves to fill this space but see it as a reputation and market-building opportunity. Going "green" is just one manifestation. One example: our client Coca-Cola has great expertise in processing water. It also has the largest footprint in all of Africa. It was only natural when it decided that its most useful contribution to the people of Africa would be helping bring water to water-deprived villages. Doing so makes sense and is a constructive use of corporate assets. In today's competitive economy, companies and products - brands - seek differentiation at a time when differentiation is harder and harder to achieve. Competitors nowadays often use the same computer design and manufacturing programs. Stand on any busy big city intersection and see how much the cars look alike. And because of the huge impact of national retailers, price points are getting narrower and narrower. It's a perfect scenario for a new metric - social responsibility - which many customers use when making a purchasing decision. What's better than a reputation for social responsibility. In the early 1920s, Edward L. Bernays, the architect of public relations as it is practiced today, defined public relations in this manner: Public relations is the management function which tabulates public attitudes, defines the policies, procedures and interest of an organization followed by executing a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance. Bernays identifies two requirements on which the practice of public relations is based. The first is to influence the decision making process in a way that reconciles a client's or employer's objectives with public expectations; the second is to employ communications strategies and tactics to motivate audiences to a specific course of action. In short: first, influence policy and second, effectively communicate to the target audiences. In the implementation of this process, I see four principal roles for a corporation's chief public relations officer. The first is to serve the corporation as a sensor of social change (sensor is spelled s-e-n-s-o-r). He/she perceives those societal rumblings that auger good or ill for the organization. In a way, it's like the radar chief who gives the early warning. And after pondering the yearnings and stirrings the signals are interpreted for the management team. Part of the job as corporate sensor is to keep management focused on those external problems not usually considered part of managing a large business. He/she is the one who says "you don't approve of Greenpeace, but you should never underestimate the power it wields over people and problems that can damage our business." The second role is that of corporate conscience. I trust you - and your colleagues in management - will not infer that only public relations executives have a conscience - or that public relations people are either more ethical or more moral or have a greater commitment to serving the public interest than executives with other titles. In fact, others in management may possess more of these qualities than the person with the chief public relations/ communications title. But being the corporate conscience is not in the job description of other executives. It is - or should be - in the job description of the chief public relations officer. The third role of the chief public relations/communications officer is that of communicator. The tendency - especially in recent times, as I referred to earlier - is to think that communications, mainly working with the media, print, electronic and digital - is his/her only or principal role. Listening is as important a part of the job as speaking - and the chief public relations officer should be equally adept at both. The "why" and "how" of an action or policy is as important, if not more so, than the "what" and the "when." The goal of communications is more than to tell or inform; its primary purpose is to bring about understanding. No matter how effective the communications program is, it will not succeed unless it truthfully reflects the corporation's behavior. And above all, the corporation must always deliver on its promises. The fourth role is to serve as corporate monitor. Since the public relations/ communications department is the company's voice and has a major a role dealing with public issues, there is a need for constant monitoring to make sure policies and programs reflect both company policy and public expectations. If they fall short, it's the job of the chief public relations officer to agitate for new programs and policies. To summarize, the chief public relations officer has four roles: corporate sensor, corporate conscience, corporate communicator and corporate monitor. As corporate sensor and corporate conscience, he/she contributes to and participates in the decision making process. It is his/her job to anticipate changes in the social environment and make sure the corporation's response meets public expectations. In the roles as corporate communicator and corporate monitor, he/she speaks for the corporation both truthfully and timely and makes certain the corporation is delivering on its promises. But I would be less than candid if I did not mention that I believe there are potential hazards which we in public relations must overcome. One question we should ponder is whether public relations professionals, in the context you and I define public relations professionals, will provide the advice and counsel and implement the programs that have traditionally been our responsibility. Even today, there is encroachment on territory we claim as ours. It started about 25 years ago when chief financial officers assumed responsibility for investor relations. They first directed their attention to financial analysts and portfolio managers; soon after in many public companies they were writing quarterly earnings releases and dealing directly with the media. Internal communications in many companies now reports to the senior human resources officer. Large management consultancies are deep into customer satisfaction programs. The global audit firms offer counsel on sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Legal departments and law firms are increasingly into crisis management. Usually public relations professionals are not totally by-passed. "PR" is often enlisted after the strategy has been developed by others in the organization perceived to be more knowledgeable about business than we in public relations. Often regarded more as communicators than policy advisers, we increasingly find ourselves serving as "arms and legs" rather than using our brain power. Despite of my concerns, I feel positive about the future of public relations. I can remember, not so many years ago, meetings such as this were dedicated largely to answering the question, "how can we get management to appreciate us more?" I don't hear that question nowadays. In fact, I believe today's challenge is living up to management's high expectations of what public relations to do for their business. Perhaps the most important obligation for those of us in positions of high responsibility is to replace ourselves with talent at least equal to our own. If we can do that successfully, we will have fulfilled our responsibility and public relations will continue to have a major voice in the management function. DownloadPDF version About the speaker Harold BursonFounder of Burson-Marsteller Burson-Marsteller China

法律

2016-50/4390/en_head.json.gz/6477

Blog > Lighting a Legal Fuse Tweet Lighting a Legal Fuse July 16, 2015 Emily Schwartz Greco Climate action is finally gaining ground in Washington. No, not that Washington. Following their victory in a Seattle court, eight children are pressing Washington State’s Department of Ecology to crack down on carbon pollution. The agency has until August 7 to reach an agreement with the youths, who sued after the department rejected their petition. Otherwise, the kids will go back to court. “I hope our voices are heard,” said Aji Piper, a 14-year-old and one of the plaintiffs. Judge Hollis Hill, for one, is listening. She agreed with the teens and tweens in a first-of-its-kind ruling, citing a “historical lack of political will to respond adequately to the urgent and dire acceleration of global warming.” Climate change mashes up environmental, moral, meteorological, economic, political, scientific, and industrial challenges. Given that complexity, it’s no wonder it took more than 25 years of international climate talks for global emissions to even stabilize. Slashing climate pollution may take something new — like suing governments for failing to shield their constituents from a climate catastrophe and prosecuting the oil, gas, and coal industries for this mess. Ultimately, climate lawyers could replicate successes scored with tobacco litigation and the legal actions that brought about marriage equality. The biggest breakthrough came right after the Washington ruling when a Dutch court ordered the government of the Netherlands to reduce that nation’s emissions by 25 percent within five years. As the low-lying nation currently aims for only a 17 percent cut, this case filed on behalf of 900 people marked a global precedent. More lawsuits are in the pipeline. One pits South Pacific islanders whose countries are threatened by rising sea levels against big oil companies. These folks from Vanuatu, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, and the Philippines may already have Exhibit A. It’s an email from Lenny Bernstein, a scientist who worked for both Exxon and Mobil when they were separate companies. In this note, obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Bernstein reveals that Exxon was already taking climate-related risks into account with its investment decisions by 1981. Experts say the scientist’s email shows that corporate leaders knew for more than 30 years that their oil and gas operations were bound to harm the climate. Instead of changing their ways, they emulated Big Tobacco by bankrolling climate denial. Proving government liability might also be easier than you’d think. The record shows that U.S. officials began to fret about climate change by 1965. President Richard Nixon’s advisor — and future Senator — Daniel Patrick Moynihan made this clear in a 1969 memo he wrote to another Nixon aide. In it, he outlined “the carbon dioxide problem” caused by fossil fuels. “Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter,” Moynihan wrote of the consequences of a potential 10-foot rise in sea levels. “We have no data on Seattle.” Julia Olson is the founder and lead lawyer of Our Children’s Trust, one of the two groups that helped file the Washington lawsuit. She says the evidence of federal wrongdoing is clear. “Fifty years ago, they knew exactly what was happening and how to stop it,” she told me. “The solutions at this point lie in the courts.” She came up with her youth-focused strategy after becoming a mom. “Kids don’t get to vote and choose the policies for their future,” Olson said. “They are going to suffer the impacts of climate destruction more than the rest of us.” The lawyer and her team have filed more than a dozen climate cases on behalf of children. Suits in Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Colorado, and North Carolina are pending. More are coming soon in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Hawaii. Also on this deep docket: suing the federal government for a second time by the end of July. All those lawsuits just might bring about a legal tipping point. Originally published at OtherWords.Org. Posted by Emily Schwartz Greco Recent Stories by Emily Schwartz Greco Belgian Awful The ISIS supporters who attacked Brussels killed more than 30 people and injured hundreds more. The scariest part of this story is something that hasn’t happened yet and hopefully never will: an act of nuclear terrorism. Requiem for a Wrecking Ball One day before Aubrey McClendon swerved to hit a concrete wall, a grand jury charged him with conspiring to rig bids for fracking leases. It looks like the Chesapeake co-founder preferred suicide by SUV to a decade behind bars. A Greener Leap Year What if an extra day somehow slipped into your month? This being a leap year, it’s a reasonable question. The climate justice movement won’t take this 366th day for granted. About Emily Schwartz Greco

法律