Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_law

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 958

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/7533

Arkansas Court Strikes Blow Against Same-Sex Parents PoliticsElection 3 Debates, 0 Questions on LGBT Issues The meeting generated the anticipated clash, but the second-to-last presidential debate brought no explicit mention of LGBT concerns. By Julie Bolcer HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney met for their second debate Tuesday in a conversation that lived up to expectations it would be lively but lacked any specific discussion of LGBT issues that have played a prominent role elsewhere this election cycle. The president faced pressure to deliver following a weak performance two weeks ago at the first debate in Colorado and an animated vice-presidential bout last week. Prior to the debate at Hofstra University on New York’s Long Island, surrogates for Obama suggested he would seek to draw sharp contrasts with his Republican challenger. “I think we’re going to see a spirited debate,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “Certainly, the difference between these two candidates on so many issues is vast. I hope it’s an opportunity to really draw those distinctions clearly.” Romney surrogates visited the spin room to say their candidate would argue the country needs a change in leadership. “We’ve failed to see a vision,” said former New York governor George Pataki. “We’ve failed to see a very successful defense of those last four years, but I think equally important, what will he do in the next four? And I don’t think there’s been any positive agenda laid out.” The candidates sparred for 90 minutes over questions submitted by undecided and uncommitted voters from Nassau County, a suburban area east of New York City that Pataki described as a “microcosm” of the country. Questions focused on jobs and the economy but also involved energy, immigration, pay equity, and the deaths of American diplomatic personnel in Libya. Heated exchanges covered substance but also challenged debate procedure and at points veered toward the personal. Romney told Obama, “You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.” Later, in response to a comment from Romney, Obama said, “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours.” None of the voters asked questions specifically about LGBT issues. Neither the candidates nor moderator Candy Crowley of CNN pressed the theme when following up despite some clear opportunities, such as when Obama listed his accomplishments for a voter, or when the candidates discussed the “importance of parents” to a child’s development. The president did make an inclusive statement against discrimination during his response to a question about pay equity for women. “We’ve also got to make sure in every walk of life, we do not tolerate discrimination,” he said. “That’s been a hallmark of my administration.” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said afterward that the president’s position on LGBT issues was captured in his broader message about “fairness.” He added that the president had mentioned repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the first debate. “He talked about fairness, and he talked about his record moving us toward a more fair society. and that’s what those issues are about, a fairer society that moves this country forward,” he said. The lack of any specific conversation occurs as four states prepare to decide on marriage-related ballot initiatives next month and the Supreme Court reviews challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. New York, the host state for the debate, helped start the momentum last year when it passed marriage equality legislation. “I think they were responding to questions and that wasn’t a question,” said New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who pushed for the measure in his state. “Frankly, it was a question that I would have liked to have heard asked, but it wasn’t asked.” Bay Buchanan, a Romney surrogate, said the debate spoke to LGBT voters in terms of her candidate’s promise of a “a strong economy.” “He is opposed to same-sex marriage. He’s made that very clear,” she said. “Nothing has changed. But he is very supportive of opportunity for everyone.” Asked how his positions, which include support for DOMA, would help families led by same-sex parents, Buchanan responded that Romney would not get in the way of what states decide to do on marriage and adoption. “He very much supports traditional marriage, but he’s also a very strong advocate for the Tenth Amendment,” she said. “It’s a state issue.” Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, who is leading the campaign to uphold the marriage equality law in his state’s referendum, said that like the LGBT audience, immigration advocates had been hoping to hear their issue raised in the debate. The inclusion of immigration gives hope for mention of LGBT issues in the final presidential debate next week, he said. “There’s still another debate to come up,” he said. “Maybe in the next debate we’ll hear the words gay and lesbian.” Obama and Romney will meet Monday at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., for a debate dedicated to foreign policy. Tags: Election, Election Latest videos on Advocate Ricky Gervais on Donald Trump, His Will and Religion 1 hour 57 min ago

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/7786

Prof. Calls Out Facebook, et al. For Hoarding Dead Peoples' Digital Remains Jason Mick (Blog) - September 27, 2012 6:20 PM Law professor argues that the data could later be used in exploitative fashion, such as to create holograms of stars "Virtually no law regulates what happens to a person's online existence after his or her death," warns University of Illinois College of Law Professor Jason Mazzone. I. Facebook: Bring Out Your Dead (Well, Their Data, at Least) "This is true even though individuals have privacy and copyright interests in materials they post to social networking sites. The current situation is that there’s very little law involved. Social networking sites determine on their own what, if anything, to do with a deceased user's account and the materials the user posted to the site. And their policies are not likely to reflect the collective interests that exist with respect to copyright law. It’s a little bit like letting the bank decide what to do with your money after you die." So what is all this noise? Well Professor Mazzone is referring to the fact that web giants like Facebook often archive your data post-mortem. Facebook opts for a tasteful solution publicly, closing the user's page and offering a memorial wall for friends to post memories. Facebook seemingly offers a tasteful memorial, but it secretly saves the hidden digital "remains" of the dead, possibly for future profits. But as the professor points out, behind the scenes Facebook is believed to be squirreling away the person's pictures, posts, and other content -- all things that could be of value if the site decided to act exploitively in the future. And people might not even realize Facebook had breached the privacy of the deceased, as it could in theory discretely sell the information to third parties. Prof. Jason Mazzone, Univ. of Illinois Law School [Image Source: U of I College of Law] He warns, "I suspect that Facebook thinks that there's going to be some future value to having all of that content locked away, either because it will have historical significance, or because Facebook thinks there will be something they are going to do with that content down the road. There are already pretty crude avatars being built based on their email exchanges and Facebook posts, so it’s conceivable that there could be things like holograms that are developed 100 years from now thanks to the mining of all of this data. But Facebook doesn’t know that for sure, and that’s why they see the value in holding on to all of this." II. HIPAA Equivalent Needed for Digital Remains? Professor Mazzone sees that as a major legal and privacy issue affecting social networking and blogging sites. And he feels that only the federal government has the power to enforce clear guidelines regarding dead peoples' "digital afterlife" on sites that span and do busines across multiple U.S. states. "[I]t would be very difficult for any particular state to set up a legal regime that would adequately regulate Facebook, which not only operates all across the U.S. but also all over the world. Some states have enacted legislation in an effort to protect their own citizens, but it’s not at all clear how it would affect Facebook as a whole", he comments, "In order for this type of law to be effective, we have to turn to the federal government." Prof. Mazzone wants a HIPPA-like law to protect peoples' post-mortem digital data. [Image Source: Pennock Health] He points to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936) -- commonly referred to as "HIPAA law(s)" -- as a comparable mandate. HIPAA laws make it illegal for doctors from sharing patient information without explicit permission and impose restrictions on medical record-keeping to protect privacy. Prof. Mazzone, who has written books on the topic, has published a legal research article/editorial called "Facebook’s Afterlife" in the North Carolina Law Review sharing his thoughts on the matter. Sources: University of Illinois [press release], SSRN [abstract] "It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/7789

To The Full Ex-Stent of the Law Child Killer Battaglia Spared Execution — Again More than two years ago, Kevin Colquitt filed a lawsuit in Dallas federal court in which he alleges "the makers of stents approved to treat digestive tract cancers had illegally marketed them for years to treat blocked blood vessels in other parts of the body," as The New York Times recaps this morning. The initial complaint, which you'll find after the jump, was only unsealed on Monday, and it's a mammoth, fascinating document in which Colquitt, who now works at Baron & Budd, recounts his years spent selling medical devices on behalf of Guidant, among the defendants named in the suit for which Colquitt's seeking whistle-blower protection.As The Times points out, Colquitt says he was trained to market the devices, known as biliary stents, to doctors "for off-label uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration." And research shows that's isn't good: A 2008 study in a medical journal, the American Journal of Therapeutics, estimated that one million biliary stents were used off-label from 2003 to 2006 to open clogged blood vessels in other parts of the body. That report also found that deaths and injuries had occurred as a result of device malfunctions when the stents were used off-label. Biliary stents have a lower regulatory threshold because they were approved for use in cancer patients who are not expected to live long. By contrast, vascular stents must demonstrate an ability to last years or decades. Colquitt Whistle-Blower Lawsuit Child Killer Battaglia Spared Execution — Again White Attorney Sues State Bar of Texas for Discrimination Dallas Police On the Lookout for Package-Thieving,...

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/7791

Tag Archives: unopposed motion Attorney says gay Dallas man will take his battle for a divorce to the Texas Supreme Court ‘J.B.’ A court’s decision last year to deny a divorce to a gay Dallas couple is being appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Attorney James “Jody” Scheske confirmed Wednesday that his client, J.B., plans to appeal the August decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that gay couples can’t divorce in Texas because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. J.B. and his husband, H.B., were married in 2006 in Massachusetts before moving to Dallas. After they filed for a divorce in Dallas County, District Judge Tena Callahan ruled in October 2009 that she had jurisdiction to hear the case, calling Texas’ bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott promptly intervened and appealed to the 5th District court, which overturned Callahan’s decision. “We respectfullly disagree fundamentally with the Court of Appeals ruling that denies equal acess to divorce,” said Scheske, of Akin Gump Straus Hauer & Feld in Austin. “Thus we’ve decided to request that the Texas Supreme Court review the case.” Scheske said his petition for review has not yet been filed and he’s requesting an extension of the deadline until February. He said once the petition is filed, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case. Scheske acknowledged that the high court is considered very conservative, but he remains optimistic. “In my business, you always believe that justice can prevail, and the justices on our Supreme Court, just like every other judge and lawyer, are bound to apply the law equally to everybody,” Scheske said. “I know people are cynical about that, but that’s actually the way our system works.” Scheske recently scored a victory in another gay divorce case in Austin, where an appeals court ruled that Abbott could not intervene after a district judge granted a divorce to a lesbian couple. However, Scheske said the Austin ruling was based on procedural grounds and has no impact on the Dallas case.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/7887

NEWS OF THE WEIRD Alcohol Ruined Their Lives Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:00 am Keith Brown and four other inmates at Idaho's Kuna prison filed a lawsuit in December against eight major beer and liquor manufacturers for having sold them alcohol at an early age without warning of its addictiveness — thus responsible for the men's subsequent lives of crime. Brown, 52, said he's been locked up a total of 30 years and is now serving time for manslaughter. The Oglala Sioux tribe has sued beer distributors and the state of Nebraska for enabling easy access to nearby beer even though it was banned on the reservation. The lawsuit was dismissed on jurisdictional issues, but the tribe may refile.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8075

When a Receiver is Appointed Does this Prevent Former Officers & Directors from Filing a Bankruptcy Petition on Behalf of the Entity Placed in Receivership? Peter Davidson | Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP QUESTION: I have noticed language in a number of receivership orders providing that the receivership entities’ officers and directors are removed and their powers are vested in the receiver and further enjoining the officers and directors from filing a bankruptcy petition on behalf of the entity placed in receivership. Are such provisions effective in preventing former management from commencing a bankruptcy for the receivership entity and, if a petition is filed, can the receiver easily have the case dismissed because the persons filing the bankruptcy petition have no authority to do so? ANSWER: Had you asked me this question a month ago, I would have said: “of course the provisions are effective”. The court, by its order, has removed the former officers and directors from their positions and vested their authority in the receiver. Therefore, only the receiver has the ability to file a voluntary bankruptcy petition on behalf of the entity placed in receivership. This view follows a long line of receivership cases that hold that when a receiver is appointed for a corporation, former management loses its power to control the corporation and run its affairs, and that power is instead vested in the receiver. First Savings & Loan Ass’n v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n., 531 F. Supp. 251, 255-256 (D. Hawaii 1981) [“When a receiver is appointed for a corporation, the corporation’s management loses the power to run its affairs and the receiver obtains all of the corporation’s powers and assets.”]; SEC v. Spence and Green, 612 F. 2d 896, 903 (5th Cir. 1980) [“as a general rule a receiver, standing in the shoes of management, holds the full right…to direct the litigation of the corporation whose care he is entrusted.”]. Prairie States Petroleum Company v. Universal Oil Sales Corp., 3d 753 (1980) [“Upon appointment of a receiver, the 88 Ill. App. functions of the corporation’s managers and officers are suspended and the receiver stands in their place”.]. However, a very recent case from the bankruptcy court in Arizona has called this into question and, indeed, has held that such provisions are not valid and cannot prevent the removed officers and directors from commencing a voluntary bankruptcy case for the entity placed in receivership. In In re Corporate and Leisure Event Productions, Inc., 351 B. R. 724, (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2006), creditors filed various state court actions asserting they had been defrauded by 13 related corporations and sought the appointment of a receiver. The superior court in Arizona appointed a receiver for the entities and the receivership order authorized the receiver to remove any officers, directors, employees or agents of the receivership defendants from control of, management of, or participation in the affairs of the receivership defendants. The order further enjoined the former officers and directors from taking any action to interfere with the receiver’s custody and management of the receivership assets and specifically enjoined them from filing “any petition on behalf of the Receivership Defendants for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code…without prior permission of this court”. One of the former officers, in violation of the superior court’s orders, filed Chapter 11 petitions for the entities and removed the receivership proceedings to the bankruptcy court. The receiver then filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground that the former officers were not authorized to file the bankruptcy petitions. The bankruptcy court, while conceding the dispute over the authority to file a bankruptcy petition in such instance is not governed by the Bankruptcy Code and that, ordinarily, it would be governed by the law of the state of incorporation of the entity, held that because creditors had sought the appointment of the receiver federal common law applies. After going through a lengthy analysis and reviewing numerous cases, the court held that the appointment of a state court receiver with full power to act for the corporations does not affect the right of the former officers or directors to act on behalf of the corporation and file bankruptcy proceedings. The court held that the receivership orders and injunctions preventing bankruptcy filing are unconstitutional. “[I]t is fundamental that a state court receivership proceeding may not operate to deny a corporate debtor access to the federal bankruptcy courts…a state court receivership specifically restraining the debtor corporation, its stockholders, officers, and directors from instituting federal reorganization proceedings is an unconstitutional deprivation of the right to bankruptcy relief.” The court went on to say that it makes no difference whether the corporate officers and directors are actually removed by the receiver or the receivership order merely enjoins their interference or filing of a petition. “In either case, the state law withdraws their authority to file for bankruptcy relief and yet in both cases unanimous federal common law holds that they are nevertheless entitled to do so.” The court goes on to note that if the removal of corporate officers and directors by a receivership order were sufficient to prevent a bankruptcy filing “creditors who seek their state court remedies…would routinely obtain receivership orders with such boilerplate language.” The bankruptcy court’s decision is disturbing on a number of grounds. First, it ignores other established federal and state law on who controls a corporation once a receiver is appointed. If former officers and directors have been removed from their positions, it seems illogical that, despite their removal and the vesting of their corporate authority in someone else, that they can still take the corporate action necessary to institute a bankruptcy proceeding. Second, despite the court’s repeated statement in its decision that there is no authority holding otherwise, the court not only ignores the cases cited above, concerning who controls a corporation when a receiver is appointed, but it actually cites to a Ninth Circuit case that seems to hold just the opposite, which the court apparently relegates to dicta because the debtor in that case was ineligible to file bankruptcy anyway. The case in point, Oil & Gas Company v. Duryee, 9 F. 3d 771 (9th Cir. 1993), though not a receivership case, has language that appears to call into question the bankruptcy court’s decision. Oil & Gas Company was an insurance company and the Ohio state court had appointed a rehabilitator to run it. The state court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the company’s former president from filing bankruptcy on its behalf. Undaunted, he filed a chapter 11 petition anyway. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petition because Oil and Gas Company was a domestic insurance company and, hence, was precluded from filing bankruptcy. An attorney purporting to represent the company filed an appeal to the District Court which affirmed and then the attorney appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit noted that it had “difficulty figuring out who the appellant talent is”. It noted the state court’s order appointing the rehabilitator specifically provided that he “shall have all the powers of the directors, officers and managers of the Defendant, whose authorities are hereby suspended”. Based on that language, the Ninth Circuit held “The only person then, who could go to court on behalf of Oil & Gas was Fabe [the rehabilitator]. And he not only failed to authorize these actions; he opposed them. Therefore, when Becker-Jones purported to file the bankruptcy petition on behalf of Oil & Gas he was an imposter; his action is null and void. The same is true of whoever appealed the dismissals of that petition in the bankruptcy court and the district court. We, therefore, remand to the district court for dismissal of the petition as fraudulently filed”. Based on the Ninth Circuit’s language, the bankruptcy court’s relegation of this opinion as dicta seems questionable: the remand was not because the company did not qualify as a debtor, but because the persons who commenced the case had no authority to do so because their powers had been suspended by the state court’s order. It seems right on point. There are a few other lower court decisions that also conflict with the holding of the Arizona bankruptcy court, which it ignored, despite its pronouncement that there is no case law to the contrary. See, Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. FITC Inc., 52 B.R. 935 (N.D. Cal. 1985) where the district court had appointed a receiver and issued a TRO. The president then filed a chapter 11. The district court held, citing the cases at the beginning of this article, “Once a court appoints a receiver, the management loses the power to run the corporation’s affairs. The receiver obtains all the corporation’s power and assets. Thus it was the receiver, and only the receiver, who this court empowered with the authority to place FITC in bankruptcy”. See also, U.S. v. Vanguard Inv. Co. Inc., 667 F. Supp. 257 (M.D.N.C. 1987). Despite the Ninth Circuit’s decision and the general case law regarding the affect of the appointment of a receiver on the powers of former management, it appears, at least for now, that an order appointing a receiver, removing former management, or enjoining the filing of a bankruptcy petition may not be effective in preventing a subsequent bankruptcy filing. It should be noted that much of the underlying reasoning for the Arizona bankruptcy court’s decision seems to come from the fact that it was a state court order that appointed the receiver and the preemption argument that the bankruptcy laws supersede state law remedies. Had the receivership order and injunction been issued by a federal court, the bankruptcy court may not have reached the same result. Can The Defendant Set Aside A Sale Of Receivership Assets To A Buyer? Fore! Ponzi Scheme Lands The Golf Channel In The Rough Can Investor/Creditor Recoveries from Third Parties Reduce Their Claims in a Receivership? Can a State Court Receiver Appear in the Bankruptcy Court or the District Court on Behalf of the Receivership Estate? Latest PostsProtecting Your Elder Client’s Testamentary Intentions © Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP | Attorney Advertising Refine your interests. Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP Commercial Bankruptcy less- Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP on:

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8130

Download our plug-in for Chrome to get customizable, real-time news alerts SEC's Cox Names New General Counsel By Ben James Law360, New York (January 3, 2006, 12:00 AM EST) -- Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox has named a well-known securities lawyer and former physicist as its new chief legal officer.Brian G. Cartwright, who will succeed Giovanni Prezioso early this year, is currently a partner at Latham & Watkins LLC’s Los Angeles office. He has worked on securities and finance matters for public companies since at least 1982, after receiving his law degree from Harvard.Cartwright’s appointment fills one of the top remaining vacancies at the regulatory agency and drew praise from Cox, who... Latham & Watkins Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Sign up for our free California newsletter

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8262

Submit TipsSend FeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy PolicyVisit our partner siteSeries of Lawsuits Could Cost Dallas $1 Billion By JEFF CARLTON NEWSLETTERS Receive the latest local updates in your inboxPrivacy policy | More NewslettersNBCDFW.comThe Texas Supreme Court is considering whether to permit a series of lawsuits to go to trial brought by more than 4,000 public safety workers claiming the city owes them back pay and interest dating back 20 years. Dallas voters' decision to give police officers and firefighters a healthy pay raise more than three decades ago could become a billion-dollar blunder.The Texas Supreme Court is considering whether to permit a series of lawsuits to go to trial brought by more than 4,000 public safety workers claiming the city owes them back pay and interest dating back 20 years.Their claims are based on an interpretation of a 1979 pay referendum approved by Dallas voters that the city argues did nothing more than provide police officers and firefighters with a 15 percent pay raise.But the thousands of plaintiffs who signed on to six lawsuits against the city say the referendum did much more: that it specified the city must uphold in perpetuity a consistent pay difference among the ranks of firefighters and police officers. In short, if police captains received a 5 percent pay raise one year, so must all rookie patrol officers.If the plaintiffs prevail, damage calculations show that the city would face a judgment of more than $1 billion."It's a dangerous little lawsuit -- a big lawsuit, I guess you'd say," said Joe Betzel, one of the lead plaintiffs and a 28-year veteran of the fire department. "It's unfortunate that these figures have gotten so large. It's going to have to be something settled behind closed doors."City attorneys remain confident they can prevail in court on grounds that government entities are immune from certain types of lawsuits, and because of their interpretation of the 1979 referendum. They dismissed a new lawsuit filed earlier this month by the same firefighters and police officers against the current Dallas mayor, city manager and city council members as "an attempt to keep their lawsuits alive regardless of how the Supreme Court may rule on the pending appeals."Even if the new claims aren't dismissed, "the City remains confident that it will prove at trial that the Dallas voters approved only a one-time pay raise," Tom Perkins, an attorney for the city, said in a statement.According to the official ballot from 1979, voters were asked whether to approve a 15 percent pay raise for police officers, firefighters and rescue officers and whether to maintain "the current percentage pay differential between ranks."The city appeared to maintain those differentials through the mid-1980s, according to documents in the case file. As late as 1988, an assistant city manager wrote a memo to tell deputy police chiefs that the city's personnel department was calculating pay adjustments to keep in place the salary structure stemming from the referendum requiring a 16.2 percent pay difference between ranks.But at some point in the 1980s, "maybe because of the costs associated with it, they quit complying," said Terry Scarborough, an Austin attorney representing about 1,500 first responders. "Maybe they wanted to raise the salaries of new hires to be competitive. But under this ordinance, whatever raise they gave them had to go up the chain."Betzel said pay raises at the top failed to trickle down the ranks. He was part of an original lawsuit filed by about 240 second drivers in the fire department who had not received 5 percent pay hikes like some of the other ranks."We were really getting hammered," Betzel said. "No pay raises, and it was really hard to get a promotion."The first responders filed their initial lawsuits in 1994, and the case file has grown to more than 30,000 pages. One of the six lawsuits went to trial, resulting in a short-lived victory for the firefighters and police officers that was later overturned on appeal. Some of the plaintiffs have died and others have divorced, complicating the payout, if one ever happens.Former Mayor Ron Kirk once offered to settle it for about $20 million, Betzel said. The offer was rejected.The cases are in limbo now, awaiting a ruling from the state Supreme Court. Oral arguments in December centered on new claims of sovereign immunity raised by the city. A few of the justices, through their questioning, revealed concerns about the potential of a $1 billion judgment.The plaintiffs say they have no interest in bankrupting the city and are perfectly willing to settle the case. But if it goes to trial, they say they should be paid what they are owed."This thing has dragged on for 16 years," Scarborough said. "You take anything and drag it out for 16 years, and the numbers become astronomical." Published at 9:18 AM CDT on May 17, 2010 | Updated at 9:30 AM CDT on May 17, 2010

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8322

Personal Tech|No Easy Answers in the Copyright Debate Search Personal Tech | From the Desk of David Pogue No Easy Answers in the Copyright Debate By DAVID POGUEJULY 8, 2010 You'd think it'd be pretty easy to live within the copyright laws, or at least to understand them: If you want something of value, you pay for it.But two things happened this week that are enough to rattle anyone who thinks it's that simple.First, I was alerted to a blog post by Jason Robert Brown. He's a songwriter and the composer of Broadway musicals like "13," "The Last Five Years" and "Parade." (I knew him when he was just starting out and I was still working on Broadway.) He became alarmed at how many pieces of sheet music to his songs were available for free, illegal download online. And after tolerating it for years, he finally tried an experiment.He contacted each person on the download board like this: "Hey there! Can I get you to stop trading my stuff? It's totally not cool with me. Write me if you have any questions; I'm happy to talk to you about this."You can read the full story here. But in short, one articulate young lady decided to push back, explaining her rationale for downloading his songs. What follows is a lengthy, sometimes testy back-and-forth-and an even lengthier, more passionate torrent of discussion in the comments for his post.In the end, I side with Mr. Brown. One of his songs costs $4 in sheet-music form; that doesn't seem unreasonable. His teenaged challenger's argument is that her parents don't support her singing career -- but I don't see why it's Mr. Brown's obligation to sacrifice on her behalf. I was pretty sure of myself -- until I heard from my friend Michael Hawley, formerly of the M.I.T. Media Lab, now a digital-media researcher, award-winning pianist and polymath. After reading Mr. Brown's account, he wrote to explain why he thinks sheet-music pirating is O.K., or even necessary.Here's what he says:=====I play the piano. Over the years, I have collected 15,000 piano scores in PDF form, covering about 400 years of classical keyboard works. It's like lint in the drier of the Internet. Much of it is not available anywhere for purchase, or even findable in libraries for circulation. Max Reger's arrangement for two pianos of Wagner's overture, for instance? Well, the Max Reger Institute in Karlsruhe, Germany has a copy... Different people have drastically different ideas about pirated sheet-music. Credit Ken Blaze for The New York Times The last classical sheet music store in New York, Patelson's, went out of business recently. The recession finished them off. It was THE place to go to buy piano music. When I was in high school, I used to go there for hard-to-find scores by Granados or Medtner, and then hit the Carnegie Deli for some pastrami. Amazing, isn't it? New York City doesn't have an independent store that sells classical music scores. Fortunately, over the last ten or fifteen years, amateur pianists have been scanning the contents of their grandmother's piano benches, and... voilà. A million monkeys typing don't get you Shakespeare, but a million monkeys scanning -- that makes a dent. I began collecting this stuff as a hobby. One day, I looked at my pile of music score bits. In those days, 15 gigabytes was most of my hard drive. But it was all there. All of Bach. All of Scriabin. All of Rachmaninoff. At the Van Cliburn piano competition, a couple years ago, I gave tiny thumb drives to some of the winners and said, "Enjoy." Each thumb drive was smaller than my pinky but contained was the whole 15 GB trove. It blew their minds. Basically, every significant piano piece is in the pile.What happened is, the classical piano sheet music publishing world plotzed a long time ago. But thanks to the monkeys, a lot of DNA has been preserved and is more available now than ever before. The monkeys aren't as well organized as the Wikipedia minions, but someday they will be. When the publishers, composers, music stores have long since gone out of business, when the libraries don't have the stuff, the internet quickly becomes the Sargasso sea for catching this stuff. Not saying that your songwriter friend's points aren't completely valid -- of course they are. As slippery as digital rights are, the fact is that digital publishing probably gives people more ways to make more money and reach far wider audiences than the paper-based music publishing racket ever did. Advertisement But copyright, like the people who originate the material and the industries that promulgate it, has a lifespan. I think the classical piano sheet music world gives a glimpse of the end state -- out of the ashes of the music business, comes the rebirth of the musician business (as John Perry Barlow once said). It also, more importantly, shows what happens when a society does a poor, random job of preserving their cultural heritage to nurture future generations. Generally, I side with the teenagers.====I still think that if something is available for sale legitimately, you should pay for it (books, music, photos, movies, sheet music). A lot of the Bach, Scriabin and Rachmaninoff in Mr. Hawley's collection is certainly available, and handing it to friends on a flash drive is absolutely depriving the publishers of their revenue. True, the composers are long dead, but editing and publishing sheet music is still worth something.It's those obscure, out-of-print, not-available-anywhere items in his collection that make a tougher case. How many hours are you obligated to research and dig just to find out if something is available for sale? In this case, the barriers to a legitimate purchase are ridiculously high. Isn't digital piracy justified in that case?Let me know what you think in the Comments at nytimes.com/pogue. Continue reading the main story

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8439

New York governor signs medical marijuana bill into law Mon Jul 7, 2014 | 4:42pm EDT Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo participates in the National Puerto Rican Day Parade on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, New York June 8, 2014. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly By TG Branfalt Jr. | ALBANY N.Y. ALBANY N.Y. Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Monday he had signed legislation making New York the 23rd state to allow medical marijuana, calling his approach, which forbids smoking of the drug and includes strict limits, the "smartest" any state had taken so far.Under the guidelines, access to the drug will be limited to patients with very serious and terminal illnesses, the drug can only be administered through vaporizing, oils and edibles, and Cuomo reserves the right to disband the program at any time. "This new law takes an important step toward bringing relief to patients living with extraordinary pain and illness," Cuomo told a news conference at the New York Academy of Medicine, flanked by lawmakers and 9-year-old Amanda Houser, who suffers from seizures.The legislation "gets us the best that medical marijuana has to offer in the most protected, controlled way possible,” the Democratic governor said. "I really believe that this is the smartest approach that any state has taken thus far." Other states have approved far more permissive laws. Washington state and Colorado decriminalized recreational use of marijuana in 2012. In other states, patients can grow their own pot, obtain it from a dispensary, or both. Medical marijuana is also legal in the District of Columbia.The signing of the New York law came after years of advocacy by proponents of medical marijuana. While applauding passage of the new law, advocates said it was not as comprehensive as patients had hoped and the timeline was too slow."I’m heartened that the governor understands the medicinal benefits of medical cannabis. My son and so many others need this medicine right away," said Missy Miller, whose son Oliver suffered a brain stem injury in utero and now as a teenager has hundreds of seizures a day. "The eighteen month timeline for implementation suggested in the bill is simply too long for Oliver," Miller said in a statement issued by the Drug Policy Alliance.State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said the state's goal would be to get the program up and running "swiftly, safely and efficiently." The assembly has been approving versions of the bills for the better part of two decades. The current bill passed both houses of the Legislature on June 20.The conditions covered include cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, certain spinal cord injuries, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy, neuropathy and Huntington’s disease. (Editing by Edith Honan and Peter Cooney)

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8485

Federal court declines to reopen Roe v. Wade case despite plea DALLAS -- A federal district court dismissed a request by the one-time plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 30 years ago. The court said late Thursday that Norma McCorvey's request wasn't made within a "reasonable time" after the 1973 judgment in Roe v. Wade. McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight 10 years ago, filed the "motion for relief from judgment" Tuesday, asking the court to reopen the case and conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into scientific and anecdotal evidence that she says shows abortion hurts women. "Whether or not the Supreme Court was infallible, its Roe decision was certainly final in this litigation," Judge David Godbey wrote in the ruling. "It is simply too late now, thirty years after the fact, for McCorvey to revisit that judgment." McCorvey's attorney, Allan Parker, said his client will likely ask the court to reconsider its ruling. "This is not a case of newly discovered evidence, which must be brought in a short amount of time. It's a case of changed factual conditions and law," he said. The change, Parker said, is a 1999 Texas law that allows the state to assume responsibility for unwanted children. Similar laws exist in other states. Parker said one of the determining factors in the court ruling was the burden on women raising unwanted children, but since that factor no longer exists in many states, Roe v. Wade should be reconsidered. Sarah Weddington, the abortion rights activist and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, said she was delighted but not surprised that McCorvey's request was dismissed. "It never should have been filed," Weddington said Friday. "Those who filed it got publicity, but the publicity actually has been very helpful for those of us who believe the government should not be involved." Federal law allows litigants to petition the court to reopen cases in extraordinary situations, but such requests must be made weeks or months after the judgment, not decades, Godbey wrote. The Supreme Court decision came after McCorvey had her baby. It was the third child McCorvey put up for adoption; she was a 21-year-old carnival worker at the time. She publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8508

Congressional Democrats redefine spineless when it comes to FISA. SlateJurisprudenceThe law, lawyers, and the court.Aug. 6 2007 5:18 PM Wiretap at Will Congressional Democrats redefine spinelessness with the new FISA law. By Patrick Radden Keefe In an editorial last year, the New York Times likened the Bush administration's efforts to retroactively make its warrantless wiretapping program legal, to a person caught speeding who persuades the legislature to raise the speed limit. The new surveillance bill President Bush signed into law Sunday takes this analogy to its logical extreme: Where government surveillance is concerned, the new law eliminated speed limits altogether. The infrastructure this nation established following Watergate to govern domestic spying has died many little deaths in the years since 9/11. But Sunday was the last sequel in a tired series. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is now dead, and it's never coming back. The secrecy and complexity of government wiretapping make it an especially difficult issue for the average American to grasp, and—for the same reasons—an especially easy issue for politicians to manipulate. The finer points of the FISA are complicated: Debates about the 1978 law have a tendency to degenerate into impenetrable legalese. The technology itself is tough to grasp, as well; talk of data packets and data mining can be a bit forbidding, and it's all so secret that whatever the public does learn from the occasional leak seldom amounts to a comprehensive picture anyhow. Advertisement To further complicate matters, politicians keep insisting that even when we cannot understand all this patchy techno-legal babble surrounding eavesdropping, the public should nevertheless recognize that it's really, really important, and that fixes to the existing programs are so urgently needed, that there's not even time to comprehend what's being changed. In prevailing upon congressional Democrats to pass the new surveillance bill before leaving for the August recess, Trent Lott suggested that if they didn't, the capital might well be attacked, advising his fellow Washingtonians "to leave town in August." The law the Congress ended up passing, which—I kid you not—is called the Protect America Act, was designed to remedy a fairly specific problem. But taking advantage of this potent combination of complexity, secrecy, and urgency, the White House and the Republican minority managed not only to fix the problem but to simultaneously do away with the most fundamental judicial controls on surveillance altogether. Get Slate in your inbox. To be fair, there were compelling grounds for changing FISA. As originally drafted, the law required spies who wanted to eavesdrop inside the United States to obtain a warrant. When it came to intercepting purely foreign communications, they could do what they liked—FISA didn't apply. During the Cold War, the NSA relied on a global network of "listening stations" outside the United States to hoover up phone calls and faxes in Central America or the Eastern bloc. But as telecommunications—and especially the Internet—evolved, a communication between, say, Paris and Karachi, might actually be routed through the United States and thus become off-limits to government agents without a warrant. This was the so-called "surveillance gap," and the White House—not unreasonably—wanted to close it. One way to do that was to create a warrantless wiretapping program that didn't answer to FISA at all, and that worked fairly well, until the Times revealed its existence in 2005. A year later, officials opted to bring the wiretapping program within the scope of FISA. But in a secret ruling, the FISA court held that in order to intercept foreign e-mail or phone calls as they transited the United States, the agency needed a warrant. As a consequence, the court was reportedly flooded with applications. Last May, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told Congress America's spies were "missing a significant portion of what we should be getting." Advertisement Closing the surveillance gap should have been fairly simple. All you needed was an amendment to FISA that redefined "electronic surveillance" in such a way that it would permit U.S. intelligence to access foreign communications as they transited through this country. The Democrats were happy to do that—in fact, it was a major feature of their own bill. This proposal would have authorized spies to tap communications passing through the United States when they "reasonably believed" the targets to be outside the country. Recognizing that this would massively expand the capabilities of the NSA, the Democrats also introduced oversight mechanisms: maintaining some measure of FISA court review; providing for a periodic audit by the Justice Department's inspector general of how many Americans had been caught up in the surveillance unwittingly; and including explicit provisions against purely domestic surveillance. But having lobbied for "modernization" of FISA, the White House also wanted more. As Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., put it, "The White House didn't want to take 'yes' for an answer." Instead, Bush petulantly announced that he didn't like the Democrats' bill and threatened to hold Congress hostage, preventing them from adjourning for August, until he got "a bill I can sign." And what he had in mind was a bill with all of the new surveillance powers, but none of the oversight mechanisms to check it. If you examine the particulars of the new law, that is precisely what he got. Like the Democratic bill, the Protect America Act will allow for the warrantless interception of communications in the United States when authorities believe the targets are foreign. The FISA court will not examine warrant applications on an individualized basis. Instead, it will simply grant programmatic approval to the whole operation. It is the director of national intelligence and the attorney general who will authorize the interception of these communications, and—enshrining a laughably deferential standard of review—the FISA court can quibble with their judgment only when the rationale for wiretapping is "clearly erroneous." Advertisement To secure access to the telecommunications switches inside the United States, which the NSA had simply asked for in the past, the new law obliges phone and Internet companies to create back doors for eavesdroppers; if they don't comply, they can be held in contempt. And best of all, there's no longer an audit of abuses by the DoJ's inspector general. Instead, Congress will receive an update on that twice a year from none other than the attorney general—the very individual who, even as this legislation was being prepared, was exposed as having denied, under oath, the existence of surveillance abuses by the FBI. So, in one fell swoop, the bill dramatically augmented the domestic surveillance capabilities of the federal government and hobbled the few mechanisms that might have kept that new authority from being abused. It gives with one hand, and then gives with the other. A year ago, we might have chalked this up to the kind of groupthink travesty that unfolds when the same party controls the White House and both houses of Congress. But the saddest thing about this whole affair was the haste with which congressional Democrats—some seeking re-election next year in conservative districts—folded up their objections and went on vacation. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., complained that Democrats were "stampeded by fearmongering and deception." What's extraordinary is not so much how craven the Republican rhetoric was, but that even now, after seven months of the obvious mandate conferred by their congressional majority, Democrats are still so easily cowed. However alarmist the talking points, congressional Democrats have "a Pavlovian reaction," Caroline Fredrickson of the ACLU observed. "Whenever the president says the word terrorism, they roll over and play dead." Proponents of the Republican bill might have had a leg to stand on if the Democrats had opposed "modernization" of the old FISA law. But they didn't: They simply opposed modernization without accountability. It was the president and Republican lawmakers who held out for the latter, running the risk that the changes would not be written into law before the August recess. Yet Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., got away with lines like, "Al-Qaida is not going on vacation this month." Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, another supporter of the bill, came up with this canard: "We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us. This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection." Huh? The bill passed the House 227-168 and the Senate 60-28. The only concession in the new law is the promise that its provisions will sunset in six months, giving Congress an opportunity to work on something even Lieberman might deem "legislative perfection." In an effort to save face, many Democrats are vowing to fight another day. But if you look closely at the final subsection in the law, it indicates that while the legislation itself will sunset in six months, any programs authorized under the legislation may continue. When President Bush signed the bill Sunday, he made clear that he, for one, is looking forward to more comprehensive legislation on wiretapping, not because he thinks the Democrats are going to take anything away from him when they revisit this issue, but because he's kinda hoping they'll cough up even more. Specifically, he's hoping for "meaningful liability protection" for telecommunications companies, like AT&T, "who are alleged to have assisted" the government by furnishing NSA with warrantless access to domestic communications. Yale Law professor Jack Balkin highlights the peculiar wording of Bush's fervent hope: He can't acknowledge that the phone companies helped out, because what they did was illegal. But that's not going to stop him from asking Congress to shield them from liability. It seems a bit greedy—even cheeky. But then, you can't blame a guy for asking. And given Congress' willingness to definitively euthanize FISA and declare open season on domestic surveillance, he might just get what he wants. Patrick Radden Keefe is is a fellow at the Century Foundation and the author of The Snakehead: An Epic Tale of the Chinatown Underworld and the American Dream.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8589

Protest filed with Stark BOE related to Sheriff Maier's candidacy By LAURIE HUFFMANlhuffman@the-review.com Published: February 13, 2014 3:00 AM True to his previous warning, Canton attorney Craig Conley has filed a protest with the Stark County Board of Elections against the candidacy of Sheriff George Maier in the May 6 primary election. The protest, filed early Tuesday evening, names his client as "protester" Cynthia Balas-Bratton. He specifies she is a resident of Stark County and is a registered voter as well as a Democrat. The Democratic Central Committee appointed Maier as sheriff for the second time in December, and he has filed a petition to run in the primary against Douglas Smith on the Democratic ticket for the unexpired term for the sheriff's position, which will end Jan. 1, 2017.Within the protest, Conley cites the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling which removed Maier from the office of sheriff on Nov. 6, 2013, due to the fact he was not working full time as a peace officer directly before becoming sheriff, which is a requirement of the state. Maier had been working as assistant director for the Ohio Public Safety Department, and the Supreme Court ruled his work involved him in administrative duties a portion of the time, meaning he was not working 100 percent of his time in a full-time job as a peace officer. Once removed, Maier said he was going to "get his boots on the ground" and remedy the situation, and to that end, he was almost immediately rehired by Harrison County as a deputy, where he had worked previously during his career in law enforcement. He reapplied to the DCC for a second appointment, which he received on Dec. 11.According to Conley, that lacking qualification was not "cured" by Maier. Conley said Maier's efforts in that regard were a "sham" and should not be recognized by the BOE. He argues that once removed he should be considered excluded and barred from seeking public office in Stark County as sheriff, and, therefore, ineligible to appear on the May 6 primary ballot.Conley also argues Maier doesn't meet yet another state requirement to become a sheriff, which specifies the sheriff must have either two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above, or must have completed at least two years of post-secondary education or the equivalent. Conley stated while the Supreme Court deemed Maier's position with the Ohio Public Safety Department was that of a peace officer, his title of assistant director and interim director were civilian titles and not at the rank of corporal or above. He further stated the candidate for sheriff in Ohio must have been a peace officer and have held a rank of corporal or above for at least two years during the five years prior to becoming sheriff. Maier points out he held the above stated positions with the OPS department from roughly Feb. 4, 2009 to Jan. 11, 2011, which is about 23 months, plus or minus a few days. Conley states Maier needs at least 24 consecutive months, not pieces and parts thereof in order to qualify.Conley closed the protest by suggesting the board should, upon hearing, find that Maier is statutorily barred from being on the May 6 primary ballot as a Democratic candidate.[Article continues below] Jeanette Mullane, director of the Stark County Board of Elections, stated in a recent interview following Conley's initial public outcry on the subject that the Board of Elections will hold a validity of sufficiency hearing on Monday to certify the candidates. She specified the statutory and petition qualifications of each candidate will be reviewed. "It is the board's job to determine the validity sufficiency of candidate petitions," she closed. @LHuffman_AR on Twitter user_29585 Feb 13, 2014 9:23 AM Whatever merit the original objections to Sheriff Maier's qualifications may have held, the continued actions of Attorney Conley and former Sheriff Swanson are looking increasingly punitive and petty. The County Democrats should learn to stop shooting themselves in the foot, especially after the Treasurer fiasco with Ziegler. Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse: Report abuse captcha box:

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8760

What Is a Judgment Attorney? If a trial becomes inevitable, a judgment attorney will represent her or his client in court. Judgement attorneys may help a person look at different options to comply with a judge's ruling. A judgment attorney helps prepare the documents for filing a lawsuit, represents the party in court, and also assists with any legal proceedings necessary after the judgment has been made. Renee Booker When a person is owed money by another person or entity, he or she may need to file a lawsuit in court in order to secure a judgment against the debtor. Although an attorney is not required to file a lawsuit, many people hire a judgment attorney to help with the lawsuit and any post-judgment proceedings required to collect the judgment. A judgment attorney will help prepare the proper documents for filing the lawsuit, represent the party in court, and also assist with any legal proceedings necessary after the judgment has been entered to collect. In order to initiate a lawsuit for money owed, the plaintiff, or person to whom the money is owed, must file a complaint in the appropriate court. A summons must also be filed, which is served on the defendant to let him or her know that the lawsuit has been filed and when to appear in court. When the services of a judgment attorney are used, he or she will prepare the documents needed to begin the lawsuit and make sure they are filed appropriately. Ad In some cases, the defendant will file an answer with the court denying the allegations contained in the complaint. When that happens, a judgment attorney will engage in discovery with the defendant. Discovery is the legal process by which each side to a lawsuit requests documents or answers to questions, known as interrogatories in legal terms, from the other side that are relevant to the lawsuit. Answers to interrogatories or documents which are produced during the discovery process may be used at trial if the case proceeds to trial. As a rule, a judgment attorney will attempt to negotiate with the defendant to reach an amicable settlement without the need to go to trial. If an agreement is reached, then the parties will submit an agreed judgment to the court and the court will enter the judgment into the court record. If, however, a trial becomes inevitable, a judgment attorney will represent his or her client at trial. At trial, the attorney will present the evidence available to the judge or jury in an effort to secure a judgment against the defendant. Once a judgment has been entered into the court record, either through agreement or pursuant to a trial, the plaintiff must still collect the money which is now legally owed to him or her. In most courts, there are a variety of post-judgment remedies available to the plaintiff, such as requesting a wage or bank garnishment, or execution on property owned by the defendant. If necessary, a judgment attorney will summons the defendant back into court to request that the court order one of the available post-judgment remedies in order to satisfy the judgment. Ad How Do I Become a Judgment Recovery Specialist? How Do I Pay a Judgment Settlement? What is a Legal Judgment? What is Garnishment? What is Satisfaction of Judgment? What is a Writ of Execution? What is a Judgment Debtor?

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8762

What is Deportation? Many consider it unfair to deport those who are born on a country's soil but have parents who are immigrants. Being deported can be a serious emotional shock. Many countries do deport people on the basis of race or parental nationality. Deportation may occur if a romantic relationship is found to be fraudulent. Tara Barnett Deportation is the removal of a person or group of people by legal decree or force. Most people are deported from countries, but it is also possible to deport people from any area that is controlled by a powerful force with the authority to do so. For instance, exile from a small village could be possible if the village was not ruled by a higher governing group that forbade it. Being deported is often a serious problem for people, particularly if they have nowhere else to go. Most countries now have rules governing who can be deported and why that are made plain and apparent to all citizens, which can be helpful when trying to avoid deportation. The primary reason people are deported is for punishment. When a person is deemed undesirable in a country due to criminal activity, failure to abide by a visa, or illegal entrance into a country, he or she is vulnerable to being forcible expelled from the country. It is also possible for a person to be deported for philosophical or ethical reasons, such as holding a religious belief or belonging to a social movement, although these are often explained as criminal activity. Ad Some people accept expulsion from the country as an alternative to other punishment measures. For instance, when the other option is life in prison or death, a person may wish to accept expulsion. When a country deports a person, it does not necessarily imply that the person cannot return as a visitor to the country from which he or she was deported. It simply means that a person is no longer a resident of that country, although other restrictions are often included. Deportation from areas smaller than countries is somewhat rare. Small areas such as states or provinces often do not have the authority to enforce deportation nor the legal right to do so. Historically, deportation of this kind has occurred and been enforced, but it was often called exile or banishment. For many people, being deported is a serious emotional and social shock. A person may have no experience with the country to which he or she is deported. This kind of forcible move can split up families, keep a person from his or her assets, and essentially force a person to start over in life. Most people attempt to avoid deportation by obeying local laws. Many people consider it unfair to deport a person who is born on a country's soil but has parents who are immigrants. Even so, many countries do deport people on the basis of race or parental nationality. What constitutes a fair reason for deportation is entirely cultural. With increased global interaction, subjects of different nations are communicating, traveling, and immigrating at an increased rate. As more populations and groups interact, it becomes more and more important for nations to establish reasonable deportation procedures. Ad What does a Deportation Lawyer do? What is a Deportation Order? What are Immigration Laws? What is Voluntary Departure? What does a Deportation Officer do? What is a Safe House? RocketLanch8 I agree that deportation of illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes is important, but I also think the immigration and deportation laws need to be overhauled in the case of peaceful undocumented workers. Studies have shown that our economy would suffer tremendously if every single undocumented worker were put through the deportation process. There wouldn't be enough American workers willing to replace them, and the cost of a wholesale illegal immigration deportation program would be excessive. mrwormy I had a friend from Germany who married an American soldier while he was stationed there, and they eventually moved to the United States. A few years later, the marriage fell apart and he got custody of their daughter. Once the divorce was finalized, she was no longer considered a US citizen, but she stayed here anyway. As long as she earned money "under the table" and lived with sympathetic friends, she could dodge the deportation laws indefinitely. Her luck ran out when she attempted to visit her daughter in Texas. Someone notified the local ICE office and she was arrested before she could board a bus back to her current state. She was deported back to Germany a month later, after spending that time in a federal detention center. Apparently the deportation process is a no-frills operation. Illegal immigrants are placed on planes or buses, usually government-owned, and unceremoniously dropped off at a location in their home countries. They have to find their own way back to relatives or friends who will help them get re-established. Many of them have to start over from scratch with no help at all.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8795

Microsoft Services Agreement Xbox.com Terms of Use Code of Conduct Posted: August 2015; Effective: August 2015 IF YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES, SECTION 7 CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS ABOUT HOW TO RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE WITH MICROSOFT. PLEASE READ IT. Thank you for choosing Microsoft! This is an agreement between you and Microsoft Corporation (or based on where you live one of its affiliates) that describes your rights to use the software and services identified in section 1.1. For your convenience, we have phrased some of the terms of this Agreement in a question and answer format. You should review the entire Agreement because all of the terms are important and together create a legal agreement that, once accepted by you, applies to you. 1. Scope of Agreement, acceptance, and changes 1.1. What services are covered by this Agreement? This Agreement applies to Xbox games, content, applications and services, including Xbox Live, SmartGlass, Games for Windows-Live, Xbox Video, Xbox Music, and Windows Phone Store/Marketplace (including any store provided under the brand of a Windows Phone partner that links to this agreement) including services or software that allow you to stream, download, view or use certain digital content such as music, video, games, applications and other content that Microsoft makes available from time to time (the “Services”). The Services may be accessed from the Xbox One console, the Xbox 360 console, a personal computer, mobile device, portable media player, or other devices, each as authorized by Microsoft (each an “Authorized Device”), or online. When using the Services, you must abide by these terms (“this Agreement”). 1.2. Are there additional terms for using the Services? Our goal is to create a safer and more secure environment so when using the Services, users must abide by the following, all of which are part of this Agreement: · These Terms of Use · The Xbox Live usage rules (http://www.xbox.com/usagerules) · The Microsoft Anti-Spam Policy (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=117951); and · The Code of Conduct (http://www.xbox.com/legal/codeofconduct) 1.3. Are there any additional terms for using the Services or content accessed through the Services? We will identify the provider of each application available as part of or through the Services. Certain third-party games, applications, content, online services, advertising, or events (for example, sweepstakes and tournaments) that are available in or through the Services (“Third-Party Features”) may provide separate or additional agreement terms, privacy policies and other conditions that govern your use of those Third-Party Features (collectively “Additional Terms”). The Standard Application License Terms at the end of this Agreement are the Additional Terms between you and the provider of the application which apply to your use of an application you download through the Windows Phone Store/Marketplace, unless different license terms are provided with the application. An application may also be subject to further Additional Terms, such as terms of service or privacy policies, if the application provides access to additional Third Party Features. Microsoft is a party to Additional Terms only when Microsoft is the provider of the applicable Services or application. Microsoft does not license any intellectual property to you as part of any Third-Party Features made available through the Services, and we are not responsible, unless otherwise required by law, for: · the Third-Party Features; · your use of the Third-Party Features; · the content of the Third-Party Features; · customer support for the Third-Party Features; or · any warranties or claims relating to the Third-Party Features. This Agreement and Privacy Statements referenced in this Agreement do not apply to Third-Party Features, and the Additional Terms governing such features do not modify any terms of this Agreement in any way. Third party scripts or code, linked to or referenced from these Services, are licensed to you by the third parties that own such code, not by Microsoft. 1.4 How do I accept this Agreement? By using or accessing the Services, or by agreeing to these terms where the option is made available to you in the user interface, you agree to abide by this Agreement without modification by you. If you do not agree, you may not use the Services. 1.5 What age do I have to be to use the Services? By using the Services, you represent that you have reached the age of “majority” where you live and agree to be bound by this Agreement or you are the parent or legal guardian of a minor that has an account associated with yours and you are accepting this Agreement on their behalf. A Microsoft account is necessary to use the Services. You may need to accept other terms of use and provide additional information in order to use your Microsoft account with other Microsoft services. 1.6 Can Microsoft change this Agreement after I have accepted it? Yes. From time to time, Microsoft may change or amend these terms. If we do, we will notify you, either through the user interface, in an email notification, or through other reasonable means. Your use of the Services after the date the change becomes effective will be your consent to the changed terms. If you do not agree to the changes, you must stop using the Services and cancel any paid Services by following the instructions in section 6.10. Otherwise, the new terms will apply to you. 1.7 What types of changes can I expect to the Services? We continuously work to improve the Services and may change the Services at any time. Additionally, there are reasons why Microsoft may stop providing portions of the Services, including that it's no longer feasible for us to provide it, the technology advances, customer feedback indicates a change is needed, our agreements with third parties no longer permit us to make their material available, or external issues arise that make it imprudent or impractical to continue. We may release the Services or their features in a beta version, which may not work correctly or in the same way the final version may work. We may, among other things: (i) restrict or limit access to the Services; (ii) retrieve information from the Authorized Device and any connected peripheral device used to log onto the Services as necessary to operate and protect the security of the Services, and to enforce this Agreement; and (iii) upgrade, modify, withdraw, suspend, or discontinue any functionality or feature of the Services, or any hardware or software associated with the Services or with an Authorized Device, from time to time without notice. We may do so by the automatic download of related software directly to your Authorized Device, including software that prevents you from accessing the Services, playing pirated games, or using unauthorized hardware peripheral devices. 1.8 How can associated accounts be used? For some parts of the Services, you may be able to set up additional accounts that are dependent on your account (“associated accounts”). You agree to be bound by this Agreement for any associated accounts (including those for minors) you hold now or create later and that you are responsible for all activity that takes place with your Services account and any associated accounts. We may limit who may use your Services account or any associated accounts or the number of devices from which you may access the Services. If you allow or enable a minor to use an associated account, then: You represent that you are the parent or legal guardian of such minor; You acknowledge that some features of the Services, and some content available through the Services, may contain or expose users to material unsuitable for minors. You agree to supervise usage by minors whom you permit or enable to use the Services. The Services are not intended for use by children under 13 without adult supervision; You acknowledge that we offer settings to manage your purchases and limit access to material that may be unsuitable for minors. For example, we offer “Family Settings” on the Xbox 360 console, the Xbox One console, and for some components of the Services. You may view or revise your settings by either going to the console settings application or going to http://www.xbox.com/account. Additional information about our settings is available at http://www.xbox.com/support; You may receive detailed profile, usage and activity data on minors who have an associated account which will include games played, applications downloaded, videos (TV and movies) that your child watched from Xbox Video, music played, browse and search activity (from within the Internet Explorer app on the console), and enforcement history (including complaints made by or against the associated account user, suspensions and bans from the Services). It may also contain purchase history, friend requests and friends lists (including connections with social networking applications), communications history (including messages and attachments), and the use of applications on the Services (including content viewed). You are responsible for any material that a user of your Services account accesses or is denied access to (including as a result of your use or non-use of Parental Controls). You acknowledge that use of our settings is not a substitute for your personal supervision of minors that use your Services account. If you use an associated account, you acknowledge that the holder of the Services account has full control over your associated account. This control includes the right to: (i) end the Services; (ii) close or alter your associated account at any time; (iii) access and modify Parental Controls for your associated account; and (iv) receive notices from us. In some cases, this control also includes the control of purchasing options from your associated account and the ability to request and receive device and Services usage information related to your associated account. We collect profile, usage and activity data related to your associated account and deliver it to the Services account holder. If you are an associated account user, this Agreement applies to your use of the Services, except for the following sections: 1.8 (excluding this paragraph beginning “If you use an associated account …,” which applies to associated account users); 6 (Payment); and section 16 (Notices to Parties). 1.9 Are there things I can’t do on the Services? You must not use the Services to harm others or the Services. For example, you must not: • Use the Services to harm, threaten, or harass another person, organization, or Microsoft; • Damage, disable, overburden, or impair the Services (or any network or Authorized Device connected to the Services); • Assign, resell, or redistribute any part of the Services or access to the Services, including the sale or purchase of an account; • Share your account password or otherwise authorized a third party to access or use the Services on your behalf unless we provide an approved mechanism; • Enable unauthorized third party applications to access the Services; • Use the Services or any content on the Services for commercial purposes; • Use or attempt to use any unauthorized means to modify, reroute, or gain access to the Services; • Use any automated process or service (such as a bot, a spider, periodic caching of information stored by Microsoft, or metasearching) to access or use the Services, or to copy or scrape data from the Services; • Obtain (or try to obtain) any data from the Services or related hardware, except the data that we intend to make available to you; or • Use the Services or related hardware to design, develop, or update unauthorized software; • Fraudulently increase the play count or otherwise manipulate the Services in any way, including using a script and/or otherwise automated process; • Use unauthorized software or hardware to access the Services or modify an Authorized Device in any unauthorized way (e.g., through unauthorized repairs, unauthorized upgrades, or unauthorized downloads). You agree that we have the right to send data, applications or other content to any software or hardware that you are using to access the Services for the purpose of detecting an unauthorized modification and/or disabling the modified device; or • Attempt to disassemble, decompile, create derivative works of, reverse engineer, modify, further sublicense, distribute, or use for other purposes the Services, any game, application, or other content available or accessible through the Services, or any hardware associated with the Services or with an Authorized Device. If you do, we may cancel your account and your ability to access the Services, and pursue other legal remedies. We may take any legal action we deem appropriate against users who violate our systems or network security, this Agreement or any additional terms incorporated or referenced in it. Such users may also incur criminal or civil liability. 2. Content 2.1. Who owns the content that I put on the Services? We do not claim ownership of the content you provide on the Services. Your content remains your content. We do not control, verify, or endorse the content that you and others make available on the Services. 2.2. Who can access my content? You control who may access your content. If you share content in public areas of the Services or in shared areas available to others you have chosen, then Microsoft and anyone you have shared content with may use that content. When you give others access to your content on the Services, you grant them free, nonexclusive permission to use, reproduce, distribute, display, transmit, and communicate to the public the content solely in connection with the Services. If the submission is a photograph or other digital image, you also expressly waive any and all rights of privacy and publicity with respect to the image. If you do not want others to have those rights, do not use the Services to share your content. If you submit a rating or review for an application you download through the Windows Phone Store, you may receive email from Microsoft containing content from the provider of the application. Any such email comes from Microsoft; we do not share your email address with any providers of applications you download through the Windows Phone Store/Marketplace. If you receive such an email, you can use the link provided in the email to request not to receive any more emails of this type. 2.3. What does Microsoft do with my content? You understand that Microsoft may, and you hereby grant to Microsoft and its affiliates, resellers, distributors, service providers, partners, and/or suppliers the right, to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, distribute, publish and display content posted on the Services. These include your name, gamertag, motto, avatar, original content accompanying Game DVR clips, or other information you supply in connection with the content. These rights apply solely to the extent necessary to provide the Services. 2.4. What type of content is not permitted or restricted? Content that violates this Agreement (which includes the Microsoft Anti-Spam Policy and the Code of Conduct) or your local law is not permitted on the Services. Microsoft reserves the right to review content for the purpose of enforcing this Agreement. Microsoft may block or otherwise prevent delivery of any type of content, email, instant message, or other communication to or from the Services as part of our effort to protect the Services or our customers, or otherwise enforce this Agreement. You must respect the rights of artists, authors, inventors and creators. Content may be protected by copyright. People appearing in content may have a right to control the use of their images. If you share content on the Services in a way that infringes others’ copyrights, other intellectual property or proprietary rights, or publicity or privacy rights, you are breaching this Agreement (and violating other rights and possibly the law). You represent and warrant that you have all the rights necessary for you to grant the rights in this section and that the use of the content does not violate any law. We will not pay you for your content. We may refuse to publish your content for any or no reason. We may remove your content from the Services at any time and for any reason, including if: (i) you breach this Agreement; (ii) the content exceeds limits on storage or file size; (iii) the content is provided in an attempt to manipulate ratings or rankings for any application; or (iv) we cancel or suspend the Services. 2.5. What limitations apply to my access and use of Microsoft and third-party content? We may disable access to Microsoft and third-party content associated with your account for any reason. We may also remove or disable games, applications, content, or Services on your Authorized Device in order to protect the Services, application providers, network operators or any other affected or potentially affected parties. Some content and applications available on the Services may be unavailable from time to time or may only be offered for a limited time due to contractual or other limitations, such as the region of your Account. As such, you may not be able to re-download content or applications or re-stream certain content that you have purchased; for example, if you change your account to another region you may need to re-purchase content or applications that were available to you and paid for in your previous region. Except to the extent required by applicable law, we have no obligation to provide a re-download or replacement of any content or application previously purchased. If we receive information from the content owners indicating the dates their content will be unavailable, we will try to share this information with you. 2.6. Who is responsible for the data and content? You are responsible for backing up the data and content that you store on the Services. We may permanently delete your data and content from our servers if the Services are suspended or canceled. We do not have any obligation to return data and content to you after the Services are suspended or canceled. If data and content are stored with an expiration date, we may also delete the data and content as of that date. Deleted data and content may be irretrievable. 3. Services cancellation 3.1. What happens if I do not abide by this Agreement? If you violate this Agreement, we may take action against you including (without limitation) removing your content from the Services, suspending or cancelling your access to the Services, asking you to refrain from certain activities, blocking your console or device from accessing the Services, and/or referring such activity to appropriate authorities. In the event we take action against you for a violation of this Agreement, we may permanently delete, and you may permanently lose, some or all of the information or content associated with your Microsoft account and/or we may cancel your Services in their entirety. Content that is deleted may be irretrievable. 3.2. Are there other ways I could lose access to the Services? Yes. If you sign up for a paid portion of the Services and fail to make an on-time payment, we may suspend or cancel that Service (see section 6.1 for more details). 3.3. How can I terminate the Services? You may terminate the Services at any time and for any reason. You can do this by going to http://support.xbox.com/billing-and-subscriptions/account-management/xbox-live-account-management and following the account closure process. To cancel a paid portion of the Services, see section 6.10. If you are canceling your Services, the quickest means of eliminating your content on the Services is to manually remove it from the various components of the Services (for example, manually delete your email). However, please note that while content you have deleted or that is associated with a closed account may not be accessible to you, it may still remain on our systems for a period of time. 3.4. What happens if my Services are canceled or terminated? If your Services are canceled or terminated (whether by you or us), your right to use the Services stops. If your Services are canceled or terminated, we may permanently delete information associated with your account, including your content, from our servers and we are under no obligation to return any content to you. 4. Privacy. Your privacy is important to us. The Privacy Statements for the Services (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=259655) and Windows Phone (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=247437) describe how we use and protect your content and any information we collect about you. This Agreement incorporates the Privacy Statements by reference. By using the Services or agreeing to these terms, you consent to Microsoft’s collection, use and disclosure of your content and information as described in the Privacy Statements. 5. Services disruptions and backup We strive to keep the Services up and running; however, all online services suffer occasional disruptions and outages, and Microsoft isn't liable for any disruption or loss you may suffer as a result. You should regularly backup the content that you store on the Services. Having a regular backup plan and following it can help you prevent loss of your content. 6. If you pay Microsoft, the following terms apply to you 6.1. Charges. If there is a charge associated with a portion of the Services, you agree to pay that charge. The price stated for the Service excludes all applicable taxes and currency exchange settlements, unless stated otherwise. You are solely responsible for paying such taxes or other charges. We may suspend or cancel the Services if we do not receive an on time, full payment from you. Suspension or cancellation of the Services for non-payment could result in a loss of access to and use of your account and its content. 6.2. Your billing account. To pay the charges for a Service, you will be asked to provide a payment method at the time you sign up for that Service. You can access and change your billing account information and payment method on the Billing and Account Management website (https://commerce.microsoft.com). Additionally, you agree to permit Microsoft to use any updated account information regarding your payment method provided by your issuing bank or the applicable payment network. You agree to keep your billing account and contact information current at all times. Changes made to your billing account won't affect charges we submit to your billing account before we could reasonably act on your changes to your billing account. 6.3. Billing. By providing Microsoft with a payment method, you (i) represent that you are authorized to use the payment method that you provided and that any payment information you provide is true and accurate; (ii) authorize Microsoft to charge you for the Services using your payment method; and (iii) authorize Microsoft to charge you for any paid feature of the Services that you choose to sign up for or use while this Agreement is in force. We may bill you (a) in advance; (b) at the time of purchase; (c) shortly after purchase; or (d) on a recurring basis for subscription Services. Also, we may charge you up to the amount you've approved, and we'll notify you in advance of any change in the amount to be charged for recurring subscription Services. We may bill you at the same time for more than one of your prior billing periods for amounts that haven't previously been processed. 6.4. Automatic renewal. Provided that automatic renewals are allowed in your state, we will inform you by email before automatically renewing your Services. Once we have informed you that the Services will be automatically renewed, we may automatically renew your Services and charge you the then current price for the renewal term. We will also remind you that we will bill your chosen payment method for the Services renewal, whether it was on file on the renewal date or provided later. We will also provide you with instructions on how you may cancel the Services. You must cancel the Services before the renewal date to avoid being billed for the renewal. 6.5. Online statement and errors. We will provide you with an online billing statement on the Billing and Account Management website (https://commerce.microsoft.com), where you can view and print your statement. This is the only billing statement that we provide. It's your responsibility to print or save a copy of each online statement and retain such copy for your records. If we make an error on your bill, you must tell us within 120 days after the error first appears on your bill. We will then promptly investigate the charge. If you do not tell us within that time, you release us from all liability and claims of loss resulting from the error and we won't be required to correct the error or provide a refund. If Microsoft has identified a billing error, we will correct that error within 90 days. 6.6. Cooling off period. When you request a Service from us, you agree that we may begin to provide the Services immediately. You won't be entitled to a cancellation or "cooling off" period, except if the law requires a cooling off period. You may cancel paid Services as provided in section 7.10. 6.7. Trial period offers. If you are taking part in any trial period offer, you must cancel the Services by the end of the trial period to avoid incurring new charges, unless we notify you otherwise. If you do not cancel your Services at the end of the trial period, we may charge you for the Services. 6.8. Price changes. We may change the price of the Services at any time and will notify you by email at least 15 days before the price change. If you do not agree to the price change, you must cancel and stop using the Services before the price change takes effect. If there is a fixed term and price for your Service offer, that price will remain in force for the term. 6.9. Refund policies. Unless otherwise provided by law or by a particular Service offer, all purchases are final and non-refundable. 6.10. Canceling the Services. You may cancel the Services at any time, with or without cause. Information and direction on how to cancel your Services is provided on the Billing and Account Management website (https://commerce.microsoft.com). You should refer back to the offer describing the Services as (i) you may not receive a refund at the time of cancellation; (ii) you may be obligated to pay cancellation charges; (iii) you may be obligated to pay all charges made to your billing account for the Services before the date of cancellation; or (iv) you may lose access to and use of your account when you cancel the Services. If you cancel, your Services end at the end of your current Service period or, if we bill your account on a periodic basis, at the end of the period in which you canceled. 6.11. Late payments. You must pay for all reasonable costs we incur to collect any past due amounts. These include reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal fees and costs. 6.12. Payments to you. If we owe you a payment, then you agree to timely and accurately provide us with any information we need to get that payment to you. You are responsible for any taxes and charges you may incur as a result of this payment to you. You must also comply with any other conditions we place on your right to any payment. If you receive a payment in error, we may reverse or require return of the payment. You agree to cooperate with us in our efforts to do this. We may also reduce the payment to you without notice to adjust for any previous overpayment. 6.13. Gift Cards. Redemption and use of gift cards are governed by the terms located at https://commerce.microsoft.com/PaymentHub/Help/Show/toc_link_no_62. 6.14. Internet access Services and charges. You are responsible for paying the fees charged by your Internet access or Wi-Fi providers. Those fees are in addition to the fees you pay us for the Services. If you access the Services through wireless devices (for example, mobile phones, tablets), your wireless carrier may charge fees for alerts, web browsing, messaging, and data usage on the wireless carrier’s network. Check with your carrier to determine the fees that apply. You are solely responsible for any costs you incur to access the Services through any wireless or other communication service. 7. BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IF YOU LIVE IN THE United States This section applies to any dispute EXCEPT DISPUTEs RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OR VALIDITY OF your, YOUR licensors’, MICROSOFT’S, OR microsoft’s LICENSORS’ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. The term “dispute” means any dispute, action, or other controversy between you and Microsoft concerning the Services (including their price) or this Agreement, whether in contract, warranty, tort, statute, regulation, ordinance, or any other legal or equitable basis. “Dispute” will be given the broadest possible meaning allowable under law. 7.1 Notice of Dispute. In the event of a dispute, you or Microsoft must give the other a Notice of Dispute, which is a written statement that sets forth the name, address and contact information of the party giving it, the facts giving rise to the dispute, and the relief requested. You must send any Notice of Dispute by U.S. Mail to Microsoft Corporation, ATTN: LCA ARBITRATION, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-6399, U.S.A. A form is available on the Legal and Corporate Affairs (LCA) website (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=245499). Microsoft will send any Notice of Dispute to you by U.S. Mail to your address if we have it, or otherwise to your email address. You and Microsoft will attempt to resolve any dispute through informal negotiation within 60 days from the date the Notice of Dispute is sent. After 60 days, you or Microsoft may commence arbitration. 7.2 Small claims court. You may also litigate any dispute in small claims court in your county of residence or King County, Washington, U.S.A., if the dispute meets all requirements to be heard in the small claims court. You may litigate in small claims court whether or not you negotiated informally first. 7.3 Binding arbitration. If you and Microsoft do not resolve any dispute by informal negotiation or in small claims court, any other effort to resolve the dispute will be conducted exclusively by binding arbitration governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). You are giving up the right to litigate (or participate in as a party or class member) all disputes in court before a judge or jury. Instead, all disputes will be resolved before a neutral arbitrator, whose decision will be final except for a limited right of appeal under the FAA. Any court with jurisdiction over the parties may enforce the arbitrator’s award. 7.4 Class action waiver. Any proceedings to resolve or litigate any dispute in any forum will be conducted solely on an individual basis. Neither you nor Microsoft will seek to have any dispute heard as a class action, private attorney general action, or in any other proceeding in which either party acts or proposes to act in a representative capacity. No arbitration or proceeding will be combined with another without the prior written consent of all parties to all affected arbitrations or proceedings. 7.5 Arbitration procedure. Any arbitration will be conducted by the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) under its Commercial Arbitration Rules. If you are an individual and use the Services for personal or household use, or if the value of the dispute is $75,000 or less whether or not you are an individual or how you use the Services, its Supplementary Procedures for Consumer-Related Disputes will also apply. For more information, see www.adr.org or call 1-800-778-7879. To commence arbitration, submit the form available on the Legal and Corporate Affairs (LCA) website (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=245497) to the AAA. You agree to commence arbitration only in your county of residence or in King County, Washington, U.S.A. Microsoft agrees to commence arbitration only in your county of residence. You may request a telephonic or in-person hearing by following the AAA rules. In a dispute involving $10,000 or less, any hearing will be telephonic unless the arbitrator finds good cause to hold an in-person hearing instead. The arbitrator may award the same damages to you individually as a court could. The arbitrator may award declaratory or injunctive relief only to you individually, and only to the extent required to satisfy your individual claim. 7.6 Arbitration fees and incentives. 7.6.1 Disputes involving $75,000 or less. Microsoft will promptly reimburse your filing fees and pay the AAA’s and arbitrator’s fees and expenses. If you reject Microsoft’s last written settlement offer made before the arbitrator was appointed (“Microsoft’s last written offer”), your dispute goes all the way to an arbitrator’s decision (called an “award”), and the arbitrator awards you more than Microsoft’s last written offer, Microsoft will give you three incentives: (i) pay the greater of the award or $1,000; (ii) pay twice your reasonable attorney’s fees, if any; and (iii) reimburse any expenses (including expert witness fees and costs) that your attorney reasonably accrues for investigating, preparing, and pursuing your claim in arbitration. The arbitrator will determine the amount of fees, costs, and expenses unless you and Microsoft agree on them. 7.6.2 Disputes involving more than $75,000. The AAA rules will govern payment of filing fees and the AAA’s and arbitrator’s fees and expenses. 7.6.3 Disputes involving any amount. In any arbitration you commence, Microsoft will seek its AAA or arbitrator’s fees and expenses, or your filing fees it reimbursed, only if the arbitrator finds the arbitration frivolous or brought for an improper purpose. In any arbitration Microsoft commences, Microsoft will pay all filing, AAA, and arbitrator’s fees and expenses. Microsoft won't seek its attorney’s fees or expenses from you in any arbitration. Fees and expenses are not counted in determining how much a dispute involves. 7.7 Conflict with AAA rules. This Agreement governs to the extent it conflicts with the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules and Supplementary Procedures for Consumer-Related Disputes. 7.8 Claims or disputes must be filed within one year. To the extent permitted by law, any claim or dispute to which section 7 applies must be filed within one year in small claims court (section 7.2) or, in arbitration (section 7.3). The one-year period begins when the claim or Notice of Dispute first could be filed. If such a claim or dispute isn't filed within one year, it's permanently barred. 7.9 Rejecting future arbitration changes. You may reject any change Microsoft makes to section 7 (other than address changes) by sending us notice within 30 days of the change by U.S. Mail to the address in section 7.1. If you do, the most recent version of section 7 before the change you rejected will apply. 7.10 Severability. If the class action waiver in section 10.4 is found to be illegal or unenforceable as to all or some parts of a dispute, then section 7 won't apply to those parts. Instead, those parts will be severed and proceed in a court of law, with the remaining parts proceeding in arbitration. If any other provision of section 7 is found to be illegal or unenforceable, that provision will be severed with the remainder of section 7 remaining in full force and effect. 8. NO Warranties MICROSOFT, AND OUR AFFILIATES, RESELLERS, DISTRIBUTORS, AND VENDORS, MAKE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, GUARANTEES OR CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR OWN RISK AND THAT WE PROVIDE THE SERVICES ON AN “AS IS” BASIS “WITH ALL FAULTS” AND “AS AVAILABLE.” MICROSOFT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR TIMELINESS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM THE SERVICES. To the extent permitted under your local law, we exclude any implied warranties, including for merchantability, satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose, workmanlike effort, and non-infringement. You may have certain rights under your local law. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to affect those rights, if they are applicable. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT computer and telecommunications systems are not fault-free and occasional periods of downtime occur. We do not guarantee the services will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error-free or that CONTENT loss won't occur. IF YOU ARE USING AN XBOX ONE CONSOLE, AN XBOX 360 CONSOLE, XBOX ACCESSORY, OR KINECT SENSOR OUTSIDE A SUPPORTED COUNTRY(IES), MICROSOFT IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE SERVICE IN THE COUNTRY(IES) NAMED IN THE WARRANTY. MICROSOFT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AND YOUR XBOX OR KINECT PRODUCT MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM WARRANTY COVERAGE AND PRODUCT SUPPORT OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY(IES) NAMED IN THE WARRANTY. 9. Limitation of Liability If Microsoft breaches this Agreement, you agree that your exclusive remedy is to recover, from Microsoft or any affiliates, resellers, distributors, and vendors, direct damages up to an amount equal to your Services fee for one month (or up to USD$10.00 if the Services are free). You can't recover any other damages OR LOSSES, including, WITHOUT LIMITATION, consequential, lost profits, special, indirect, incidental, or punitive. These limitations and exclusions apply if this remedy doesn't fully compensate you for any losses or fails of its essential purpose or if we knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages. To the maximum extent permitted by law, these limitations and exclusions apply to anything related to this Agreement such as loss of content; any virus affecting your use of the Services; delays or failures in starting or completing transmissions or transactions; claims for breach of contract, warranty, guarantee, or condition; strict liability; negligence; misrepresentation or omission; trespass; violation of statute or regulation; or unjust enrichment. Some or all of these limitations or exclusions may not apply to you if your state, province, or country doesn't allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental, consequential, or other damages. 10. Microsoft contracting entity, court of venue, and applicable law You are contracting with Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052, U.S.A. The laws of the state where you live govern the interpretation of this Agreement, claims for breach of it, and all other claims (including consumer protection, unfair competition, and tort claims), regardless of conflict of law principles, except that the FAA governs all provisions relating to arbitration. You and we irrevocably consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state or federal courts in King County, Washington, for all disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services that are heard in court (not arbitration and not small claims court). 11. Third-party websites You may be able to access third-party websites or services via the Services or via applications you download through the Services. Microsoft isn't responsible for third-party websites, services, or material available through those third-party services. You are solely responsible for your dealings with third-parties (including advertisers). Your use of third-party websites or services may be subject to that third-party’s terms and conditions. 12. DRM If you access content protected with digital rights management (DRM), the DRM software may automatically request media usage rights from a rights server online and download and install DRM updates so that you can play the material. 13. Survival Sections 4, 6 (for amounts incurred before the end of this Agreement), 8, 9, 10, 16, and those that by their terms apply after it ends will survive any termination or cancellation of this Agreement. 14. Assignment and transfer We may assign this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time without notice to you. You may not assign this Agreement or transfer any rights to use the Services. 15. Notices to parties You consent to Microsoft providing you notifications about the Services or information the law requires us to provide via email to the address that you specified when you signed up for the Services. Notices emailed to you will be deemed given and received when the email is sent. If you do not consent to receive notices electronically, you must stop using the Services. You may notify Microsoft as stated in customer support for the Services. 16. Contract interpretation This is the entire Agreement between you and Microsoft for your use of the Services. It supersedes any prior Agreements between you and Microsoft regarding your use of the Services. All parts of this Agreement apply to the maximum extent permitted by relevant law. If a court or arbitrator holds that we can't enforce a part of this Agreement as written, we may replace those terms with similar terms to the extent enforceable under the relevant law, but the rest of this Agreement won't change. Section 8.10 says what happens if parts of section 8 (arbitration and class action waiver) are found to be illegal or unenforceable. Section 8.10 prevails over this section if inconsistent with it. This Agreement is solely for your and our benefit. It isn't for the benefit of any other person, except for Microsoft’s successors and assigns. 18. Support We do not offer customer support for the Services unless provided otherwise in this Agreement or the materials we publish in connection with a particular component of the Services. For more information on customer support, please go to http://www.xbox.com/support or http://www.windowsphone.com. 19. Export Restrictions Microsoft’s free software and services are subject to United States and other jurisdictions’ export and technology laws and you agree to comply with all such applicable laws and regulations that apply to the software and/or services. United States government permission is required to transfer these free software and services to governments of any embargoed country or certain prohibited parties. Please see the U.S. Department of Treasury website (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=243206) for more information. Additionally, paid services are subject to United States export laws and regulations with which you must comply. These laws include restrictions on destinations, end users, and end use. For additional information, see Exporting Microsoft Products website (http://www.microsoft.com/exporting). 20.1 Notices and procedure for making claims of intellectual property infringement. Microsoft respects the intellectual property rights of third parties. If you wish to send a notice of intellectual property infringement, including claims of copyright infringement, please use our procedures for submitting Notices of Infringement (https://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyrtInfrg.aspx). ALL INQUIRIES NOT RELEVANT TO THIS PROCEDURE WILL NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE. Microsoft uses the process set out in Title 17, United States Code, Section 512(c)(2) to respond to notices of copyright infringement. In appropriate circumstances, Microsoft may also disable or terminate accounts of users of Microsoft services who may be repeat infringers. 20.2 Notices and procedures regarding intellectual property concerns in Sponsored Sites advertising. Please review our Intellectual Property Guidelines (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=243207) regarding intellectual property concerns on our advertising network. 20.3 Copyright and trademark notices. All portions of the Services are Copyright © 2013 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052, USA. All rights reserved. We or our suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Services and its content. Microsoft and the names, logos, and icons of all Microsoft products, software, and services may be either trademarks or registered trademarks of Microsoft in the United States and/or other countries. The names of actual companies and products may be the trademarks of their respective owners. Any rights not expressly granted in this Agreement are reserved. Certain software used in certain Microsoft website servers is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group. Copyright © 1991-1996 Thomas G. Lane. All rights reserved. "gnuplot" software used in certain Microsoft website servers is copyright © 1986-1993 Thomas Williams, Colin Kelley. All rights reserved. Portions Copyright © 2012 Netflix, Inc. All rights reserved. 20.4 Notice about the H.264/AVC Visual Standard and the VC-1 Video Standard. The software may include H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and/or VC-1 decoding technology. MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this notice: THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC AND THE VC-1 PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (A) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS (“VIDEO STANDARDS”) AND/OR (B) DECODE AVC AND VC-1 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE SUCH VIDEO. NONE OF THE LICENSES EXTEND TO ANY OTHER PRODUCT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH PRODUCT IS INCLUDED WITH THIS SOFTWARE IN A SINGLE ARTICLE. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE THE MPEG LA WEBSITE (http://www.mpegla.com). For clarification purposes only, this notice does not limit or inhibit the use of the software provided under this Agreement for normal business uses that are personal to that business which do not include (i) redistribution of the software to third parties, or (ii) creation of material with the VIDEO STANDARDS compliant technologies for distribution to third parties. The following additional terms apply to Xbox Live and Games for Windows-Live: We require certain permissions in order for you to evaluate or use and for us to enable the features and functions of the Xbox Live/Games for Windows-Live service. These features and functions include leaderboards, live-hosted gameplay, achievements, tournaments, and gamer profile sharing. If you evaluate or use or we enable these features and functions, you grant Microsoft and its affiliates, resellers, distributors, service providers, partners, and suppliers (each, a “Microsoft party”) the following permissions: Microsoft parties may use, track, store, copy, distribute, broadcast, transmit, publicly display and perform, and reproduce: (i) your game scores; (ii) your game play sessions; (iii) your presence on the Xbox Live/Games for Windows-Live service; (iv) the time that you spend on or within particular portions of the Xbox Live/Games for Windows-Live service; (v) portions of the Xbox Live/Games for Window-Live service that are displayed on your monitor or screen and the duration of that display; (vi) rankings, statistics, gamer profiles, avatars, and content that you may submit; and (vii) other usage information. These permissions apply with or without attribution to you, your gamertag or avatar. We may use these permissions without notice or compensation to you of any kind. To avoid any confusion, we have the right to make information pertaining to your use of, and gameplay on, Xbox Live available through Games for Windows-Live, and vice versa. If you choose to link your Services account with the account of a Microsoft party on the Xbox Live service (for example, a game publisher or app provider), you agree that Microsoft may share limited account information with that Microsoft party. Such account information may include name, address, email and date of birth but will not include any credit card or other payment information. In order for Xbox Live features to work in the context of specific games that you choose to use, publishers of those games may have access to the online contact information (such as a screen name) that allows others to contact you (or your associated accounts) on Xbox Live as permitted by your Privacy and Online settings. If you choose to link your Services account with the account of a publisher, that publisher may also have access to the content of in-game communications when you are signed into your account with the publisher. You can manage communications features on Xbox Live for you and your child in your Privacy and Online settings. You should not expect any level of privacy concerning your use of the live communication features (for example, voice chat, video and communications in live-hosted gameplay sessions) offered through the Xbox Live/Games for Windows-Live service. We may monitor these communications to the extent permitted by law. However, we cannot monitor the entire Services and make no attempt to do so. You understand that others can record and use these communications. Communications in live-hosted gameplay sessions may also be broadcast to others. Some games may use game managers and hosts. Game managers and hosts are not authorized Microsoft spokespersons. Their views do not necessarily reflect those of Microsoft. If you use voice-enabled services, voice commands may be sent to Microsoft. You consent to Microsoft recording and collecting your voice input for those voice commands to provide the voice-enabled services and improve the quality and accuracy of our voice recognition. We do not use your voice input for any other purpose. We will treat any voice input according to the Privacy Statement (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=259655). The Services may include a virtual, game currency, including, but not limited to gold, coins, cash, or points, that may be purchased from Microsoft using actual monetary instruments if you are a legal adult in your country of residence. The Services may also include virtual, digital items or goods that may be purchased from Microsoft using actual monetary instruments or using game currency. Game currency and virtual goods may never be redeemed for actual monetary instruments, goods or other items of monetary value from Microsoft or any other party. Other than a limited, personal, revocable, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable license to use the game currency and virtual goods in the Services only, you have no right or title in or to any such game currency or virtual goods appearing or originating in the Services, or any other attributes associated with use of the Services or stored within the Services. Microsoft may at any time regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate the game currency and/or virtual goods as it sees fit in its sole discretion. Standard Windows Phone Application License Terms STANDARD APPLICATION LICENSE TERMS (UPDATED SEPTEMBER 2012) WINDOWS PHONE STORE/MARKETPLACE These license terms are an agreement between you and the application provider. Please read them. They apply to the software applications you download from the Windows Phone Store/Marketplace including any updates or supplements for the applications, unless the application comes with separate terms, in which case those terms apply instead. BY DOWNLOADING OR USING THE APPLICATION, YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THEM, YOU DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS TO AND MUST NOT DOWNLOAD OR USE THE APPLICATION. The application provider means the entity licensing the application to you, as identified in the Windows Phone Store/Marketplace. If you accept and comply with these license terms, you have the rights below. 1. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. You may install and use one copy of the application on up to five (5) Windows Phone enabled devices that are affiliated with the Microsoft account you use to access the Windows Phone Store/Marketplace. 2. INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. a. Consent for Internet-Based or Wireless Services. The application may connect to Internet-based or wireless services. Your use of the application operates as your consent to the transmission of standard device information (including but not limited to technical information about your device, system and application software, and peripherals) for Internet-based or wireless services. If other terms are provided in connection with your use of the services, those terms also apply. b. Misuse of Internet-based Services. You may not use any Internet-based service in any way that could harm it or impair anyone else’s use of it or the wireless network. You may not use the service to try to gain unauthorized access to any service, data, account or network by any means. 3. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The application is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the application. If Microsoft disables the ability to use the applications on your devices pursuant to your agreement with Microsoft, any associated license rights will terminate. Application provider reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the application only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the application that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not: • work around any technical limitations in the application; • reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the application, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation; • make more copies of the application than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation; • publish or otherwise make the application available for others to copy; • rent, lease or lend the application; or • transfer the application or this agreement to any third party. 4. DOCUMENTATION. If documentation is provided with the application, you may copy and use the documentation for your internal, reference purposes. 5. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. The application is subject to United States export laws and regulations. You must comply with all domestic and international export laws and regulations that apply to the application. These laws include restrictions on destinations, end users and end use. For information on Microsoft branded products, see www.microsoft.com/exporting. 6. SUPPORT SERVICES. Contact the application provider to determine if any support services are available. Microsoft (unless Microsoft is the application provider), your phone manufacturer, and your wireless carrier are not responsible for providing support services for the application. 7. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement, the terms for supplements and updates, and any privacy policy to which you agreed are the entire agreement for the application. 8. APPLICABLE LAW. a. United States. If you acquired the application in the United States, the laws of the state where you live govern the interpretation of this agreement, claims for breach of it, and all other claims (including consumer protection unfair competition, and tort claims), regardless of conflict of law principles. b. Canada. If you acquired the application in Canada, the laws of the province where you live govern the interpretation of this agreement, claims for breach of it, and all other claims (including consumer protection, unfair competition, and tort claims), regardless of conflict of law principles. c. Outside the United States and Canada. If you acquired the application in any other country, the laws of that country apply. 9. LEGAL EFFECT. This agreement describes certain legal rights. You may have other rights under the laws of your country. This agreement does not change your rights under the laws of your country if the laws of your country do not permit it to do so. 10. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. THE APPLICATION IS LICENSED "AS-IS," "WITH ALL FAULTS," AND "AS AVAILABLE." YOU BEAR THE RISK OF USING IT. THE APPLICATION PROVIDER, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, MICROSOFT, WIRELESS CARRIERS OVER WHOSE NETWORK THE APPLICATION IS PROVIDED, AND EACH OF OUR RESPECTIVE AFFILIATES, VENDORS, AGENTS AND SUPPLIERS (“COVERED PARTIES”), GIVES NO EXPRESS WARRANTIES, GUARANTEES, OR CONDITIONS UNDER OR IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE APPLICATION IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE APPLICATION PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING OR REPAIR. YOU MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL CONSUMER RIGHTS UNDER YOUR LOCAL LAWS WHICH THIS AGREEMENT CANNOT CHANGE. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER YOUR LOCAL LAWS, COVERED PARTIES EXCLUDE ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THOSE OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. 11. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF REMEDIES AND DAMAGES. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, YOU CAN RECOVER FROM THE APPLICATION PROVIDER ONLY DIRECT DAMAGES UP TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT YOU PAID FOR THE APPLICATION OR ONE U.S. DOLLAR (US$1.00). YOU AGREE NOT TO SEEK TO RECOVER ANY OTHER DAMAGES, INCLUDING CONSEQUENTIAL, LOST PROFITS, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM ANY COVERED PARTIES. This limitation applies to: • anything related to the application, services or content made available through the application; and • claims for breach of contract, warranty, guarantee or condition; consumer protection; deception; unfair competition; strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, omission, trespass or other tort; violation of statute or regulation; or unjust enrichment; all to the extent permitted by applicable law. • repair, replacement or a refund for the application does not fully compensate you for any losses; or • Covered Party knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/8940

« Slow Choose the Jam Botoxifying Empathy » Justice for Trayvon For The Situationist, Sabreena El-Amin (Harvard Law School student and President of the Student Association for Law and Mind Sciences (SALMS)), has authored the following legal analysis of the Trayvon Martin shooting and situationist analysis of the “stand your ground” doctrine. We are pleased to publish it and look forward to more contributions from Sabreena and other members of SALMS. The Trayvon Martin incident is of particular importance to me: not only as a Black person, not only as a law student, not only as a mother, but as a big sister. My younger brother is currently attending school at Barry University in Miami, Florida. He, like myself, loves Arizona Ice Tea. We are also both big fans of Skittles, though we have a particular preference for the sour kind. Most importantly, we both wear hoodies. I am now more nervous than ever for my brother: a 19-year-old black man walking the streets of Miami with a camera. With laws like the “Stand your Ground” statute, vigilantes like Zimmerman are free to roam the streets in Florida, singling out young black men and killing them seemingly without repercussions. My argument will focus on two main points: 1) Zimmerman should have been arrested as the prosecution will likely be able to meet their burden of proof that his action was not in accordance with the statute; and 2) the Stand Your Ground statute should be repealed because a) it encourages armed individuals to respond to situations violently and b) it sanctions the attack of Blacks. I will begin the article by outlining the facts as I know them. I understand that there are several different fact patterns floating around and the story is being developed daily. My arguments will be based solely on the facts mapped out below. I will continue by discussing why the facts would support the prosecution’s case, if one were to be brought, focusing mainly on a piece by Governor Granholm of Michigan. I will then go on to discuss the “Stand Your Ground” statute based on two psychological studies that show the statute endorses more violence than is reasonably necessary. Facts* Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Black male, was walking to his father’s home in a gated community in Sanford, FL after returning from a 7-Eleven convenience store. En route, 28-year-old self-appointed Neighborhood Watchman, George Zimmerman, spotted Trayvon and telephoned police that there was a suspicious young black man walking around. Zimmerman informed the police that the young man looked like he was on drugs and appeared to be reaching for something in his waistband. Initially Zimmerman claimed that the young man was coming right at him, and then that Trayvon was getting away. Zimmerman complained that “they” always get away. Dispatcher informed Zimmerman that they did not need him to follow Trayvon and Zimmerman said okay. Several residents of the area called in shortly after Zimmerman’s call to report that they heard screaming. In some cases, callers reported a black male lying on the ground. Each caller also heard gun shots and heard the screaming stop. One caller reported that there was a man in a white shirt on top of someone lying on the ground. Police collected Trayvon’s body, tested him for drugs, ran a background check, labeled him John Doe and placed him in the morgue where he would lie for over 24 hours before he was identified. Trayvon was unarmed and in fact only had a can of Arizona Ice Tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman was questioned after the shooting, but never arrested. Zimmerman weighed 250 pounds and had a history of vigilantism. Zimmerman claims that he shot Trayvon in self defense. Florida has a statute (Fla. Stat. § 776.013, also called the “Stand Your Ground” statute) which states (in relevant part): (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Zimmerman’s claims he was justified in his use of force based on this statute. It is not clear which clause Zimmerman’s defense is connected to. Zimmerman has, since the incident, secured legal counsel. Zimmerman’s lawyer asserts that Zimmerman is not a racist and that he in fact mentors Blacks. His lawyer also stated that Zimmerman is currently in hiding, but has not fled the country. According to Zimmerman’s father, Zimmerman identifies as Hispanic. Currently, Florida Governor Jed Bush does not believe Zimmerman’s actions are covered by the statute. There is a Department of Justice investigation in regards to the failure of the Sanford Police Department to arrest Zimmerman, President Obama has called for justice for Trayvon, and Sanford’s chief of police has stepped down. People across the country are expressing their distaste for the response to Trayvon’s murder and are, via protest, Facebook, articles, etc., calling for “Justice for Trayvon”. Justice for Trayvon: Bringing Charges against Zimmerman The “Stand Your Ground” statute essentially creates a presumption of self-defense in certain situations. Zimmerman has yet to be arrested because authorities do not believe there is enough evidence to rebut this presumption. I would like to focus this aspect of my piece on the following arguments: a) the facts of the case do not support a claim of self defense alleged pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 776.013(3) as Zimmerman appears to have been the attacker and not the victim, and b) the facts of the case do not support a claim of self defense pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 776.013(1) as Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman was likely acting unlawfully in his pursuit of Trayvon by misleading officials. Admittedly, only Zimmerman knows exactly what transpired during his altercation with Martin, and thus this argument may be moot after Zimmerman’s account becomes public. Section 3 of the “Stand Your Ground” statute allows someone who is being attacked to respond with force and does not require them to first attempt to flee. Under a possible account of the facts, Zimmerman’s actions were self defense because he was attacked by Trayvon. Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm wrote a piece on March 21, 2012 outlining several reasons why this account is unsupported by the facts as publicly known. In her piece Governor Granholm discusses five key pieces of evidence which refute Zimmerman’s claim: 1.The call from Zimmerman to law enforcement, and the officers telling Martin not to pursue. Zimmerman whispers what many have described as a racial slur under his breath. 2.There is a 911 call where you can hear a voice yelling for help and a firearm shot. 3.Trayvon’s father identified his voice on that 911 call on Al Sharpton’s Politics Nation program on MSNBC. 4.The account of the girlfriend, who says Trayvon told her by cellphone that he was being followed. 5.Trayvon was not armed and weighed between 75-100 pounds less than Zimmerman. The evidence that we know of — the public evidence — establishes that Zimmerman was the pursuer, and not the victim. In addition to this evidence, a 9-11 caller reported a man in a white shirt on top of a man lying on the ground. Another caller reported a man lying on the ground screaming “Help” and hearing gun shots go off before he got the chance to go to the man for help. Trayvon’s parents have identified this voice as their sons on the tape. Zimmerman, however, claims that this is his voice, but in connection with the other evidence (e.g., that he was the heavier of the two and that Trayvon was unarmed), this will likely be refuted. Based on the facts as alleged, the situation seems to have been initiated by Zimmerman. Even if Trayvon fought back after being pursued, his actions were justified based on the same statute that Zimmerman is currently hiding under. Section 1 of the “Stand Your Ground” statute creates a presumption of self defense if a person is doing something unlawful and the person using force knows or reasonably believes that an unlawful act is occurring or about to occur. There has been some discussion at my law school that if Zimmerman asserts that he witnessed Trayvon about to break into someone’s home then Zimmerman may likely have a claim. I think this is unlikely for two reasons. First, Trayvon was unarmed and, based on all available evidence, innocently walking home from the convenience store. In order for the presumption in section 1 to be triggered, the attacked must have been in the process of committing certain crimes. There has been no evidence advanced indicating that Trayvon was participating in any crime. In fact the evidence points to Trayvon being engaged in innocent activity. Second, section (2)(c) asserts that this presumption is unavailable if the attacker is engaged in an unlawful activity at the time of the attack. As the 911 tape shows, Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon and said “okay.” This act can be seen as misleading police officers, who were likely told by dispatch that Zimmerman would be waiting for them to arrive before doing anything further. This act is likely in violation of Fla. Stat. § 843.06, which makes the “neglect or refusal to aid peace officers” “in the preservation of the peace” unlawful. Zimmerman’s false compliance with the order may have delayed the response time of the dispatched officers and been the reason why the police were unable to respond to Zimmerman’s call in time to save Trayvon’s life. Arguably, Zimmerman’s actions show neglect to assist a peace officer and thus could qualify as unlawful acts that will exclude Zimmerman from the protection of Fla. Stat. § 776.013(1). Justice for Blacks in Florida: Repeal the Stand Your Ground Statute I would like to start this section by clarifying two points. First, Florida is not the only state to have a version of the “Stand Your Ground” statute. According to the above-mentioned piece by Gov. Granholm, who describes the statute as “part of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)’s cluster of pro-NRA bills that shot through legislatures in the past few years”, Florida is only one of 17 states to have a statute of this kind. Secondly, studies suggest that it is very possible for Zimmerman to be a rational, tolerant, even intelligent, person and still to have reacted in the manner that he did. Many people have labeled Zimmerman a racist and even called him sadistic for his response to an innocent young boy. Sadly, while this may be true for Zimmerman, it does not have to be. Due to the freedom that this law opens up for people to act upon their fears, which may be based on their predisposition to certain opinions, I believe this law should be repealed immediately. Every minute that this law and laws like it remain on the books another Black person’s life is in jeopardy. Guns Breed Violence In a piece entitled “Holding a Gun Influences You to Think Others are Armed,” David DiSalvo discusses psychological research that suggests Zimmerman may have reasonably believed that Trayvon was armed. As the title of the piece indicates, James Brockholm’s study, which will be published in the upcoming edition of Journal of Experimental Psychology, supports the idea that the possession of a gun will influence your opinion of whether those around you are armed. Brockholm’s conclusion is that a person’s ability to act upon certain impulses can “bias their recognition of objects… in dramatic ways.” In the study, individuals holding toy guns were more likely to believe a person had a gun than those who were holding a ball and who simply had guns in the room, but not in their hand. The article describes this as the “blending of perception and action representations” which cause those holding guns to believe others are too. The statute and others like it (e.g. Wisconson’s Castle Doctrine under which a homeowner recently shot and killed 20-year-old, unarmed Bo Morrison, without being charged) is meant to provide a means for people to protect themselves when actually threatened. Based on Brockholm’s research, the statute is actually allowing people to act upon perceived threat that is automatically enhanced by their ability to act against the threat. This research supports the idea that individuals with guns are likely to act frequently because they can act, and not because there is an actually threat. In Bo’s case, his hands were both in the air. In Trayvon’s case, he was walking with a cell phone, an Arizona Ice Tea, and Skittles. Neither youth was armed. Neither was attempting to harm anyone. But two lives are lost, and importantly, two men have taken a life because they were able to, not because they had to. These statutes encourage violence by giving gun holders the right and encouraging them to “meet force with force” when the force they perceive will always be equal to the force they are capable of exerting themselves. These types of laws should be repealed immediately in order to prevent more innocent people from losing their lives and others from taking lives. People Focus on Blacks when on the Look-out for Criminal Activity Recently, I took a photograph with some of my Black classmates at Harvard Law School. We wore hoodies and held signs asking “Do we look suspicious?” Unfortunately, research completed by Jennifer Eberhardt, Valerie Purdie, Phillip Goff, and Paul Daves in 2005 concludes that for many people the answer to that question is yes. “Seeing Black: Race, Crime, and Visual Processing” asserts that stereotypes are bidirectional. The article states: the mere presence of a Black man…can trigger thoughts that he is violent and criminal. Simply thinking about a Black person renders these concepts more accessible and can lead to misremember the Black person as the one holding the razor. Merely thinking about Blacks can lead people to evaluate ambiguous behavior as aggressive, to mis-categorize harmless objects as weapons, or to shoot quickly . . . . The studies show that not only does thinking about Blacks make people think of crime, but thinking about crime makes people think of Blacks. These studies were intentionally done with both civilians and police officers. The officers were as susceptible to this association. Importantly, the study showed that when one is told to look out for crime, their visual attention focuses on Black faces. They may thus unconsciously avoid criminal activity of non-Black actors. For instance, when experimenters asked police officers “Who looks criminal?,” the officers choose Black faces more often than White faces. The study makes it clear that racial animus is not required. The association is automatic and is even sparked in Blacks and others minorities. Based on this research, Zimmerman may have associated Trayvon with criminality without having any negative opinions of Blacks. As a neighborhood watchman put on guard to look out for crime, he was likely looking for Blacks. Zimmerman was attempting to crack down on several robberies that had occurred in his neighborhood, and the possibility of criminal activity was salient in his mind, when Trayvon walked innocently by. Zimmerman may have reasonably believed that Trayvon was about to engage in unlawful behavior, but this belief was based on stereotypes and not supported by what was actually occurring. Section 1 of the statute protects people who seek out criminals and prevent their crimes from being completed. As people often unconsciously associate African Americans with crime, they may seek out African Americans engaging in ambiguous behavior percieve it as criminal. Acting upon this perception, they may attack (as Zimmerman did), under the protective shield of the Stand Your Ground Statute, leading to the harm of either themselves or innocent individuals. Based on this research it is clear that the first section of the statute puts a target on Blacks. The implications of the research that I have outlined in this section are that people who carry guns and seek out criminal activity will be searching for Blacks and will automatically associate ambiguous behavior with criminal activity. Laws like the “Stand Your Ground” statute give these individuals the right to act upon their perception and harm these Black people regardless of what they are doing. This means that Blacks in such situations will likely have no control over being shot or attacked. Even worse it means that individuals will be searching for Blacks and may unconsciously overlook true criminal activity in an attempt to find images that support their perception. We should not provide support for individuals to act upon irrational conclusions that are not supported by the circumstances. This does not mean that there should be no protection of individuals who respond reasonably to imminent danger, but we should require their perception to be supported by fact and not stereotype and thus require them to be able to connect their fear to something more than the person’s race. We should deem this on a case by case and remove the blanket approval of such behavior. People should be instructed to call police when observing unlawful behavior or to attempt to retreat when in fear of being attacked. Thus the statute should be repealed and self-defense should return to being a defense of murder, and not a presumption of innocence that must be rebutted. What happened to Trayvon Martin is an all too familiar story to many Blacks. We are profiled regularly based on stereotypes that we have no control over. As many of us mourn Trayvon’s death and remember many of our other brothers and sisters who have fallen victim to racial stereotyping, there is a concurrent legal movement attempting to shed some hope on the issue by bringing charges against Zimmerman. This movement should also focus on repealing the Florida statute. Once these actions are taken, we will be one step closer to Justice for Trayvon. *I would like to thank Anisha Queen, David Korn, James Smith, and Professor Jon Hanson for their assistance and inspiration with this piece. ** The facts have been compiled from the following articles: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/24/lawyer-advising-trayvons-killer-denies-racism-as-prosecutor-vows-were-going-to/ http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2012/03/trayvon-martin-shooting-911-call/ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/03/why_george_zimmerman_trayvon_martin_s_killer_hasn_t_been_prosecuted_.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/5-reasons-zimmermans-stan_b_1371554.html New Research on the Dangers of Private Law Enforcement Race, Guns, and the Danger of Private Law Enforcement If Guns Don’t Kill People, Sometimes Gun-Saturated Situations Do The Psychology of Guns and Race Why Race May Influence Us Even When We “Know” It Doesn’t He’s a Banana-Eating Monkey, but I’m Not a Racist Jennifer Eberhardt’s “Policing Racial Bias” – Video A Situationist Considers the Implications of Simpson Sentencing The Situation of Handguns on Urban Streets-Abstract The Situation of First-Person Shooters Guilt and Racial Prejudice Perceptions of Racial Divide Banaji & Greenwald on Edge – Part IV This entry was posted on March 26, 2012 at 12:00 am and is filed under Implicit Associations, Law, SALMS, Social Psychology. Tagged: Criminal Law, Implicit Associations, mind sciences, prejudice, race, Trayvon Martin. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. One Response to “Justice for Trayvon” withoutbacon said March 26, 2012 at 11:23 am I liked this article, which touches on a number of important points. On the statutory analysis, though, I think you should also focus on Section 776.032 (which I also missed in my initial writeup of this incident here: http://blackbooklegal.blogspot.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-vs.html ). That section gives a defendant immunity from criminal prosecution, civil action, and even arrest. To get around the immunity, the police must have probable cause to believe the use of force was unlawful, which is the point I explore in my post. But I think that, although the 776.013 analysis weighs in favor of prosecution, the 776.032 analysis tips the other way (though not conclusively, and as I note, hinges on the meaning of the word “unlawful”). The studies you cite near the end of this article are all very good reasons the Stand Your Ground statute, and ones like it, should, at a minimum, be re-examined.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/9047

Comment: NHS gives Monitor jurisdiction over competition and economic regulation in the UK healthcare sector "The new powers for Monitor to promote competition, where appropriate, and to enforce competition law are not unusual and similar powers are enjoyed by other sector regulators in the UK (for example, Ofcom the communications regulator). The health care sector does have some special features which distinguish it from some other regulated sectors. In the NHS, the service is free at the point of delivery to consumers, so there is more limited scope for price competition in the market. The promotion of competition in health care may therefore also focus on non-price elements such as the range or quality of services or where competition takes place "for the market" at the procurement stage. The same range of choice may not, however, be appropriate for certain emergency services. As more attention is focused on the role of competition in the NHS, similar issues are being considered in the United States in response to the massive US health care reform changes that were enacted earlier this year. In the US, competition authorities have long played an active role in ensuring that hospitals, physicians and other health care providers do not collude with respect to the prices they negotiate with private health plans, who account for about 30-40% of US health care expenditures. They also have closely reviewed health plan mergers and conduct to ensure that plans do not depress their payments to providers below competitive levels, or raise the premiums they charge to employers above competitive prices. US antitrust enforcers also have been concerned about the impact of anticompetitive mergers and conduct on government-run programmes such as Medicare and Medicaid, even when such programmes use administered prices, as opposed to negotiated rates. These developments represent a step change for the UK health and social care regulatory framework. The NHS already encompasses a variety of monopoly and competition elements with providers ranging from acute and foundation trusts, general practitioners, private sector providers and others. Important social and economic interests are in play and interested parties will no doubt be monitoring developments as the sector comes under closer competition law scrutiny. In common with any nascent competition regulator, Monitor will want to choose its cases carefully to ensure that there is a flexible and dynamic system that reflects the evolving needs of the sector. Experience in other sectors and internationally, albeit in different contexts, highlights some of the challenges. This suggests a need for a national regulator to balance a range of complex issues which should not overstate technical solutions over the interests of competition and, ultimately, patient consumers." Robert Leibenluft Partner in Hogan Lovells' Antitrust, Competition and Economic Regulation (Washington)Tel: +1 202 637 5789robert.leibenluft@hoganlovells.com Counsel in Hogan Lovells' Antitrust, Competition and Economic Regulation (London)Tel: +44 207 296 5899simon.barnes@hoganlovells.com Suzanne Rab Counsel in Hogan Lovells' Antitrust, Competition and Economic Regulation (London)Tel: +44 207 296 2382suzanne.rab@hoganlovells.com Explore related

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/9210

Crime Scene Reconstruction Essay Sample Bla Bla Writing reasoning (19) Crime Scene Reconstruction Pages Reconstructing a crime scene takes a lot of effort from experienced law enforcement, medical examiners, and criminalists. All of these professionals give unique perspectives to develop a crime-scene reconstruction. Forensic scientists also play a vital role in helping to reconstruct the crime scene. They use the crime-scene reconstruction to show events that occurred prior to, during, and after a crime was committed. (Saferstein, 2009) There are many things that these reconstructions can do to aid in investigations. 3-D reconstructions are more advanced and can show real life events based on the evidence. Did you know that a crime-scene reconstruction takes many steps? There are a lot of steps that investigators must take in order to accurately capture a real-life reconstruction of a crime-scene. Crime-scene reconstruction is the method used to support a likely sequence of events at a crime scene by observing and evaluating physical evidence and statements made by individuals involved with the incident. (Saferstein, 2009) In order for reconstructions to have the best possible results, the investigators need to be sure they collect and document the proper evidence in the correct way. Investigators can use reenactments to help aid them in the reconstruction. There are many things that an investigator needs to be aware of and follow when putting together a reconstruction. One important thing that every investigator must be aware of is objectivity. This is a manner of professional detachment practiced by individuals to avoid letting personal beliefs or biases affect the conclusions reached through observations. (Saferstein, 2009) If an investigator comes to work on a reconstruction with some expectations, this can cause a negative effect on the process. For this reason all the data and evidence must be continually reevaluated throughout the process of the crime-scene reconstruction. Deductive reasoning is what investigators strive for. This is the process of drawing a conclusion based on known facts or premises. (Clemens D. W., 2012) When an investigator uses deductive reasoning it allows them to come to a definitive conclusion. Inductive reasoning is the process of drawing a conclusion from premises one does not know are correct. (Saferstein, 2009) This is what can lead to a conclusion that is not definitive. Investigators should always seek to test falsifiability of theories. Investigators should try to seek and disprove a theory. Those investigators that are working on a crime-scene reconstruction must be aware of all plausible alternatives. (Bennett, 2007) All investigators must keep an open mind to avoid narrowing their view to one or a few possibilities and potentially excluding more plausible scenarios. Keeping an open mind can be done much easier with a group of other investigators to aid you in the reconstruction. The reconstruction of a crime scene requires a team to work on it because they like to consider many different types of evidence to construct it. The team will work together to find answers to these certain questions, “who, what, where, when, why, and how” of the crime scene. (Clemens D. W., 1998) An Investigator might call on the help of a medical examiner to determine whether a body has been moved after death by evaluating the liver distribution within the body. Once a team is set up then they can start to look at all the physical evidence. The physical evidence plays a vital role in reconstructing the sequence of events surrounding a crime. Even though the evidence may not describe everything that took place at the crime scene, it can support or contradict accounts given by witnesses and/or suspects. Physical evidence can also generate leads and confirm the reconstruction of a crime to a jury. (Bennett, 2007) The collection, documentation, and interpretations of physical evidence are what put together a reconstruction of the crime scene. The analysis of all the data will help to create a workable model for reconstruction. (Clemens D. W., 1998) Investigators don’t only look at one type of evidence. There is also the direct physical evidence. With direct physical evidence, it provides investigators with a definite conclusion or direction. This type of evidence employs deductive reasoning to state a fact that can be understood by everyone. For example, if a transfer bloodstain on the clothing of a homicide victim has a DNA type consistent with that of the suspect, the victim must have had contact with the suspect after the suspect was injured and began bleeding. (Saferstein, 2009) With all the evidence that investigators have gathered, they can begin to do some reenactments. Reenactments are done by live personnel, mannequins, or computer-generated models. Anyone or anything used in a live-reenactment needs to be close to the same size and strength or the actual victim and suspect. (Bennett, 2007) With the reenactments, this allows the investigators to see firsthand if the scenario is even physically possible. This gives them a great look at every option, and helps them to find what really could have happened at a crime scene. After all the physical evidence had been gathered and they have looked at everything, the final step with the crime-scene reconstruction is the, event timeline. This will define each event that occurred at a crime scene in various probable orders within a known or estimated time frame. (Saferstein, 2009) Most investigators will put this timeline into a chart. The reconstruction, can really help the investigators, and jury to see how the events unfolded during the time of the crime. This can really help to put a suspect away, if all the evidence is there. As years go by there is always new advances happening when it comes to technology. Humans are finding new ways to look at any type of evidence, and find ways to link them together. There is a former officer who found a way to make 3-D reconstructions. With this new advance, you can see a crime scene as if you are there watching the entire crime occur. Schade, has found that he can use a free online program to create a detailed 3-D model of a crime scene, based on the measurements and drawing evidence that are obtained from actual crime scenes. Then, with some modifications to gaming software he can virtually show anyone the scene with a computer mouse. With the 3-D modeling, prosecutors can’t go in and change angles, zoom in, or do a flyover. The 3-D animation is much better than the regular animation that is typically used. “If I want to walk a jury through a crime scene I really can’t do it with animation because they’re all looking through one camera angle.” Shade said. “Having an interactive way to walk through things and talk to people while doing it is very helpful. (Henshaw, 2012) Schade spent around 2 years working on his 3-D interactive program. Schade went on to collaborate with two other authors, Elissa St. Clair of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and Andy Maloney if Forident Software, on an article “An Introduction to Building 3-D Crime Scene Models Using Sketchup,” that was published November 20 in the Journal of the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction. (Henshaw, 2012) With new advances for crime-scene reconstruction, the 3-D animations that have come about can really show a real life scene that unfolded. This can aid investigators in putting a criminal away. The judge and jury will be able to see firsthand what occurred. There are so many things that investigators must do in order to make sure the reconstruction of the crime-scene is accurate. Objectivity is a main thing that all investigators must be aware of and be able to follow. A crime-scene reconstruction can show the jury what occurred during a crime. This can be the one piece of evidence that the jurors need to put a suspect behind bars. Bennett, H. B. (2007). Crime Scene Dynamics I & II. Wadsworth: Cengage . Clemens, D. W. (2012, September 09). Importance of Crime Scene Reconstruction: A Case study. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from Crimes and Clues: http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/forensic-science-a-csi/crime-scene-inv Is this the perfect essay for you?Save time and order Crime Scene Reconstructionessay editing for only $12.9 per page.Top grades and quality guaranteed!order now Relevant essay suggestions for Crime Scene Reconstruction Physical evidence comes in all shapes and sizes, and there are multiple search patterns that are used to identify evidence. These patterns include line/strip search (used by one or two… Mock Crime Scene Research Paper We responded to a 911 call concerning the location of Middle Tennessee State University in the College of Education building in room #145, Murfreesboro, TN at 9:50 A.M. The 911… The method of inquiry is the way that an investigator or detective gathers information about a specific case. There is several different method of inquiry such as evidence collection, witness… Reconstruction in Arkansas What was Reconstruction? (Both Presidential and Congressional) How did? Or did it change the South and Arkansas? Reconstruction can be defined as the rebuilding of a city or a town… What is physical evidence? Provide at least three examples in your answer. Physical evidence is anything that can establish a crime has happened and anything that links the crime and the criminal. Three examples… Regular Crime Scenes How are fire scenes different than regular crime scenes for investigators? What is the blast effect? The blast effect is the gasses rushing out from the explosion’s center. What are… reasoning Previous essay Next essay 2014-2016 © Blablawriting. All rights reserved

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/9315

Chomsky: Obama ‘Determined To Demolish The Foundations Of Our Civil Liberties’ Scott GreerDeputy Editor 4202879Progressive hero Noam Chomsky is terrified of the surveillance state that has developed during the tenure of President Barack Obama, calling it a grave threat to our fundamental civil liberties. In a column published Monday, Chomsky writes that the documents revealed to the public by Edward Snowden show a system that is flagrantly violating the principles of the Constitution. “It is of no slight import that the project is being executed in one of the freest countries in the world, and in radical violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,’ and guarantees the privacy of their persons, houses, papers and effects,” Chomsky said. “Much as government lawyers may try, there is no way to reconcile these principles with the assault on the population revealed in the Snowden documents.” The scope and depth of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program is what particularly troubles the retired MIT professor and leads him to conclude that our current president is set on undermining the foundations of our society. “The documents unveil a remarkable project to expose to state scrutiny vital information about every person who falls within the grasp of the colossus — in principle, every person linked to the modern electronic society,” Chomsky wrote. “As the colossus fulfills its visions, in principle every keystroke might be sent to President Obama’s huge and expanding databases in Utah.” “In other ways too, the constitutional lawyer in the White House seems determined to demolish the foundations of our civil liberties. The principle of the presumption of innocence, which dates back to Magna Carta 800 years ago, has long been dismissed to oblivion.” All this adds up to a system that George Orwell would’ve been incapable of envisioning as “Nothing so ambitious was imagined by the dystopian prophets of grim totalitarian worlds ahead.” And like the totalitarian government in “1984,” this apparatus is designed — in Chomsky’s opinion — to defend state power from the threat of an unruly domestic population and make transparency a one-way street between the government and its private citizens. “Throughout, the basic principle remains: Power must not be exposed to the sunlight. Edward Snowden has become the most wanted criminal in the world for failing to comprehend this essential maxim,” the professor concludes. “In brief, there must be complete transparency for the population, but none for the powers that must defend themselves from this fearsome internal enemy.” Follow Scott on Twitter Tags: Barack Obama, National Security Agency, Noam Chomsky Show 1 comment Free News Alerts

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/9497

Law and rights Law and rights Fundamental Rights under the Irish Constitution The Irish Constitution recognises and declares that you have certain fundamental personal rights. These are confirmed and protected by the Constitution. Legislation This document describes how laws are made by the Oireachtas (the Irish parliament). European laws The fundamental laws of the European Union are set out in the Treaties. Find out how the institutions of the EU also have the power to make new laws. Appealing rights under EU law An outline of how your rights are safeguarded under EU law and the various European institutions involved Access to Garda records Under data protection legislation you have the right to access personal information which the Gardaí hold on you, except in certain circumstances. Find out how to access your information. Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission The Commission promotes and protects human rights and equality. In some cases, it can assist you to further human rights issues by assisting with legal proceedings. Judicial review of public decisions Public decisions may be judicially reviewed by the High Court to determine whether they are illegal. Find out how to initiate judicial review proceedings.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/9553

| Doby v. Williams Doby v. Williams New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division LUTHER DOBY, PLAINTIFF,v.JOSEPH WILLIAMS, EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ELIZABETH VILLAUME, DECEASED, DEFENDANT, AND ALICE DOBY, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-CROSS-CLAIMANT Conklin, J.c.c. (temporarily assigned). The plaintiff, Luther Doby, instituted this action in the district court against the executor of the estate of Elizabeth Villaume for services performed and materials supplied in the amount of $1,000, later amended to $2,000. On the motion by the defendant, the wife of the plaintiff, Alice Doby was brought in as a third-party defendant. Upon being made a third-party defendant to this action, Alice Doby filed a cross-claim against the estate, alleging in substance that for work and services performed the decedent contracted to devise a summer bungalow in the Township of Sparta to her. The defendant denies the allegations of the complaint and the cross-complaint. He contends that any services rendered and materials furnished were on a voluntary basis and that there was no promise expressed or implied to devise the property in question to the cross-complainant. At the outset the court takes this opportunity to frown upon the practice which was employed in the district court of allowing the third-party defendant to be brought in as a party to this action. R.R. 4:14-1 circumscribes the factual pattern under which this rule allows a defendant to "implead" a third-party defendant. In brief, the essence of the rule states: "* * * A defendant may move * * * for leave as a third-party plaintiff to serve a summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action, who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him." [53 NJSuper Page 552] Thus it may seem that the third-party practice enables a defendant to bring in a stranger to the action, denominated a "third-party defendant," in order to pass on to that defendant the liability which the plaintiff has asserted against the defendant. Sattelberger v. Telep , 14 N.J. 353 (1954). Nor is the court of the opinion that Alice Doby should have been joined as a necessary party under R.R. 4:32-1. This conclusion is a necessary product of the fact that the claims asserted by both the plaintiff and the third-party defendant are independent of one another and in no way are dependent upon each other. Because Alice Doby was joined as a third-party defendant, some clarifying remarks are in order vis-a-vis the competency of the testimony of Alice Doby in support of the claim of Luther Doby, and the testimony of Luther Doby on the claim asserted by Alice Doby. N.J.S. 2 A:81-2, the so-called "Dead Man's Act," proscribes testimony "when one party to any civil action is * * * sued in a representative capacity, no other party thereto may testify as to any transaction with or statement by * * * the decedent * * *." Because the third-party defendant was improperly joined as a party, the court feels that the aforementioned statute is no inhibition when it states that "no other party" may testify. The third-party defendant is at most a nominal party, and her presence in the case should not blind us to the reality that her claim upon the estate of the decedent is separate and distinct and in no way a concomitant part of the claim of the plaintiff. Nor are the parties disqualified under the above statute because they stand in a position of husband and wife. In Trust Company of New Jersey v. Farawell , 127 N.J. Eq. 45 (E. & A. 1939), it was held that where it was sought to establish a trust in bank accounts maintained by a mother in favor of two daughters, testimony of the husbands of the two daughters with respect to conversations or transactions [53 NJSuper Page 553] with the mother after her demise was admissible. In Wooster v. Eagan , 88 N.J.L. 687 (E. & A. 1915), it was held that in a suit brought by a husband for services rendered by his wife to the defendant's intestate under an agreement made between the wife and the deceased in her lifetime, the wife is a competent witness as to transactions with the deceased. The cases are replete with holdings that the mere fact that a party testifying will benefit by the receipt of his testimony into evidence does not per se bar the admissibility of that evidence under the "Dead Man's Act," even though that witness be the spouse of the party to the action. Turning now to the merits of Alice Doby's claim against the estate and looking with an eye which is unburdened by any reason of her having been wrongfully joined as a party, and further finding that the "Dead Man's Act" is no inhibition to her husband's testimony as it bears upon her claim, the court is of the opinion that the proofs elicited do not measure up to the requirements of the law for an expressed contract claim against a decedent's estate. As stated in Yuritch v. Yuritch , 139 N.J. Eq. 439 (Ch. 1947): "For such a contract to be enforced, it must be clearly proven, it must be mutual, it must be definite and certain both in its terms and as to its subject matter, and it must clearly appear that that which is alleged to have been done in part performance was referable to and consequent upon the contract alone, and done to carry it into effect." In addition, such a claim flies in the face of the statute of frauds and the statute of wills, and in such cases, in order to take the case out of the statute on the ground of part performance, the terms of the contract must be established by proof which has been required to meet the test of "clear, definite, and unequivocal * * *." Cooper v. Colson , 66 N.J. Eq. 328 (E. & A. 1903). A recent endorsement [53 NJSuper Page 554] of the Cooper case rule will be found in Robertson v. Hackensack Trust Company , 1 N.J. 304 (1949). The proofs proffered reveal that the decedent had purchased a summer bungalow which was used on the weekends by her, by Jack Ord, a nephew of the decedent and brother of Alice Doby, and by the Doby family. It further appears that the habitation of this bungalow was that of a community of cooperation and pooling of assets. Mr. Ord, who was an electrician, performed some electrical work around the house. The decedent, Mrs. Villaume, supplied furniture, a refrigerator and stove, household utilities, and food. The Doby family supplied food and some of the furniture. The evidence reveals that all of the women cooperated with each other in the maintenance of a summer home. Mr. Doby worked extensively landscaping the premises, clearing trees and shrubbery, filling in holes, moving rocks to permit ingress for his automobile, and building a patio. In a word, he was the handy man about the house. The Doby children were the recipients of a weekend of wholesome, rural life at the bungalow. Their time was occupied in partaking of the swimming, hiking, and boating facilities available in the area. As one sits back and views the entire arrangement in perspective, the evidence leaves in the mind a feeling that the bungalow was run in a communal manner with all persons sharing in the family relationship. The court is of the opinion that the proofs on behalf of the cross-claimant do not leave the mind in that state where one can say that clear and convincing proofs have established a contract whereby the decedent was to will the property in question in exchange for the services performed by the cross-claimant, Alice Doby. The evidence offered does not leave the court with the feeling that a contract had been entered into, in view of the fact that the spirit of the entire venture seemed to be more one of mutual cooperation and family conviviality rather than a business transaction. [53 NJSuper Page 555] Turning to the claim of the plaintiff, Luther Doby, the court feels that the proofs do not establish a claim sufficient to enable the plaintiff to recovery under the rationale of the case of Cerria v. DeFazio , 19 N.J. Super. 482 (App. Div. 1952). In the Cerria case the court held recovery could be sustained on the theory of quantum meruit where work and services were performed by a daughter-in-law for her father-in-law. The court recognized the prevailing law that when services are rendered by a member of the family, they are presumed to be gratuitous, but felt that this rule did not apply because, although the plaintiff was related to the recipient of the services, she was not living in the household of the recipient of the services and did not receive any benefits in return stemming from the family relationship. In the case sub judice the plaintiff was living under the same roof as the decedent and was the recipient of the companionship as well as the material gains which normally flow from a family relationship, making the Cerria case, supra , clearly distinguishable on the facts. The court holds that the services rendered by the plaintiff would more clearly fit into the holding of the case of Disbrow v. Durand , 54 N.J.L. 343 (E. & A. 1892). The court stated in the Disbrow case that: "Ordinarily, where services are rendered and voluntarily accepted, the law will imply a promise upon the part of the recipient to pay for them; but where the services are rendered by members of a family, living as one household, to each other, there will be no such implication, from the mere rendition and acceptance of the services." It is to be specifically noted that the court did not confine the term "members of a family" in the Disbrow case to those who are related by consanguinity but rested the decision upon a broader basis, to wit: "It rests upon the idea of the mutual dependence of those who are members of one immediate family * * *." [53 NJSuper Page 556] Because the proofs offered at the trial exhibit the existence of a family relationship from which substantial benefits were derived from all participating, the court is of the opinion that a presumption of gratuity arises for any goods and services furnished by the plaintiff, and further, that the proofs submitted on behalf of the plaintiff fail to hurdle the barrier of this presumption. For the reasons stated above the court holds that neither plaintiff nor third-party defendant and cross-claimant have sustained a claim against the estate of Elizabeth Villaume. Let an appropriate order be submitted.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/9582

Learn More About Contract Law in Corder, Missouri Homecontract lawmissouricorder Corder is a city in Lafayette County, Missouri, United States. The population was 427 at the 2000 census. Contract Law Lawyers In Corder Missouri What is contract law? A contract is a promise, or set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. Contracts law involves assisting individuals and businesses in the negotiation and execution of all types of legally enforceable agreements -- including contracts for the sale of property, employment agreements, and promissory notes -- and also to represent clients in legal disputes and litigation to enforce contracts. Answers to contract law issues in Missouri What does it take to make a contract? A contract is an agreement between two persons to either do something or not to do something in exchange for some... What are defenses to enforcement of a contract? There are several defenses that can conceivably be asserted to a claim to enforce a contract. For instance, if one... What are important components to look out for in a contract? In reviewing a written contract, there are several things that the parties need to be on the lookout for: When is it a good idea to have a contract? A contract is an agreement between at least two people or companies, in which they each promise to do something for... How do you modify a contract? Sometimes, after you have entered into a contract, you may need to modify it. Either time has passed and... Federal court opinions concerning contract law in Missouri 196 F2d 398 Migliaccio v. Continental Mining & Milling Co 208 F2d 411 United States v. T W Corder 218 F2d 596 Coca-Cola Company v. Victor Syrup Corporation 310 F2d 764 Dickey Clay Manufacturing Company v. H Corder W H C 390 F2d 193 Bowser and Campbell v. Knox Glass Inc 401 F2d 193 Civic Plaza National Bank v. First National Bank in Dallas 448 F2d 709 Moore v. Board of Education of Chidester School District No Chidester Arkansas 556 F2d 1331 Blair v. Robstown Independent School District 595 F2d 1023 United States v. P Cowart 631 F2d 1344 Armstrong v. Republic Realty Mortgage Corporation Homecontract lawmissouricorder

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/9610

Business » Harmonisation and Reforms in Labour Laws Critical to India's Burgeoning ... Harmonisation and Reforms in Labour Laws Critical to India's Burgeoning Staffing Industry By: PRHUB Delhi, India (PressExposure) February 28, 2012 -- Indian Staffing Federation (ISF), an apex body of the temporary staffing industry in India, today unveiled a detailed discussion paper that outlines the contours of the growing staffing scenario in India. Besides detailing the major challenges facing the industry, the paper also outlines its recommendations to address and overcome the same. ISF also announced on the occasion that this discussion paper will be presented to key Central government bodies and other relevant authorities for further perusal and consideration. The discussion paper comes at a time when the Indian staffing industry is posting significant growth of 10% -15% year-on-year and has the potential for even higher growth given a more conducive regulatory environment. K. PandiaRajan, President, ISF said, "The time is ripe for seriously looking at staffing as an industry in India. And all the more, after staffing is playing a huge role in providing decent work to many across the globe in time of uncertainties. Staffing Industry has the potential to create millions of jobs in India too if supported by conducive laws and regulations. Also, the industry can play a huge and active role in supporting the government with respect to skilling our labour force. This discussion paper is a step to sensitise the key stakeholders about the challenges this industry is facing and recommendations to alleviate them. It is truly comprehensive and marks a milestone forward for the industry at large." He further added, "The senior executives of ISF will present the issue paper to relevant central and state ministries over the next few weeks to ensure this is perused and considered in various policy discussions taking place at different levels. Labour reforms are crucial and key to the growth of staffing industry in India, and this initiative by ISF is to facilitate the change through an objective process of education and awareness." "This issue paper from ISF's stable is an attempt to shed some light on various short and long term issues faced by the industry", added Basudev Mukherjee, Executive Director, ISF. "One of the many issues that we have raised is the issue of Service Tax, which is a big concern for most of the companies in the services sector especially, the Staffing industry where it puts a lot of pressure on working capital as the margins are very low", he further added. About Indian Staffing Federation (ISF) Indian Staffing Federation, ISF has been founded by leading staffing companies with one common goal - Staffing India's Growth. While being an established form of outsourcing, temporary staffing in India is yet to be recognised and adopted as an effective means to running a business. With a penetration of just 2%, ISF is championing this industry, with suitable and supporting regulation. The Staffing Industry provides a platform for recognised employment, work choice, even compensation, annual benefits and health benefits for the temporary workforce that constitutes almost 70% of India's total workforce.The purpose of ISF is to enhance long-term growth and ensure its continued ability to make positive contributions to the economy as well as the society through the services of the Staffing Industry. The principal focus of the Federation's activities shall be triangular employment relationships, in which the staffing company is the employer of the temporary worker, who works under the supervision of the user company. For further details: http://www.indianstaffingfederation.org About PRHUB Indian Staffing Federation Press Release Source: http://PressExposure.com/PR/PRHUB.html

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/9767

Court ruling exempts home child care workers from union rule By Colleen QuinnState House News Service BOSTON -- Child care providers who operate out of their homes cannot be required to join a union or pay dues, under a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling that is reverberating in Massachusetts. During passage of a 2012 state law that allows home-based child care and personal care providers to join a union, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would allow providers to negotiate with the state over payment rates. In April, six women who provide in-home care filed a separate lawsuit in Massachusetts courts to stop implementation of the law, arguing it was intended to designate the Service Employees International Union as the “monopoly political representative” of providers, with “forced dues and fees.” The women sued the Department of Early Education and Care and SEIU. The case has not yet been decided.The Massachusetts law gives home care providers the option of joining a union, but does not require them to join, according to Johannes Buchanan, legislative director for Sen. Gale Candaras, a Democrat from Wilbraham who sponsored the bill in the Senate. In Harris v. Quinn, the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down a similar Illinois law, ruling that individuals who indirectly receive state subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees. The court’s ruling rendered unconstitutional similar home care unionization laws in 14 other states, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the group that filed the federal lawsuit in the Illinois case. Last Friday, SEIU officials notified Massachusetts home child care providers that they will not collect dues from anyone who does not want to join the union, according Kathleen D’Agostino, a Watertown resident who is a plaintiff in the suit filed in Massachusetts. “Now here in Massachusetts we have a choice,” D’Agostino said Tuesday.A spokesman for SEIU said child care providers always had a choice.“Despite the anti-worker rhetoric and misinformation from national special interest groups, Massachusetts providers remain united in their efforts to ensure every child has access to quality early education and care,” Jason Stephany, a spokesman for SEIU Local 509, said in an emailed statement. “Thousands of early childhood educators in Massachusetts have come together to form their union in recent years.”D’Agostino said when the child care unionization law was implemented in Massachusetts any child care provider who accepted state vouchers for low-income children was being forced to join SEIU. D’Agostino said that SEIU began deducting dues in June from some providers who care for children with state vouchers. She said she spoke with one child care provider who had $300 deducted from her check. “It all depended on the number of children in your program with a voucher,” she said. Stephany disputed the claim, saying only those who signed up as members have paid dues.“This latest attack from a Washington D.C. anti-worker group is just another attempt to roll back the unprecedented strides Bay State providers have made towards improving the quality of early education and expanding access to affordable child care in Massachusetts,” Stephany said in the statement. D’Agostino said the group of home child care providers who filed the suit argued there was no benefit to belonging to the union. The state pays $28 a day for child with a voucher, according to D’Agostino. “That was our big thing. That is why were fighting it. We were only declared state employees for the purpose of unionizing us, and forcing us to join SEIU,” she said.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/9999

Co-Extra > country reports > authorities IT for Italy Relevant authorities in ItalyItaly has incorporated all EU regulations on GMOs into national law. In addition to the legal framework on national level, some of Italy’s regions have implemented local regulations.Regulatory bodies In Italy, the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for a co-existence scheme.General regulation on GMOs The Ministry of the Environment is the national competent authority with regard to GMOs in Italy. The national competent authority is required to consult with the public during the decision-making process for the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. The authority reports the results of these public consultations to the Interministerial Evaluation Commission for consideration in the final decision regarding the possible release of the specific GMO in question. Following a favourable decision, the relevant Ministry provides the authorisation for the deliberate release of the GMOs on the basis of verification by the Release Evaluation Commission the assessment of possible effects on human health, animal health and on the environment with particular attention to natural ecosystems; the level of compatibility with existing management practices regarding biodiversity, agricultural systems, and particularly organic and traditional produce. GMO regulations at the regional level were developed by other bodies. Co-existence and traceability The Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (MiPAF) is responsible for GM seed testing and is the competent authority for developing a co-existence scheme. It is supported by the Ministry of Environment. The regions are responsible for the implementation of co-existence rules. Italy installed the Committee for the Coexistence of Transgenic, Conventional and Organic Farming. Because Italy is composed of self-governing provinces, regional voices play a role in the drafting of co-existence legislation. The Instituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) is the main technical and scientific body of the Italian National Health Service. It studies the issues of GMO detection and traceability in the food supply chain. The National Committee for Biotechnology and Biosafety coordinates, harmonises, and integrates the programmes, initiatives, and activities of the Ministries and organisations involved in biotechnology. Regional Co-extra reporter /rapporteur:Gonzalo PlatasSpain Email: gplatas@telefonica.netPhone: +34 676401546 Back to overview page for Italy

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10006

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of NSA Phone Spying Program Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - 3:43pmACLUContact: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.orgACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of NSA Phone Spying Program The ACLU, a Verizon Customer, Says Government Data Collection Violates Its First and Fourth Amendment RightsNEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a constitutional challenge to a surveillance program under which the National Security Agency vacuums up information about every phone call placed within, from, or to the United States. The lawsuit argues that the program violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and association as well as the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The complaint also charges that the dragnet program exceeds the authority that Congress provided through the Patriot Act. "This dragnet program is surely one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. "It is the equivalent of requiring every American to file a daily report with the government of every location they visited, every person they talked to on the phone, the time of each call, and the length of every conversation. The program goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act and represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy." The ACLU is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services, which was the recipient of a secret FISA Court order published by The Guardian last week. The order required the company to "turn over on 'an ongoing daily basis' phone call details" such as who calls are placed to and from, and when those calls are made. The lawsuit argues that the government's blanket seizure of and ability to search the ACLU's phone records compromises sensitive information about its work, undermining the organization's ability to engage in legitimate communications with clients, journalists, advocacy partners, and others. "The crux of the government's justification for the program is the chilling logic that it can collect everyone's data now and ask questions later," said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project. "The Constitution does not permit the suspicionless surveillance of every person in the country." The ACLU's 2008 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act, which authorized the so-called "warrantless wiretapping program," was dismissed 5–4 by the Supreme Court in February on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove that they had been monitored. ACLU attorneys working on today's complaint said they do not expect the issue of standing to be a problem in this case because of the FISA Court order revealed last week. Yesterday, the ACLU and Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic filed a motion with the FISA Court, requesting that it to publish its opinions on the meaning, scope, and constitutionality of Patriot Act Section 215. The ACLU is also currently litigating a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, filed in October 2011, demanding that the Justice Department release information about the government's use and interpretation of Section 215. "There needs to be a bright line on where intelligence gathering stops," said NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman. "If we don't say this is too far, when is too far?" Attorneys on the case are Jaffer and Abdo along with Brett Max Kaufman and Patrick Toomey of the ACLU, and Arthur N. Eisenberg and Christopher T. Dunn of the NYCLU. An interactive graphic examining the secret FISA Court order revealed last week is available here. ###The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) conserves America's original civic values working in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the United States by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.Organization Links ACLUACLU (Press Center)ACLU (Action Center)Share This Article

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10025

Vigilant small businesses can benefit from major patent law reform Guest Voices By CRAIG A. MARVINNEY LinkedIn Google+ Craig A. Marvinney Craig A. Marvinney is a partner at Walter & Haverfield LLP. In September 2011, the President signed the America Invents Act (AIA) into law. With this new law, phased in over the past year and with key provisions fully in effect by March 2013, come a number of changes affecting how small business owners and inventors can via patent protect their important life blood – their inventions. It has raised differing opinions as to whether or not it helps or hurts small businesses and solo inventors.According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the resulting changes to the patent process are aimed to help small businesses by securing patent protection for inventions in a variety of ways, including establishing favorable legal provisions that speed the patent application process and enhance the quality review of patent applications.Overall, this is a good thing. However – depending on the circumstances – some opponents believe the law actually could hurt the small business sector – particularly in the case of inventors who are slow with paperwork and filing. One notable objector, the National Small Business Association, a leading national small business advocacy organization, opposed the law, saying it places legal uncertainty over patent rights and takes away key legal provisions that small businesses and start-ups have used for many years.Here's why: The new changes in the patent law eliminate the century-old “first-to-invent” system and replaces it with the “first-to-file” requirement, based on the current European model. The first inventor to file for a patent gets it. There is no longer a need to produce evidence that the inventor kept notes and careful documents of his or her “Eureka” moment, and then prove it in court. This is designed to cut down on litigation – a bonus for many companies. However, small businesses that do not pay attention to the first-to-file race could miss out and lose their patent rights. It's definitely a proverbial, “you snooze, you lose,” scenario.That's not to say the law is harmful, despite protests from its objectors. There are distinct advantages to the first-to-file scenario under the new law in that it prevents the long, extended lawsuits and potential bullying that can take place by larger companies with the resources to litigate against a small company for a long time over the smaller company's patent. Consider the experience of small-time inventor Bob Kearns, who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. His case against the Ford Motor Company was made famous in the 2008 movie, “Flash of Genius,”starring Greg Kinnear. Kearns' case against Ford to protect his invention, his patent, his product, lasted years in the late 60s/early 70s, and cost him tens of thousands of dollars and, arguably, his marriage. He litigated about how Ford stole his idea and that case risked everything he stood for. Eventually (plot spoiler) he won, but it cost him dearly in his family, standing and treasure. But, he won, and he won big.With the new law in place, vigilant small businesses avoid Kearns' situation and guard their products through prompt patent and trademark protection. The trademark is a registration of the business' brand concept in the form of a logo, or other symbol/writing. The patent requires an application be made to show the product is novel, non-obvious and is workable. In the case of written materials, copyright law also helps. These same vigilant companies also can protect themselves with “assignments of inventorship”, confidentiality, non-disclosure and non-compete agreements. Also strict trade secret enforcement is also important.The small businesses that cut corners to avoid the expense of licensing and non-compete agreements are the ones who likely will suffer under the changes to the patent law. Those that take on a consultant to help with a particular design without a trade secret agreement, confidentiality agreement, non-compete agreement or especially, an assignment of inventorship rights, then run the risk that a wily consultant might rush to the patent office and file a patent application --- and grab the patent before the actual inventor/small business. Under the new law, there are some limited ways potentially to challenge that, but they involve much litigation and expense. The best and most inexpensive way is for the small business to protect products/work/research up front is by using the various intellectual property protections as noted above – before consultants ever start working on a development project.Additionally, small businesses working toward developing an invention/product need to ensure a competitor/larger or even giant company doesn't file a pre-emptive patent application just to grab the patent. Secrecy is paramount. Remember the old adage, “Loose lips sink ships.”On the whole, the new changes to patent rules under the AIA are good for small businesses that are willing to spend a little up front to protect their intellectual property BEFORE it is stolen or grabbed by another. In fact, if Bob Kearns had gone out today, and filed before Ford did, then much of that litigation would have been avoided – as he'd not be challenged on WHEN he first came up with the idea. Hollywood would have missed out on a movie, but Kearns could have saved time and money on lengthy, complicated litigation.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10286

Eriq Gardner , Ashley Cullins Skeptical Judge Gives 'Straight Outta Compton' Lawsuit One Last Shot Photofest Former N.W.A. manager Jerry Heller's lawsuit is troubled, says California federal judge. At a hearing on Monday, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald nearly ran a lawsuit brought by former N.W.A. manager Jerry Heller straight outta his courtroom. Heller is suing almost everyone involved in Straight Outta Compton — the biopic of the rap act consisting of Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, Eazy E and others — thanks to Paul Giamatti's unflattering portrayal of him. The plaintiff contends that he was defamed in the film for doing things like withholding a $75,000 check from Ice Cube and enjoying lobster brunches while contracts were being finalized. Heller also says he was not compensated for the use of his likeness and claims that the defendants stole his work and breached an agreement that settled an old dispute with the Eazy E estate. NBCUniversal seeks to have the lawsuit dismissed as an impingement of free speech and argues that Heller has no hopes of prevailing since the film touched upon controversial historical events subject to various interpretations — and that Heller himself has injected himself into the controversy by authoring his own book recounting his version of these events. "Mr. Heller is clearly a sophisticated and wealthy man," said Fitzgerald at Monday's hearing. "He's written this book. They've made this movie ... in the '80s, as an old white guy, I was aware of N.W.A. As the case goes forward, Mr. Heller is going to have some real trouble here." The judge granted defendants' motions in part, but has allowed an amended complaint to cure deficiencies. (A copy of the tentative order was only provided to the attorneys in the case.) "The court's made it clear we have one more shot at this," said Heller's attorney Michael Shapiro. Heller gets another day, but the judge also noted at the hearing that he "is very much a public figure," a determination that could play into California's SLAPP statute as well as make it more difficult for Heller to prevail on his defamation claims. He'll need to show that any of the defendants — including Dr. Dre and Ice Cube — had knowledge of falsity or recklessly disregarded the truth. The lawsuit targets a great number of people and companies: director F. Gary Gray, the Oscar-nominated screenwriters, Legendary Pictures, the estate of Eazy E, etc. When the lawsuit was originally filed, we noted that Shapiro was slapped with sanctions last year for failing to serve the many defendants in a lawsuit over music used in The Steve Harvey Show. The possibility of sanctions hangs over this case as well if Heller can't provide specific allegations to each of the defendants. Jeff Scott, attorney for the defendants, told the judge he wants to "cut the wheat from the chaff" in terms of defendants. He added, "You can't just sue 20 people and say I'll figure it out later." Ashley Cullins ashley.cullins@thr.com @AshleyCullins

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10344

Shock and awe e-discovery: combatting asymmetrical costs Learn about the various paths to e-discovery cost-shifting By Michele LangeMarch 22, 2013 Slipping into a pattern of settling nonmeritorious claims is a soul-trapping experience for many general counsels. With e-discovery costs only making the problem worse, Edgar Allen Poe’s The Raven may ring in an in-house attorney’s ear, with plaintiffs “gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.” But before burgeoning e-discovery costs cause you to say “nevermore” when contesting a claim, ponder these paths to e-discovery cost-shifting. Look Beyond Zubulake Cost-shifting under the “gold-standard” Zubulake case is particularly hostile to large corporations, especially when a plaintiff is seeking volumes of discovery (particularly internal communications) from a large organization. Under Zubulake, a responding party must first establish that the information is “not reasonably accessible” (e.g., the data is on backup tapes, is in a customized database or is erased, fragmented or damaged). Once this showing is made, a court will weigh the seven Zubulake factors to analyze whether cost-shifting is appropriate. At least three of the most important factors are arguably pro-plaintiff: 1. “The availability of information from other sources.” In the common scenario where a plaintiff is seeking communications about something – for example, contract negotiations, termination policies or patterns of conduct – these communications will almost always reside on a central e-mail or messaging system and are seldom available elsewhere. 2. “The total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party.” The bigger you are the harder you fall; this factor is almost always going to disfavor a large corporate entity. 3. “The extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information.” The problem, as corporations are becoming acutely aware of, is that even arguably reasonable requests for information mask immense amounts of different forms of electronic communication—e-mails, memos, instant messages, text messages, etc.—which can be exceedingly burdensome to manage. Even though these Zubulake factors are arguably pro-plaintiff, this traditional cost-shifting argument is definitely worth pursuing, but it is not a certain win. Many litigants ask: are there any other avenues of relief? Utilize Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(2)(C) requires a court to limit discovery where the “burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” It is plausible that requests for information which may be viewed as reasonably accessible under Zubulake and FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) may still be disproportionate under FRCP 26(b)(2)(C)proportionality rule. Be Creative (and add Vaughn v. LA Fitness to your arsenal) In Vaughn, a putative contract dispute class action, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered shifting e-discovery costs prior to ruling on class certification. The court identified several unique aspects of the case. First, it was a case of “asymmetrical” discovery, costs would skyrocket if certification was granted and the defendants had already complied with extensive discovery. Additionally, the court noted that discovery was not being conducted solely on the merits of the case, but rather to determine whether certification was appropriate. The court reasoned that if the plaintiffs’ counsel had confidence in certification, “they should have no objection to making an investment.” The court concluded that “where (1) class certification is pending, and (2) the plaintiffs have asked for very extensive discovery, compliance with which will be very expensive, that absent compelling equitable circumstances to the contrary, the plaintiffs should pay for the discovery they seek.” Although the court limited its holding to class actions, the underlying principle is more broadly applicable—“Discovery need not be perfect, but discovery must be fair.” Ultimately, the court shifted all costs despite the fact that the responding party was a large company. Collaborate with the Opposition to Leverage a Joint Discovery Platform E-discovery technology can provide solutions to the “big data” problem. For example, plaintiffs and defendants or multiple defendants in a joint defense group can save costs by leveraging a single, multiparty discovery platform. Centralized discovery databases, hosted in the cloud and built with strong security protocols to keep data segregated across parties, are effective tools to curb production costs. Before concluding that plaintiffs have no incentive to agree to some form of e-discovery platform cost- sharing, consider that they too are mindful of e-discovery costs—reviewing disorganized productions is costly. At the very least, cooperation and cost agreements decrease time and expenses funneled into discovery motion practice. Consider Taxation of Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) enables parties to recoup certain discovery costs after the case is over. The statute provides for the necessary “costs of making copies of any materials.” In the wake of the Race Tires case, courts may be less inclined to grant taxation of general e-discovery costs (e.g., creating an e-discovery database); however, anytime you are engaged in creating electronic copies (e.g. reproducing or converting files) not for your own convenience, the resulting costs may be taxable (and are definitely worth documenting). When e-discovery costs seem overwhelming, remember, e-discovery cost allocation is in its infancy. With a significant divergence in the courts, it is up to you to set the pace for the next watershed e-discovery decision. « Prev Michele Lange Michele C.S. Lange is the director of thought leadership and industry relations for Kroll Ontrack. In this role, she regularly writes and speaks on topics... Understanding How Analytics and Linear Review Can Coexist Litigation 3662 Innovation 1457 Class Action 952 E-Discovery 644 Pennsylvania 172 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38 E-discovery technology 26 internal communications 15 Join the Conversation

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10361

US protection of Europeans' personal data is inadequate, says EU court official The Advocate General's opinion, if followed by the court, could spell disruption for U.S. companies such as Facebook and Google processing Europeans' personal data By Peter Sayer Paris Bureau Chief, IDG News Service | EU, US officials close in on broad privacy accords Europe's top court to review personal data exchange between EU and US Privacy campaigners want review of Irish Facebook, Prism decisions Rules for how U.S. companies handle Europeans' personal information under the Safe Harbor agreement do not ensure adequate protection of the data, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union has advised in an opinion that threatens the operations of thousands of companies exchanging data between the European Union and the U.S.Advocate General Yves Bot's opinion could open the way for national governments across the EU to set their own standards for the protection of exported data, potentially disrupting the activities of thousands of companies, including social networks, search engines and payroll processors. The opinion, on a case relating to the activities of U.S. social network Facebook, is not binding on the court, although the judges do typically follow such opinions.Lobby group Digital Europe, which counts Google and Microsoft but not Facebook among its members, immediately expressed concern about what will happen if the court follows the Advocate General's opinion. In addition to business operations, such a decision could disrupt the EU's plans for the digital single market, a set of harmonized e-commerce, copyright and privacy laws, and call into question model contract clauses on data sharing the world over, the group warned.Bot's opinion concerns a rather convoluted case brought before the High Court of Ireland by Austrian citizen Maximillian Schrems. When he failed to obtain satisfaction from the Irish Data Protection Commissioner regarding a complaint against Facebook, he asked the court for a judicial review. He had made the complaint in Ireland because Facebook's European headquarters is there, putting its interactions with citizens of any EU country under Irish data protection law.EU law requires that companies exporting EU citizens' personal data do so only to countries providing a similar level of legal protection for that data. In the case of the U.S., the exchange of personal data is covered by the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, which the European Commission ruled in July 2000 provide adequate protection. The Commission is renegotiating those principles with the U.S., but in Bot's opinion should have suspended the existing agreement rather than allowing it to continue during the negotiations. EDRi, the European Digital Rights lobby group, welcomed Bot's criticism of the Commission's inaction, adding that the Commission should never again be allowed to keep in force agreements that the group described as "patently illegal."Schrems triggered the case in 2013, when he became concerned by the revelations of NSA contractor Edward Snowden that intelligence services in the U.S. were spying on data held there by companies such as Facebook. He filed a complaint that June with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), disputing the level of protection the privacy principles offered data about him held by Facebook.The DPC summarily rejected the complaint in July 2013, pointing to the Commission's finding that the Safe Harbor principles followed by Facebook were adequate.Schrems sought a judicial review of the DPC's decision from the High Court of Ireland in October that year, and in June 2014 the High Court referred questions about the case to the Court of Justice of the EU.In his opinion, Bot said the DPC should not have used the Commission's ruling on the adequacy of the Safe Harbor principles as an excuse to avoid hearing Schrem's complaint. Despite the ruling, national regulators should be allowed to determine such matters themselves, he said.The CJEU's judges have just begun to debate that and other matters referred to them. Their ruling, when it comes, will be binding on the the Irish High Court.Schrems is pinning his hopes on Bot."It seems like years of work could pay off. Now we just have to hope that the judges of the Court of Justice will follow the Advocate General's opinion in principle," he wrote upon reading the opinion. Peter Sayer covers European public policy, artificial intelligence, the blockchain, and other technology breaking news for the IDG News Service.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10367

Commercial Real Estate › Indigenous Peoples + Follow Read Commercial Real Estate Law updates, news, and legal commentary from leading lawyers and law firms: News & Analysis as of December 9, 2016 Tweet Aboveground Storage Tank Act: Compliance Challenges Since August 1, 2016 Office Real Estate Market in Bay Area Showing First Signs of a Turn Office and Retail Show Topping Out While Multi-Family and Industrial Continue to Thrive Strong Demand for Multi-Family Real Estate Shows No Sign of Slowing Online Purchases Force Retail Real Estate Markets into Dramatic Transformation E-commerce and Warehouse Space Driving a Boom in Industrial Real Estate Markets Chinese Investors Show Growing Interest in US Real Estate Market Real Estate E&O Policy Exclusions Arising from Bank-Owned Properties Survey Reveals Surprising Growth in Retail and the East Bay No Sign of Slowing in Multi-Family Boom Profound Growth in Retail Despite Online Shopping Rise Office Optimism Tempered with End of Cycle Predicitions Online Shopping Driving Demand and Redefining Industrial The Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act - What is It and What Does It Mean for You? Eric Stern on How Higher Education Does Real Estate 2015 Northern California Real Estate Women of Influence Who Pays For Mediation? Polsinelli Podcast - Selling Your Business What will happen at my mediation? If somebody owes me money, can I put a lien against their real estate? Court Decisions Define the Future for Tribal Gaming Definitions and syntax. Not only on middle school quizzes, but also what determined the fate of the Mashpee Wampanoag and Cowlitz tribal casinos in Massachusetts and Washington, respectively. Two federal court decisions...more The Pursuit For An Island Casino by Goodwin on 6/6/2016 The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) continues its efforts to add casino bingo to the summer getaways and lobster rolls on Martha’s Vineyard. In November 2015, Massachusetts, the town of Aquinnah, and the Aquinnah/Gay...more On Your Mark, Get Set, Build! It has been nearly five years since Massachusetts legalized casino gambling, but the state is still without an operating resort casino. The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, MGM Resorts International, and Wynn Resorts are all chomping...more State, Local Taxes on Tribal Leases Vulnerable After California Court Order Indian country may be close to another victory against state and local taxes. On Feb. 8, 2016, a California district court issued an order that signals it is likely to invalidate Riverside County's imposition of a possessory...more New Right-of-Way Regulations on Indian Lands Every once in a while, infrastructure projects we’re working on involve traversing Indian lands. For those of you involved in such projects, you should take a look at the Final Rule published by the Department of the...more Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) New Rights-of-Way Regulations to Become Effective by Snell & Wilmer on 12/21/2015 On December 21, 2015, new rights-of-way regulations on Indian lands will go into effect. These new regulations likely will have an immediate and substantial impact throughout Indian Country, for both Tribes and businesses...more BIA Finalizes Reforms for Obtaining Rights of Way on Indian Lands by WilmerHale on 12/4/2015 On November 19, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) published a final rule that makes sweeping changes to the process for obtaining rights of way for proposed oil and gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, railroads,...more Can First Nations Claim Aboriginal Rights and Title as well as Treaty Rights? by Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP on 8/12/2015 Yes, said the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Court) in its recent decision in Chartrand v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations). The Court found that the provincial Crown had not adequately...more Native American Business Law Alert: Significant Tax and Applicable Law Ambiguity in Proposed Revisions for Indian Lands... by Stoel Rives LLP on 7/18/2014 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposing to revise the process for obtaining and administering rights-of-way (ROWs) on Indian lands. While the proposed regulations seek to make improvements and clarifications...more Supreme Court Decision on Aboriginal Title Raises Questions for Resource Development by Bennett Jones LLP on 6/27/2014 On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a unanimous decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 (also known as the William decision). It is a long anticipated decision on two significant...more BIA Proposes Rule Revisions for Rights-of-Way on Indian Lands by Snell & Wilmer on 6/18/2014 On June 17, 2014, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) published proposed revisions to 25 CFR Part 169, whereby the new rule seeks to comprehensively update and streamline the process for obtaining BIA grants of Rights-of-Way...more Federal Rule and Ninth Circuit Opinion Create Huge Opportunities on Indian Land by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on 4/10/2014 In a set of comprehensive regulations affecting non-agricultural leasing on Indian land, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs made sweeping changes and largely exempted property taxes on permanent...more History Repeats Itself At The Mouth Of The Miami River by Bilzin Sumberg - New Miami on 3/11/2014 Ten years ago, attorney Michael Kreitzer represented a developer who was faced with an injunction on its development of a high-rise apartment building on the south side of the Miami River after it was discovered that the...more A Precedent-Setting Ninth Circuit Victory for Tribes and Their Business Partners by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on 2/17/2014 In a landmark decision, the Ninth Circuit has held that state and local governments lack the power to tax permanent improvements built on non-reservation land that is held in trust by the federal government....more Four Casino Resort Licenses on the Table in Upstate New York – Time to Place Your Bets As New York State prepares to issue four new gaming licenses, this alert takes a closer look at the details involved in the application requirements, bidding process, fees and approval considerations for prospective...more Top 10 Indian Tribal Tax Developments in 2013 and Priorities for 2014 by Holland & Knight LLP on 1/14/2014 In 2013, courts were active in issues relating to Indian tribes, including ruling on state tax matters and the federal income tax aspects of Section 17 corporations. The top 10 Indian tribal tax developments from 2013...more Bureau of Indian Affairs Finalizes Changes to Land-Into-Trust Procedures in Light of Patchak In response to last year’s United States Supreme Court case of Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012) (“Patchak”), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) issued a final rule on...more Fast Food Comes to Indian Country by Dickinson Wright on 9/17/2013 In-N-Out Burger, the quintessentially Californian burger chain, will open its first restaurant on tribal land in early 2014 at the Morongo Casino on the Morongo Indian Reservation on the heavily trafficked Interstate 10. The...more Ninth Circuit Decision Creates New Tax Opportunities and Challenges in Indian Country by K&L Gates LLP on 8/9/2013 Since the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, it has been clear that state and local tax authorities could not assess property tax on permanent improvements located on tribal trust land when...more BIA Proposes To Eliminate The Trust Land Acquisition Waiting Period by Perkins Coie on 5/30/2013 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that, if adopted, will substantially alter the rights of those who would challenge a decision by the BIA to acquire land in trust for an...more Bureau of Indian Affairs Proposes Regulations in Light of Patchak Last year’s decisive (8-1) decision by the United States Supreme Court in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012) (“Patchak”) appeared to be a major blow to tribal gaming and...more Ninth Circuit Holds Takings Case Must Proceed Through Tribal Court An eminent decision out of the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals is not a common occurrence. A Ninth Circuit eminent domain decision dealing with intangible property is even less common. Yet, on April 26, 2013,...more Rohnert Park Approves Use of Eminent Domain for Street Widening According to an article in the Press Democrat, Rohnert Park OKs eminent domain at site of future hotel, restaurant, the Rohnert Park City Council recently adopted a resolution of necessity authorizing the use of eminent...more The Department of the Interior Issues New Rules Regulating the Leasing of Tribal Lands New regulations enacted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) applicable to tribal leases will have far reaching impacts on businesses, particularly renewable energy projects, utilizing tribal lands....more The Amorphous "Unusual Circumstances" Exception to CEQA's Categorical Exemption Strikes Again by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on 10/29/2012 Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation District, Super. Ct. No. PC20080398, (Oct. 4, 2012) The recent Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation District case from the California Court of Appeal’s Third...more Tribal Lands Tribal Governments Indian Tribal Trusts Aboriginal Issues

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10403

Labor Immigration Law Important Site Information and Disclaimer United States Labor Immigration Law News and Analysis DOJ Articles iGate Mastech Fined $45,000 by DOJ for H-1B Discrimination May 02nd, 2008 | Category: DOJ,Employees,Employers,H-1B The U.S. Department of Justice announced May 1, 2008, that it has imposed a civil fine of $45,000 to iGate Mastech, Inc., a Pittsburgh computer consulting company in connection with the company’s alleged discrimination against United States citizens in its employment practices and advertisements. The DOJ found that between May 9, 2006, and June 4, 2006, the company placed 30 job ads for computer programmers that expressly favored H-1B holders to the exclusion of U.S. citizens or green card holders. Some of the ads contained text identical or similar to, “Only H-1s apply, and should be willing to transfer H-1B.” Such discrimination is prohibited under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. “We are committed to protecting the right of all authorized workers in the United States against citizenship status discrimination,” said Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. While we are uncertain of the motives of the company to place such ads, the civil fine settlement comes as a result of a complaint by the Programmers Guild (PG) in 2006. According to PG, iGate Mastech is just one of at least several companies engaged in the practice of discriminating against U.S. workers “in favor of cheap H-1B workers.” If these are the motives, DOJ’s actions should serve to the great benefit of the labor immigrants. It has been one of the main arguments of the H-1B program critics that the program undercuts the salaries of U.S. professionals. By eliminating companies who intentionally seek foreign talent at a cheap rate, DOJ helps to ensure that the H-1B program’s critics have less of an argument against it. Here is DOJ’s press release. No comments Search this site Categories AAO H-2A H-4 EAD I-290B Reentry Permits Visa Processing Meta RSS Log in Valid XHTML XFN Theme fSpring, design by Fredrik Fahlstad Proudly powered by WordPress.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10418

Law Home > News German Justice Differs for a Reason Print Email RSS Lexington, VA • Sunday, February 14, 2010This commentary appeared originally in the Roanoke Times on February 14, 2010. Alongside all the suffering Jens Soering inflicted on the Haysom family, he also seems destined to wreck American-European relations. Soering, a German national, was convicted and given consecutive life sentences in Virginia in 1990 for murdering his girlfriend's parents, Derek and Nancy Haysom, while he was a student at the University of Virginia. Prosecutors would have sought the death penalty, but Soering slipped away to England and waged a three-year legal battle to evade Virginia's extradition request. The last stop in his legal gambit was the European Court of Human Rights, an international tribunal based in Strasbourg, France. In one of its most well-known and far-reaching decisions, the court held that England could not extradite Soering to Virginia so long as he faced capital charges. Soering's extradition was secured only after Virginia prosecutors gave assurances that they would not seek the death penalty, which is banned by a protocol to European Convention for Human Rights. In its ruling, the European Court concluded that the anguish Soering would suffer during the typical, decade-long delay between a capital conviction and execution in the United States would constitute a violation of the Human Rights Convention's prohibition of torture. The court called this the "death row phenomenon." It was an obvious dig at American enthusiasm for the death penalty, an issue that has been a point of heated misunderstanding across the Atlantic for decades, prompting one commentator to conclude that "Americans are from Mars; Europeans are from Venus." Now Soering is again stirring the trans-Atlantic waters. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has revoked his predecessor's agreement to have Soering transferred to Germany for the completion of his life sentences. Former Gov. Tim Kaine's transfer deal came with German reassurances that Soering would not be considered for early release for at least two years. How could German authorities consider suspending Soering's consecutive life sentences after only two decades in Virginia and German prisons? Surely the Venusians cannot object to the inherent justice of a real life sentence as punishment for a heart-wrenching crime like Soering's. Yes, they can. Like the death penalty, life sentences are unconstitutional in Germany, a fact that has alarmed Virginia policymakers and fueled the entrenched stereotype that Europeans are generally too soft on crime and security. But this particular rule, like all constitutional law and policy, must be understood in its historical and social context. Like so much of Germany's post-war constitutional order, the prohibition on life sentences is part of Germany's solemn reaction to the atrocities committed during the Nazi-era. That jurisprudence has made "human dignity," protected as an inviolable right by the German constitution's first article, the highest norm and value in their constitutional order. In striking down life sentences, the German Constitutional Court explained that respect for human dignity prevents the state from treating a person, even a convicted criminal, as a mere "tool of the state ... [as] an object of crime prevention" without giving due regard to the convict's social worth and inherent, continuing ties to society. With a barely-veiled reference to the Nazi legacy, the court said, "We cannot separate our recognition of the duty to respect human dignity from its historical development." Some possibility for the convict's re-emergence from prison as a reformed member of the community must remain. Germany's commitment to these values, rooted in the lessons of its past, is very real, even if it is not always easy. From time to time notorious criminals are given early release from prison based on authorities' assessment of their remorsefulness and reform. Despite the public outcry raised by some of these cases, when the prison doors are opened for some German convicts well ahead of the completion of their full sentences, most Germans understand why and what it says about their past and present values. Whatever Soering's fate, the latest commotion over his case at least provides a chance to better understand the distinct history and values that inform what so often has been a confounding part of American-European relations. In that sense, we might conclude that "Americans are from America; Germans are from Germany." Russell Miller is an associate professor of law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law and co-editor-in-chief of the German Law Journal. Department Navigation: RSS Feeds/Podcasts Event Video W&L Law in the News

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10575

Judge won’t step aside from Range-Robinson suit Barbara Miller Judge John F. DiSalle A Washington County judge will continue to hear a dispute between Range Resources Corp. and Robinson Township despite the Marcellus Shale driller’s request that he step aside. Judge John F. DiSalle’s order, filed Monday, said the involvement of his wife, Diane, with the Peters Township Marcellus Shale Awareness Group nearly two years ago “has not in any way affected the court’s ability to hear the case” fairly and impartially. Diane DiSalle was involved with the group that collected more than 2,400 signatures to have a referendum placed on the November 2011 ballot to amend Peters Township’s home rule charter. It would have prohibited gas drilling and related gas drilling activity, such as the installation of pipelines and compressor stations. The measure was defeated at the polls. “Such activity does not constitute a circumstance where the court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under the code of judicial conduct,” the order continued. In an affidavit, Range’s spokesman Matt Pitzarella noted that in summer 2011, Diane DiSalle, who lives nearby, had knocked on his door and asked him to sign a petition for a drilling ban. He said he spoke with her for three hours before she left. Pitzarella also claimed to have seen an anti-drilling sign in the couple’s yard prior to the election. DiSalle said they never had such a sign in their yard, although their neighbor did. In addition, the Marcellus Shale awareness group is listed under Pennsylvania’s Department of State business entity filings as being “owned” by Diane DiSalle. The group maintains a Facebook page, but that page indicates the group was dissolved Feb. 2. Range admitted it was aware of Diane DiSalle’s connection with the group since July 2011, and the company did not ask the judge to recuse himself in another case, MarkWest Liberty Midstream and Resources LLC and Range vs. Cecil Township Zoning Hearing Board, over which DiSalle presided from April 21, 2011, through Jan. 22 of this year, when he sided with the zoning board. According to an order filed Monday, DiSalle reviewed the matter with the three other judges from the Washington County bench and concluded that “this is not a situation where a significant minority of the lay community might also reasonably question the court’s impartiality.” Range is suing Robinson Township for failing to allow the company to begin gas operations on two properties it had leased for gas drilling. The company filed its lawsuit against the township Jan. 28, even before township supervisors voted to deny the gas extraction company two permits to drill for gas on the Parees property, 167 1/2 acres off Midway-Candor Road, and the Kendall property, an 84-acre tract at 1620 Valley View Road, Bulger. The board cited the company’s insufficient documents as its reason for the denials. In its suit, Range contends the township has fabricated a number of issues, including the board’s “befuddlement” over the number of wells the company wishes to drill and its site plan. Range also opposed attorney John Smith acting as both the township’s counsel and hearing officer. Smith later recused himself, and Jonathan Kamin now represents the township on gas drilling issues. Range claims the township has acted in bad faith and that its failure to comply with sections in the state’s Municipalities Planning Code means the conditional use Range is seeking has been approved. In a companion order to the one in which DiSalle found that Range failed to meet its burden of presenting evidence that would require him to recuse himself from the Robinson Township case, he also scheduled a status conference for April 29. Barbara S. Miller covers politics, Washington County government and a variety of other topics for the Observer-Reporter. She is a graduate of Washington & Jefferson College, majoring in English and history. Follow her on Twitter @reporterbarb.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10657

Former astronaut, US Sen. John Glenn of Ohio has died at 95 2 juveniles charged in Tennessee wildfires that killed 14 TRAFFIC ALERT: Brookville congestion after I-80 shutdown You are hereHome » Burkett: PA Supreme Court upholds murder conviction, death penatly for Rega Burkett: PA Supreme Court upholds murder conviction, death penatly for Rega BROOKVILLE — Jefferson County District Attorney Jeff Burkett is pleased to announce that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently upheld, for the second time, the murder conviction and death penalty of Robert Gene Rega for the killing of Christopher Lauth, the former night watchman at the Gateway Lodge. Burkett tried and convicted Rega in June of 2002 for the slaying of Lauth, as well as for robbery and other crimes. After a sentencing hearing, the jury held that Rega’s crimes warranted death. Rega then began a lengthy appeal process. After a series of hearings on post-trial motions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Rega’s conviction and death penalty on direct appeal on Oct. 17, 2007. Represented by the Federal Defenders out of Philadelphia, Rega then filed a voluminous Amended Post Conviction Relief petition in January of 2009. In this petition, Rega asked for a new trial and for his death penalty to be set aside. After a series of hearings in December of 2009 and January, May and October of 2010, Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas Judge John H. Foradora denied the petition in its entirety. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed Judge Foradora’s ruling on June 17, 2013. Burkett states, “I am very pleased with this ruling. Although the end is not yet in sight, it is good to have this stage behind us. When I saw the incredible resources that Rega has at his disposal — a team of attorneys with a substantial support staff and a big budget — it was somewhat daunting. The petition they filed was over 500 pages, and that doesn’t even count the three thick appendices that went with it. “They had investigators and a large array of highly-paid expert witnesses at their disposal,” he said. “They threw everything they had at us. Fortunately, because we worked and fought hard, the truth prevailed.” Rega has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider their ruling. This request is still pending.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10723

Home Court Report Wed, 02/20/2013 - 9:59am | Category: Local News Joyetter Feagaimaalii-Luamanu reporters@samoanews.com CONVICTED DRUG DEFENDANT FACES NEW DRUG CHARGES New drug charges have been filed against a convicted drug defendant on probation, who was released from the Tafuna Correctional Facility last year after Chief Probation Officer Silivelio Iosefo vouched before Chief Justice Michel Kruse that Tupolo Hodges had truly repented and learned a lesson. Iosefo during that hearing revealed to the court that drugs had been found inside the TCF and given that Tupolo had been a model prisoner and the Territorial Correctional Facility was not a model prison, he asked the court to release Hodges under his supervision, which Kruse granted. The new case against Hodges, charges him with unlawful possession of methamphetamine and three charges of possession of a prohibited weapon. The drug charge is a felony punishable from five to ten years in jail, a fine not less than $5,000 and not more than $20,000 or both, while all three weapon charges are class A misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail or a fine of up to $1,000. Hodges made his initial appearance in District Court yesterday and is being held on bail of $15,000. He is represented by Acting Public Defender Douglas Fiaui. According to the government’s case, on February 14, 2013 the Vice and Narcotics Detectives executed a search warrant on Hodges, his vehicle and his residence. It’s alleged when police were heading to Alofau to execute the search warrant, they met up with the defendant’s car and saw the defendant exiting a store. He was then served with the search warrant. Police conducted a personal search of the defendant, going through his pockets, where money and a cell phone were discovered along with a black pouch which contained a glass pipe commonly used to smoke methamphetamine. Court filings say police also discovered in the pouch a zip log bag plastic baggie containing methamphetamine, and a straw cut diagonally, which is commonly used to scoop methamphetamine. Police asked the defendant if there were any other illegal substances in the car to which the defendant replied "no" and he was immediately advised of his constitutional rights and was then escorted to the East Substation in Fagaitua. According to the government’s case, police searched the house where they allegedly found drug paraphernalia such as surgical scissors with a burn tip end, a gun shaped lighter, a digital scale, a 22 rifle, and ammunition. The rifle was discovered inside one of the bedrooms of Hodges residence, and it is alleged that it was loaded when it was found by police. The defendant refused to sign the waiver of constitutional rights, but stated that the meth was for his personal use. In 2010 Hodges was sentenced for similar conduct, following his voluntary guilty plea to unlawful possession of a controlled substance— namely methamphetamine— with the intent to distribute. Hodges was sentenced to serve 40 months as a condition of his ten years probation, but was released early based on the assurance of the probation officer. FIREMAN DENIES ASSAULT AND PROPERTY DAMAGE CHARGES A Senior firefighter in his 50’s is facing charges of second degree assault, property damage first degree and public peace disturbance. Falealo Savea Mauga, who’s represented by Assistant Public Defender Mike White was arraigned in High Court yesterday morning. Presiding over the arraignment was Associate Justice Lyle L Richmond. Mauga entered a not guilty plea to the criminal charges against him. According to the government’s case, the defendant allegedly threw rocks at a vehicle which injured the driver and damaged the vehicles. It's alleged a police officer saw the fireman throwing the rocks at the victim. The officer who witnessed the incident noted that the defendant threw the rocks when there was a woman and child in the bed of the truck. It’s alleged the rocks thrown by the defendant struck the victim on the body and face. The victim suffered contusions, abrasions and swelling to his face and also sustained a two centimeter laceration on his head and was treated at the LBJ hospital. The vehicle sustained damage on the driver’s side, left door, and the bed of the truck will require repair in the amount of $2,125. JESS SHANE POGIA HELD ON BAIL OF $20,000 ON SEVERAL CRIMINAL COUNTS A man in his 20’s is facing two charges of second degree burglary and two counts of stealing which are all class C felonies, punishable up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, a fine equal to the twice amount gained from the commission up to a $20,000 or both fine and jail time. The defendant who made his initial appearance in the District Court yesterday, is held on bail of $20,000 and is represented by Assistant Public Defender Mike White. According to the government’s case, a man reported to police that on August 9, 2012 his residence was broken into and where his piggy bank containing $200, a pair of slippers, several baseball caps and miscellaneous items and a 22 rifle were stolen. It’s alleged a witness informed police that he saw Pogia remove items from the residence in question. Court filings say the defendant was seen with a DVD player, two bottles of wine, a piggy bank, a diamond watch and a gold chain. At the residence where Pogia was staying police confiscated a DVD player and this item was identified by the victim as his property. The defendant admitted to police that he had broken into the victim’s residence twice and gained entrance through a hole in the wall and taken the piggy bank, DVD player, chain, watch, baseball caps, slippers and a 22rifle. Pogia told police that he used the money from the piggy bank to buy food and sold the rifle for $130. ASSAULT CASE OVER LOAN IN HIGH COURT Sinave Tupuola, who is facing felony assault and public peace disturbance charges after he allegedly struck another man with a beer bottle was arraigned in the High Court yesterday where he denied the criminal counts against him. Tupuola is held on bail of $5,000 and is represented by Assistant Public Defender Mike White. The matter was presided over by Associate Justice Lyle L Richmond. According to the government’s case, on February 8, 2013 a man walked into the Leone substation requesting assistance while his head was wrapped with a shirt which had blood on it. The victim— who was under the influence of alcohol— told police that Tupuola, who was also intoxicated, was upset because he wanted to get a loan of $300 from the victim but he only received $200. The victim further stated the defendant grabbed his beer and hit the victim on his head. As a result the victim suffered two lacerations on his forehead. Police spoke to two witnesses who saw the defendant strike the victim on the head. View the discussion thread. Related VIDEO: Today's Headline News... 'CLIMATE REFUGEE' FIGHTING TO STAY IN NEW ZEALAND... Pacific region has good story to... New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Murray McCully says the region has... Undefeated Tahiti vs Undefeated... Team American Samoa is still looking for its first win in the OFC Under... MEN JAILED FOLLOWING PLEA IN PUAPUA, LEONE BURGLARY CASE...

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10799

ADVERTISEMENT Al Garcia ., Disbarred lawyer Al Garcia faces sanctions for practicing law Article by: Dan Browning March 26, 2013 - 9:43 PM After a three-hour hearing Tuesday, a federal judge in St. Paul said there’s no question that disbarred lawyer Al Garcia violated the conditions of his release from prison by acting as an attorney for a Minneapolis towing company. “This is not a close call for me,” said U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank. But he delayed imposing sanctions until May 28 to determine if several pending traffic citations will affect Garcia’s sentence. Garcia, once a fixture around Minneapolis City Hall and the Hennepin County Courthouse, got snared in a dramatic Anoka County drug bust in 2009 when he was arrested with a former legal assistant on methamphetamine charges. He went into federal custody in November 2009 and pleaded guilty. In 2010, Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis sentenced Garcia to five years in prison. In August 2011, he resentenced him to time served and placed him under supervised release for four years. Davis said Garcia could work as a lobbyist. Six months after Garcia’s release from prison, an investigator with the Hennepin County attorney’s office reported that he had been visiting felons in jail, together with an attorney. Garcia, 53, admitted that he had been working as a paralegal. His probation officers accused him of violating the terms of his release. Frank got the case after Davis recused himself. Garcia faced a recommended four to 10 months in prison, but Frank cut him a break and ordered him to do 50 hours of community service. He was barred from working as an attorney, a paralegal or a consultant on any criminal matters. Frank warned Garcia that if he violates the restrictions again, “you would likely obligate me to look at some type of incarceration.” Grant Wilson, manager of the Minneapolis licensing department, testified that he contacted probation because Garcia was “acting like an attorney” in negotiations to resolve violations by his client, Cedar Towing and Auction. Cedar Towing’s owner, Thomas Rodrigue, testified that he had hired Garcia to help him understand city ordinances and to lobby for business, not to act as an attorney. Garcia’s attorney, Peter Wold, noted that Wilson himself negotiated settlements on behalf of the city, yet Wilson is not a lawyer. Nothing bars a lobbyist and consultant like Garcia from acting as the company’s agent, Wold said. But Frank found that Garcia had crossed the line into practicing law without a license when he wrote a letter to the city on Cedar’s behalf in which he cited legal precedents. Garcia also tried to represent the company at an administrative law hearing, but the referee knew he had been disbarred and halted the proceeding. Probation officer James Weinberger filed a report last week describing a series of alleged violations. He said that an attorney in Minneapolis reported in June that he had attended a meeting with Garcia and two other lawyers. Garcia asked how much of a referral fee the attorney would pay him for some criminal cases. In August, Garcia registered as a lobbyist with the state Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, listing an Eden Prairie address. He listed these businesses as clients: Alete Cleaning Services of Minnetonka, Cedar Towing and Auction of Minneapolis and Nina’s Grill of Burnsville. Garcia also faces several traffic violations. He was cited for misdemeanor driving after suspension in Hennepin County District Court last April. The State Patrol stopped him Oct. 18 after observing him drive erratically; he had a blood alcohol content of 0.12 and was cited for gross misdemeanor DWI in that case. He was cited with another gross misdemeanor in December for driving after his license was canceled. In January, he was cited again by the State Patrol for driving without a seat belt — still, without a license. Frank scheduled a hearing to impose sanctions for May 28, when he expects the traffic cases will have been resolved. He ordered Garcia to refrain from alcohol and drugs. When the state Supreme Court disbarred Garcia in 2010, it said his “misconduct is substantial and varied.” Garcia misappropriated client funds, lied to conceal the theft and coerced false testimony from the client, the court found. Staff writer Rochelle Olson contributed to this report. Dan Browning • 612-673-4493

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10815

An audio example for the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia Charles Rex Arbogast / Associated Press Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's question about broccoli and Obamacare was broadcast on the same day he asked it. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's question about broccoli and Obamacare was broadcast on the same day he asked it. (Charles Rex Arbogast / Associated Press) Michael McGough Despite lobbying by the news media and members of Congress, the Supreme Court seems no closer than it was a year ago -- or a decade ago -- to allowing television cameras to record its arguments. But with a minor change in its routine, it could make those arguments more accessible to court junkies and ordinary Americans alike. The way has been paved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is sometimes described as the second most important court in America and which has served as a steppingstone for four members of the current Supreme Court, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.Beginning this week, by a unanimous vote of the court’s judges, the D.C. Circuit is posting audio recordings of oral arguments on its website within hours of the proceedings. The Supreme Court also posts audio of oral arguments on its website, but on a delayed basis. Arguments take place on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, but the audio isn’t available until Friday. (Transcripts of arguments are posted on the same day.) It’s easy to see why the justices might like the delayed release. Some of them are known to fear that televising oral arguments would allow broadcasters to air out-of-context soundbites on the evening news. That’s also a possibility with audio recordings, but less likely if the audio is delayed. What TV or radio news director will want to feature a snippet from Monday's arguments on a Friday newscast?But here’s what is peculiar: The court has provided same-day audio in a few high-profile cases, including last year’s arguments over the constitutionality of Obamacare. Thus, broadcasters were able to season their same-day newscasts with timely soundbites from the bench, including Justice Antonin Scalia’s now-famous suggestion that if the government could require citizens to purchase health insurance, it could also make them buy broccoli.The court’s willingness to allow same-day audio in high-profile cases, while delaying it in obscure ones, is reminiscent of Jesus’ gibe about scribes and Pharisees who “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” Or to put in non-biblical terms, the court should adopt the philosophy of “in for a dollar, in for a dime” and provide same-day posting of the audio of every argument.My guess is that the availability of audio on the day of argument might lead to a modest increase in broadcast coverage of borderline cases. That would be a good thing for the court and the country. The Supreme Court should affirm the good judgment of the D.C. Circuit.ALSO:After Obama's Syria speech, readers call for actioniPhone 5S foils the 'Apple pickers' -- but watch out for your fingers Jenny McCarthy on 'The View': Trust doctors, not stars, on vaccines

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10890

Montgomery County resident elected to Philadelphia Board of Ethics By For The Times Herald, Press release from Law Catalyst Brian J. McCormick Jr. of Erdenheim was elected to Philadelphia’s Board of Ethics on Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012. McCormick was nominated by Mayor Michael Nutter in October, and approved by Philadelphia City Council in a unanimous vote after a full confirmation hearing earlier in December. An editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Nov. 2 touted McCormick’s appointment to the Board of Ethics by Mayor Nutter as “encouraging.” Previously, McCormick served on a nine-person Task Force established by Mayor Nutter after the Mayor’s election to study and make recommendations for full disclosure and transparency in the city’s ethics and campaign finances. The final report was issued in late 2009 and recognized with appreciation by Mayor Nutter and numerous “good government groups” in southeastern Pennsylvania. McCormick has also served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Philadelphia nonprofit Committee of Seventy. The organization works toward raising public awareness through advocacy for clean and effective government, fair elections, and an honest political culture. McCormick, 43, is a managing partner of the Sheller P.C. law firm in Center City Philadelphia. Before joining Sheller, McCormick was a partner with the international law firm, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney P.C., and also worked for the Blue Bell-based law firm, Elliott Greenleaf and Siedzkiowski. Earlier in his career he worked for the FBI in its Philadelphia field office and was a pool reporter for The TimesHerald in Norristown. Former Mayor John F. Street created the ethics panel in 2006, after then-Councilman Nutter persuaded the rest of City Council to set up a referendum on making the Ethics Board an independent agency. The change was approved overwhelmingly by the public. The five-member, independent Philadelphia Board of Ethics was established by ordinance, approved by voters in May 2006 and installed on Nov. 27, 2006. The Board is charged with providing ethics training for all city employees and enforcing city campaign finance, financial disclosure, and conflict of interest laws, and has authority to render advice, investigate complaints and issue fines. Over the last five years, the list of candidates paying Ethics Board penalties has become a “who’s who” in local politics, including a PAC controlled by former Gov. Ed Rendell, the mayoral campaigns of Democratic Party chairman Bob Brady and millionaire Tom Knox, District Attorney Seth Williams, eight members of City Council, several powerful labor unions and more. McCormick replaces Richard Glazer, the former Chairman of the Ethics Board and a lawyer who also heads the Pennsylvania Innocence Project at Temple University James E. Beasley’s School of Law. Glazer has been the Chairman of the Board since its inception in 2006.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10957

Maine seeks exemption from provision of health-care law By N.C. Aizenman Thursday, December 30, 2010; Days before a key and controversial provision of the health-care law is set to take effect, Maine is the only state to have asked the Obama administration for an exemption, despite concerns expressed by at least a dozen states. Beginning in 2011, insurers must devote at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect to medical claims or other activities that improve customers' health - leaving no more than 20 percent for the insurer's administrative costs or profits. Companies that do not spend enough on the right purposes will have to refund the difference to their customers in 2012. Consumer advocates have hailed the new "medical loss ratio" standard as a ground-breaking protection against profiteering by insurers. But the law's drafters were concerned that it could prove too onerous for plans selling to individuals, whose customer base is less stable and healthy than those of plans serving small and large businesses. So the law permits states to request temporary adjustments of the standard from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. According to rules issued by HHS, a state must provide data demonstrating that there is a reasonable risk that the new standard will force a critical mass of insurers to pull out of its individual market, leaving residents who cannot get insurance through their employer with little or no ability to buy it for themselves. States can request adjustments for the next one to three years. Though technically the law allows for adjustments beyond then, it's unclear whether they would be necessary: In 2014, the law will begin requiring almost all Americans to buy insurance - providing insurers selling individual plans with a considerably healthier, more constant pool of customers. Until then, Maine has requested that the medical loss ratio required of its individual market plans be lowered to 65 percent. State officials have also asked that the ratio be calculated using the state's own, potentially more expansive, definition of activities that can be counted as improving customers' health. HHS officials have yet to determine that the state has provided the necessary information in its application. Once they do, it could take up to 40 days for HHS officials to decide whether the adjustment is called for. HHS has not set a deadline by which states must request an adjustment for 2011. But according to administration officials, because the standard applies starting Jan. 1, as a practical matter, they would expect any additional states to apply as early in the new year as possible. Jack McDermott, a spokesman for the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, blamed his state's delay on the Obama administration. Florida anticipates requesting an adjustment, he said. But "HHS did not issue the rules on what would be required [for the application] until Nov. 22." McDermott added that the data state officials are now being required to gather is "voluminous" and said there was reason to worry that even if Florida is ultimately granted an adjustment, the news might not come soon enough to prevent insurers from pulling out of its individual market. However, insurance regulators in several other states that had previously indicated they would seek waivers said HHS's timing was not a concern. Rather, they are unsure whether an adjustment is wise. "I'm between a rock and a hard place," said Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney. Chaney said he worries that if the 80 percent standard is applied, insurers will no longer pay fees to brokers who sell their plans. The broker fees are counted as an administrative expense and currently eat up a large chunk of premiums for many individual market plans. Yet, without brokers to help consumers navigate the system, Chaney said, "you have consumers trying to buy a health-insurance policy that they might not truly understand, and they may not get the coverage that they actually need." However, Chaney said, the individual market in Mississippi is dominated by three large players that might be able to meet the 80 percent standard. "I've got to be certain that they don't take advantage if I get a waiver," he said. Iowa Assistant Insurance Commissioner Angela Boston was also noncommittal. Her state was one of four that went so far as to write a letter to HHS earlier this year officially requesting a waiver from the medical loss ratio standard. However, Boston noted that the letter was sent as HHS regulators were still crafting the fine print of the provision. "Our main concern at the time was to make sure that HHS was aware that states had concerns about the impact and that HHS should be sensitive to that," she said. "That was the purpose of sending the letter."

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/10997

State Senate Debating Bill Making It Illegal To Defraud Drug Tests Leave this field blankYour e-mail address:*Your friends e-mail addresses (comma separated):*Subject:*Message:*A friend wanted you to see this item from WRAL.com: http://wr.al/QcDGet a new codeAre you human?*You must enter the characters with black color that stand out from the other characters RALEIGH, N.C. — American businesses spend more than $1 billion a year to test employees for drugs, but if you log onto the Internet, you can find a number of businesses willing to help you beat those tests. Now, the state Senate is debating a bill that would make it illegal for anyone to defraud a drug test. The legislation targets one man who moved his company to North Carolina after he was convicted in South Carolina. Kenneth Curtis helps people beat drug tests in the name of privacy. For years, the former pipe fitter has sold his own urine over the Internet. Along with his own drug-free bodily fluids, Curtis sells a specially designed kit. For $69, the kit includes an intravenous bag and tubes, plus warmers to ensure that the substitute urine reaches the right temperature for testers. But Curtis, a self-proclaimed patriot, says his business is not about profit, it is about protecting privacy. "We don't need to go around looking into everybody's bladder functions in order to find out whether they're in danger," Curtis said. State Attorney General Roy Cooper is now pushing legislation to make Curtis' company illegal and to prosecute anyone who uses the product. "I don't want to get into whether it's appropriate or not to have a test. It's legal," Cooper said. Curtis moved his business to Hendersonville, N.C., after he was convicted in South Carolina of violating the law. "They chose to direct it at me because I'm standing up there in a confrontational manner I admit, because it's important for me to speak up and be recognized for what I'm saying," Curtis said. Curtis contends that drug tests cross the line. Besides illegal drugs, a urine sample can reveal very private information, such as whether a person is pregnant, HIV-positive or taking prescription antidepressants. "Insurance companies, marketing companies, drug companies want that information so they cannot only discriminate against you in the workplace, but they can also market products to you," Curtis said. The North Carolina Trucking Association, on the other hand, believes safety far outweighs privacy. Association spokesman Charlie Diehl points out the federal government requires truckers take drug tests. He strongly supports the bill that would ban Curtis' company and many others like it on the Internet. "The fraudulent deception of drug screens can create dangerous situations," he said. "He should have a concern, I believe, for the negative impact that he's having on highway safety and workplace safety, at least potentially." Curtis argues the only way to truly know if workers are a safety risk is to give them some sort of field sobriety test daily. Until that happens, he will continue selling his product and speaking out about privacy rights. "He's not the issue. He may be trying to make himself the issue, but he's not the issue. Public safety is the issue," Cooper said. Curtis claims he does not advocate drug use, but he admits his customers may buy his product to cover their own illegal actions. He compares himself to a gun dealer by saying he should not be held responsible for someone else using his product to break the law. So far, Curtis claims he has sold himself more than 100,000 times. Because he is on probation in South Carolina, Curtis recently suspended his urine sales. He continues to sell kits to help beat drug tests. Right now, Curtis claims he is negotiating book and movie deals. Cullen Browder Gil Hollingsworth

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11111

Michael Scharf '88 October 3, 2008Duke Law NewsHaving publicly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Michael Scharf said he was surprised to be invited to help train the judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel of the Iraqi High Tribunal who would try Saddam Hussein. Scharf, who has advised and trained judges for such war crimes tribunals as those in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the former Yugoslavia, and Cambodia, made his position clear to the director of the State Department’s Regime Crimes Liaison Office who was extending the invitation. “I pointed out that I had written, in various articles and op ed pieces, that a U.S.-sponsored trial done by Iraqis would not look legitimate,” said Scharf, recalling their exchange. “He said, ‘We know all that.’” But the director also knew of Scharf’s expertise with war crimes tribunals. While in the State Department’s Office of Legal Adviser in the early 1990s, Scharf crafted the U.N. Security Council resolution, rules and statute pertaining to the Yugoslavia Tribunal. “He said, ‘If you think it’s not fair, help us make it fair. And if you think it’s not effective, help us make it effective.’ That was a challenge I found hard to turn down,” said Scharf, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law and director of Case Western’s Frederick K. Cox International Law Center and Cox Center War Crimes Research Office. He agreed to oversee the training with one caveat: That he could publicly comment on the trial. Now Scharf and colleague Michael A. Newton offer an “unvarnished” look at the trial in Enemy of the State: The Trial and Execution of Saddam Hussein, published in September by St. Martin’s Press. Although it was “the messiest” of the international war crimes trials he has seen, Scharf says it was not a sham. “Most of the people involved, on all sides, were heroic. They were trying to do their best in the face of tremendous challenges, including efforts by the Iraqi government to inappropriately influence the proceedings.” Observing that “it’s really hard to hold a trial in the middle of insurgency,” Scharf noted that many people involved experienced tragedy, including an investigative judge and interpreter that Scharf had worked with. During the nine-month trial, three of Saddam Hussein’s 12 defense counsel were murdered, prompting the defense team to boycott the second half of the trial. He commended the courage of the court-appointed defense counsel, who replaced the boycotting lawyers, in mounting a spirited defense, even when under threat from their client. His book’s title derives, in fact, from Saddam’s directive to counsel regarding closing arguments. “He stood up and pointed his finger at this very diminutive and scared court-appointed defense lawyer and said, ‘We want to discredit this trial. We don’t want closing arguments,’” recounted Scharf. “‘If you give one, we will consider you the enemy of the state.’ It was a threat — he was saying this guy would be hunted down if he gave an argument. But the lawyer got up and gave a very good, three-hour-long closing argument for Saddam and his co-defendants.” The lawyer was nominated for the U.K. Bar Association’s Rule of Law Award for his courage, Scharf added. The fact that the trial was televised ensured transparency, as did the tribunal’s permissiveness with Saddam. “They allowed him to speak whenever he wanted, even though he was represented by counsel,” he said. “He would directly address the people who were watching him on TV, telling them to go out and kill Americans and the people who were ‘collaborating’ with the Americans.” While Scharf thought the diatribes — and their corresponding spikes in violence — were avoidable, he also saw the value in letting Iraqis mount a “boisterous” trial characteristic of their system of justice. “There were a lot of things that looked alien to us because we didn’t understand the Iraqi way,” he said. “But it was a building block toward their transition to the rule of law.” He disagreed with the Iraqi insistence on seeking the death penalty for Saddam, however, as it undermined international support for the proceedings and ensured that Saddam would not be available to stand trial for more serious charges, such as the Anfal Campaign. Subsequent to the Saddam trial, Scharf was asked to make a series of presentations to the judges of the Rwanda Tribunal in Arusha, Cambodia Tribunal in Phnom Penh, and International Criminal Court in The Hague about how to maintain control of a courtroom when the defendant is determined to disrupt the proceedings. According to Scharf, the next test case will be the trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic which will commence before the Yugslavia Tribunal in The Hague in January. During his current sabbatical, Scharf is serving as special assistant to the prosecutor at the U.N.-sanctioned Cambodia War Crimes Tribunal. “Like Iraq, the crimes occurred 30 years ago. While everybody thinks the evidence is crystal clear because the skulls from the killing fields are piled up everywhere, the fact is that virtually all of the grave sites were contaminated, and there was no good chain of custody because they made memorials out of all the mass graves.” Scharf noted that he also is looking forward to helping Uganda launch a domestic war crimes tribunal and truth and reconciliation commission to complement international war crimes trials, through the non-profit organization he co-founded, the Public International Law and Policy Group. When asked how he can be so upbeat in the face of mass tragedy, Scharf responded: “I feel very fortunate that this specialty chose me when I was in the State Department at the right time,” he said. “I feel that I’ve had a chance to make a difference on the world stage and if, ultimately, these trials end up saving lives or deterring other atrocities, or even just bringing about justice so the victims can live out the rest of their lives in dignity, then I think there is something to be cheerful about.” Scharf will speak about the Saddam Hussein trial at Duke Law on Oct. 28, 2008, at 12:15 p.m. Tags: AlumniProfile - Alumni Adcock '76 elected trustee to Turner Funds' Board PR Newswire Lin LLM '01 SJD '05: Taiwan's money laundering bill "lags far behind international standards" Taipei Times Subscribe to Duke Law News Duke Law News More Publications at Duke Law Michael Scharf ’88 Related News Reiners leads revitalization of Duke Law's Global Financial Markets Center Nowlin deepens focus on connections between food and agricultural production and environment Duke Law

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11130

Home Debates 2007 June 13th Debates of June 13th, 2007 The word of the day was amendments. Question PeriodBroadcasting RequirementsWheels in MotionEntrepreneurship AwardAboriginal WomenDaines Ranch RodeoSri LankaPaul ThomassinSaint-Lambert SesquicentennialStephen Leacock Memorial MedalMcCain FoodsThe BudgetRachelle LeostOrder of CanadaWalid EïdoAlberta ByelectionThe BudgetAtlantic AccordIncome TrustsVeterans AffairsEqualization FormulaThe EnvironmentThe EconomyNational DefenceQuebec's Former Lieutenant-GovernorChild CareThe EnvironmentAboriginal AffairsShipbuilding IndustryAgriculture and Agri-FoodInternational TradePublic SafetyHuman Resources and Social DevelopmentEconomic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of QuebecThe BudgetNatural ResourcesBusiness of the HouseBankruptcy and Insolvency ActPoints of OrderHouse of CommonsGovernment Response to PetitionsBankruptcy and Insolvency ActInterparliamentary DelegationsCommittees of the HouseCanada Post Corporation ActUkrainian Famine and Genocide Memorial Day ActConscientious Objection ActBusiness of the HouseCommittees of the HousePetitionsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnsMotions for PapersRequest for Emergency DebatePrivilegeCriminal CodeNunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement ActRequest for Emergency DebateDNA Identification ActNunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement ActIncome TrustsCommittees of the HouseHeritage Lighthouse Protection ActNunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement ActCriminal CodeCanada Transportation Act It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga. [Members sang the national anthem] Broadcasting RequirementsStatements By Members Cheryl Gallant Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON Mr. Speaker, Canadians benefit from a competitive media in all markets. Since 1961 the city of Pembroke has operated a licensed television station, first as CHOV, a CBC affiliate, later as CHRO, a CTV affiliate, and currently as A-Channel Ottawa, a Citytv member. Each time the Pembroke TV station has been sold, local viewers have experienced declining local content and there have been severe job losses. CRTC requirements for local broadcasting have been routinely abandoned or discarded. There has been an abdication of the responsibility of the local Pembroke station to serve the market that its licence is intended to serve. This has occurred despite conditions that have been put on the Pembroke licence renewal in the past to protect local community content and jobs. It is our hope that future programming plans and commitments will be effective in ensuring that Pembroke's A-Channel will focus and keep its orientation on Renfrew County and the upper Ottawa Valley before any sale is finalized. The residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke are calling upon the CRTC to return A-Channel to its roots in Pembroke, where it belongs. Wheels in MotionStatements By Members Gurbax Malhi Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON Mr. Speaker, it was just 20 years ago when a young man captured the hearts of Bramptonians and Canadians. Rick Hansen, a paraplegic, wheeled around the world to raise money for spinal cord research. His incredible journey also helped teach Canadians about the day to day difficulties faced by people in wheelchairs. On June 10, the fifth annual Wheels in Motion event took place in Brampton. This event was very successful and raised about $8,000 for the Blazers, a local wheelchair youth group. The money from the event will send some members of the Blazers to a summer camp that is wheelchair accessible. In the future, Wheels in Motion wants to raise funds for wheelchair accessible picnic tables in Chinguacousy Park. I strongly commend Wheels in Motion for its efforts to help others. Entrepreneurship AwardStatements By Members Jean-Yves Roy Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC Mr. Speaker, Matane's adapted work centre, Les Ateliers Léopold-Desrosiers, recently won one of the Desjardins entrepreneurship awards for financial and social performance at a seminar entitled “Les grands enjeux de SECOR/Les Affaires”. The purpose of this award is to highlight the excellence of companies that contribute to advancing our society and enriching the community. This company, which has been around for 24 years, has adapted its work stations and equipment in order to provide employment to persons with disabilities. In addition to its remarkable social commitment, Les Ateliers Léopold-Desrosiers uses mainly recycled materials, thus demonstrating a commitment to recycling. I would like to warmly congratulate the management and staff of Les Ateliers Léopold-Desrosiers, who are deserving of this honour. This is a great example of the accomplishments and contribution to the community of one of our very own companies. Aboriginal WomenStatements By Members Jean Crowder Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC Mr. Speaker, last week the family of Kelly Morrisseau was heartened to hear that the Assembly of First Nations was increasing the reward for information on the murder of their daughter, mother, sister, aunt and cousin. Aboriginal women in Canada are at least five times more likely than all other women to die as a result of violence. Indigenous women's organizations such as NWAC are working to raise the public consciousness through its Sisters in Spirit initiative. Canadians need to be aware of the alarmingly high rates of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada. These tragedies must be averted in the future. In the last two years, other murders of young women were accompanied by timely press coverage, including regular press conferences. Kelly Morrisseau deserves no less. We should not have different values for different lives. Any woman's death should get the same attention. We should not let their stories fade from the headlines and our memories. Daines Ranch RodeoStatements By Members Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today in the House and pay tribute to a true, hard-working Albertan from my riding. Jack Daines is a 70 year old cowboy who runs the Innisfail Auction, which was started by his father Snowden in 1955. Jack, one of seven brothers, has played a huge role in central Alberta and everyone in all of Alberta recognizes his distinct voice and his leadership. This week, the Daines Ranch Rodeo runs for five days. This rodeo, which was started in 1961, has run without government grants and has grown to be one of the major events in our provinces. By his own admission, Jack always tells it like it is. He is a tireless worker in his business and community life. As he says: “Sometimes I see guys not doing a good enough job and I have to step in and get things done the right way. I guess I lead by example”. Our community is proud of Jack and his son Duane, who have always led by example, and it is my honour to recognize Jack and his family today in the House. Sri LankaStatements By Members Albina Guarnieri Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON Mr. Speaker, after a year during which the Sri Lankan army killed humanitarian workers and bombed civilians, we learned last week that Tamil civilians had been driven out of the capital at gunpoint. When international groups protested these mass expulsions, the Sri Lankan defence secretary accused the international community, especially the U.K. and European nations, of bullying his country over human rights. Meanwhile, the Government of Canada has remained relatively silent, and has not followed the lead of Great Britain, Germany and the United states by cutting off aid to Sri Lanka. It is time for Canada to finally suspend aid and trade until the Sri Lankan government starts respecting the human rights of Tamil civilians. Paul ThomassinStatements By Members Luc Harvey Louis-Hébert, QC Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to draw your attention to the fact that an illustrious Conservative, whom we in the riding of Louis-Hébert consider to be the party's living memory, is here in Ottawa. Paul Thomassin, whose involvement in politics goes back to the time of the illustrious Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, is a model of commitment and devotion to the men and women of today who are deeply committed to protecting Canadian values. I wish to express my gratitude to this 83-year-old activist and his long line of Conservative predecessors for their role in preserving the party memory and the basic values for which we have always fought. The health of a democracy is inextricably linked to the vitality of the parties within it, and the Thomassin family's legendary political involvement in the Canadian federation helped re-establish a stable democratic changeover when our country needed it most. I wish my friend, Paul Thomassin, good health and long life. Saint-Lambert SesquicentennialStatements By Members Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 2007, the municipality of Saint-Lambert will celebrate its 150th anniversary. Everyone, including the 22,000 residents of the municipality, is invited to participate in various events organized by the Saint-Lambert 150th anniversary committee, a group of volunteers who have spent the last several months organizing the festivities. Among the upcoming events of note, I would like to highlight the publication of Saint-Lambert au fil des ans / Saint- Lambert Through the Years, edited by the Mouillepied Historical Society, which recounts the great events in the lives of residents of Saint-Lambert since 1857. The Bloc Québécois and I would like to congratulate the Saint-Lambert municipal authorities and all of the artisans who will be taking part in the 150th anniversary celebration for their contribution to this vibrant display of our collective memory. Stephen Leacock Memorial MedalStatements By Members Bruce Stanton Simcoe North, ON Mr. Speaker, it was my great privilege on the weekend to attend the 60th annual Stephen Leacock medal for humour presentation at Geneva Park, near Orillia, Ontario. Each year the Stephen Leacock Association announces the winner of the Leacock medal for humour for the book judged to be the most humourous one published in Canada the previous year. It has done so since 1946, granting this prestigious medal to such literary icons and notable Canadians as Pierre Berton, W.O. Mitchell, Farley Mowat and Mordecai Richler. This year the associates have awarded the medal and its $10,000 prize, courtesy of TD Bank Financial Group, to author and CBC personality Stuart McLean for his book Secrets from the Vinyl Cafe. I would like to congratulate Mr. McLean for winning this award for a third time. I would like to thank the Stephen Leacock Association for its ongoing promotion of Canadian literature. McCain FoodsStatements By Members Paul Zed Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of McCain Foods, a family business and world giant built on quality and on loyalty to Florenceville, New Brunswick. Launched by brothers Harrison and Wallace McCain in 1957, the family business has been growing potatoes in New Brunswick since 1910. McCain Foods is a Canadian multinational success story. As the largest processor of frozen potatoes in the world, it operates in 110 countries on six continents with 20,000 employees and has diversified its french fry business to include pizzas, juice and appetizers. The McCain family continues to be one of Canada's foremost philanthropic families, donating millions of dollars toward worthy causes everywhere. I salute the McCain Foods founders, the late Harrison McCain and of course our friend Wallace, whose heart is still in Florenceville and who remains one of Canada's leading business leaders, as well as late brothers Andrew and Robert and Andrew's son Allison, who is the current chairman. I extend congratulations to them on their 50 years in business. On behalf of all Canadians, I wish them continued success in the next 50 years. The BudgetStatements By Members Jacques Gourde Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are concerned about the Senate's wish to delay the budget vote, thereby compromising certain programs. Why did the Liberals and the NDP say no to restoring the fiscal balance that will allow Quebec to provide better services and improved infrastructure? Why did they say no to giving Quebec farmers $90 million to help deal with rising production costs? Why did they say no to a tax break that will allow Quebec parents to save nearly $300 million? Why did they say no to the $350 million to help Quebec reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution? The House of Commons passed a budget that is good for Quebeckers and Canadians. The Senate must pass it before the end of the month. I would ask my hon. colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie to urge the Liberal senators to support the budget, since she acknowledged that “it is a budget that should please federalists in Quebec”. Rachelle LeostStatements By Members June 13th, 2007 / 2:10 p.m. Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North, MB Mr. Speaker, tragedy struck in Winnipeg last month when Rachelle Leost was killed by a drunk, underage driver of a stolen van, robbing Manitoba's Métis community of an active member and her three children of a caring mother. We mourn the loss of Rachelle and all those who are victims of gun crimes, gang violence and car hijackings, crimes that can be prevented if the government would only move beyond its “get tough” rhetoric. We need answers, not negligence and broken promises. Why has the government not kept its election promise of 2,500 more police on patrol? Why have crime prevention dollars not been fully spent? Why is it not supporting good ideas like the Winnipeg's North End Community Ambassadors program and the work Ndinawe does with the aboriginal community to help at-risk young people? As the young students at Norquay School in my constituency said to the Governor General on her recent visit, “we want to walk around in our neighbourhood and feel confident”. They deserve nothing less. Order of CanadaStatements By Members Lawrence MacAulay Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the chamber today to pay tribute to an exceptional man who lives in my riding, well-known agriculturalist, Mr. Charles “Charlie” Scranton of Hazelbrook, Prince Edward Island. Mr. Scranton was cited for outstanding service over three decades with Agriculture Canada's Poultry Division and developed one of Canada's leading herds of Hereford cattle. Over the years, Charlie was an avid supporter of the Easter Beef Show and Sale. As well, Mr. Scranton worked for many years with Youth Outreach as part of his long involvement with the First Baptist Church in Charlottetown. Once again, I would like to congratulate Mr. Charles Scranton of Hazelbrook, Prince Edward Island, for being named to the Order of Canada for his accomplishments in the industry, commerce and business category. Walid EïdoStatements By Members Maria Mourani Mr. Speaker, Mr. Walid Eïdo, a Lebanese politician, was killed today in a bombing in Beirut, along with his son and six other people. Mr. Eïdo, who was in his sixties, was a member of the parliamentary majority led by Saad Hariri. This attack is strangely reminiscent of the tragic death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed in February 2005, and the assassinations of MP Gebran Tuéni and Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. Several countries have already condemned these acts of violence, including France and the United States. On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to Mr. Eïdo's family, to the families of the other victims and to the people of Lebanon. Freedom and justice are not achieved through violence, nor will they be stifled by violence.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11232

Employment Income Manual EIM00100 About this manual This manual is a guide to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003). ITEPA 2003 was developed by the Tax Law Rewrite Project and replaces the Schedule E legislation in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (ICTA 1988) and elsewhere. The aim of the project is to rewrite UK tax law using simpler language and a clearer structure. ITEPA 2003 applies with effect from 6 April 2003 and this manual describes the law as it applies to 2003/04 and later years. The SE Manual has been retained to describe the law in ICTA 1988 and elsewhere that still applies to 2002/03 and earlier years. If you are dealing with any year before 2003/04 you must use the guidance in the SE Manual and not the guidance in this manual. Although ITEPA 2003 presents tax law in a clearer and simpler way it broadly retains the effect of the legislation in ICTA 1988 and elsewhere. What was taxable before remains taxable now, although a number of minor changes have been made. These changes are described in the guidance. Because the effect of ITEPA 2003 is very similar to the earlier legislation, this manual is modelled closely on the SE Manual. You will usually find that each paragraph in the SE Manual that deals with current legislation has a similar paragraph in this manual that uses the same number. For example, EIM00670 is very similar to SE00670, except that the statutory references have been updated. We hope that if you are familiar with the SE Manual you will find it easy to find your way around this manual. (This content has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11360

« Lawsuit Claims Budweiser and Other Brands are Watered-Down | Main | Workforce Development Programs Offer Solutions to Long-Term Unemployment » WednesdayFeb272013 Entertainment and Internet Providers Launch Copyright Alert System Comments Off Share Article Youtube/CCopyrightInfo(NEW YORK) -- Several groups from the entertainment industry have teamed up with five major American Internet service providers to create something called the Copyright Alert System (CAS). The system aims to educate and dissuade consumers from participating in illegal methods of sharing copyrighted materials online.It’s a new effort by entertainment companies to keep people buying what they offer -- something that’s been threatened by digital technology.The system includes some of the country’s largest Internet providers -- AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon -- and will begin informing their customers “over the course of the next several days” how they will each participate in the alert system.The entertainment companies -- makers of movies, music, TV shows and so forth -- have banded together under the Center for Copyright Information (CCI). The CCI’s content partnerships are with the Recording Industry Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America, the Independent Film and Television Alliance, and the American Association of Independent Music.“Through the CAS, copyright owners send notices of alleged copyright infringement to participating Internet Service Providers…who then forward these notices to their Subscribers in the form of Copyright Alerts,” says the Center for Copyright Information’s website. “Users will be sent a maximum of six Alerts with an increasing degree of seriousness. In general, there are two Educational Alerts, two ‘Acknowledgement’ Alerts that require a response from the Subscriber, and two ‘Mitigation’ Alerts that impose minor consequences to emphasize the seriousness of the problem.”In the “educational alerts,” the alert system will also “provide links to authorized, legal ways for you to find that content,” Jill Lesser, Executive Director of the CCI, said in an interview with onthemedia.org. “For us, it’s about reaching the casual infringer, which is a large percentage of peer-to-peer piracy.”However, beyond the first several alerts, the system’s “mitigation” steps could include slowing down users’ download speeds, which has brought opposition from digital civil rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Just because content is copyrighted doesn’t mean sharing it is illegal,” said the EFF in a statement. It added, “We are disappointed if not surprised by the tenor of the CCI’s approach to surveillance and education.”Lesser responded to On the Media saying, “The reduction of speed, which one or more Internet service providers will be using at the mitigation measure, is, first of all, only 48 hours, which is far from termination.” The Center for Copyright Information did not immediately respond when ABC News reached out for comment.A spokesperson from Verizon told ABC News that their sixth alert will include a step that decreases offenders’ download speeds to a “dial-up” rate (much like the old AOL and EarthLink speeds) for 48 hours. The full details of Verizon’s implementation of the CAS will be released to their customers in the coming days.Though the private partnership between the content groups and Internet service providers can create deterrents for customers trying to illegally obtain copyrighted materials, the alert system is not designed to go after those that wish to continue copyright infringement beyond their sixth alert. “We hope that by the time people get to alerts number 5 or 6, they will stop. Once they’ve been mitigated, they’ve received several alerts… We’re just not going to send any more alerts, because they are not the kind of customer that we are going to reach with this program,” Lesser said. Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 7:03AM by Jeanette Torres Permalink in Technology/Electronics/Software Copyright © 2016, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11372

Atherton: Reinstate town committee, attorney recommends | April 4, 2012 | Almanac | Almanac Online | http://almanacnews.com/print/story/print/2012/04/04/atherton-reinstate-town-committee-attorney-recommends News - April 4, 2012 Atherton: Reinstate town committee, attorney recommends by Renee Batti Subscribe for unlimited accessRead FAQThe town's advisory Environmental Programs Committee should be reinstated now that an investigation of some of its practices has concluded, but measures must be put in place to avoid the kinds of problems that led to its suspension in December, Atherton's city attorney has recommended. "There is no indication that the EPC acted intentionally or with any malicious disregard for process and procedures in carrying out its specified duties and tasks," City Attorney Bill Conners wrote in his report. But problems? Oh yes, there have been problems, according to the investigation conducted by Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Larson. And Interim City Manager Theresa DellaSanta has already been working on new policies and procedures involving how money is spent and accounted for, and how the town can best provide direction to its many volunteer committees, and oversight of their actions. The investigation was ordered by the City Council in December after an opinion piece by EPC member Valerie Gardner questioning the environmental soundness of building a new library in Holbrook-Palmer Park was posted on the committee's website — a challenge of sorts to the council's support of the park as the "preferred site" of the planned library. Also, questions were raised about how funds were spent by the committee, including the process by which spending was being approved by the town. In his March 19 report to the council, Mr. Conners concluded that the website posting of Ms. Gardner's opinion piece was a violation of a town resolution that spells out basic rules for committees and commissions to follow. The resolution prohibits a member of such a body from "speaking on behalf of the Town, City Council, and/or committee or commission without prior approval of the City Council." Also prohibited is public advocacy, in the capacity of a committee member, of any particular position that runs contrary to council policy, the report says. Mr. Conners recommends that policies governing committee actions and website postings be clarified with staff so that committee members won't be able to "post materials to these sites without clear authority and approval." Reviewing the financial issues surrounding the EPC proved more complicated, and Ms. Larson's Feb. 8 report on her investigation cited a lack of oversight by town staff and the City Council, which during a five-year period allocated nearly $104,000 to the committee for its programs. "(W)hile the Council received a proposed budget with a certain amount of detail from the EPC and then approved the annual EPC budget ... the Council never had any formal conversations with the EPC about their budget projections," Ms. Larson wrote in her report. Checks were often authorized by the staff person assigned to the committee and other staff members, and committee members who spent their own money on EPC projects were reimbursed through the finance department, the report says. Among spending irregularities that violated the town's laws: The mandated competitive bidding process for goods and services over $750 wasn't followed, and "it appears that the City Managers and Finance Directors over time signed off and allowed this inappropriate process to continue" until then-finance director Lousie Ho intervened, Mr. Conners report says. Early last year, Ms. Gardner asked Deputy City Clerk Theresa DellaSanta (now the town's interim city manager) for a copy of the town's purchasing policy, including information about bidding for services, after speaking with Ms. Ho. In researching the policy and speaking with Ms. Ho and Ms. DellaSanta, Ms. Gardner realized that spending practices by the EPC up to that time sometimes violated the town's policy. "(I)t appears that after that point in time there was an attempt at compliance moving forward," according to Mr. Conners' report. "It is quite probable that the primary reason for this noncompliance with appropriate procedures stemmed from a lack of understanding on the part of the Town staff member assisting this committee, and there is no evidence that this breakdown was in any way malicious or in any way an attempt to circumvent the correct process," he wrote. At the March council meeting, Interim City Manager DellaSanta recommended that the EPC be reinstated, that the terms of all committee and commission members be extended to June 30, and that the council review and approve new rules and procedures for the volunteer bodies, developed by Ms. DellaSanta and staff members. The proposed rules include the mandatory assignment of a trained staff member to all volunteer committees and commissions. The investigation report and Mr. Conners' subsequent report were labeled confidential, and the council voted that night to make them public, and allow some time after their release before reviewing and approving the proposed rule changes. The council also directed the interim manager to set up a workshop, preferably on a Saturday, during which the council would review the proposed rule changes with committee members and the public.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11385

Grand jury indicts Annie Dookhan, figure at center of state drug lab crisis, on 27 counts By John R. Ellement Former state chemist Annie Dookhan, who triggered a crisis in the state’s criminal justice system that has set convicted drug dealers free and may cost tens of millions of dollars to fix, is facing a 27-count indictment, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office said today. Annie Dookhan leaving a Boston court hearing in October (Josh Reynolds/AP)AP Dookhan, 34, of Franklin, who allegedly mishandled evidence she was supposed to test at a state drug lab, has been indicted by a grand jury on 17 counts of obstruction of justice, as well as 10 other charges, including tampering with evidence, perjury, and falsely pretending to hold a degree from a college or university, prosecutors said. Dookhan had previously faced criminal charges in Boston Municipal Court. Those will be dropped and the prosecution of the former Department of Public Health employee will now shift to Suffolk Superior Court. Dookhan is to be arraigned Thursday in the Boston courthouse. “We allege that Annie Dookhan tampered with drug evidence and fabricated test results on multiple occasions,” Coakley said in a statement. “Her alleged actions have sent ripple effects throughout the criminal justice system. We are committed to working with all stakeholders to fix this situation and restore trust in the criminal justice system.” Dookhan worked for the DPH from 2003 until she was fired by the Patrick administration earlier this year. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the judicial system have estimated her alleged illegal activities may have undermined thousands of cases. Estimates have ranged from 34,000 to 136,000 cases that were prosecuted during her career. Prosecutors, the Committee on Public Counsel Services, municipal governments and social service agencies have estimated they will need tens of millions of dollars to deal with the increased caseloads, increased supervision of released defendants, and legal fees stemming from the scandal. According to Coakley’s statement, Dookhan allegedly “dry labbed’’ seized drugs, falsely certifying that she performed the required testing of seized suspected contraband when, in fact, she had not tested, but had merely made a visual examination. Dookhan also allegedly tainted samples by mixing substances she knew were illegal drugs with samples she knew did not contain illegal substances. She also allegedly forged the initials of a supervisor on reports in an attempt to cover up her misdeeds, prosecutors allege. Dookhan occasionally would testify in court as an expert witness and is facing the perjury charge for claiming under oath that she held a master’s degree in chemistry from the University of Massachusetts, when records show she never even enrolled in a master’s program. These charges are allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, prosecutors said. John R. Ellement can be reached at ellement@globe.com. Most Popular

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11390

Promotions Home Free Stuff Newsletters & Texts Flyerboard Celebrated Architect Tom Kundig Rouses Ire Over Ridgeline Cabin Wed., Jun 26 2013 at 05:47PM Tom Kundig is one of the most celebrated architects in Seattle. The recipient of numerous national awards, the subject of books that lavishly depict his modernist and inventive houses, he is known for the way his structures “fit serenely into the landscape,” as The New York Times put it last year. See for instance a Kundig-designed house, depicted in another Times piece, that is nestled in a cropping of rocks in the San Juan Islands. Yet, a small vacation cabin he is building in the Methow Valley for his family and two others is causing a local uproar precisely because of its interaction with the landscape. The boxy, metal-roofed structure sits atop a ridge on Flagg Mountain, which rises above Mazama. The cabin, or “hut” as it is often referred to, is positioned so far forward on the ridge that, with the help of a beam, it juts over the cliff. “It’s hard to think of it as doing anything else but lording it over the landscape,” says Bill Pope, an owner of the Mazama Country Inn. He has helped organize a campaign, called Move The Hut, that has circulated a petition asking Kundig and co-owners of the cabin to “reconsider the location of the structure.” Roughly 500 people have signed it so far, according to Pope. Meanwhile, property owners on Flagg Mountain, including a woman who sold the lot upon which Kundig is now building, are suing the architect and the others involved with the project, who include high-end Seattle builder Jim Dow. The plaintiffs claim that Kundig and his partners are violating property covenants that call for any building to be erected with “special sensitivity” that minimizes its “visual impact” to those within its sight-line. Pope maintains that the cabin can definitely be seen from the valley below. He says he looked up one day in October, and there it was. Apart from any covenants it violates, Pope says the structure runs contrary to an “ethical” code in the valley that says “you don’t build on a ridgeline.” Despite a flurry of building by wealthy Seatttlies who have picked the stunning spot in the eastern Cascades for a vacation home, that code has up until now not been transgressed, he says. Kundig has built before in the Methow Valley, designing among other projects a group of rental “rolling huts” that are advertised as a “modern alternative to camping.” None of those projects have sparked controversy. Reached by phone, Kundig says he’s done nothing wrong with his newest project. He declines to talk in detail given the ongoing legal proceedings other than to say that the cabin will live “light on the land.” He elaborates: “It’s an 800-square-foot hut that’s off the grid. It harvests the sun. It harvests water.” Dow concedes that the cabin can be seen from the valley. But he contends that the photos publicized by Move the Hut, like the one above, use a telephoto lens that make the structure seem bigger than it is. “We’ve had people call us and say: ‘We can’t find it. Where is it?’” In placing the hut, Dow says, “we had a number of constraints. One of the most crucial was that there are three pieces of property on the ridge, and the other two property owners up there were very concerned they not see our cabin.” That could only happen if the cabin was built where it is, according to Dow. “So we tried to do some things to minimize [the impact],” he continues, adding that making the cabin small was one of them. He also contends that other people have built on ridgelines above the valley as well, although towards touristy Winthrop rather than in sleepy Mazama. Attorneys for Dow, Kundig and fellow defendant Ben Rand moved to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs don’t have standing. While striking two of the plaintiffs, an Okanogan County Superior Court judge ruled late last month that the suit can proceed.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11447

One Antidote to Foreclosures: Good Schools Matthew Strozier Highly ranked school districts may have been spared the worst of the foreclosure crisis, according to a new analysis, showing that the housing crash was akin to a tornado that tore through wide swaths, but hit with particular force in certain areas. The analysis, conducted for Developments by Location Inc., a Worcester, Mass.-based company that mines local data for businesses and consumers, looked at six months of 2011 sales data collected by RealtyTrac Inc. It showed that the percentage of foreclosure (or “real-estate-owned”) sales went down as the school ranking went up in five metro areas – Jacksonville, Fla; Atlanta; Toledo, Ohio; Stockton, Calif.; and Seattle. Higher-rated school districts also maintained higher home-sale prices, and higher home prices per square foot. “If you are looking to buy into one of these good school districts, it is very rare to find a foreclosure,” said Location Inc.’s chief executive Andrew Schiller, an expert in demographic analysis who conducted the research with his colleague Jonathan Glick. “It’s better to just go into a normal sale.” (The five cities were chosen to provide a general market overview.) The finding is, to a certain extent, not a surprise. Schools have long been a driver for home buyers, whether in determining location or timing. So it would make sense that school ranking could serve as a kind of proxy for measuring the damage from the foreclosure crisis. Mom-and-Pop Shops Fade From Shopping Centers Fannie, Freddie Executives Defend Pay

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11540

Tackling tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions A fully functioning single market for occupational pensions is essential to ensure that citizens are able to exercise their rights to free movement enshrined in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and to enhance labour mobility. The Commission therefore proposes a comprehensive strategy to tackle tax obstacles liable to be a disincentive to individuals wishing to contribute to pension schemes outside their home Member State and pension institutions that wish to provide pensions across borders. Communication from the Commission to the Council, to the European Parliament and to the European Economic and Social Committee, of 19 April 2001, entitled, "The elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions" [COM(2001) 214 final - Not published in the Official Journal]. Through this communication the Commission: seeks a coordinated approach adapted to the diversity of Member States' rules rather than attempting to achieve harmonisation;calls for the elimination of unduly restrictive or discriminatory tax rules;presents measures to safeguard Member States' tax revenues. To do this, the Commission proposes to monitor Member States' national rules in this field and take the necessary steps to ensure their compliance with the EC Treaty, in particular with the rules on non-discrimination. It reserves the right to initiate legal action against any Member State failing to comply with the rules. The Commission also proposes adopting measures to maintain the tax revenues of Member States for the cross-border provision of pensions. It further proposes a coordinated approach to eliminating the tax obstacles, in particular double taxation, which result from the different taxation systems for occupational pensions in the Member States. Application of the EC Treaty rules The Commission notes that the EC Treaty rules on the free movement of capital, labour and services must be applied in the area of cross-border pension provision. Member States are consequently required to eliminate all discrimination against occupational schemes established in other Member States. Discrimination means privileged treatment of domestic schemes, in particular more favourable rules on deductibility of contributions or taxation of benefits. The Commission accordingly intends to examine the compliance of the relevant national rules with the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty and, where necessary, to bring cases before the Court of Justice so as to allow the emergence of a fully functioning single market for occupational pensions. A Community legislative framework for information exchange already exists, in particular under the Directive on mutual assistance between Member States in the field of direct taxation. In the interests of better coordination between Member States on the collection of taxes applicable to cross-border pensions, the Commission recommends that Member States agree on an automatic exchange of information on occupational pensions. The Council has already decided upon the principle of automatic information exchange in the area of taxation of savings income. The extension of that principle to pensions will help prevent distortions by ensuring the same level of information exchange for comparable products. Mismatch of tax systems Different Member States have different rules in terms of whether they tax or exempt pension contributions, investment income and capital gains of the pension institution, and pension benefits. These differences can create problems where employees spend their working careers in one Member State but retire to another. Pensions are sometimes taxed, for example, even though the contributions are not tax deductible or the pension is not taxed even though the contributions are deductible. Concerning problems of double taxation and non-taxation arising from the mismatch of tax systems, the Commission recommends wider application of the "EET system" (Exempt contributions, Exempt investment income and capital gains of the pension institution, Taxed benefits) already applied in eleven Member States, entailing the deductibility of pension contributions and investment income coupled with the taxation of benefits, together with better coordination of Member States' taxation rules. The Commission acknowledges that completely uniform rules for occupational pensions will not be easy to achieve while the reliance on social security and occupational pension schemes varies so significantly from one Member State to another. The Commission therefore explores how double taxation and double non-taxation problems can be addressed by better coordination of Member States' taxation rules. Solutions could include unilateral tax relief, bilateral agreements or a multilateral convention or coordinating measures at European Union level. Pensions are an issue of universal concern: for individual citizens who want adequate provision for their retirement; for employers who seek cost-effective pension provision for their employees and for governments who, throughout the Union, are seeking to maintain adequate pension provision in the face of ageing populations. The potential benefits of better cross-border pension provision are substantial. At present citizens who take up employment or residence outside their home State are often unable to remain in their existing occupational pension schemes. The number of European citizens aged 15 years and over residing in a Member State other than their Member State of origin is increasing, and enlargement of the Union will contribute further to this trend. Impediments to cross-border pension provision may also prevent European businesses from choosing the most efficient way of providing pensions for their employees by centralising their pension provision. At the Stockholm European Council of 23 and 24 March 2001, as part of the new strategy to open up pan-European labour markets, the Commission promised an initiative in the tax field to complement the Directive on occupational retirement provision that would facilitate cross-border pension provision and investment.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/11668

Immigration Article of the Day: The Immigrant and Miranda by Anjana Malhotra The Immigrant and Miranda by Anjana Malhotra, SUNY Buffalo Law School March 22, 2014 Southern Methodist University Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 277, 2013 Abstract: The recent dramatic convergence of immigration and criminal law is transforming the immigration and criminal justice system. While scholars have begun to examine some of the structural implications of this convergence, this Article breaks new ground by examining judicial responses and specifically the lens of Miranda v. Arizona. This Article examines the divergent and largely aberrant approaches that federal appellate courts have taken to determine whether Miranda warnings and rights apply to custodial inquiries about immigration status that have clear criminal and civil implications. Part I of this Article discusses the distinctions between civil and criminal immigration laws and the background principles of Miranda. Part II synthesizes the various and inconsistent tests courts have used to determine whether Miranda applies to dual civil and criminal immigration inquiries and examines how the failure of lower courts to apply Miranda consistently in the immigration context marks an unusual shift in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. It then explores how the emerging doctrine for immigrants departs (1) from the Court's application of Miranda to dual civil and criminal interrogations in the tax context; (2) from precedent favoring objective tests; and (3) ultimately from the animating principles in Miranda to bring clarity to police, suspects, and courts on the admissibility of statements in custodial interrogations. Part III of this Article describes the broader implications of these doctrinal shifts in light of significantly increasing federal enforcement of criminal provisions of immigration laws and the increasing number of local law enforcement officials who are untrained in immigration law and yet are involved in these prosecutions. It also analyzes the incentive structure created by federal compensation programs for local law enforcement agencies to circumvent procedural protections for immigrants, relying on new data suggesting that the government's aggressive criminal enforcement policy has raised serious constitutional issues. Finally, Part IV explores the ways in which these trends reflect declining procedural protections in the realm of criminal prosecutions for immigration-related offenses and proposes some solutions to ensure that immigrants' rights are protected in criminal immigration enforcement. Sweet Home Alabama? Immigration and Civil Rights in the "New" South Lawsuit Challenges Shackling of Non-Violent Detainees in Court Ernesto Miranda's role in constitutional history Gideon v. Wainwright and the Right to Counsel in Immigration Removal Cases: An Immigration Gideon? New Report Examines Changes in State and Local Immigration Laws ACLU reacts to failure to read Boston bombing suspect his Miranda rights http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2014/04/immigration-article-of-the-day--9.html

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12024

Warrant Issued For Cuba Gooding Jr. Following New Orleans Bar Incident July 31, 2012 9:52 AM PDT New Orleans police say an arrest warrant has been issued for actor Cuba Gooding Jr. after an incident at a Bourbon Street bar. Police said in a news release that a bartender told officers that Gooding was there at 3 a.m. Tuesday when he became upset with other patrons who started asking him to take photographs with them. The bartender told officers that Gooding pushed her after she asked him to calm down, and again after she told him he needed to leave and police had been called. Gooding left the bar before police arrived. Police issued an arrest warrant for municipal battery, a misdemeanor. Gooding’s publicist declined comment. The actor is in New Orleans filming “The Butler,” a movie about a White House butler who serves eight American presidents. Copyright © Bartender Not Pursuing Charges Against Cuba Gooding Jr. Charges Dropped Against Actor Cuba Gooding Jr.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12029

Arkansas Court Strikes Blow Against Same-Sex Parents Religion Meet the Controversial Spiritual Adviser to Trans People A Catholic nun has provided religious counseling for hundreds of transgender people throughout the U.S. By Michael O'Loughlin March 07 2014 11:39 AM EST For over three decades, a Catholic nun has led a robust, though secret, ministry to transgender people all over the country, according to a report from Al Jazeera America by Nathan Schneider. The nun, whose name was not used in the article at the request of her religious community, began ministering to trans people in the 1990s. She is referred to in the article by the pseudonym Sister Monica, and she says she is a bit uncomfortable in a role that seems to challenge the Catholic hierarchy. “Swimming upstream, fighting authority — that’s not what comes naturally to me,” she told Schneider. “I’m more of a follower.” Still, Sister Monica said she has often felt isolated and misunderstood — for instance, her mother couldn't see why she would join a religious community — and this has helped her identify with LGBT people. She is straight but has a gay brother and lesbian sister, and when she started meeting transgender people she felt a call to minister to them. One trans person to whom Sr. Monica acts as a spiritual adviser said the nun's outreach to educate Catholic priests about trans issues has been especially important. “What priests say really can be the difference between life and death for people like us,” this person said in the article. The Catholic Church had no position on transgender issues when Sister Monica began working with trans people, and while some Catholic leaders, including Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, have made comments suggesting that the church frowns on transgender identity, the article suggests the jury is still out. “The interesting thing about the Catholic Church is that there isn’t an official policy about this,” said Elizabeth Bucar, a professor of religious studies at Northeastern University. Follow Michael O'Loughlin on Twitter at @mikeoloughlin. Tags: Religion, Transgender, Roman Catholic Church Latest videos on Advocate

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12158

Dotcom's appeal against extradition to U.S. winds up in New Zealand, ruling likely weeks away Lawyers for German entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, wanted in the United States on copyright infringement and money-laundering charges over his file-sharing website Megaupload, argued on Wednesday there was not enough evidence to show he conspired to commit a crime. The Auckland court heard closing arguments in Dotcom's four-week appeal against a lower court's decision to extradite him to the U.S., the first New Zealand court proceedings to be broadcast live on the internet. The appeal took place nearly five years after dozens of black-clad police rappelled into the flamboyant entrepreneur's New... read more 28 September 2016 in Kim Dotcom Dodges Jail Before Extradition Bid Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has avoided being sent back to jail in New Zealand, ahead of an extradition bid by the United States. Auckland district court Judge Nevin Dawson ruled there was no evidence Dotcom had secret assets or posed a flight... Orange News, 1 December 2014 in Business Japan, New Zealand agree U.S. fast-track bill vital for TPP talks - Amari "It is a common understanding with the New Zealand trade minister that the TPA is extremely important for the TPP agreement. This is also a shared view among member nations," Akira Amari said, referring to the U.S. trade promotion authority... Reuters, 25 March 2015 in Business UK court approves ex-Credit Suisse trader's extradition to U.S. Serageldin, 39, the Swiss bank's former global head of structured credit, is accused of artificially inflating the prices of mortgage-backed bonds between August 2007 and February 2008, when their real value was plummeting. Two former Credit Suisse... Reuters, 14 January 2013 in Business Accused British 'flash crash' trader fights extradition to U.S. Bail for Navinder Singh Sarao, 36, was set at 5 million pounds ($7.5 million), along with other conditions. He will remain jailed in London for at least one more night, until he raises the bail. Sarao's bail hearing was his first appearance since the... Reuters, 22 April 2015 in Business Surely not another 'Pasty tax' U-turn? Furore hots up again after ruling The Government's U-turn over the "pasty tax' may be at risk following a ruling in a case involving sandwich chain Subway. A test case had been brought by a Huddersfield franchisee who argued VAT should not be charged on its toasted sandwiches and... Daily Mail, 14 October 2012 in Business

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12245

Young Asians more likely to be jailedMarch 30, 2006 in Youth justice The number of Asians in custody has significantly increased in recent years, figures collated by youth offending teams have revealed.The statistics show that in many ­- although not all ­- areas, young Asians are now more likely to be over-represented in terms of the number of young offenders given custodial sentences.YOTs have been told by the Youth Justice Board to go away and look at their sentencing patterns locally and to talk to the courts in areas where young Asians are over-represented in prisons. They are also being advised to consider whether the wider support needs of young Asian people are being met in their local communities, and whether there is enough involvement of Asian elders in the local volunteer force.YJB chair Rod Morgan told the annual Nacro youth crime conference that it was “incredibly important” for YOTs to address this issue at a local level.He said that other key concerns for the YJB included the rise in the number of young people ending up in the youth justice system despite an overall fall in crime levels, the demise of informal control systems in schools and in the home, the steady but “stubbornly high” number of children still in custody, and the move away from dealing with young offenders pre-court.A more flexible system which allowed for more offences to be dealt with pre-court rather than the rigid “three strikes and you’re out” approach currently used was at the heart of discussions around the delayed youth justice bill, Morgan said.He added that the legislation would now “almost certainly” appear before the summer, although possibly as part of a wider Home Office bill rather than as stand-alone legislation. Home Truths Special Report on Mental Health Plans

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12365

Maryland To Recognize Utah Same-Sex Marriagesby John RileyMetro WeeklyThursday Jan 16, 2014 PRINT Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler (D) announced Friday that Maryland will recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in Utah between the time the U.S. District Court for Utah found the state's marriage-equality ban unconstitutional and when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a halt to such marriages as the state appeals the ruling.In a letter responding to a Jan. 9 request from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization, Gansler said that Maryland would treat as valid those same-sex marriage performed in Utah between Dec. 20, 2013, and Jan. 6, prior to the stay. Gansler based his confirmation on an opinion he issued in 2010 that Maryland would recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere, though Maryland did not give same-sex couples access to marriage licenses until 2013. Gansler also noted in his letter to HRC that the Maryland Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in a 2012 ruling.''Although the U.S. Supreme Court, on January 6, 2014, stayed the effect of the district court order pending resolution of the litigation ... it did not invalidate the marriages that were entered into in Utah during the period of time in which the district court's order was in place,'' Gansler wrote to HRC President Chad Griffin. ''Those marriages were validly entered into, as is reflected in statements that Gov. Herbert and Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes have made since the district court's order and recently confirmed.''Gansler continued, saying that although same-sex marriages may not be solemnized in Utah for the time being, and existing same-sex marriages are not eligible for state benefits, there has been no court ruling or opinion issued by Reyes in his capacity as Utah Attorney General that the marriages that previously occurred are no longer valid. Gansler cited a letter, authored by Reyes, that was sent to county attorneys and county clerks throughout Utah advising that such marriages were recognized at the time the ceremonies were performed and recommended that the clerks issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples ''as an administrative function and not a legal function'' that would allow those couples to have their marriages recognized in states with marriage equality. Thus, Gansler ruled, since the marriages are still valid, Maryland will recognize them.''It is an affront to the idea of basic human rights that the battle for full marriage equality in this country remains in headlines and courtrooms,'' Gansler said in his letter to HRC. ''Nevertheless, as courts and legislatures accord same-sex couples the dignity and humanity they deserve, we as a nation move closer to fulfilling the Constitution's promise of equal protection of the law. Maryland will continue to recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages as we continue to advance that effort wherever and whenever we can.''Gansler's pronouncement of how Maryland will treat Utah marriages comes just hours after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder released a video statement saying that the federal government will recognize and make eligible for federal benefits the nearly 1,300 same-sex marriages performed in Utah prior to the Supreme Court-issued stay.Copyright MetroWeekly. For more articles from MetroWeekly visit www.metroweekly.comRelated Topics: Utah | family parity | Marriage equality Comments From Ferraris to SUVs: 5 Cars That Shone at the Paris Show Watch: Hallmark Debuts New Christmas Ad Featuring Gay Couple

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12420

Contact the First Amendment Center Friend The First Amendment Center On Facebook Follow The First Amendment Center On Twitter Sign Up for The First Amendment Center RSS Feed Freedom to Assemble Freedom to Petition Vanderbilt University and the Newseum About the First Amendment Center 1 for All Classroom Lesson Plans Moot Court First Amendment Center Archives State of the First Amendment First Amendment Center Archive Gene Policinski Welcome to an archival site of the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center. Content on this site is not being updated. For current commentary, programs, information and discussion of news events and First Amendment legislation, judicial rulings and issues, please visit www.newseuminstitute.org. Local D.C. teacher becomes 50,000th NewseumED registered user at NCSS conference. Read More Posts Tagged ‘university’ Inside the First Amendment • Religion Commentary | Charles C. Haynes In higher education, low tolerance for free speech A student who handed out flyers is charged with religious discrimination for disseminating views critical of a religious group. But wait, there’s more. Inside the First Amendment | Charles C. Haynes On college campuses, zoning out free speech How freedom of speech is under assault on many American college and university campuses. Speech News | First Amendment Center FIRE issues new guide to campus free speech Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s second edition includes a wealth of information on free-speech issues that frequently arise on college and university campuses. Press News | First Amendment Center Univ. of Calif. pays to settle seized photographer’s lawsuit UC Berkeley police also will change procedures, undergo training as part of settlement with photographer arrested at violent protest in 2009. First Amendment Commentary | Ken Paulson Painter’s court win affirms visual free expression 11th Circuit rules that First Amendment protection for Daniel A. Moore’s paintings of University of Alabama football scenes outweighs the university’s trademark interest. Press Commentary | Douglas E. Lee Ruling affirms Ill. campus free-press act It’s good news for almost everyone as federal judge orders Chicago State University to reinstate adviser fired in dispute over stories that ran in the college newspaper. Speech Analysis | Douglas E. Lee 8th Circuit: Woman can challenge law school’s hiring decision Court finds Teresa Wagner, who applied for positions at the University of Iowa College of Law, presented enough evidence of political discrimination to be allowed to proceed to trial. Religion Analysis • Speech Analysis • Supreme Court Case | David L. Hudson Jr. 30 years ago today, high court backed student Christian group In Widmar v. Vincent, Justices said public universities can’t discriminate against student groups on the basis of their religious views. Assembly • Speech | First Amendment Center Tenn. lawmaker calls on college to punish Capitol protesters NASHVILLE — State Sen. Randy McNally has urged the University of Memphis to take action against a student group that he said was involved in protests last week at the Capitol that resulted in seven arrests. On March 17, McNally, R-Oak Ridge, said the protests two days earlier were worse than when anti-income tax protesters threw [...] Freedom Of Information • Press | First Amendment Center Pa. university’s foundation loses bid to block access to records EAST STROUDSBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania’s highest court has upheld a ruling entitling a newspaper to donor financial information from East Stroudsburg University’s foundation. The Pocono Record reports the state Supreme Court issued an order March 16 refusing to hear the university’s appeal of a lower court ruling. The action is expected to clear the way for the [...] Press | First Amendment Center At least in Ill., an antidote to college media censorship Comment? E-mail me At least in Illinois, a legal case inimical to college press freedom appears to be dead. In 2005, the full 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stunned college media across the country when it decided in Hosty v. Carter that college administrators could, without violating the First Amendment, exercise editorial control over campus newspapers. [...] Speech | First Amendment Center Workers can’t ‘invoke power of government’ to silence professor PHOENIX — A federal appeals court ruling in a case involving a college professor’s racially charged e-mails says First Amendment rights mean people offended should delete the e-mails or engage the sender in debate, not “invoke the power of the government” to shut him up. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling yesterday doesn’t outright [...] Assembly | First Amendment Center Court to resolve split over rules for campus clubs WASHINGTON — Once again, the Supreme Court will navigate the difficult waters of student religious speech on public university campuses. Agreeing to hear the first church-state case of the current term, the justices yesterday granted review in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a clash between the non-discrimination policies of the University of California’s Hastings College of [...] Speech | David L. Hudson Jr. Group warns of threats to academic freedom, faculty speech Public colleges and universities must be vigilant and do more to protect academic freedom, particularly in the wake of court decisions limiting the free-expression rights of public employees, says the American Association of University Professors. AAUP, the nation’s largest group that represents academics, has launched a campaign it calls “Speak Up, Speak Out: Protect the Faculty [...] 2 campus newspaper staffers charged with trespassing in dorm Editor's note: The Associated Press reported Nov. 9 that student journalist Katie Hibson said she wouldn't appeal a ruling that she trespassed when she entered a dorm to interview students about a “Peeping Tom” incident. The ruling was issued Nov. 5 by James Madison University's Office of Judicial Affairs. The charges against Tim Chapman were [...] « Older Entries | THE EXPERTS The First Amendment Center is an educational organization and cannot provide legal advice. Ken Paulson is president of the First Amendment Center and dean of the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University. He is also the former editor-in-chief of USA Today. Gene Policinski, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute, also is senior vice president of the First Amendment Center, a center of the institute. He is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online. John Seigenthaler founded the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values. Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center at the Newseum Institute.. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life. David L. Hudson Jr. is an expert in First Amendment issues and a regular contributor to the First Amendment Center's website. Hudson teaches law and was a scholar at the First Amendment Center. Nunc tincidunt Proin dolor Aenean lacinia • About the First Amendment • First Amendment Center Publications • Contact the First Amendment Center • Freedom Sings® We support the First Amendment and build understanding of its core freedoms through education, information and entertainment. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, and the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Founded by John Seigenthaler, the First Amendment Center is an operating program of the Freedom Forum and is associated with the Newseum and the Diversity Institute. The center has offices in the John Seigenthaler Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The center’s programs, including the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute, provide education and information to the public and groups including First Amendment scholars and experts, educators, government policy makers, legal experts and students. The center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. See First Amendment Center Fact Sheet and FAQs. See internships info. The center’s website, www.firstamendmentcenter.org, is one of the most authoritative sources of news, information and commentary in the nation on First Amendment issues. It features daily updates on news about First Amendment-related developments, as well as detailed reports about U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment, and commentary, analysis and special reports on free expression, press freedom and religious-liberty issues. Support the work of the First Amendment Center. 1 for All is a national nonpartisan program designed to build understanding and support for First Amendment freedoms. 1 for All provides teaching materials to the nation’s schools, supports educational events on America’s campuses and reminds the public that the First Amendment serves everyone, regardless of faith, race, gender or political leanings. It is truly one amendment for all. Visit 1 for All at http://1forall.us/ • Test your freedom IQ! Take the Great First Amendment Quiz here. Help tomorrow’s citizens find their voice: Teach the First Amendment The most basic liberties guaranteed to Americans – embodied in the 45 words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – assure Americans a government that is responsible to its citizens and responsive to their wishes.These 45 words are as alive and important today as they were more than 200 years ago. These liberties are neither liberal nor conservative, Democratic nor Republican – they are the basis for our representative democratic form of government. We know from studies beginning in 1997 by the nonpartisan First Amendment Center, and from studies commissioned by the Knight Foundation and others, that few adult Americans or high school students can name the individual five freedoms that make up the First Amendment. The lesson plans – drawn from materials prepared by the Newseum and the First Amendment Center – will draw young people into an exploration of how their freedoms began and how they operate in today’s world. Students will discuss just how far individual rights extend, examining rights in the school environment and public places. The lessons may be used in history and government, civics, language arts and journalism, art and debate classes. They may be used in sections or in their entirety. Many of these lesson plans indicate an overall goal, offer suggestions on how to teach the lesson and list additional resources and enrichment activities. See more about lesson plans. First Amendment Moot Court Competition This site no longer is being updated … And the competition itself is moving to Washington, D.C., where the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center is co-sponsoring the “Seigenthaler-Sutherland Cup National First Amendment Moot Court Competition,” March 18-19, in partnership with the Columbus School of Law, of the Catholic University of America. During the two-day competition in February, each team will participate in a minimum of four rounds, arguing a hypothetical based on a current First Amendment controversy before panels of accomplished jurists, legal scholars and attorneys. For more information on the 2016 competition, including the competition registration form, go to newseuminstitute.org/mootcourt/ State of the First Amendment survey reports The State of the First Amendment surveys, commissioned since 1997 by the First Amendment Center and Newseum, are a regular check on how Americans view their first freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion and petition. The periodic surveys examine public attitudes toward freedom of speech, press, religion and the rights of assembly and petition; and sample public opinion on contemporary issues involving those freedoms. See the reports.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12521

Delhi district court lawyers go on day-long strike Updated: May 08, 2009 19:17 IST IANS Lawyers at district courts on Friday went on a day-long strike to press for a hike in the monetary ceiling of cases heard by these courts. At present, district courts hear cases which involve amounts up to Rs 2 million. Civil matters involving property and other suits of more than Rs 2 million are heard by the Delhi High Court. "There is complete strike in all five district courts," said Rajiv Khosla, the spokesman for the coordination committee of all district bar associations. He said the high courts of almost all states in the country are dealing in appellate and writ jurisdiction and the original jurisdiction of cases vests only with the district courts. "Even in Delhi, prior to the establishment of the Delhi High Court, the trial of cases of all amounts vested with the district court," he added. Khosla said it takes almost 16 years to decide a civil matter in the high court due to the huge pendency, and the process proves costly for the litigants. "Such disputes can be disposed of at district courts expeditiously at a lower cost," he said. The lawyers are demanding removing the bar of Rs.2 million altogether, and putting no ceiling at all. The decision to raise the bar can be taken by the government only on the recommendation of the high court, they said. "The present jurisdiction of district courts is not sufficient even to entertain a dispute of an LIG (Lower Income Group) flat and the litigants are suffering because of this. Several meetings with the chief justice of the high court and numerous representations have also failed to yield any result, forcing lawyers to go on a day-long strike," said Mahesh Sharma, president of the committee. The cases listed for hearing at district courts at Patiala House, Tis Hazari, Karkardooma, Rohini and Dwarka were adjourned due to the strike, said Jaiveer Singh Chauhan, the secretary of the Delhi Bar Association. Several litigants suffered due to the strike. Shanti Devi's son died in a accident seven years back and the court was to pronounce the compensation order Friday but could not as her lawyer could not file a necessary document due to the strike. "At this age I just can't travel much but now the court has posted the matter for next date and I will have to come back. This is not fair on the part of lawyers. Why they left litigants abandoned for their causes? Are we supposed to be sufferers every time," she asked. delhi districts delhi lawyers

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12610

Home › Practice Areas › Insolvency Law › News & Comment › Hayes v Hayes [2012] EWHC 1240 (Ch); [2012] BPIR 739 Hayes v Hayes [2012] EWHC 1240 (Ch); [2012] BPIR 739 Guildhall Chambers (Chancery Division, His Honour Judge Pelling QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court), 23 March 2012) During matrimonial proceedings, a costs order was made against H in favour of W. H was made bankrupt on her petition in respect of that debt, even though the then r 12.3 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 did not permit a bankruptcy petition to be based upon such an order (although it was subsequently amended to allow for it). H's application to annul was dismissed, as W could merely have presented another petition. After H's discharge from bankruptcy, W served a second statutory demand (which was withdrawn) and a third statutory demand, which included the costs order and interest. H applied under s 281(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for his discharge from the debt. The application was dismissed, and H appealed. The appeal was dismissed. The discretion under s 281 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was unfettered and to be exercised according to the relevant circumstances as at the date of discharge. It was clear that the default position was that family orders had to survive the discharge of a bankrupt and remained subject to an order of the court requiring the discharge of the debt. That position stemmed from the desirability of ensuring that all family-related liabilities were met and not avoided through the bankruptcy procedure. The registrar had not acted wrongly by not directing that the debt should have been regarded as discharged. Nonetheless, H could apply for the dismissal of any bankruptcy petition presented on the basis of the third statutory demand as an abuse of process, despite the fact that a non-provable debt could be used to found a petition for a bankruptcy order.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12637

High Court Hears Forced Medication Case By Associated Press | Posted: Mon 9:55 AM, Mar 03, 2003 | Updated: Mon 9:55 AM, Mar 03, 2003 Dr. Charles Sell sees imaginary leopards, believes the FBI is trying to kill him and wants to go into combat. He is locked up in a psychiatric unit while the Supreme Court decides if the 53-year-old can be forced to take anti-psychotic drugs. Justices seemed conflicted with the question before them: How to balance the government's interest in punishing nonviolent crime with a person's constitutional right to control his or her body? Despite his delusions, Sell can behave normally and knows that he does not want to be put on powerful drugs, justices were told by attorney Barry Short. "Then he should be able to stand trial," Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted. Justice Anthony Kennedy asked if prosecutors should be allowed to medicate defendants, and witnesses, all in the name of justice. "Could you send your guy out there with a needle the day before the trial ... so that he behaves the way the government wants him to at trial?" Kennedy asked the government lawyer. Later, Kennedy told the attorney, "I do not understand your basic authority to do this at all." The justices were hearing arguments in a follow-up to a 1992 court ruling that defendants can be forced to take drugs only if it is medically appropriate. Sell's case raises questions that could apply more broadly to, for example, government programs requiring vaccinations against anthrax or school mandates that children with hyperactivity or attention deficit disorder take drugs to remain in class. No one disputes that Sell, of suburban St. Louis, is mentally ill and too unstable to stand trial. There is disagreement over whether medicines will help him, and whether he is dangerous. The Bush administration argues that hundreds of federal defendants a year are medicated, and that most become competent to stand trial. Most take the drugs willingly. In a recent 12-month period, 59 people were medicated against their wishes and about three-fourths were restored to competency, the administration told the court. Sell and his wife are accused of submitting bogus claims to Medicaid and private insurance companies for dental services. Sell was later charged with conspiring and attempting to kill a witness - a former worker in his office - and the FBI agent who arrested him. He has spent more than four years in a prison hospital as his lawyers fought over his drugging, more jail time than he would receive if convicted of the fraud crimes. He has been diagnosed with a delusional disorder. Some were surprised when the Supreme Court announced last fall it would hear Sell's case. The justices refused to take up the subject in 2001 in the appeal of Russell Eugene Weston, a schizophrenic charged with killing two U.S. Capitol police officers in 1998. The court signaled Friday that there may be problems with the Sell case. It asked both sides to prepare arguments about whether the case was properly appealed. The case has attracted the attention of medical organizations and civil rights groups. Peter Joy, a professor at Washington University School of Law who filed a brief on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the powerful drugs Sell would be given can cause serious side effects and potentially death. "It shocks my conscience to think we might risk putting someone to death prior to trying them on nonviolent charges," he said. Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said there's an interest to victims and society in putting defendants on trial. "The criminal justice system makes all kinds of intrusion on people's privacy. It locks people up, searches their houses, searches their bodies," he said. Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability kolotv.com/a?a=241192

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12696

A public law school faces trial over liberal bias By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — Praised by colleagues as smart, friendly and passionate about the law, Teresa Wagner was a leading candidate when two jobs came open to teach writing at the University of Iowa law school. An alumnus, she was already working part-time at its writing center and received positive reviews from students and a key committee. But after she interviewed with the faculty in 2007, one job went to someone without teaching experience and the other wasn’t filled. She was passed over for other jobs in the coming years. She now says she was blackballed because of her legal work against abortion rights and will take her complaint to a jury this week in a case that is being closely watched in higher education because of longstanding allegations of political bias at left-leaning law schools. Conservatives have maintained for years that they are passed over for jobs and promotions at law schools because of their views, but formal challenges have been rare, in part because of the difficulty of proving discrimination. Wagner’s case is considered the first of its kind. “This will put a spotlight on a terrible injustice that is being perpetrated throughout American higher education,” said Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, who says he routinely hears from rejected conservative professors. “What makes Teresa Wagner’s case so extraordinary is she came up with the documentary evidence of what was really going on.” But some scholars worry that challenges like Wagner’s could force law schools to begin openly considering the political views of job applicants, opening the way for more lawsuits and court interference in hiring. At a federal trial that starts Monday in Davenport, Wagner will argue that the law school faculty blocked her appointment because she had opposed abortion rights, gay marriage and euthanasia while working as a lawyer for the Family Research Council and the National Right to Life Committee in Washington. Wagner says the opposition to her was led by professor Randall Bezanson, a law clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun when he wrote the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973 — an opinion Wagner spent her earlier career opposing. She says 46 of 50 faculty members who considered her appointment were Democrats, while one was Republican. Wagner will offer as evidence an e-mail from a school official who backed her candidacy warning the dean that some opposed her “because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it).” Wagner declined an interview request before trial, but told Fox News in April that liberals were protective of prestigious faculty appointments. “Republicans need not apply,” she said. Lawyers representing the law school will argue that Wagner was passed over after botching an answer during a 2007 job interview with the faculty, a claim her attorney calls a pretext. A number of studies in recent years have examined party affiliation, ideology and donations to candidates and concluded that law professors are overwhelmingly left-leaning. Many law schools recruit conservative scholars to join their faculty and top law schools pride themselves on having prominent representatives of different perspectives. Some law schools, especially those affiliated with the Catholic church and other religions, also lean strongly conservative. Still, many liberals concede they outnumber their colleagues on faculties around the country but say reasons such as career choices may explain the disparity, not discrimination in hiring. Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said business conservatives with expertise in regulatory and antitrust law are well-represented on faculties. But he said he would be hard-pressed to name any professor at a non-religious school who opposed the Roe decision before winning tenure. As a lawyer for conservative groups, Wagner wrote papers and books and filed court briefs on behalf of conservative social causes after graduating from law school in 1993. She moved back to Iowa City with her husband and four children in 2006 to raise their family. She says she had the necessary experience for the law school openings because she had taught writing at George Mason law school in Virginia and an ethics class at Notre Dame. In 2002, she’d turned down a job offer from Ave Marie Law School, a conservative Catholic institution then located in Ann Arbor, Mich. “I thought she was going to be dynamic in the classroom,” said Ave Marie dean emeritus Bernard Dobranski. “She was very lively and vivacious.” But Wagner says an associate Iowa dean told her to conceal her connection to Ave Maria during the interview because it would be viewed negatively. Before professors voted on whether to recommend her hiring, she claims Bezanson spoke in opposition. In a deposition, Bezanson said that he “picked up someone saying she was conservative” during discussions but denied that was the driving factor in his opposition. “However anybody voted, nobody is ever stupid enough to say anything about that in a faculty meeting,” said Bezanson, an expert on free speech. The law school says Wagner told them she would not teach legal analysis, which professors found unacceptable since it was in the job description. Professor Michael Vitiello, of University of the Pacific law school in Sacramento, has argued that claims of liberal bias at law schools are overblown. He said Wagner’s case posed intriguing questions about whether political views should be considered in hiring decisions. “There is something very interesting, seeing conservatives suing on job discrimination claims because suddenly they are portraying themselves as victims,” he said. “This case is filled with all sorts of ironies.” Olson, of the Cato Institute and author of a book on legal academia, said the jury’s decision “could shake up lots of hiring practices. If they say state universities are under scrutiny to make sure they are not discriminating against viewpoints, then a lot of people can sue, a lot of cases are going to be pretty good and the universities are going to have someone looking over their shoulder.”

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12746

Jared Olar: Breaking down legal abortion falsehoods By Jared Olar, GHNS Human injustice cannot abide the truth, cannot endure when the truth is widely known and willingly embraced. To establish itself in a society, injustice needs falsehood, deception and willful or innocent ignorance.We’ve seen those principles at work time and again — in the fabricated news that the Russian Communists published in Pravda, in the Soviet Potemkin villages, in the old claims of apartheid propagandists that South Africa was all but uninhabited prior to the arrival of European colonists, in the racist justifications and rationalizations for chattel slavery and segregation in the U.S., and in the Nazis’ demented joke, “Arbeit macht frei,” that hung over the gates of Auschwitz and other death camps.The same dynamic has been observed in the movement in support of the legal killing of unborn children. In the campaign to legalize abortion, deception and mendacity were chief weapons, as was explained by the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a leader in the fight for legal abortion who later repented of his former crimes.In his essay, “Confession of an Ex-Abortionist,” Nathanson recalled the tactics of the pro-abortion movement prior to 1973. “Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,” Nathanson wrote, “we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.”They also faked the number of illegal abortions in the U.S. “The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.“These false figures,” Nathanson explained, “took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.”Big Abortion still relies on many of the same untruths that the pro-abortion movement has been spreading for decades. Two examples of persistent pro-abortion myths, as Justin Dyer recently explained in National Review, are that “abortion was a common-law liberty at the time of the American founding,” and that “the primary purpose of anti-abortion laws in the 19th century was to protect women rather than the lives of unborn children.”Those two myths are ultimately the brainchild of Cyril Means, a New York Law School professor and legal counsel for the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), who introduced these pseudo-historical notions in two papers published in 1968 and 1971.No surprise, Means’ scholarship in those papers (or pseudo-scholarship, we must rather say) forms part of the Supreme Court’s rationale in support of its infamous four-decades-old Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton declarations that American women have a constitutional right to kill, or to hire someone to kill, their unborn babies for virtually any reason.Pernicious myths and deceits can only be rooted out through knowledge, which requires a firm commitment to the truth and a courageous intellectual honesty that is willing to suffer even vilification and ostracism when, as is often the case, the majority are ignorant of the truth and express hostility when their erroneous beliefs are challenged.It also requires the willingness to do the hard work of reading and studying history. For those who want to begin to learn the truth of abortion in U.S. history, one very helpful resource can be found at the website, “Horatio Robinson Storer, M.D. (1830-1922),” found at Horatiostorer.net.The site is the work of Frederick N. Dyer, author of a lengthy and detailed biography of Horatio Storer, known as the father of American gynecology. Dyer also has written a second, shorter work, “The Physicians’ Crusade Against Abortion,” which tells the story of how Dr. Storer, moved both by his scientific conviction that human life begins at conception and his deep compassion for women who had been victimized by abortionists, began a successful movement to abolish abortion. Much of the primary source material on which his books are based can be found at Horatiostorer.net.Dyer often observes that most Americans living today owe their very existence to Dr. Storer’s commitment to establishing just laws founded upon the truth. Breaking down the falsehoods that are the foundation of the regime of legal abortion so that the truth can be unleashed is the least we can do in return.Jared Olar may be reached at jolar@pekintimes.com. The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the newspaper.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/12978

HomeAbout usProgramsActivitiesPublicationsTeamInternship Domestic Violence and Law Synopsis: - This book has been written in the most simple language possible giving the right- based interpretation of the law. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) 2005 is landmark legislation; it vindicates the constitutional Promise of equality, non-discrimination, right to life and liberty for women. The author has written this book in interpretation mentioned, taking into consideration the norms and principles expressed in the Convention against Elimination All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The writer has also taken into consideration this law as one which is particularly relevant to our society where violence against women often enjoins socio-cultural sanction. This book is specially meant for victims of domestic violence, lawyers, judges, protection officers and to all men who want to bring the concept of violence-free society and family. This book can be of great use as an easy to use handbook. Synopsis: - Point of View is a compilation of articles written by advocate Asim Sarode in various newspapers in Maharashtra. These articles reflect his understanding of the various socio-legal issues in India. These articles are an effort to make India’s legal system more responsive and sensitive to the social justice problems faced by the people. Through these articles Mr. Sarode has tried to make the people aware of their rights and to fight for them. The scope of these articles is vast and covers various issues like true democracy, participation of the people in decision making at the grassroots level and problems faced by AIDS patients in India. These articles have the power to awaken the masses. Mr. Sarode has drawn in his vast experience as a lawyer, human rights activist and social-worker. The author hopes that this book will act as a catalyst for social change. An AppealTrusteesSitemapJoin UsPrestige Sahyog - Kolhapur ActivitiesInternshipTeamEducationHIV CenterOn the agenda Copyright © 2015 Sahyog Trust. All Rights Reserved.Flat No. 1, Prathamesh, Lane No. 5, Prabhat road, Pune 411004, MH, INDIA. Email: rightinaction@gmail.com Site design by: JoyTree Software

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13018

Nigerian Pleads Guilty in ChoicePoint Abuse December 23, 2005The Associated Press is reporting that a Nigerian national has pleaded guilty to conspiracy and grand theft in a case involving an identity theft ring that obtained consumer data from provider ChoicePoint. From the article — Olatunji Oluwatosin, 42, of North Hollywood, Calif., was indicted by a grand jury in August on 22 counts of identity theft, conspiracy, grand theft and credit card fraud. Oluwatosin pleaded guilty on Tuesday and is scheduled to be sentenced Feb. 10. At the time of his indictment, prosecutors said the scheme cost at least $4 million in damages and involved 16 victims and five banks or credit card companies. You can read the full AP article @ Nigerian pleads guilty in ChoicePoint case

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13270

Section of CR 7530 to be vacated The fate of the Grotto Bridge over the Little Piney Creek west of Newburg is a little more clear now that Phelps County Commissioners have approved a petition to vacate a section of the road where the bridge is located.At the commission’s Thursday morning meeting, all three commissioners approved a petition signed by 12 residents in the Arlington Township to vacate the section of County Road 7530 between the north right-of-way line of State Highway P and a point 225 feet south of the south right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad.This section includes the Grotto Bridge that was closed by a commission order on Dec. 15, 2009, after a Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) engineer inspected it and suggested the bridge’s lifespan was over.The section of County Road 7530 that was vacated is described by the commission as “useless” and that the cost of repairing of the road and bridge would be “an unreasonable burden upon the road district.”By vacating the section of road, it will revert back to the adjacent property owners, which is the Richard J. Myers family.The commission approved the vacation petition subject to the county counselor’s agreement to a real estate option and the Myers family signing it.The real estate option states that the Myers family would give the county the option of reacquiring the section of road and right-of-way at any time in the future should funds become available to repair or replace the Grotto Bridge and maintain the road.Presiding Commissioner Randy Verkamp noted that “we (the county) can retrieve the right-of-way without cost or legal action on both parties.”While there would be no cost to the county to acquire the right-of-way needed, the real estate option states that the county will pay the Myers family $10 to preserve the option to acquire it later.District Two Commissioner Gary Hicks asked that language be included in the real estate option that the Myers family cooperate in the future with the county by providing right-of-way at a more favorable location for a new bridge near the existing crossing. Hicks said if an engineer finds a more suitable place for a new bridge, it could potentially lower the cost of a new bridge.Hicks said the current bridge is at a bend in the creek and that is a poor location for such a structure.Attorney J. Kent Robinson drew up the real estate option but said he did so as an area resident near the bridge. Robinson also was among the 12 residents who signed the petition to vacate the section of road. It was noted that because the bridge is on the Myers property, the family would be liable, according to Robinson.Earlier this month, it was mentioned that the Myers family has offered to enter into an agreement with neighbors or any member of the public and offer them the right to use the bridge as private property for an annual fee.Verkamp thanked the Myers family members for their cooperation and allowing local traffic to use that facility.“For the short term, the county would be relieved of the responsibility of the bridge and it would provide the locals an opportunity to use the bridge privately if that is your desire,” Verkamp said. “In the event money starts pouring out of the sky, the bridge ... will be the first to catch it.”Hicks agreed with Verkamp and said, “I think it accomplishes our goal, for one thing, to rid the county of what I consider a huge liability, and in another way to maintain the option of providing access to that valley (north of the bridge) through other means than that steep road that’s going to be tough to get in and out of in the winter.“If we saw a grant out there that would accomplish that goal of building a bridge down there, we’d go after that,” Hicks added.William Doyle, who lives near the bridge and attended Thursday’s meeting, asked who will be looking for funds for the new bridge. Doyle also asked if a cheaper bridge could be built than one estimated to cost $750,000, according to what an engineer told the commission previously.Verkamp said the commissioners will look and residents near the bridge are welcome to come up with ideas.“We have some money. Our problem is we’ve got bridges that have so much more traffic on them and more folks dependent on them than the one at the grotto,” Verkamp said. “We’ve been to the Army. We’ve been to the state. We’ve been just about everywhere we can think of, but that doesn’t mean there’s not a rock we haven’t looked under.”Verkamp said the commission agrees with everyone’s wish that a nice bridge be built in the area, “but right now, this is probably the best option.”“We’ve got some other bridges out there that are probably on a higher-need basis,” said District One Commissioner Larry Stratman, adding that to build a new bridge at its current location would cost about twice or three times as much as some other bridges in the county that need be replaced.Stratman noted that if the county accepts federal funds for a bridge, it must meet federal requirements, and one of the biggest expenses of building a new bridge at that location is raising it out of the floodplain.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13344

Home Reports & Resources Programs/Initiatives News Office Contacts Investigation Report THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Provider Of Services For Special Needs Preschool Students Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Fraud Charge FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that CHEON PARK, owner and executive director of Bilingual SEIT, a government-funded provider of special education services and preschool programs to New York City preschool children, pled guilty today for his role in defrauding the federal, New York State, and New York City governments of millions of dollars. PARK pled guilty in Manhattan federal court before the U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken. Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “Cheon Park has admitted his role in a criminal scheme to enrich himself by taking federal, state, and city funds intended for special needs children and diverting them for his own personal use. With today’s guilty plea, he now stands convicted of a federal crime and faces the prospect of a substantial prison term.” According to the Information, an earlier Criminal Complaint, and statements made at court proceedings: Between 2005 and 2012, PARK deliberately inflated both the amount of compensation Bilingual SEIT paid certain of its employees and contractors, and the type of work performed by certain employees on annual certified consolidated fiscal reports (“CFRs”) and financial statements submitted to the New York State Education Department (“NYSED”) and the New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE”). PARK owned and operated Bilingual SEIT from at least 2005 to 2012. During that time, Bilingual SEIT had a contract with the NYCDOE to provide publicly funded special education services and preschool programs to New York City schoolchildren aged three to five with physical, emotional, and/or developmental disabilities. Specifically, Bilingual SEIT received funding to provide: (1) special education itinerant teacher, commonly referred to as SEIT, services; (2) special education classes in a center-based setting for preschool students with special needs; (3) individual evaluations for preschool students with disabilities; and (4) physical, occupational, and/or speech therapy for preschool students who qualified for such services. As of September 2012, Bilingual SEIT operated out of five locations in Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn. During the seven-year period that Bilingual SEIT was under contract with the NYCDOE, it claimed reimbursement for and received approximately $94.5 million in federal, New York State, and New York City funding to provide the services described above. In order to receive such money, on behalf of Bilingual SEIT, PARK was required to file a CFR supported by audited financial statements with the NYSED. The CFR and audited financial statements represented the costs that Bilingual SEIT had incurred the previous year and the justification for those costs, and included compensation Bilingual SEIT purported to pay its employees and contractors. Each year, PARK signed the certification pages for the CFRs filed with the NYSED, which relied on the CFR and audited financial statements in determining the amount of public funds to pay Bilingual SEIT per student for the services Bilingual SEIT provided to New York City preschool students. Beginning in approximately June 2011, the New York State Comptroller’s office (the “Comptroller”) conducted an audit of Bilingual SEIT to determine whether the costs reported by Bilingual SEIT on the CFRs for the years July 2007 through 2009 were properly calculated, justified, and allowable under guidance issued by the NYSED. In July 2012, the Comptroller issued a report that concluded that nearly $1.5 million of the costs that PARK certified for the two-year audit period should have been disallowed, including money paid to 26 employees whose time and attendance could not be substantiated. As a result of the Comptroller’s report, the NYCDOE cancelled Bilingual SEIT’s classes and declined to renew its contract with Bilingual SEIT. In fact, PARK engaged in several schemes designed to inflate the costs Bilingual SEIT represented it incurred, resulting in more public money for Bilingual SEIT, much of which, as set forth below, was kicked back to PARK. PARK fraudulently received funds from New York State and New York City to pay multiple individuals who performed little or no work for Bilingual SEIT. At PARK’s request and direction, these individuals then kicked back as much as 50% of the salary they fraudulently received from Bilingual SEIT to PARK. PARK also fraudulently received funds from New York State and New York City to deliberately overpay other individuals who worked for Bilingual SEIT. At PARK’s request and direction, these individuals also kicked back a portion of the overpayment to PARK on a regular basis. Further, in addition to receiving kickbacks, PARK used Bilingual SEIT funds for his personal benefit in other ways. PARK arranged for Bilingual SEIT to pay his ex-wife and ex-sister-in-law for work they did not perform, and also arranged for Bilingual SEIT to pay for tutoring for PARK’s children and for a Bilingual SEIT employee to clean PARK’s home twice a week. PARK, 46, of Manhasset, New York, pled guilty to one count of mail fraud, which carries a maximum term of 20 years in prison. He is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Oetken on July 29, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. The maximum potential sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge. Mr. Bharara praised the investigative work of the Office of the State Comptroller, the Special Commissioner of Investigation for New York City’s Department of Education, the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Education. He also thanked the Queens County District Attorney’s Office for its assistance. This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Paul Krieger, Rebecca Ricigliano, and Martin Bell are in charge of the prosecution. U.S. v. Cheon Park Information (PDF) MISUSED OIG Fraud Hotline

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13354

« The heartbreaking moment in Dubai – Marnie Pearce might be never see their children again The New Tourism Campaign – The Dubai Executive Council has issued a strict code of conduct, making holding hands and dancing in public illegal » Dubai Court : Bribes for developers were not illegal, claim lawyers – Four former employees of Sama Dubai, one former employee of Damac Posted by 7starsdubai on March 16, 2009 source TheNational March 16. 2009 12:42AM UAE DUBAI // Lawyers for seven former property executives accused of taking bribes and illegal commissions claimed yesterday that there was nothing in UAE law that prohibited what their clients had done. Four former employees of Sama Dubai, the property arm of the government-owned Dubai Holding, and one former employee of Damac, one of the UAE’s largest private property developers, appeared before the Criminal Court of First Instance to plead not guilty to taking illegal commissions from the sale and resale of land owned by the Government. Judge Fahmi Mounir granted a defence application for an adjournment but all five men were denied bail. The hearing will resume on Sunday. At the start of a separate trial, two former employees of Nakheel, the Dubai development company behind such projects as the Palm trilogy, the World and Waterfront, were charged with accepting illegal commissions by charging an extra two per cent for themselves on the sale of land on the Palm Jebel Ali development. They too pleaded not guilty and were denied bail; the trial was adjourned until March 29. The men appeared in court yesterday in the first two of what are expected to be a series of trials linked to wide-ranging corruption investigations. Arrests began more than 10 months ago and as many as 30 executives from several companies are believed to be in custody. Most have yet to be charged. Details emerged at the hearings of some of the alleged business practices at the heart of the investigation. In one case, a cash bribe of more than Dh5 million (US$1.36m) was allegedly delivered to a defendant’s home in a black suitcase. In the Sama case, the former CEO of The Lagoons project, AM, 42, is accused of having accepted five apartments, worth Dh2.69m, and Dh200,000 in cash from a company seeking to delay payments on seven properties it had purchased in The Lagoons. He is charged with failing to terminate the company’s contract for defaulting on its payments and allowing the resale of the properties on its behalf. His actions, prosecutors said, resulted in a loss of Dh137m that Sama could have made had it sold the land to another investor. The company also lost Dh4.63m in transfer fees. An expert from the Dubai Financial Control Department said in a statement that AM had registered four of the apartments in his name and one in his wife’s. MA, NA and MB, a 41-year-old former sales manager, a 23-year-old sales consultant and a 28-year-old sales executive with Sama Dubai, who all also worked on The Lagoons project, are charged with making Dh4.85m in illegal commissions from three separate property deals. It is alleged that in one they asked for a one per cent commission for reselling land owned by a private company, worth Dh1.35m, through Sama. They are also accused of asking for a commission of Dh1.11m for the resale of land belonging to a sheikh. In a third deal, they allegedly asked for Dh2.37m from Damac for the resale of three plots of land it owned in The Lagoons. Farhan Faridoni, the CEO of Sama, said in a statement that company policy did not allow employees to operate as property middlemen: “The role of employees is merely to facilitate financing procedures in case investors wished to transfer their property to another investor.” All four defendants are also charged with revealing company secrets in the form of price lists and the names of owners. This, added Mr Faridoni, was in breach of a “secrecy clause” in their employment contracts and in agreements between Sama and its client. A fifth defendant in the Sama case is charged with accepting a bribe of Dh650,000. AH, a 32-year-old Syrian and former manager at Damac, is also charged with conspiring with MA and MB to take illegal commissions from Damac over the resale of three plots. Hamdi al Shiwi, MA’s lawyer, told the court the men’s actions “were permissible and legitimate as they are not criminalised by a specific legal text”. His application for his client and co-defendant to be released for any bail terms the court saw fit was refused. “My client has been detained for all these months for actions which are not criminal acts, therefore precautionary detention is not justified,” he said. “He is an Emirati and a resident of Dubai, therefore there is no risk of flight.” The men, he said, had deserved the commissions, which had been earned outside their official duties and in a personal capacity. Lawyers for the four other defendants agreed and asked the court for time to examine the 4,000-page prosecution case file. In the second trial, two former executives with Nakheel were charged with asking for a bribe in the form of an extra two per cent commission for themselves on the sale of land on Nakheel’s Palm Jebel Ali project. KM, 28, an Egyptian former sales executive, and WJ, 32, an Emirati former sales manager, are said to have taken a commission of Dh5.13m on a deal worth Dh265m. This was in excess of the commission charged by Nakheel that was included in the price. Mr al Shiwi, who also represents KM, applied in vain for his client’s release on bail, claiming there was a lack of compelling evidence. “My client has been in custody for 10 months while investigations continued, no evidence was shown by prosecutors,” he said. Sameer Jaafar, WJ’s lawyer, also pleaded for his client’s release on bail; he was an Emirati, a senior manager and his place of residence was known. He had already spent seven and half months in detention. The prosecution’s key witness, an American sales consultant at Nakheel, said in a statement that in June 2008 he learnt that WJ was prepared to sell several sea-facing plots of land on the Palm Jebel Ali that had been reserved for a five-star hotel. In return for the sale, WJ was asking for an extra two per cent cash commission for himself and KM. AD, 31, said he pretended to go along with the men’s plans but later told officials at Dubai Holding what was going on. more on 7days ” Briberiy trial” This entry was posted on March 16, 2009 at 03:42 and is filed under Dubai. Tagged: dubai corruption, Dubai Police and the Courts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13399

USA: Sign Petition: Women imprisoned for murder of her fetus after suicide attempt Posted by verena buschmann under Anti-Choice Organisations, Law reforms, Medicine [3] Comments Sign Petition: Women imprisoned for murder of her fetus after suicide attempt: http://www.change.org/petitions/protect-pregnant-women-free-bei-bei Numerous organizations and leaders who identify themselves as “pro-life” have assured the public that state murder and feticide laws that create special penalties for harming fetuses would not result in the arrests of pregnant women. Terry Curry, the Marion County Prosecutor, however is using these laws as the basis for arresting pregnant women who take any intentional action that could harm the fertilized eggs, embryos, or fetuses inside of them. In 2010, Bei Bei Shuai, a pregnant woman living in Indiana became so depressed that she attempted to end her own life. With help from friends who intervened, however, she survived. Although Ms. Shuai did everything she could, including undergoing cesarean surgery, to ensure that her baby survived, her newborn died shortly after birth. Ms. Shuai was arrested for the crime of murder (defined to include viable fetuses) and feticide (defined to include ending a human pregnancy at any stage). The sentence for murder can be the death penalty or 45 years-to-life. The sentence for attempted feticide is up to 20 years. Both of these kinds of laws are promoted and supported by “pro-life” organizations. Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has said that the “pro-life movement is not out to punish women.” Yet, as of March 14th Ms. Shuai, will have been imprisoned and punished for an entire year. (Bail is not allowed when the charge is murder). Indiana’s murder and feticide statutes were passed in response to violent attacks on pregnant women and with the promise that they would be used to protect pregnant women and the fetuses they carry from such assaults. Instead, in a blatant bait and switch maneuver these laws are being used to lock-up pregnant women. If this prosecution is allowed to go forward, the law will not just apply to one desperate pregnant woman who attempted suicide — it will: • Create legal precedent that makes every woman criminally liable for the outcome of her pregnancy. • Empower police officers to decide which of the twenty to thirty percent of pregnant women who suffer miscarriage and stillbirths each year will be subjected to bedside interrogations, arrests, prosecutions, and imprisonment. • Leave no doubt that women who intentionally end their pregnancies may be charged with murder if Roe is ever overturned. By continuing this prosecution, Mr. Curry is making clear that the “Pro-Life” position is really the “Pro Life-Sentences-For-Pregnant-Women” position. Please join this petition to the Marion County Prosecutor to drop all charges and to free Bei Bei Shuai now. 3 Responses to “USA: Sign Petition: Women imprisoned for murder of her fetus after suicide attempt” Hilde Grammel Says: March 17, 2012 at 11:53 pm if women don’t rise, the world will be like this one day! Reply Gudrun Schoenbauer Says: March 18, 2012 at 7:58 pm And I thought we would live in the 21st century Reply Daniela ebner Says: March 19, 2012 at 8:13 am I support the petition Anti-Choice Organisations, Law reforms, Medicine

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13500

Faith-Based Bully?: Towey Bashes Anti-Bias Laws Aug 10, 2004 by Jeremy Leaming in Wall of Separation The Bush administration's point man for pushing the "faith-based" agenda has promised to fight local government ordinances that stand in the way of federal funding for religiously based social service providers. During a visit last week to Maine, Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, groused about anti-discrimination ordinances that bar federal grants to religious groups that discriminate against minorities, such as gays. In a meeting with some leaders of Catholic Charities of Maine, Towey specifically referred to a Portland measure that restricted some federal Housing and Urban Development funds from flowing to the group. (The Portland ordinance requires all city contractors to provide employee benefits to gay couples or unmarried partners.) In a twisting of the facts, Towey somehow turned a city ordinance intended to promote equal treatment in employment for all citizens into a discrimination threat against religious groups. "Sometimes you see local governments that bully faith-based organizations and basically tell them that they have to compromise their religious beliefs and tenets if they want to partner with government," Towey told the Catholic Charity leaders. Towey then assured the group that the Bush administration is bent on doing something about those pesky local anti-discrimination laws. He touted the president's executive orders that allow federal funds to be awarded to faith-based groups even if they refuse to follow state and federal civil rights laws. He added that the White House is studying "what to do when local ordinances discriminate against faith-based organizations like they do here in Portland." The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, questioned the Towey tirade. "It is not bullying to tell a group that it has to obey the same laws as everyone else," Lynn told the Associated Press. "Mr. Towey, although he talks about a level playing field, in fact wants to require secular groups to abide by civil rights laws but not religious groups. Frankly, they all should abide by basic principles of fairness and equality that we find in the Constitution, if they get federal funds." The Bush administration has failed to win congressional approval of its "faith-based" initiative in part because it would allow federal dollars to go to religious social services that discriminate in hiring. President George W. Bush has used executive orders to force several federal agencies to award public dollars to faith-based groups without the usual constitutional and civil rights safeguards. Earlier in August, the president reiterated his support for the faith-based initiative during a speech before the Knights of Columbus convention in Dallas. Bush praised the Catholic men's group, calling them "soldiers in the armies of compassion" and assured them that they "have a friend in this administration." Bush also announced the release of $43 million in funding through the "Compassion Capital" program and said that he believed "one of the most effective ways our government can help those in need is to help the charities and community groups that are doing God's work every day. That's what I believe government ought to do. I believe government needs to stand on the side of faith-based groups, not against faith-based groups, when they come to saving lives." Touting addiction vouchers that will fund religion-based treatment programs, Bush said, "Government is not good at changing hearts. The Almighty God is good at changing hearts, which happens to be the cornerstone of effective faith-based programs.'

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13637

Changes to Format Used to Report Data Collected Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) In a press release, the Federal Reserve Board announced changes to the public disclosure tables that are used to report data collected by lenders under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which is implemented by the Board’s Regulation C. The formats for some of the existing disclosure tables have been revised, one set of existing tables has been deleted, and new tables have been added. The changes reflect revisions to Regulation C, adopted by the Board in 2002, that require lenders to collect new data beginning January 1, 2004. These revisions to the public disclosure tables do not affect the data collection and reporting requirements applicable to lenders subject to Regulation C. The revised disclosure tables merely show the format that will be used by the federal financial regulatory agencies for public disclosure of the data collected and reported by lenders. The 2002 revisions to Regulation C require lenders to collect and report data including loan pricing information (the rate spread between the annual percentage rate on the loan and the yield on Treasury securities of comparable maturity); whether the loan is subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act; whether manufactured housing is involved; whether the loan is secured by a first or subordinate lien on the property; and certain information about requests for preapproval. In addition, the race and ethnicity categories were changed to conform to standards established by the Office of Management and Budget. The first year for which the new data will be reported is 2004. Data from institutions must be submitted to the federal financial regulatory agencies no later than March 1, 2005, and the data will be reflected in the public disclosures scheduled to be released later in the year. Press release Federal Register notice Changes to public disclosure tables Contact: Felix Bustelo Supervising Examiner Legal and Compliance Risk Function felix.bustelo@ny.frb.org William L. Rutledge

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13690

Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian LawProgram Student Opportunities & Fellowships Special Rapporteur on Torture releases a new report to the Human Rights Council Juan Mendez, Special Rapporteur on Torture and WCL professor, released a thematic report on abuses in health care settings. The report, submitted to the Human Rights Council, explores cruel and inhumane treatment in health care settings, identifying the extent of State’s obligations to prevent and protect against these practices. By applying the torture and ill-treatment protection framework, this report explains how such care can violate the prohibition on torture demonstrating that forced sterilizations, involuntary detention, and other intrusive “therapeutic” measures taken in the name of treatment could rise to the level of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Special Rapporteur works closely with the Center’s Anti-Torture Initiative in his efforts to report and analyze developing trends in the prohibition of torture and ill treatment in international law and to follow up on the implementation of his recommendations. Directions | Directory | Search | Privacy | EEO | Contact | Webmaster

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13691

SECLE Events Calendar Recent Speakers Founders 2016 Directions/Hotels FOUNDERS' EVENTS 2014 Fifth International Conference on Human Rights Education 2010 Comparative Law Congress 2010 Futures Conference & Symposium Miami 2010 Conference 2011 Dean's Business Law Lecture Series with Peter Scher '87 05:30 PM - 07:30 PM American University Washington College of Law, Room 603 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC PROGRAM FLYER Peter L. Scher is the executive vice president for Global Government Relations and Public Policy for JPMorgan Chase and serves as a member of the company's Executive Committee. In this role, he is responsible for the design and implementation of the company's advocacy with government officials on a wide range of policy issues that impact the firm. His team of 34 works with both legislative and executive branch officials at all levels of government – local, state, federal, and international – to distinguish the firm as a leader in the public debate on regulatory and other government policies affecting business, articulate the firm's position on current policy issues, and advocate for policies that support economic growth and the competitiveness of U.S. financial firms. To achieve these goals, his team works extensively with partners across the firm and within each line of business to understand how government policies might affect the company and to build effective strategies for influencing policy outcomes. Prior to joining JPMorgan Chase & Co. in June of 2008, Mr. Scher served as the Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C., office of Mayer Brown LLP, where he had been a partner since 2000 and served as the chairman of the firm's Government and Global Trade Practice. Scher spent nearly a decade in government service. Nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate, he served as the U.S. Special Trade Negotiator, with the rank of Ambassador, and was one of the lead U.S. negotiators on China's entry into the World Trade Organization. He earlier served as the chief of staff in the Office of the United States Trade Representative and in the same position at the U.S. Department of Commerce. Prior to joining the Executive Branch, Scher served in Congress as chief of staff to U.S. Senator Max Baucus and as the majority staff director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Scher remains active in civic and international activities. In 2009 he was appointed by the White House to serve as U.S. Representative to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Advisory Council (ABAC). He was a member of the Atlantic Council of the United States Working Group on U.S.-European Union Trade and Regulatory Issues and the Asia Task Force for the Center for Strategic and International Studies addressing U.S. economic relations with China, Japan and India. Scher serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of American University and The Lab School of Washington. Scher received his BA from American University in 1983 and his JD from AU's Washington College of Law in 1987. He and his wife, Kimberly Tilley, have two children. Presented by the Office of Development and Alumni Relations To register (no charge), please go to www.wcl.american.edu/secle/register For further information, please contact: Office of Special Events & Continuing Legal Education, American University Washington College of Law Phone: 202.274.4075; Fax: 202.274.4079; or secle@wcl.american.edu Founders Events Listing

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13721

Famed Attorney Johnny L. Cochran Dead At 67 March 29, 2005 by Clover Hope News. Share |Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)MoreClick to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Renowned attorney Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., who made a name successfully defending celebrities like O.J. Simpson, Puff Daddy, and Snoop Dogg in high-profile cases, died today (March 29) at the age of 67. Cochran died of an inoperable brain tumor at his home in Los Feliz, Los Angeles, according to his brother-in-law Bill Baker. His wife and his two sisters were at his side when he passed away. “Certainly, Johnnie’s career will be noted as one marked by celebrity cases and clientele,” his family said in a statement. “But he and his family were most proud of the work he did on behalf of those in the community.” Cochran is probably best recognized for defending football star O.J. Simpson in the early 90s during a high-profile murder trial that divided the country and made popular Cochran’s lasting phrase, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” But before then, the highly sought after attorney defended ordinary citizens against the Los Angeles Police Department’s uncivil practices. He also served as Snoop Dogg’s lawyer during the rapper’s trial in November of 1995 when Snoop was charged as an accomplice to murder. Sean “P. Diddy” Combs hired Cochran when faced with charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degree, stemming from a 2001 shootout at a New York nightclub. Combs, Simpson and Snoop Dogg were all acquitted. More recently, Cochran defended Rosa Parks during her appeal to reopen a lawsuit against Outkast over their hit song that uses her name in the title. In the still pending trial, Parks claimed that the group was using her name for profit without compensating her. Outkast was later dropped as a defendant. Cochran once mentioned that his biggest disappointment came when his client Elmer “Geronimo Ji Jaga” Pratt, a Nationalist activist, Vietnam War veteran and godfather to Tupac Shakur, was convicted of murder in 1972. Authorities alleged that Pratt robbed and shot a young white couple on a tennis court in 1968. The woman died, and her husband survived to identify Pratt in a line-up two years after the shooting. A judge in Orange County overturned Pratt’s conviction in 1997 after he served 27 years in prison, a day Cochran described to the Los Angeles Times as the happiest in his career. “Johnny would be one the attorneys that we would get to assist the Panthers. He’s like my brother. We are like family members,” Geronimo told AllHipHop.com. “Johnny was always there. …Johnny was instrumental in a lot of tactic. He is a media personality.” Cochran received a law degree from Loyola Marymount University in 1962 after graduating from UCLA. His national law firm Cochran, Cherry, Givens & Smith, L.L.P. eventually became “The Cochran Firm” and is the country’s largest personal injury plaintiffs tort law firm. The Cochran Firm, which currently has offices in California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C. among other places, has not released a statement yet. Funeral services for Cochran have yet to be announced.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13885

MEMO/11/202Brussels, 29 March 2011Statement by Commissioner Dalli on the lack of agreement in the conciliation procedure on the Novel Food RegulationLadies and Gentlemen,Early this morning, after more than 11 hours of negotiations, and despite all the efforts made by the Commission in its role of mediator between the Parliament and the Council, an agreement could not be reached on the long awaited Novel Food Regulation.Expectations were high since the Regulation had to be revised to take into account the latest developments on a number of important issues.Actually after months of discussion, many improvements had been agreed upon by the institutions on key novel food aspects. These included :legal definition of nano-materials and their mandatory labelling, a centralised and quicker authorisation procedure to facilitate innovation from the food industry and specific measures for traditional foods from third countries. If implemented this would have been beneficial for both consumers and the food industry.It is thus a great pity that we have lost the opportunity to codify these aspects already now. Let me recall that the Novel Food regulation has been on the table since 2008. In an effort to move forward with this important legislative proposal, the Commission proposed to deal with the issue of cloning separately. As a result, the Commission delivered on its engagement and published a report on Cloning in October 2010. My proposals contained in this report were clear. I undertook to propose :a temporary suspension of the cloning technique for food production in the EU, a ban on import of clones andtraceability of reproductive material from cloned animals. Since that report, and as a result of negotiations with both the European Parliament and the Council, including throughout last night, several further steps were agreed with respect to labelling. I remain convinced that the only way to guarantee a good deal for EU consumers and food business operators is to deliver a proposal that is based on common sense and one that is both practicable and enforceable including on the issue of labelling.I will reflect on the disappointing outcome in view of assessing the next steps both with respect to the novel food Regulation and the follow-up to the Commission's report of October on the issue of Cloning in food production.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/13935

| Keystone Steel & Wire v. Ind. Com. Keystone Steel & Wire v. Ind. Com. OPINION FILED JUNE 21, 1968. KEYSTONE STEEL & WIRE COMPANY, APPELLANT,v.THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ET AL. — (HOWARD F. BOERS, JR., APPELLEE.) APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Peoria County; the Hon. ROBERT E. HUNT, Judge, presiding. MR. JUSTICE KLINGBIEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT: Howard F. Boers, Jr., an employee of Keystone Steel & Wire Company, broke a leg while playing softball at a baseball diamond adjoining the plant. He filed a claim for workmen's compensation, and an award by the Industrial Commission was confirmed by the circuit court of Peoria County. The employer appeals, contending the injury did not arise out of his employment. The facts are essentially undisputed. The claimant, a steel-mill recorder, participated in organized recreational activities commonly engaged in by other Keystone employees. On August 26, 1964, he completed his day's work and punched out, and that evening played in a softball game for the Billet Yard team against the Shipping Department team in an interdepartmental contest. As he was sliding into third base he severely fractured his right leg. Softball games were among the activities sponsored by the Keystone Employee Activity Association, a corporation run by Keystone employees for recreational purposes. Financial support was derived from the proceeds of employee-patronized canteens located throughout the plant, and the association paid for such things as baseball equipment, backstops, bases, services of umpires, and a trophy awarded at the end of the season. In 1964, there were 9 or 10 active teams, none of which exceeded 15 players. The employees made up their own game schedule, and spectators largely consisted of the families of participants. Results of the games were published in a plant newspaper and schedules were posted on bulletin boards throughout the plant. Foremen were authorized to grant permission to a player to trade shifts with another so as to be free to play softball. The company's director of safety, among his other duties, acted as advisor to the association. The ball diamond was located on land managed and controlled by the company, which had posted a sign reading "Unauthorized Personnel Keep Out." The company had authorized the playing of softball league games on the property. To sustain the award claimant relies principally on Jewel Tea Co. v. Industrial Com., 6 Ill.2d 304, where injuries held compensable were likewise incurred while participating in a league softball game. In that case, however, the athletics were sponsored by the employer. Shirts were worn bearing the company name and emblem, the games were held at public parks, and publicity was given to them by the company's internal radio and in company publications. We found that control and supervision by the company, and the advertising advantage or good will it derived, were sufficient to justify treating the claimant's activity as an incident to his employment. Also relied upon is the recent decision of this court in Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery v. Industrial Com., 36 Ill.2d 410. In that case it was held that going home from an employer's annual golf outing was sufficiently incidental to the work of its personnel manager to make his death in an automobile accident compensable under the Act. It was pointed out that since the outing was held on a regular working day, when employees not attending were not excused from work, there was substantial employer "compulsion," that the employer sponsored, arranged and financed the affair, and that the employer can be assumed to have benefited from improved relations among both employees and past employees, some of whom were then working for people with whom the employer did business. We do not think the scope of employment in the case at bar can be stretched to include the diversion in which the claimant was engaged when he was hurt. Unlike the employer in the Jewel Tea case the company in the case at bar exerted no pressure or encouragement for participation and derived no advertising benefit from the games. Moreover the company did not sponsor the event, nor was it held during regular working hours, as the golf outing was in the Lybrand case. The ball game was solely for the recreation and personal diversion of the employees, without any substantial business advantage to the company. Whatever improvement may have resulted in morale or employee-employer relations is far too tenuous to provide a basis for saying the injury was sustained either out of or in the course of the employment. Nor is it of importance on this issue that the company acquiesced in the activities, provided the use of its land for the ball diamond, permitted the canteen machines to be located in the plant, and allowed employees to trade shifts in order to play. All the company did, in essence, is to co-operate in enabling employees to engage in social and recreational activities on their own time. To hold that such gratuitous contributions entail liability without fault for injuries at play penalizes the mere providing of benefits and will most certainly tend to discourage it. Facts such as those in this case are totally insufficient to convert this recreational activity into an incident of employment. (Hydro-Line Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Com., 15 Ill.2d 156.) However different the views may have become after the event, it is hardly likely that either the company, or the employee, or anyone else engaged in or watching the game then thought that it was part of the employment or that the claimant was on the job at the time. He was not hired as a ballplayer but as a factory worker, and his hours of work having ended for the day the only reasonable inference under the circumstances is that he was no longer in the course of his employment. If it is socially desirable that employers be required to compensate people for injuries in such a case as this, the appropriate course is by amendment of the statute, not by judicial interpretation. As in any area where ordinary language is given an unnatural or tortured meaning to reach a decision thought desirable, a strained construction of an act designed only to compensate for injuries at work would have unfortunate consequences far beyond the immediate issues. We find as a matter of law that the claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The judgment of the circuit court must accordingly be reversed and the award set aside. Judgment reversed; award set aside.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14038

Career Criminal Essay Research Paper The career Career Criminal Essay, Research Paper The career criminal, or, more pointedly, those individuals who participate in criminal acts on a regular basis for both a central and constant source of Career Criminal Essay, Research Paper The career criminal, or, more pointedly, those individuals who participate in criminal acts on a regular basis for both a central and constant source of income has, generally, a specific set of identifying factors which, while conclusive in laymen’s terms, fail to meet the criteria necessary for scientific inquiry. While definitions exist as to what a career criminal is, the research methods employed in determining these definitions are a large point of contention for criminal justice theorists, especially due to their potential and virtually imminent inclusion to modern hypothesis on the subject. These research methods include longitudinal data collection and compilation, cross-sectional data collection and compilation, and, as at least one group of theorists argue, the most efficient method, informative interviewing. The longitudinal research method employs a data collection technique which focuses on the duration of a particular act–in this case, the so-called criminal career–based not upon specific incidents, but the length of time measured between such acts (Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington, 1988). That is, an individual’s propensity for criminal conduct in a so-called career mode would be measured first by the original act as an origin, then with the succeeding acts, until a final point became evident. Therefore, such a research method would logically conclude that an individual who performed or participated in criminal conduct on two occasions several years apart would be considered a career criminal. It is for this reason, that criminal justice theorists differ as to the applicability and relevance of the longitudinal research method (Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington, 1988). Since the longitudinal research method could construe two independent–or even two interdependant–criminal acts as the foundational make-up of a career criminal, theorists may hypothesize incorrectly as to the actuality of an individual having a career based in criminal behavior. Because it is widely believed by opponents of the longitudinal research method that the mere occurrence of two criminal acts spaced out over an individual’s lifetime or testing window is not indicative of the so-called career criminal modus operandi, the research method has increasingly lost its popularity and application in such studies, unless, of course, it is supported or otherwise confirmed by other utilized research procedures (Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington, 1988). One of these alternative testing and research methods is the cross-sectional data collection and compilation model. The cross-sectional data collection and compilation model, when applied to the criminal career hypothezation, measures the probability of occurrence of a particular act of criminal conduct or other so-called criminal behavior. The cross-sectional model allows for a glimpse into each individual criminal act which may be thought to, when compiled, comprise a framework which indicates that individual is a career criminal. For this reason, the cross-sectional model is infinitely more applicable and accurate in determining, or at least providing indicators which would lead to a determination, of conduct constituting that of a career criminal. While such assistance is immeasurable for a determination of whether or not an individual is a career criminal, it still falls short of a definite model for such identification. For this reason, many criminal justice theorists feel that the individual application of the cross-sectional model is inappropriate for its unsupported inclusion into relevant scientific hypothesis. Once again, however, when such data is adequately supported or otherwise confirmed by other information, inclusion is proper. Criminal justice theorists have relied on either one, or both models since the inception of investigation into all areas of criminal behavior. Such data, however, comes under fire if, and when, other theories surface which either provide additional information, or information which is more in-depth and in deference to that data already obtained and reported upon (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1988). The dilemma, of course, is that regardless of how detailed and in-depth even the most comprehensive of testing techniques are, there is always one method which is the most detailed, as it originates from the primary source. This data is called informative interviewing (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1988). Informative interviewing is a method through which criminal justice theorists acquire information from the primary source (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1988). In the case of the present issue, deliberating over the question of what behavior is indicative of a career criminal, information would most probably be extracted from those individuals who exhibited the stereotypical traits of what is referred to as a career criminal. These would include individuals whose primary source of income is derived from the perpetration of crimes, the acquisition and conversion of cash or property into cash for personal use, and the consistency of these acts. That is, are they performed on a verifiably consistent basis to the aforementioned ends of sustaining life for a particular individual (Weis, 1991). Alternatively, the informative interviewing method would need to address those groups which other testing methods and their proponents have identified as possible career criminals. These would include those individuals who perpetrate more than one criminal act in the course of their lifetime or testing window, and those who perpetrate multiple criminal acts in an effort to maintain financial stability, as illuminated by the longitudinal research method and the cross-sectional data collection and compilation model, respectively (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1988). In total, the informative interviewing technique is the most inclusive of all the testing measures, as it does not presuppose the existence of facts or reasoned support thereof, nor rely on a multitude of secondary sources for its hypothetical theorizations. Opponents, however, argue that the single, most important drawback to utilization of the informative interview technique for central reliance in a scientific study, is that there exists no guarantee that the information being obtained from the individual in question is, indeed, a factual representation of his or her physical and mental manifestations and reasoning prior to, during, and after performance of the criminal act (Weis, 1991). Though this seems a wholly valid and relevant argument based on the stereotypical nature of such individuals who maintain or, at least, are thought to maintain a life of crime, the scientist-interviewer has a better probability of determining the truthfulness of the individual when he or she is face to face, rather than viewing so-called research on a two dimensional document (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1988). For this reason, it seems that the informative interviewing technique is the most reliable indicator of an individual’s propensity to maintain a career firmly rooted in criminal activity. Finally, the very issue of career criminals cannot be determined by those studies which seek to apply a virtual cornucopia of variables and other indicators into a multi-tiered graphic conceptualization of a theory (Weis, 1991). This is so because such a conceptualization, while attempting to scientifically duplicate the environment which produces career criminals, cannot, and thus leads the criminal justice theorist on a road wrought with balances and counterbalances which seek to clarify and provide for those responses which do not otherwise fall into the neatly, albeit mechanically defined categories (Elliot, 1994). Such is not the nature of a career criminal, and, ironically, may be indicative to the very mechanisms he or she seeks to obviate when choosing such an alternative, societally unaccepted posture as to self-sustenance. As the informative interview points out, asking someone who knows is infinitely more reliable than relying on text written by someone who thinks they know. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., and Farrington, D. (1988). Criminal career research: it’s value for criminology. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., and Farrington, D. (1988). Longitudinal and criminal career research: further clarifications. Criminology, vol. 26, no. 1. Elliot, D. S. (1994). Serious violent offenders: onset, developmental course, and termination–The American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential Address. Criminology, vol. 32, no. 1. Gottfredson, M., and Hirschi, T. (1988). Science, public policy, and the career paradigm. Criminology, vol. 26, no. 1. Sutherland, E. H. (1994). The professional thief. classics of criminology. IL: Waveland Press. Welsh, A. E. (1991). Issues in the measurement of criminal careers. Criminal Justice 400 packet, fall semester, 1995 Iowa State University. A Career In Dentistry Essay Research Paper Politics As A Career Essay Research Paper Career Development Model Essay Research Paper Career ProducersCareer Paper Essay Research Paper IntroductionI believe Lawyer Essay Research Paper Career ProjectPJ HallPd6LawyerThe Choosing A Career Or Profession Essay Research Career Burnout Essay Research Paper Career Burnout Psychology Essay Research Paper Career PaperThe career Theory Of Career Development Essay Research Paper Architecture An Excellent Career Choice Essay Research

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14093

91 U.S. 712 - Raymond v. Thomas Homethe United States Reports 91 U.S. 91 US 712 Raymond v. Thomas 91 U.S. 712 RAYMONDv.THOMAS. ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina. Mr. P. Phillips for the plaintiff in error. Mr. W. W. Boyce for the defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. The facts in this case, as disclosed in the record, are somewhat involved and complicated. So far as it is necessary to consider them for the purposes of this opinion, they are not voluminous. On the 25th of August, 1863, Mary Raymond bought from Thomas, the defendant in error, a small house and lot situated in Greenville, S.C., for which she gave him her note for $7,000, payable six months after the ratification of peace between the Confederates and the United States, or before, at her option, with annual interest from the first day of September, 1863. The premises were conveyed at the time of the sale, and the grantee gave back a mortgage to secure the payment of the note. On the 28th of May, 1866, Thomas filed his bill in the Court of Common Pleas of Greenville County to foreclose the mortgage. The vendee answered. The case was heard in July, 1866, before Chancellor Johnson. The chancellor held that the note was intended by the parties to be payable in Confederate money; and that, in view of all the circumstances, the amount of principal equitably due upon it was $2,500. The case was referred to a master to compute the aggregate principal and interest due upon this basis. This decree, upon the appeal of Thomas, was affirmed by the Court of Errors of the State at its December Term, 1867. On the 25th of January, 1868, Chancellor Carrol, sitting in the Common Pleas, decreed that the amount due in conformity to the master's report was $3,265.62; that, unless that sum was paid as directed, the commissioner should sell the premises; and that, if the proceeds were insufficient to pay the debt and costs, the complainant might issue execution for the balance. On the 28th of May following, General Canby issued an order whereby he annulled this decree. The order contains a slight error in the description of the decree; but the meaning of the order is clear. The discrepancy is, therefore, immaterial. On the 24th of December, 1868, the military order non obstante, the commissioner reported that he had sold the premises for $1,005. On the 2d of January, 1869, Mary Raymond filed her bill in the Court of Common Pleas of Charleston County, setting forth the facts above stated; and further, that the sheriff of that county was about to proceed to collect from her the balance still dut upon the decree, amounting to $2,653.26. She prayed that Thomas and all others be perpetually enjoined from further enforcing the decree. The court decreed accordingly. Subsequently Gaillard (the purchaser) and Thomas answered, and moved to dissolve the injunction. In July, 1869, this motion was overruled, and the injunction again ordered to be made perpetual. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the State, but failed for want of prosecution. In December, 1870, Thomas obtained leave to amend his original bill of foreclosure. He did so, setting forth, among other things, that the original defendant, Mary Raymond, had died, and that Henry H. Raymond had been appointed her executor, and making him a party. In due time he answered, denying that he was either executor or administrator of the deceased, and insisting that he was not bound to answer, and that no decree could be taken against him. He admitted that he was in possession of her estate, and averred that he was ready to pay all her just debts. The amended bill and this answer set forth other things not necessary to be repeated. The case in this new aspect came on to be heard. It was decreed that the sale of the mortgaged premises be confirmed, that the purchaser have a writ of assistance to enable him to obtain possession, and that the complainant have leave to enter up a judgment against the defendant for the balance due him, and interest and costs, as before decreed. Raymond thereupon removed the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of the State. That court, as the April Term, 1873, affirmed the decree of the lower court. This writ of error was thereupon sued out by Raymond; and the judgment of the Supreme Court is thus brought before us for review. Outside of the record, our attention has been called to an act of the legislature of South Carolina of the 2d of September 1868, touching certain military orders therein mentioned. The act does not embrace or affect the order of General Canby in question in this case. Nothing more need be said in regard to the act. The only point insisted upon here by the counsel for the plaintiff in error is the order of General Canby of the 2d of May, 1868, and its disregard by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in the judgment before us. The validity of the order is denied by the defendant in error. Our remarks will be confined to that subject. The war between the United States and insurgents terminated in South Carolina, according to the judgment of this court, on the 2d of April, 1866. The Protector, 12 Wall. 701. The National Constitutive gives to Congress the power, among others, to declare war and suppress insurrection. The latter power is not limited to victories in the field and the dispersion of the insurgent forces. It carries with it inherently rightful authority to guard against an immediate renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils growing out of its rise and progress. Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall. 506. The close of the war was followed by the period of reconstruction, and the laws enacted by Congress with a view to that result. These laws are the acts of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 428), the act of July 19, 1867 (15 id. 14), and the act of June 25, 1868 (id. 73). The two acts first mentioned defined the powers and duties of the military officers placed in command in the several States lately in rebellion. The act of June 25, 1868, provided, among other things, that, whenever the legislature of South Carolina should ratify the Fourteenth Amendmant to the Constitution of the United States, she should be again admitted to representation in Congress; and that it should be the duty of the President, within ten days after receiving official information of the ratification, to issue a proclamation announcing the fact. Such a proclamation was issued on the 11th of July, 1868 (15 Stat. 704). This replaced the State in her normal relations to the Union. Nothing further was necessary, but the elections provided for (which speedily followed), to render her rehabilitation complete. We have looked carefully through the acts of March 2, 1867, and July 19, 1867. They give very large governmental powers to the mitiary commanders designated, within the States committed espectively to their jurisdiction; but we have found nothing to warrant the order here in question. It was not an order for mere delay. It did not prescribe that the proceeding should stop until credit and confidence were restored, and business should resume its wonted channels. It wholly annulled a decree in equity regularly made by a completent judicial officer in a plain case clearly within his jurisdiction, and where there was no pretence of any unfairness, of any purpose to wrong or oppress, or of any indirection whatsoever. The meaning of the legislature constitutes the law. A thing may be within the letter of a statute, but not within its meaning; and within its meaning, though not within its letter. Stewart v. Kahn, supra. The clearest language would be necessary to satisfy us that Congress intended that the power given by these acts should be so exercised. It was an arbitrary stretch of authority, needful to no good end that can be imagined. Whether Congress could have conferred the power to do such an act is a question we are not called upon to consider. It is an unbending rule of law, that the exercise of military power, where the rights of the citizen are concerned, shall never be pushed beyond what the exigency requires. Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115; Warden v. Bailey, 4 Taunt. 67; Fabrigas v. Moysten, 1 Cowp. 161; s. c., 1 Smith's L. C., pt. 2, p. 934. Viewing the subject before us from the stand-point indicated, we hold that the order was void. This is the only Federal question presented for our consideration. As the Supreme Court of the State decided it correctly, our jurisdiction terminates at this point: we can look no farther into the case.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14098

| JOHNSTONE v. O'CONNOR & CO. JOHNSTONE v. O'CONNOR & CO. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA. Vera G. JOHNSTONE, guardian of the Estate of Ellen Suzann Kramer, a minor O'CONNOR & CO., Inc. The opinion of the court was delivered by: LORD LORD, District Judge. This action is bought by Vera G. Jhonstone as guardian of the Estate of Ellen Suzann Kramer, a minor, against O'Connor & Co., Inc. It arises out of an accident occurring on June 21, 1955, in which the minor plaintiff was struck by a truck owned by the defendant corporation. As a result of this accident, the minor plaintiff suffered severe injuries to her right leg just above the ankle. Although no bones were broken, there was extensive damage to the skin and tissue. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $19,000. The case is now before the Court on defendant's Motions to Dismiss, for Judgment n.o.v. and for New Trial. Plaintiff has also moved for Judgment n.o.v. to include the medical and hospital bills attributable to this accident which were excluded by the Trial Court in its charge to the jury as not being obligations of the minor's estate. To dispose of the latter point first, the law of Pennsylvania "* * * limits the recovery of the minor to damages for his pain and suffering and loss of earning power after he becomes of age, and requires that all claims for expenses in connection with the nursing, hospital care, and medical services rendered the minor growing out of the injury shall be recovered by, and chargeable against, the father, * * *". In re Mikasinovich, 1933, 110 Pa.Super. 252, at page 261, 168 A. 506, at page 509. It follows, therefore, that the Court properly instructed the jury not to consider the testimony of medical expenses attributable to the minor plaintiff's injuries, since the action was instituted by her guardian solely on behalf of the minor's estate. Consequently, plaintiff's Motion for Judgment n.o.v. must be denied. Turning now to defendant's Motions, the Court concludes that they must be denied as well. The Motion to Dismiss presents a twin-pronged attack on the Court's diversity jurisdiction of this action. As its first challenge, defendant points out that the record is bare of any proof of the New Jersey citizenship of the minor plaintiff's guardian. Although the Complaint contains this jurisdictional allegation, it is specifically denied in the Answer. Defendant argues that this failure to offer proof of the guardian's citizenship, a jurisdictional fact specifically put at issue by the pleadings, is fatal to this Court's jurisdiction. Relying principally on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 1935, 298 U.S. 178, 56 S. Ct. 780, 80 L. Ed. 1135 and KVOS, Inc., v. Associated Press, 1936, 299 U.S. 269, 57 S. Ct. 197, 81 L. Ed. 183, defendant argues further that this Court cannot now reopen the record and take testimony to establish the guardian's citizenship. In both of these diversity cases, after a detailed consideration of their facts, the Supreme Court held that there was no showing that the required jurisdictional amount of $3,000 was involved and remanded the cases to the District Court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. No mention is made of reopening the records for additional testimony.However, this Court is not persuaded that these cases are precedent for the proposition that a federal trial court cannot do so. Rather it appears that the Supreme Court was satisfied that on their faces these cases lacked the requisite jurisdictional amount and directed their dismissal accordingly. In any event, our Court of Appeals recently remanded a case to the trial court for further testimony on the question of jurisdictional amount. Kaufman v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 3 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 918. In that case the parties stipulated during the trial that the amount in controversy potentially exceeded the jurisdictional minimum. While it is true that there was no such stipulation in the instant matter, the Court does not feel that this is a sufficiently material distinction. Even if it werw far more uncertain of its authority to reopen the record than it now is, this Court could hardly presume to resolve an alleged conflict between the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. At argument on these motions, plaintiff expressed her willingness to offer testimony as to her citizenship. The Court has decided to let the record stand as it is. In passing, it should be noted that this Court has no doubt that plaintiff can easily prove her New Jersey citizenship, as indeed she surely could and would have done had defendant at the trial challenged the Court's jurisdiction on this ground. The second attack on this Court's jurisdiction is admittedly frontal. Defendant asserts, no doubt accurately, that the record plaintiff was appointed guardian of the minor plaintiff's estate for the principal purpose of obtaining the diversity of citizenship between the parties requisite to bring the minor plaintiff's action into this Court. Defendant further contends that the citizenship of the ward and not the guardian controls for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, citing Kaufmann Estate, Orph. Ct. of Philadelphia, 1954, 87 Pa.Dist. & Co.R. 401, and Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia Case, 1943, 346 Pa. 37, 39-40, 29 A.2d 524, 527, for the rule that "* * * a guardian, unlike a trustee, does not take legal title to the property of the beneficiary, but acts merely as a custodian or manager, subject to the direction of the court which appoints him; the ward, not the guardian, is the owner of the property. * * *" It would follow from this declaration of Pennsylvania law, defendant asserts, that the minor plaintiff and not the guardian is the real party in interest. Defendant concludes his argument as follows: "We respectfully submit that there is no earthly reason for the appointment of a guardian to bring an action in the federal courts where the parents, who have the legal duty to support the child and arrange for his or her medical care and treatment following an injury, are readily available to bring an action in the child's name. "At a time when the federal courts are already overburdened with a flood of undisposed cases, we question the wisdom of further opening the door to a flood of additional suits which were never intended to have been permitted to be brought in our federal court system." Defendant is not unmindful of Morris v. Bradley, D.C.E.D.Pa.1956, 139 F.Supp. 519, or of Fallat v. Gouran, 3 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 325, both of which cases stand foursquare against its position, but defendant maintains that the better rule is found in Martineau v. City of St. Paul, 8 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 777. However, our Court of Appeals in Fallat, cited above, considered the view of the 8th Circuit as expressed in Martineau and respectfully differed.This Court does likewise. Defendant's Motion for Judgment n.o.v. is based on its argument that the record does not support any finding of negligence. Of course, it is axiomatic that in considering a motion seeking to overturn a jury's verdict, a court must ascertain that the record is void of sufficient facts or reasonable inferences therefrom to support the verdict, before it can grant the motion. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court concludes that the jury would have been justified in finding (1) that defendant's truck struck the minor plaintiff while it was backing up; (2) that the driver had no clear vision of the cartway into which he was backing; (3) that the driver admittedly saw several children playing in the area; (4) that notwithstanding the availability of two helpers, the driver backed his truck without anyone guiding him or checking to see that the cartway was clear. On the assumption that these facts were found, defendant's negligence is so clear as to require neither comment nor citation. This is not to say that defendant's Motion was deemed frivolous or was lightly considered by the Court. The minor plaintiff, who was only five years old at the time of the accident, was naturally a rather unsatisfactory witness. Her recollection of certain important details was unclear, and her description of the truck's route up to the time of the accident was somewhat confusing. Defendant's driver, on the other hand, while giving a completely different version of the accident, was understandably more positive of details than the five year old plaintiff and told in all a rather convincing story. However, the jury must have been more persuaded by the minor plaintiff and her witnesses, and it is not the function of the Court to retry the case upon defendant's Motion. Defendant's final Motion, for New Trial, directs our attention to the size of the verdict. There can be no question that now, three years after the event, the minor plaintiff's memories of her considerable pain and suffering are largely obscured.However, the scarring above her ankle is extensive and even hideous. While it is true that there is no residual physical impairment, the emotional problems that may attend this young girl as she grows into womanhood are potentially considerable. The minor plaintiff is an extraordinarily beautiful child. This Court cannot say that in arriving at its verdict of $19,000 the jury was plainly biased or prejudiced against the defendant. Having had the opportunity to see the little girl and observe her scars, the Court must conclude that the verdict, while generous, was assuredly not excessive. For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that plaintiff's Motion for Judgment n.o.v. and defandant's Motions to Dismiss, for Judgment n.o.v. and for New Trial be and the same are hereby denied. 19580711

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14130

Get Updates: RSS More Confusion Over Secure Communities: Did NY Make a Special Deal with Washington? Guest blogger: Catalina Jaramillo from Feet in 2 Worlds Immigrant advocates are increasingly worried about New York’s participation in the controversial fingerprint-sharing program Secure Communities. Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition said that 79% of the people placed in detention facilities or deported under Secure Communities were convicted of minor crimes or had no charges filed against them at all. “We are fine with violent criminals being deported,” said Hong. “That is not the problem. This program is supposed to do that.” But she said that’s not what’s happening. “The vast majority of people who are caught in this program are innocent, have no criminal background, or have minor violations where people do not deserve to get deported.” The New York State Division of Criminal Justices Services and Governor David Paterson assert that New York has a special agreement with the Department of Homeland Security regarding Secure Communities. In an interview with Telemundo47, Governor Paterson said that local jurisdictions within the state can choose whether or not to participate in the program, which would automatically transfer the fingerprints of anyone arrested by local law enforcement to a Department of Homeland Security database to check the person’s immigration status. This program that the Federal Government asked us to be a part of, in which municipalities have a choice of whether or not they can opt in or not — which is what New York State was able to receive as opposed to other states — guarantees that this is only high level security threats whose information will be transferred. Yet, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said on October 6 that the program was not optional. On the other hand, John M. Caher, director of public information for the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), told El Diario that there was “a pledge made to this state by the Department of Homeland Security” that no community in New York will be forced to activate Secure Communities. However, Caher said this is not discussed in the Memorandum of Agreement between New York and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). That document was signed by the Acting Commissioner of DCJS Sean Byrne. Asked about other jurisdictions such as San Francisco and Santa Clara, California and Arlington, Virginia, who are trying to opt out unsuccessfully, Caher said he was not aware if those states received such a condition, so he was not sure if their experiences were relevant. Ángela Fernández, executive director of the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights and a strong critic of Secure Communities, said she hasn’t been able to confirm that New York State has a special deal with DHS. “We said, can you show us another contract that says that New York is going to get special treatment on this issue, and they haven’t been able to produce it,” said Fernandez. “They say there’s an email from the Department of Homeland Security that says that local jurisdictions can opt out. But we don’t feel confident with that.” Attorney General Andrew Cuomo talked about Secure Communities while introducing the urban agenda for his gubernatorial campaign on Thursday. The federal government is going to put out guidance on Secure Communities, and how they believe the states have to follow the law, obviously federal law would be the law and the state would ultimately follow the federal law. I think they have to be very careful in Secure Communities, because you don’t want to create a situation where people are afraid to report a crime, or afraid to testify, it could actually interfere with law enforcement and with public safety, so I think the federal government should tread very carefully.” Asked if there was a real possibility for local jurisdictions in New York to opt out of the program after Napolitano’s statement, Cuomo said “well that’s what we have to review.” A statement sent to El Diario by Brian Hale, director of public affairs for ICE, established that if a county doesn’t want to activate Secure Communities they must ‘formally notify’ the state and ICE. Hale declined to elaborate further or explain exactly what that means. Hale added: Secure Communities agreements are generally reached at the state level and activated locally on a set schedule. ICE seeks to work with local law enforcement agencies to address any concerns and determine next appropriate steps. If a jurisdiction does not wish to activate on its scheduled date in the Secure Communities deployment plan, it must formally notify both its state identification bureau and ICE. Because of what advocates call ‘total confusion’ over whether it’s possible for local jurisdictions to opt-out, they are asking Governor Paterson to rescind the Memorandum of Agreement. It states that either party — the state or ICE — can terminate the agreement at any time on 30 days notice. Comparing it to the stop-and-frisk database he limited the use of this summer, Paterson also told Telemundo47 reporter Luis Medina that advocates have to prove that Secure Communities affects low level offenders before he makes a decision. “I think there’s some confusion here. These organizations have to come forward and show us definitively that they have proof that the information was sent to INS (sic) on low level offenders, which is not what the intent of the memorandum of understanding is. If they can establish it, I will be happy to reconsider,” said Paterson. Advocates say they are gathering evidence to send to the governor as soon as possible, but some say the facts have already been demonstrated. “That’s ridiculous,” said Chung-Wha Hong of the New York Immigration Coalition. “There’s the New York Times editorial and there are cases. All he has to do is look at the cases that were submitted to the pardon panel. This is something that’s proven. So the ball is in his court, he needs to just make the decision.” Photo courtesy of news.feetintwoworlds.org Posted by ishita on October 25th, 2010 in 287G, Blog, Deportation, Detention, Due Process, Enforcement, Fair Day in Court, Family, Human Rights, Immigration, Race, Racial Profiling | Tags: Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Brian Hale, Chung-Wha Hong, Criminal Justices Services, El Diario, Feet in Two Worlds, Governor Paterson, ICE ACCESS, ICE access programs, immigration reform, New York election, New York Immigration Coalition, New York State, New York Times, NYIC, Telemundo47 | Comments Off Post to: Facebook Amid Oil Spill Crisis, U.S. Authorities Search for Undocumented Immigrant Cleanup Workers Talk about misplaced priorities. In the midst of a national crisis over the gargantuan BP oil spill that is destroying the water, marine eco-systems, and coastal livelihoods along the Gulf Coast, Federal immigration officials have decided to focus their resources on checking the immigration status of the people that BP has finally employed to begin cleaning up the massive destruction that the oil is causing along the coast. Check out this amazing exclusive report co-produced by Feet in Two Worlds (English) and El Diario (Spanish)- Federal immigration officials have been visiting command centers on the Gulf Coast to check the immigration status of response workers hired by BP and its contractors to clean up the immense oil spill. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Louisiana confirmed that its agents had visited two large command centers—which are staging areas for the response efforts and are sealed off to the public—to verify that the workers there were legal residents. “We visited just to ensure that people who are legally here can compete for those jobs—those people who are having so many problems,” said Temple H. Black, a spokesman for ICE in Louisiana. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, thousands of Hispanic workers, many of them undocumented, flocked to the region to help in the reconstruction of Louisiana’s coastal towns. Many stayed, building communities on the outskirts of New Orleans or finding employment outside the city in oil refineries and in the fishing industry. These Hispanic workers have been accused of taking away jobs from longtime Louisiana residents, and the tension has grown as fishing and tourism jobs dry up, leaving idle workers to compete for jobs on the oil spill clean-up effort. Black explained that ICE and Border Patrol began to monitor the response efforts shortly after job sites were formed following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that began on April 20 and has yet to be contained. ICE, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, visited two command centers, one in Venice and the other in Hopedale, twice in May. ICE agents arrived at the staging areas without prior notice, rounded up workers, and asked for documentation of their legal status, according to Black. The command centers, located in the marshes a few hours east of New Orleans, are among the largest, with hundreds of workers employed at each site. “We don’t normally go and check people’s papers—we’re mostly focused on transnational gangs, predators, drugs. This was a special circumstance because of the oil spill,” said Black. “We made an initial visit and a follow-up to make sure they were following the rules,” he said. “These weren’t raids—they were investigations,” he added. There were no arrests at either site, according to the ICE spokesman. But he said if undocumented workers had been discovered, they “would have been detained on the spot and taken to Orleans Parish Prison.” BP and one of the companies that holds a large contract in Hopedale, Oil Mop, did not return calls requesting comment. A high-level employee for another contractor in Hopedale, United States Environmental Services, who did not give her name, said, “I just got a phone call. I heard they were visiting.” St. Bernard Parish, where the Hopedale site is located, assured that the local government had nothing to do with the checks and had no knowledge of them. The ICE agents who visited the sites reminded subcontractors of immigration laws and their obligation to use programs including E-verify, an electronic system run by the Department of Homeland Security which checks workers’ immigration status. An Oil Mop subcontractor called Tamara’s Group has hired more than 100 Hispanic workers from the region to work at the Hopedale site. The owner of Tamara’s Group, Martha Mosquera, said that when ICE came in the first week of May, “they gathered them all in the tents and they asked for their papers.” One of the workers in this group, a 61-year-old Mexican woman named Cruz Stanaland, rememberes ICE’s visit: “They were civilians, they weren’t wearing uniforms and they were driving in cars that didn’t have the Immigration logo…dark cars with tinted glass.” Another worker from the same group, Etanlisa Hernández, who is 30 and from the Dominican Republic, said, “There were five or six men. They were very polite.” Although Mosquera said her company had no problems because all of her employees were legally employed, some pro-immigrant leaders criticized the government’s quickness to enforce immigration requirements during a crisis. “It’s like, ‘round everybody up and leave the oil on the beach,’” said Darlene Kattan, Director of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana. “In a catastrophic situation like this, I think we should be more well-reasoned.” “People are desperate for jobs,” she added, “And they think that if someone looks like an undocumented immigrant they’re taking the food from their mouth.” Clarissa Martinez de Castro, Director of Immigration and National Campaigns at the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group in Washington DC, said, “the clean-up effort is a gargantuan effort and we have to ensure that the crews are working in a way that protects their health and safety, and that should be the priority.” She added, “if ICE thinks that there are bad apple employers, they should go directly to them instead of harassing clean-up crews that we all know are doing a crucial job.” Despite the visits by ICE, some undocumented workers have been hired by BP contractors. One fisherman from El Salvador, who didn’t want to reveal his name because he was afraid of being deported, has been laying down boom alongside the marshes for a week. “You’re always afraid Immigration is coming,” he said. He explained that although he didn’t feel safe doing the clean-up work, he took the risk because the job pays $360 a day. “I came because I have a wife, and kids, I came to give them a better life. My uncle’s family lent me money to come here. Maybe this will help me pay them back.” Listen this week to NPR’s Latino USA for Annie Correal’s report on the latest from the Gulf Coast. Photos courtesy of news.feetintwoworlds.org Posted by ishita on June 4th, 2010 in 287G, Blog, Deportation, Detention, Due Process, Enforcement, Family, Human Rights, Immigration | Tags: Annie Correal, Border Patrol, BP, Breakthrough, Department of Homeland Security, El Diario, El Salvador, Feet in Two Worlds, Gulf Coast, Hispanic, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Hurricane Katrina, ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Latino, Latino USA, Louisiana, National Council of La Raza, New Orleans, NPR, Oil Spill, oil spill clean-up, Raids, Restore Fairness, workers | Comments Off Post to: Facebook Lou Dobbs “Drop the Hate” ad airs on MSNBC! CNN is feeling the heat because of its primetime anchor – Lou Dobbs. New York Times headlines. Front page of El Diario. Blogs abuzz with news. Using its four-hour documentary “Latino in America” as a political rallying cry, groups including Drop Dobbs and Basta Dobbs have been laying the pressure on the channel to stop allowing Lou Dobbs from broadcasting hate politics. One example of many: Dobbs falsely reported an explosion of 7,000 cases of leprosy in the United States in the past three years, and blamed Latino immigrants for the perceived increase, a statistic which was been thoroughly debunked. Now America’s Voice has raised enough money (16,000 dollars!) to produce and air an ad, “Drop the Hate”, that urges CNN to drop Dobbs and his one-sided “news” show. Unfortunately CNN has refused to air the ad. As America’s Voice puts it, “By refusing to deal with Lou Dobbs and his nightly tirade against immigrants, Latinos, and people of color, CNN is quickly losing credibility as the “Most Trusted Name in News.” As people become aware of the network’s one-sided coverage of immigration, they will start changing the channel.” And the channel did change to MSNBC where the “Drop the Hate” ad aired on the Rachel Maddow show across Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and Washington, DC. Meanwhile, Lou Dobbs announced yesterday that gunshots were fired at his New Jersey home 3 weeks ago, linking it to “threatening phone calls tied to the positions I have taken on illegal immigration”, but police believe the shots were just from hunters. Tell CNN’s president Jonathan Klein that he needs to take notice of this growing movement. Posted by madhuri on October 29th, 2009 in Blog, Immigration | Tags: America's Voice, Basta Dobbs, Breakthrough, CNN, Drop Dobbs, El Diario, hate politics, Latino in America, Lou Dobbs, New York Times, race, Restore Fairness | 3 Comments » Post to: Facebook Contact The Editor If you have suggestions for content or would like to guest blog, please contact the Managing Editor, Ishita Srivastava ishita@breakthrough.tv Add Your Voice Add your news, links, and action updates about restoring due process to this website. Take the Poll POLL: Is 2013 the year to pass just and humane immigration reform? All Blog Categories Fair Day in Court LGBTQI America's Voice Dream Activist Para Justicia Libertad Voto Latino We Can Stop the Hate

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14249

Unconcealed Guns Can Unsettle, But They're Often Legal By Sandy Hausman Jan 30, 2013 TweetShareGoogle+Email A concealed handgun permit holder waits to enter the General Assembly building in Richmond, Va., on Jan. 21. Known as "gun lobby day," crowds of gun owners visited the capital to argue in favor of gun rights. Most states in the U.S. allow people to openly carry guns in certain public places. / Courtesy of Richmond Times-Dispatch Originally published on January 30, 2013 7:02 pm In Charlottesville, Va., residents are buzzing about a gun incident — but it wasn't a shooting. Sunday evening, a man walked into a supermarket with a loaded rifle. Shoppers called 911 and authorities rushed to the store, but police said they could not make an arrest. The man carrying the gun had not broken the law. Bob Girard got a shock when he stopped in the Kroger store on his way home from work: A 22-year-old man wearing a baseball cap and a blue jacket was strolling through the supermarket with a rifle slung from his shoulder. "People saw the gun. It was pretty easy to spot. He wasn't concealing it," Girard says. "It was right out in the open, and he created a reaction in the store." Some customers bolted for the door. Others grabbed their cellphones and called 911. Lt. Ronnie Roberts, a 30-year veteran of the Charlottesville police force, says eight officers went to the scene, ordered the man to drop his gun and searched him. "There was a note that was discovered during the investigative detention that reflected that he was exercising his First and Second Amendment rights," Roberts says. Alarming Or Commonplace? In other words, the guy wanted to make a point — that the law allowed him to carry a loaded weapon, and he had a right to show his support for the Second Amendment by bringing his gun to the grocery. The police were not impressed. "What was the necessity of carrying it in there and alarming mothers, fathers and their children?" Roberts says. "And it alarmed us. It alarms law enforcement." But Steve Sellers, the chief of police for rural Albemarle County, which surrounds the city, was unfazed. "Unconcealed weapons have been permitted in rural parts of this state. That's pretty common," he says, "to see somebody wearing a gun." People are allowed to openly carry weapons in certain public places in 44 states. Virginia gets a "gold star" from the advocacy group OpenCarry.org, which considers it "wholesome" to wear a properly holstered gun. "By not having people carry openly, but by forcing them to conceal their firearm, we're treating them as somehow unwholesome. We're treating gun holders like some kind of criminal," says John Pierce, who founded the group. "What the open carry movement is trying to do is to normalize the presence of firearms in daily life." A 'Spontaneous Reaction' It's unclear whether the man at the grocery store was on a mission to achieve that goal, and since no charges were filed, police will not give his name. But Girard hopes the state Legislature will take another look at its open carry law. "If this person can walk into the Kroger in Charlottesville with a loaded weapon, can he walk into the store where the governor is shopping or where the attorney general is shopping?" he asks. In the meantime, Pierce expects more of these kinds of incidents. He perceives them as a "spontaneous reaction by gun owners to what they see as a constant attack by the media, and by politicians, on what they see as their fundamental rights." Kroger has banned the man with a rifle from its premises and has posted an armed guard at the door. But the chain will not prohibit loaded guns in all of its stores. Copyright 2013 WVTF Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.wvtf.org. TweetShareGoogle+EmailView the discussion thread. © 2016 WHQR

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14403

In Texas, Strict Photo ID Law Hampers VotersJonathan BraterApril 20, 2015 In 2011, Texas passed one of the nation’s strictest photo ID laws. After a series of court challenges, a federal judge struck down the measure in October 2014, finding 600,000 registered voters lacked the ID now needed to vote. The requirement, the judge ruled, makes it harder for minorities to vote, was enacted to intentionally discriminate against minorities, and unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote. The Supreme Court, however, allowed Texas’s photo ID law to remain in place for the November 2014 election — and voters paid the consequences. Unprotected by the courts, the Brennan Center spoke with many Texans who found the photo ID requirement confusing and several who were prevented from voting entirely. In the lead up to the oral argument in the appeal of the Texas photo ID decision — scheduled for April 28 — the Brennan Center will be releasing a series of stories from actual voters affected by the law in the 2014 general election. This is part two in that series. (Read parts one and three.) Initials are used for voters who wish to remain anonymous. “If they weren’t going to count my vote, why do they keep sending me a voting card?” Della Lewis is 89 and lives in Montgomery. She has been voting since she was 30 years old, and has never had any problems — until 2014. “They always sent me my card and I always voted,” she said. But she couldn’t vote last November because she did not have an up-to-date photo ID. She no longer drives, so her driver’s license is expired. Even with her voter registration card, she was not allowed to vote. She voted a provisional ballot, but she was not able to get it counted. She could not get to a Department of Public Safety (DPS) office with the documentation she needed in time to have her vote counted. She does not have access to a birth certificate, because she was delivered by a midwife, and she was not able to get the other documentation she would have needed to get a new ID in time. She is still working with an office in Austin to try to get the records she needs to obtain an ID card — and she desperately wants to vote the next time the election comes around. She worries about other voters, particularly elderly voters, who may have expired IDs like her, and who may not have easy access to documentation like birth certificates. She said she had a very bad feeling about the whole experience. She did not like that they “threw out” her vote — even though she had her voter registration card, was getting election mail from the state, and had an ID card with her picture on it. “They know I’m Della Mae,” she said. “If they weren’t going to count my vote, why do they keep sending me a voting card?” “We both vote regularly and this is the first time we’ve ever had any trouble before.” Mr. P is 88 and lives in Pleasanton. Both he and Mrs. P had trouble at the polls last November. “We both vote regularly and this is the first time we’ve ever had any trouble before,” according to Mrs. P. Mr. P has an expired driver’s license because he does not drive anymore, so poll workers would not accept his identification to vote. Because of Mr. P’s health problems, they were not able to go to a DPS office, get a state photo ID, and go to the election office in time to get the vote counted. The process of voting, combined with getting an ID, was too time-consuming for the elderly couple, according to Mrs. P. She said trying to cast a ballot this time around meant going to three different places because of his ID problem, and even then, all he got was a provisional ballot. And at the DPS they “waited and waited and waited in line” during their last visit. They do plan to vote again in the future, but Mr. P was blocked from voting in 2014, and Mrs. P said it was enough to make them very frustrated. They assumed they would take his driver’s license because it had his picture on it. “Causing a lot of problems.” Dorothy Rains-White is 87 and lives in Huntsville. She has lived in Texas all her life. She needs a cane or a walker to get around. When she went to vote with her husband, Willis White, she was unable to cast a regular ballot because they would not accept her expired driver’s license (she no longer drives). Getting the provisional ballot counted proved impossible. The last time they tried to get her a driver’s license, according to Mr. White, there was a “big ol’ form” for her to fill out and a whole set of documents required. Mr. White said the DPS did not tell them anything about the possibility of getting a free ID card — and instead said they would have to pay a fee to get a new ID. Mr. White also observed that trips to the DPS can be difficult. There is no place for older people to sit down while they wait. Mr. White saw a pregnant woman who waited three hours and still was not able to get an ID — she was in tears. Mr. White thinks Texas’s strict photo ID law is causing a lot of problems. He can understand why protections are needed to make sure only eligible citizens are voting, but the way the law is drawn up is blocking eligible people, like his wife, who has lived in Texas all her life. Mrs. Rains-White was upset by the experience. She said “I have been living in the state of Texas all of my life and I felt like I had been cheated out of the privilege of voting.” She said that in her case, being born in 1928, it was unreasonable to have to produce a birth certificate, and proof of paying taxes, and everything else they wanted her to bring to get an ID. “It will make it so a lot of people don’t even want to go, because they think they can’t pass the bar.” Walter Johnson is 67 and lives in Lubbock. Born in Texas, he has been a regular voter for many years. In 2014, he showed up to vote with a Texas state identification card, which was not accepted for voting. According to Mr. Johnson, the card was up to date, but the poll worker did not inspect the ID closely enough to confirm it was valid, and he did not get to vote a regular ballot. Instead, he was given a provisional ballot — but the process of providing the documents needed to get it counted was not adequately explained. Mr. Johnson said that after he cast the provisional ballot, the poll workers “made it sound like everything was copacetic” and the ballot would be valid. Only “a couple weeks after,” when he received a letter in the mail saying his vote did not count, did he realize he had been stopped from voting. Mr. Johnson said the experience was very frustrating. He said of not voting, “It kind of let me down a little bit, since I went through all that trouble, doing everything right — everything was all legit — and then, because of something they overlooked, on a technicality, they waited until after the fact to tell me I didn’t get to vote.” He thinks the poll worker had “everything right on the table” to show that he was eligible to vote, but did not take the time to check carefully that his ID was valid and he should have been allowed to get his ballot counted. He also worries about other potential voters being blocked as well, or not even trying to go to the polls: “It will make it so a lot of people don’t even want to go, because they think they can’t pass the bar” needed to vote. “I know I was born!” Jeannie Meyer, 69, is originally from California. She moved to Texas in 1990 and has lived in Lakeway since 2003. She is a regular voter and practically never misses an election, but in 2014 her vote did not count because she could not use her picture ID. Her driver’s license is expired because she no longer drives. She also has a state identification card, but that is expired as well. She voted a provisional ballot, but she later got a message that her vote did not count. Even if she could have gotten the documentation needed, Ms. Meyer would have had a very hard time ensuring that her provisional vote counted. Because she does not drive, she would need a ride from her husband to go to the DPS office. Because of his work schedule, however, the only time she could have done that was Saturday morning — so even if she could have found the documents she needed, she would have barely any time to go to the office, get an ID, and then get her provisional ballot counted. In the future, Ms. Meyer is afraid she simply will not vote because she cannot get an ID. “I actually went down there to try to get another kind of ID because I no longer drive, but they said I needed my birth certificate and marriage license — even though I already have my expired driver’s license and also an expired state ID card.” She said this makes her frustrated “because I have opinions and I must keep them totally to myself. It is especially frustrating because I go way back as a voter.” Ms. Meyer thinks the state should change the law, because she cannot produce the paperwork state officials are requiring of her in order to cast a ballot that counts. She does not know what else she is expected to prove. “I know that I was born!” (Photo: Thinkstock) Want to stay up informed on voting rights? Sign up for our bi-weekly voting newsletter today! Voting Rights & ElectionsRestricting the Vote Texas Denies Voters Effect of Court Ruling Striking Down Discriminatory Law 11/29/16 The Case for Empathy 11/28/16 In the Place of Justice 11/21/16 Related News NY Attorney General Calls for Voting Overhaul12/07/16The Hill Most States Would Recount Mich.'s Mismatched Ballots12/07/16USA Today Attorney General Proposes Election Reform After Primary Day that Disenfranchised Thousands of New Yorkers12/07/16NY1 Found this useful?

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14526

Print Email Font ResizeArt & VarietyBill banning concealed guns on campus advances; GOP bill delayedBy Lynn Bartels and Tim HooverThe Denver PostPosted: Hearings on several gun bills will occupy Colorado legislators and spectators at the Capitol on Feb. 13, 2013. (Andy Cross, The Denver Post) A Democratic gun bill banning concealed weapons on college campuses cleared a House committee on Wednesday while another piece of legislation to charge gun buyers for background checks still awaited action.It was the second day in row at the Capitol that Democratic gun control legislation continued unimpeded over the objections of firearms rights activists who have packed hearing rooms.The House Education Committee approved the measure, House Bill 1226, on a 7-6 party line vote, and the bill now heads to the House Appropriations Committee before it can go to the full House."Guns and college students don't mix," said Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, the sponsor of the bill. "Do we really want to give guns to binge-drinking college students?"Students representing the University of Colorado-Boulder's student government also testified in favor of the bill, saying they were "concerned and distressed by the presence of concealed weapons" on campus."We need a safe environment to learn," said Tyler Quick, a senior from Westminster.But Republicans on the House Education Committee challenged Levy's assertions that guns wouldn't make campuses safer.Rep. Lois Landgraf, R-Fountain, asked Levy why she wanted to "turn women into victims."Levy, though, asserted that "college campuses are the safest place to be in this country," though not with concealed weapons in the hands of students.Advertisement But Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, said the bill would send the message to would-be killers that "a college e campus is the place you want to go if you want to be unopposed."Opponents included the County Sheriffs of Colorado. Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, in whose county the main Colorado State University lies, said the bill was essentially asking people to be on the "honor system" with their guns.As someone who runs a jail, Smith said, "I can tell you, offenders don't do well with the honor system. That's why we lock the doors."The Old Supreme Court Chambers, where the hearing took place, was packed with gun rights supporters, though not as many as the day before, when a Democratic-controlled committee passed two bills requiring background checks for private gun sales and restricting the number of rounds in gun magazines.On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee approved the two gun bills after a marathon session that attracted hundreds of witness, required an overflow hearing room and lasted late into the night.In addition to the concealed weapons on campus bill, another Democratic bill up Wednesday requires gun customers to pay for their own background checks.A bill that was to be heard Wednesday is an attempt to stave off enforcement of new federal regulations, including 23 executive orders President Obama signed in January. Senate Bill 140 by Sen. Vicki Marble of Fort Collins was scheduled to be heard by the Senate, State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee but was postponed.The majority of current Democratic bills were inspired by mass murders at a movie theater in Aurora in July, and at a Connecticut elementary school in December.But the campus measure had been in the works before that, after the Colorado Supreme Court in March 2012 ruled that concealed-weapons permit holders could carry on campus. The Colorado legislature in 2003 passed the Concealed Carry Act, which states a person with a permit may carry a concealed weapon "in all areas of the state," except for a narrow list of exceptions, such as federal properties and K-12 schools.The law didn't include colleges, and three University of Colorado students sued in 2008 in a case that went all the way to the state Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled the CU Board of Regents overstepped its authority by banning permitted concealed weapons on campuses.Martha Altman, one of the three students who filed the lawsuit against CU, said students who are eligible for a concealed-carry permit should be able to carry guns on campuses"We're not crazy gun enthusiasts," the woman said. "We're normal everyday citizens. My primary concern is my self defense."Wednesday afternoon the House Finance Committee will hear HB 1228 by Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, which requires gun customers to pay a $10 fee to pay for their background check by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Currently, taxpayers cover the costs of those background checks. The legislature previously has considered passing the costs onto gun customers to help deal with budget woes, but even some Democrats fought the idea.But the explosion of gun sales starting in November has created such that CBI has asked for more money, prompting a renewed interest in passing on the costs.Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, who sits on the Finance Committee, is against the bill."I'm opposed to what amounts to a poll tax, charging people to exercise their Second Amendment rights," he said.The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved by HB 1229, by Reps. Rhonda Fields of Aurora and Beth McCann of Denver. The measure requires background checks for private gun sales and transfers. The committee also approved HB-1224 by Fields, which bans high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than 15 rounds.Lynn Bartels: 303-954-5327, lbartels@denverpost.com or twitter.com/lynn_bartelsPrint Email Font ResizeReturn to Top RELATED

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14545

delaforum BLOG +plus+ ¶ What ever happened to government of the people, by the people and for the people? Reality is that government officials at every level are doing their best to see to it that ordinary people are kept as far out of the loop as possible. Federal documents are being classified into various categories of secret at the rate of 30 a minute -- 15.6 million last year. There is a veritable bureaucratic army whose principal function is "creating and filing secrets," said David Ledford, executive editor of the News Journal. At the state level, the Freedom of Information Act, despite its high-sounding statement of policy -- "[I]t is vital that citizens have easy access to public records in order that society remain free and democratic." -- is riddled with loopholes. Not only is the General Assembly specifically exempted from what provisions it does contain, but the attorney general's duty to represent state agencies creates a conflict of interest preventing his office from enforcing the act against any of those agencies. The only way anyone can obtain compliance beyond the local level is by the expensive course of appealing to Court of Chancery. Although "citizens have the right to know what their government is doing," Ellen Wasfi, president of the League of Women Voters of Greater Dover, said the '9-11' terror attack has given public officials a powerful deterrent to having that right exercised. Security is "being used as an excuse for hiding information" in cases where the only real danger is there potential embarrassment, she said. A consequence -- unintended or otherwise -- of the U.S.A. Patriot Act has been to create a "culture of secrecy," said Drewry Fennell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware. "Since '9-11' we have seen a real movement across the country ... to close the door on government," she said. Peter Weitzel, coordinator of the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, said Delaware ranked 38th out of the 50 states in a national study of how much 'sunshine' it lets in to view governmental operations. A key failing of the state's Freedom of Information Act is that 13 of its 14 stated exemptions "give the [public] agency the ability to decide whether [something] falls within the exemption." A prime example of how much light seeps in is the annual process of enacting an array of significant legislation with minimal scrutiny as the Assembly winds down its sessions with well-into-the-night marathons on the last day of June, said representative Robert Valihura. The most egregious abuse, he said, is time-honored practice of 'walking around' a bill among colleagues rather than following the process of having it aired before a committee in open session. "You don't get much sunshine at midnight," he quipped. Those comments were made at a recent symposium on openness in government or lack thereof sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the News Journal. The consensus which emerged was clearly that the system is in dire need of reform. Attorney general Carl Danberg and James Vaughn, president judge of Superior Court, both said they would support changes in the state law, but were not specific about what they should be. A good place to start would be to narrow the concept of 'personnel matters' and 'pending or potential litigation" as just causes for a public agency to shut the doors on discussion. If interpreted broadly -- as is frequently done -- almost any deliberation can be sheltered under that umbrella. The determining factor if a particular situation should be is whether it can be reasonably concluded that real and significant harm to an individual will result from open discussion. Since no public gathering is really public unless the public knows about it, an immediate reform would be to require agencies to post notices where they can be seen in the normal course of a person's activity. The law requires only that seven-days notice be given -- unless it can be claimed that it is not possible to give seven-days notice, in which case 24-hours notice will suffice -- and that it be posted at the agency's office and the place where the meeting is to be held. Virtually every public agency nowadays has a website, so it would be logical that the 21st century equivalent to publishing a classified advertisement in a 'newspaper of general circulation' would be to post it conspicuously on the website. That would be cheaper and have the advantage of allowing necessary changes if and when appropriate. Such a requirement should include agencies' committees, taskforces and advisory panels, which are included in the requirements of the law but frequently have gatherings that go unnoticed. The process of exercising the right to be informed also could stand some serious tweaking. Except in instances where massive amounts of information are sought, it should be made easy to inspect public documents as a matter of course. A simple walk-in request would be appropriate if the documents are of a nature that they are kept in an immediately accessible file. At most, 24 hours notice via telephone or e.mail that a request is going to be made should suffice. A simple form to be filled out and signed on the spot would provide an adequate record of the transaction. A reasonable number of copies -- say a total of a dozen pages -- should be available without charge and a nominal charge levied beyond that. After all, the requester's tax dollars pay the bill for the routine business activity of copying. The process of adjudicating an alleged violation of the Freedom of Information Act should be streamlined. Danberg told the symposium that his office is not able to comply with a request to review a claim within the 20 working days specified in the law. It has whittled the average review time from 75 days to 45 days, but if the right to be informed is as basic as the state law said it is, paying for paralegal staff to handle the routine processing steps would seem justified. Present procedure also provides the agency complained about the opportunity to respond in detail to the citizen's complaint. In most cases, a lawyer does the responding. The matter is then decided without the complainant having the opportunity to respond to the response. It stands to reason that, absent an open-and-shut situation, the odds are against a lawyer ruling against a professionally prepared brief in favor of an amateur's complaint. Michael Tupman, the deputy attorney general with primary responsibility for handling freedom-of-information complaints, said he could not specify the ratio between rulings favoring the complainant and those supporting the agency. But he "guess[ed] it might be about 50-50." Since a person is not likely to pursue the matter beyond an initial rejection without reason to believe he or she has been wronged, Tupman's estimate, if accurate, is not encouraging. Again relying on the truth of the claim in the law about what is fundamentally at stake, commissioning a freedom-of-information ombudsman with no other ties to government at any level would be appropriate. And when all is considered, a remedy beyond simply telling an agency it has sinned and advising it not to do that again would be appropriate. A few years ago, Common Cause of Delaware attempted to insert penalties for officials who violate the law. Until something like that is done, it is hard to believe that the idealistic discussion at the seminar will go much further than being only that. ¶ Somehow it has proved difficult to see how the package of proposed legislation being put before the Assembly qualifies as, in the words of the governor's press notice, "solving Delaware's energy challenge." Unless there is something in there that has been overlooked, it appears to be little more than throwing money -- John Q. Public's money -- at the problem. If enacted, the laws would use a combination of tax money and surcharges to finance energy conservation and financial assistance to low-income households to pay their heating and cooling bills. State government would be authorized to seek more favorable rates from alternate electricity suppliers while Delmarva Power and Delaware Electric Cooperative customers, without comparable bargaining power, would be allowed to phase in the planned massive rate increase provided they pay the equivalent of interest on what they 'defer' past the May 1 effective date. What's lacking is the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. Conspicuous by their absence from the package are measures to re-regulate electricity rates until the competition originally envisioned actually materializes and an effective excess-profits tax to assure that the impending rates are as justified as the companies claim. ¶ If terrorists ever have the audacity to target Dillingham, Alaska, -- population 2,400; access not easy -- they'll find Big Brother well prepared. Thanks to a Department of Homeland Security grant, the tiny snowbound burg is covered from every angle with 360° surveillance cameras. CLICK HERE to read the Los Angeles Times article. ¶ In churches, mosques, ashrams, "healing rooms," prayer groups and homes nationwide, millions of Americans offer prayers daily to heal themselves, family, friends, co-workers and even people found through the Internet. Fueled by the upsurge in religious expression in the United States, prayer is the most common complement to mainstream medicine, far outpacing acupuncture, herbs, vitamins and other alternative remedies. ¶ When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. Concerned about drunken drivers and other bad things people do when they have had too much, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is looking to attack the problem where it occurs -- in bars. The commission sent undercover agents into 36 bars and arrested 30 for violating the state law against being intoxicated in public. ¶ Public humiliation on Comedy Central's ''The Colbert Report" is becoming a rite of passage for the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives, whose members allow themselves and their districts to be ridiculed in the interests of reaching young voters ahead of elections that could decide party control of the chamber. CLICK HERE to read the Boston Globe article. Click here to express your opinion Access previous commentaries Return to Delaforum What is your opinion about the topic of this article? Click here to express your views.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14601

Next Generation Firewall PC Hardware / Its Time to Move Beyond the Case Its Time to Move Beyond the Case Microsoft should take the ruling seriously. In the realm of legal procedure, it seems nothing is ever really over. And yet, with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotellys recent ruling in the Microsoft antitrust case, there are plenty of signs that its time to move on. To be sure, we have regrets about the last roughly half-decade of proceedings. First, things dragged on much longer than was healthy for the industry, with the legal system showing it cant keep pace with IT. Second, the results are frustratingly inconclusive: Microsoft was found guilty of serious offenses, but rather than being punished or restructured so as to foster competition, the company must merely cease certain practices and be monitored for compliance. Its not far from the wrist slap delivered by Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman in 1994. Whats more, legal action could continue. Theres the possibility of civil suits against Microsoft—and the nine dissenting states and the District of Columbia could appeal. We cant help but recall 1982, when the Reagan administration dropped the 13-year antitrust case against IBM. Although IBM was not found guilty, as Microsoft was, IBM moderated its competitive practices significantly and issued a code of conduct for employees. Microsoft has already done the same. "Microsoft has learned and grown through the experience of the last four years. We must be aware of how our actions affect others and are perceived by them," said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Continuing with the parallel, competitors feared IBM once the Department of Justice backed off. Some now believe Microsoft has a license to hunt defenseless rivals. But IBMs prosperity was short-lived. Within a decade, the company was collapsing of its own weight. Gates, Ballmer & Co. will try to prevent a similar debacle, but ensuring that a company as big and dominant as Microsoft keeps a sharp competitive edge without resorting to anti-competitive practices might be harder than Microsoft execs imagine. We think the task would have been easier for all concerned had Microsoft been split into several companies. But that approach is moot. Its time to move on. The first step, as Ballmer implies, is for Microsoft to take the ruling and the remedy of surveillance seriously. Then a new and better future for the software industry will be possible. Submit a Comment

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14663

Sony Settles Lawsuit With Kevin Butler Actor Jerry Lambert Sony had sued actor Jerry Lambert, who played the company's popular ficitonal spokesman Kevin Butler, for breach of contract after the actor played a character similar to Butler in a Bridgestone ad promoting a Wii giveaway. Today, it was announced that the lawsuit was settled. When it filed the suit, Sony had issued the following statement: "Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek, Inc. on September 11. The claims are based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. We invested significant resources in bringing the Kevin Butler character to life and he’s become an iconic personality directly associated with PlayStation products over the years. Use of the Kevin Butler character to sell products other than those from PlayStation misappropriates Sony’s intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony." Based on the settlement, it appears that the court was sympathetic to Sony's argument. The court dictated that Lambert acknowledged that his contract with Sony prevented him from promoting competing game systems (the Wii in this case). Lambert is now barred from appearing in any advertisement or promotion for “any other video game or computer entertainment system or video game company” for two years. After that, there is a two-year period in which Lambert must notify Sony that he is appearing in a video game-related advertisement, giving Sony the right to decide whether or not the ad "violates Sony's rights in the Kevin Butler characters." Translation: Don't expect to see Jerry Lambert in any video game ads in the foreseeable future. News, Wii, Nintendo, Sony, PS3, Playstation 3, advertising, Sony Computer Entertainment, Kevin Butler, court, settlement, bridgestone, jerry lambert 2 3 4 Next Game Informer

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14674

Wisconsin Supreme Court hears Lake Geneva case in hearsay evidence debate Kathleen O'Brien Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds admissibility of hearsay evidence at preliminary hearings Case of Lake Geneva couple accused of abusing children cited in Supreme Court case Abuse suspects plead not guilty Walworth County couple granted new judge Judge delays Lake Geneva child abuse case Complaint: Lake Geneva parents stabbed, pepper sprayed children MADISON — A Lake Geneva couple is at the center of a debate the Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering about the admissibility of hearsay evidence at preliminary hearings. At oral arguments Friday afternoon at the state Capitol, Jerome Buting, lawyer for Martin and Kathleen O'Brien, challenged the statute that went into effect in April 2012. The statute allows hearsay evidence to find probable cause at preliminary hearings. Buting and fellow petitioner Terry Rose, who represents another case cited in the challenge, suggests the court implement "some sort of guidelines or rules to tell the courts what type of hearsay is permitted or not." In May 2012, the O'Briens were charged with several felony and misdemeanor counts of abusing their six children from Russia. Offenses range from making the children stand outside shoeless in the winter to spraying them with pepper spray. The O'Briens were bound over for trial after a July 6, 2012, preliminary hearing in Walworth Count Court. At the hearing, testimony was taken from a police officer who had interviewed the children. The defense argued the hearsay evidence should meet a certain level of reliability before the court can use it to find probable cause. Under the statute, a police detective, for example, is allowed to testify at a preliminary hearing about what a crime victim told him or her. The victim is not required to testify. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine if the defendant probably committed a felony. Before 2012, hearsay was inadmissible at preliminary hearings, unless it met other exceptions. According to a brief filed by the O'Briens and the attorneys challenging the statute, they argue that the court: -- Not allow a “mere reader” to offer evidence by only reading the criminal complaint. -- Require the testimony or sworn affidavit of a witness with personal knowledge of the alleged crime be provided. -- Require that an affidavit contain enough underlying facts to judge its reliability. -- Require hearsay statements and information be provided to the defendant at least five days before a preliminary hearing. Buting and Jeffrey Kassel, assistant attorney general, repeatedly cited a criminal complaint during oral arguments. Buting said the criminal complaint is "very sparse" with information pertaining to the allegations made by a then 17-year-old adopted son who claims to have been hit and hurt by a flashlight. The O'Briens argue their adopted son ran away and reported the allegations to police and is the primary source of information for the police. The defense had subpoenaed the 17-year-old to testify at the preliminary hearing, but the court nullified the subpoena, and the O'Briens were bound over for trial, according to the court documents. The defense appealed. In July 2013, the District 2 Court of Appeals affirmed the judge's decision to disregard the subpoena and restrict the defense from cross-examining the 17-year-old at the preliminary hearing. “The statute is worded so broadly it's opened the door for meaningless exercise,” Buting said “unless this court provides some guidelines." Kassel argued against changing the statute, saying the credibility or reliability of hearsay should be determined by judges on a court-by-court basis. “While it makes hearsay admissible, it says court may base it's decision on that,” Kassel said. In the 53-page brief filed the O'Briens and the attorneys challenging the statute, it states the court should not allow the use of “unreliable, multiple layers of hearsay” when finding probable cause. The defense argues that a police officer relaying information obtained through interviews is multiple layers of hearsay. It's not clear when the Supreme Court will issue a decision in the case. The O'Briens remain free on signature bonds.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14839

Preservation can boost economy “Oh, I cannot disapprove! I can only deplore it.” Leslie Howard, portraying “Pimpernel Smith.” Robert Beardsley "Oh, I cannot disapprove! I can only deplore it." Leslie Howard, portraying "Pimpernel Smith."The Kansas Legislature is currently in session, as if we didn't have enough to fret over. Two bills are being considered early on, aimed at elements of the state historic preservation law. I have made a career out of reinventing historic buildings, of course, so I think that is something to fret over!The first proposal (HB 2118) would repeal the state "environs" review process, which currently enables the community and the state to jointly review changes to buildings within 5,000 feet of registered historic properties. The reasoning is that it protects the historic character of the historic building. The reality is that it also protects the investment of the historic property owner.When you invest scads of money into repairing a building you want to protect that investment, and it isn't like investing in gold or stocks. If you and your neighbor each had a pound of gold (and I wish you did, too!), the value of the gold depends on the marketplace, and what either of you does with your pound of gold won't change the world market price.On the other hand, if you sell your gold and spend it fixing up your house, and your neighbor decides to sell his gold and spend the money breeding pot-bellied pigs, the local real estate market will squeal! That is why we have zoning laws.The other proposal (HB 2089) would allow municipalities to opt-out of the environs review process and set up its own, parallel programs. The intention is to keep historic buildings from impeding economic development, as if Old Town in Wichita and Downtown Lawrence are horribly impeded.This proposal has come up before, but always died in Committee. Small wonder. Cities can overrule historic board determinations now, through a process that ends with a vote of the City Council. It's much easier than setting up a whole separate system, and then managing it. The outcome of the vote upholds the proposed demolition (or whatever) as often as not, so why reinvent the wheel?The recent decision by Leavenworth's governing bodies to demolish the old jail is a case in point. A regrettable point, in my opinion, but that's life. Inasmuch as the building itself looks to be structurally sound, resigning all that masonry to the landfill is a likely due to a lack of planning, or foresight or both. And once a historic building is gone, it's gone forever.Demolition will give a few people jobs for a couple of weeks, if that. Redeveloping a property employs professional craftspeople for weeks. Rehabbing will also spend two-thirds of the money on wages, while replacing it somewhere will spend two-thirds of the money on materials, imported from somewhere else. I'd rather keep the money at home.Marrying historic preservation and economic development takes both vision and careful planning. It takes an economic development vision to create the grand plan and marketing strategy. It also takes urban planning techniques to translate that plan into reality. And it all takes cooperation.The state legislature will make an attempt to repeal parts of the historic preservation statute this session. And they may succeed. They can't repeal the laws of economics, however, and that's something to fret over.Robert L. Beardsley is the Cultural Resources Management, Planning & Development, Preservation Alliance of Leavenworth.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/14988

N.Y. / Region|Married or Not, Gay Couple Are Ruled Legally Separated N.Y. / Region Married or Not, Gay Couple Are Ruled Legally Separated By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLISJAN. 9, 2007 A gay couple may have been mistaken in thinking they were legally married, but they still have to honor the terms of their separation agreement, which is the equivalent of any other type of contract, a judge in New York City has ruled.The couple, Steven Green, 41, a real estate developer, and David Gonzalez, 29, now a lawyer but a student at the time they met, began living together in 2001, a decision last week in State Supreme Court in Manhattan indicated.They shared Mr. Green’s house in Westchester County and a pied-à-terre on Central Park South, according to the court papers and to Mr. Green, who responded to questions about the case by e-mail. Mr. Green, who said he also owns a home on Nantucket, produces independent films and runs “a small charter airline,” was the wealthier of the two men, and showered his partner with gifts, including a ski house and two cars, according to court papers.On Valentine’s Day in 2005, the couple were married in Massachusetts, where unlike New York, same-sex marriage is legal. But within a few months, the relationship soured, and Mr. Green’s lawyer drafted a separation agreement, which both parties signed in September 2005, the court papers said.Under that agreement, Mr. Gonzalez transferred title of his ski house to Mr. Green, and Mr. Green agreed to pay his former partner $780,000, according to court papers. The following January, Mr. Gonzalez filed for divorce in Manhattan, and Mr. Green countersued, claiming that their marriage had never been valid and demanding the return of the $780,000. In her decision, Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob agreed that the marriage had not been valid, because New York law did not permit gay marriage, and she dismissed Mr. Gonzalez’s claim for divorce.But Justice Gangel-Jacob found that the separation agreement between the two men was a valid contract. New York courts have long held that contracts between unmarried people living together are as enforceable as those between people who are not living together, she said.“While cohabitation without marriage does not give rise to the property and financial rights which normally attend the marital relation,” Justice Gangel-Jacob wrote, citing case law, “neither does cohabitation disable the parties from making an agreement within the normal rules of contract law.”Mr. Gonzalez’s lawyer, Eric Wrubel, said yesterday that the decision was important in the wake of the decision by New York’s Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles last July, which found that there is no right to gay marriage in New York under existing law. “For homosexual couples, in order to protect themselves and have orderly protection of their assets, they can now rely on agreements,” Mr. Wrubel said. Through his lawyer, Mr. Gonzalez declined to comment. A version of this article appears in print on , on page B4 of the New York edition with the headline: Married or Not, Gay Couple Are Ruled Legally Separated. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15072

The Year in Review and Going Forward: ERASE Racism’s Superstorm Sandy Work in 2013 and Next Steps for 2014 ERASE Racism was very busy working on issues relating to Superstorm Sandy in 2013 and will be monitoring the situation very carefully in 2014. "With New York State set to receive an additional $2 billion in the coming months, we will also be monitoring the State’s Action Plan Amendment to ensure that our concerns are adequately addressed." ERASE Racism Raises over $200,000... Lawsuit Alleges Apartment... ERASE Racism Gives Undergraduate... ERASE Racism has been busy on the Superstorm Sandy front. After the storm hit the New York area on October 29, 2012 Congress passed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act in early 2013, which provided for the distribution of funds to areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. On March 5, 2013, HUD issued a notice about the first allocation of recovery funds, which included $1.7 billion for New York State. The New York State Division of Homes and Community Renewal (“NYSHCR”), the agency responsible for drafting the Action Plan, published a draft plan in March 2013, which called for the distribution of $888 million to Nassau County and $282 million to Suffolk County. After reviewing the State’s Action Plan, ERASE Racism was concerned that it did not adequately address the needs of low-income and minority residents, and feared that the response to Superstorm Sandy would follow in the footsteps of the response to Hurricane Katrina, which left minority and low-income communities behind in the recovery process. ERASE Racism submitted comments highlighting our concerns that the Action Plan did not address the racial and ethnic composition of areas affected by Sandy, did not address how low-income residents would be affected by the Action Plan, did not assess the need for additional affordable housing in the affected areas, and did not ensure compliance with the HUD requirement to affirmatively further fair housing. In April 2013, New York State issued a final Action Plan which addressed some of our concerns but still left others unaddressed. The updated Action Plan included some assessment of how low-income and minority communities were affected by Sandy and created programs to assist homeowners with repairs and reconstruction and for the buyout of homes in the highest risk areas. The Action Plan also created programs to assist municipalities affected by Sandy by establishing Community Reconstruction Zone planning grants for communities to rebuild and increase their resiliency to future storms and by allocating money to assist municipalities that have lost property tax and sales tax revenue as a result of the storm. The Action Plan for the first disbursement of funds did not include any money for the development of new affordable housing. ERASE Racism has also attempted to obtain information from the State and from direct services providers on Long Island on the numbers of low-income and minority clients who have been assisted during the recovery process. We have recently submitted a request to the New York State Division of Homes and Community Renewal under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), which provides for access to records from New York State or local agencies. This FOIL request asks for demographic information for applicants to Sandy-related housing assistance programs, documents relating to outreach about such programs, and documents relating to analysis and monitoring done by the State with respect to any of its Sandy-related housing assistance programs, among other items. We are also reaching out to direct services providers for additional information about the demographic breakdowns of their clients. There are several additional opportunities for intervention ahead. First, in the coming months, a second round of recovery funds will be distributed, with New York State set to receive just over $2 billion. ERASE Racism will be monitoring the State’s Action Plan Amendment to ensure that our concerns, and HUD’s requirements for the submission are adequately addressed. We will be examining the Action Plan Amendment, which we are expecting by mid-February, for analysis of the effect of Sandy on low-income and minority communities and for a commitment to the construction of new affordable housing. In addition, we will review the adequacy of the response to our pending FOIL request. We will determine what subsequent actions are required after this analysis has been completed. Stay tuned! Elaine Gross ERASE Racism +1 (516) 921-4863 Ext: 14

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15159

Posted Mon, July 19th, 2010 3:29 pm New “war on terrorism” case Posted Mon, July 19th, 2010 3:29 pm by Lyle Denniston Four weeks after winning a broad interpretation by the Supreme Court of one of the government’s main legal weapons in the “war on terrorism,” the Obama Administration has asked the Court to give officials wide-ranging legal immunity for enforcing another such law. At issue in the just-appealed case of Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd (10-98) is a law that permits the arrest and detention of an individual sought as a “material witness” — a law that apparently has been used with some frequency in suspected terrorism cases. The new petition, filed late Friday, is here; the lower court’s opinions are here. The Administration is challenging a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court that government officials are not entitled to full legal immunity if they use the “material witness” law as a pretext for investigating or detaining an individual, even if a neutral judge has issued a warrant to seize that individual. In the petition, filed on behalf of former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Solicitor General’s office argued that the Circuit Court ruling not only exposes officials to personal liability for money damages for acts of their subordinates, but will have “long-term consequences” in limiting “the usefulnessof the material witness statute.” Although the Ninth Circuit did not explicitly strike down the law as used in this case, the Solicitor General’s petition said, it will have that effect when prosecutors ponder the arrest of a witness who they think has vital criminal evidence, but they lack sufficient basis for believing that that individual has himself committed a crime that prosecutors can charge. “The decision below,” it argued, “suggests that prosecutors will be subject to suit if they lack probable cause to charge such an individual but arrest him on a material witness warrant — even though that warrant is issued by a neutral judge.” Noting that the material witness law dates back to 1789, the petition noted that all 50 states also have similar laws. “Until now, the constitutionality of this statute apparent has never been doubted…The Nith Circuit’s implicit invalidation of such a longstandign and important act of Congress” supports Supreme Court rievew, it added. Aside from arguing that Ashcroft — and other prosecutors who make use of the material witness law — should have complete legal immunity to damage lawsuits for the way the law is enforced, the petition also argued that the Ninth Circuit was wrong in denying Ashcroft even qualified immunity from the claim that the law’s use in this case was a mere pretext for investigating and detaining the witness. And it also contended that the Circuit Court was wrong in suggesting that Ashcroft may be held liable for allegedly false statements that were made in a sworn staement used to obtain the arrest warrant. The petition reached the Court just a month after the Justices, in a 6-3 ruling on June 21 (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 08-1498), decided that the federal government may use a law against “material support” of terrorist organizations to stop even humanitarian groups from helping terrorist groups pursue peaceful goals or policites. The “material support” law has been used in more than 200 prosecutions by the goverenment since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It is not known just hwo often the government has used the “material witness” law to round up individuals during terrorism probes, but the number very likely is significant. The new case involves a Nevada man, Abdullah Al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen who was seized by the FBI at Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C., on March 16, 2003, as he prepared to board a flight to Saudi Arabia. The government sought and obtained a material witness warrant for Al-Kidd from a magistrate judge, believing that he may have had information that bore on the government’s investigation of Omar Al-Hussayen on terrorist support charges, and other criminal charges. The FBI had concluded that Al-Hussayen had entered the U.S. on the false notion that he was only seeking to pursue a course of academic study, but actually was helping to raise funds for an organization, the Islamic Assembly of North America, that support radical causes. At Al-Hussasyen’s trial, a jury found him not guilty on some charges and could not reach a verdict on others. Al-Kidd was not called to testify at the trial. After that proceeding had ended, a federal judge lifted restrictions on Al-Kidd, including limits on his travel. In March 2005, he sued Ashcroft and other federal officials, seeking damages for allegedly misusing the material witness law against him. He had been held in detention for 16 days after his arrest. Posted in Detainee Litigation Share: Time of Senate inaction since the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Featured Posts Justices add drug forfeiture case to merits docket – Amy Howe Court extends briefing schedule in transgender case – Amy Howe Argument analysis: Narrow reversal in Jevic seems likely – Daniel Bussel Merits Case Pages and Archives This Term's Merits Cases

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15296

» Contracts, Copyright/Intellectual Property, Legal Stuff » Harlequin plaintiffs bring new allegations, improve their case Harlequin plaintiffs bring new allegations, improve their case From Legal Minimum: On November 2, 2012, the authors(*) in the Harlequin class action upped their game against Harlequin. If they’re wrong, they will lose their class certification request. But if they win, they will find themselves making a point that will have repercussions far beyond just e-publishing and authors. In a nutshell, the authors signed contracts with a Harlequin entity in Switzerland, but the contracts were administered by the main Canadian Harlequin company and the authors contend this was just a tax strategy from Harlequin. But when it came time to publish e-books, Harlequin licensed the rights from the Swiss company (which I’ll call HS) back to the main Canadian company Harlequin Enterprises (which I’ll call HE). The publishing contracts with HS had a clause giving 50% royalties for things like e-books to the authors, but the license with HE gave HS only 6-8% of cover price, meaning the authors only got 3-4% (50% of 6-8%). They claim this was unlawful. Not surprisingly, Harlequin disagrees. After Harlequin filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the authors amended their claims. They didn’t add any new causes of action, meaning they didn’t find any new grounds to sue. But the new facts that they have added in support of the old claims aren’t very good for Harlequin. The one that looks big on paper, and has gotten a lot of attention, is the inclusion of more allegations to back up the argument that HS is nothing more than a shell for HE. The result of this argument, if the authors win, is that HE will be considered to be the Publisher under the contracts. That would make the 50% royalty payable on the amounts received by HE. But to me, the bigger issue is the one that isn’t really fleshed out in either the old or the new Complaint: that the 6-8% royalty itself isn’t equitable. That is, the authors are contending that even if the court decides that the HE-HS contract gets to be upheld, that doesn’t end the conversation. Instead, they would have the court determine whether the 6-8% rate in that contract was fair to the authors, on whose behalf HS was negotiating when it licensed those rights. And that argument risks being very interesting. For two reasons. First of all, there’s the fact that, when Amazon itself invited authors to go into the e-book business, it offered a rate of 70% for the authors, and Apple and B&N aren’t too far off. That’s a lot higher than 6-8%. Harlequin will be hard pressed to explain why its own inter-company rate should be respected by a court in light of numbers like that. But although I know there are other people who disagree with me on this, I think this argument is going to raise a bunch of issues that have already arisen in the music industry. And just as they worked to the artists’ benefit there, they will have the same effect here. In a case called F.B.T. Productions, LLC. v. Aftermath Records, Eminem sued his record label for treating purchases through iTunes like sales of a physical good, when they were really just licenses under the terms that purchasers had accepted when they accepted the iTunes Terms of Use. Eminem won this lawsuit, gaining the right to receive 50% of sums received (his contractual right for a sublicense) and not 12-20% (his right for a sale). Just as with iTunes downloads, so too with e-books. They aren’t sold, they are licensed. Whether that’s good for consumers or not, it certainly sets up a very direct parallel between the two situations. Played right, I think this could be a big issue for the authors, because it demonstrates that there is absolutely no need for HS to have put HE in the middle of this transaction flow. If the “sale” of e-books is actually a license, then why couldn’t HS have been the entity doing business with the e-book retailers and, under the agency model, the customers? Yes, it chose not to. As the authors themselves note in their amended Complaint, Harlequin is entitled to do its tax planning as it chooses. But if its tax planning results in the authors being prejudiced, Harlequin will have to demonstrate why its structure should be held up against them. Link to the rest at Legal Minimum Click to Tweet/Email/Share This Post Contracts, Copyright/Intellectual Property, Legal Stuff 6 Comments to “Harlequin plaintiffs bring new allegations, improve their case” Marc CabotNovember 26, 2012 at 1:23 pm Now this is an interesting development. I negotiated lots of licenses with parent companies and my royalty rates ALWAYS took into account whether sales were to affiliates or to unrelated third parties. And this is exactly why I did it. I’m not faulting the authors for agreeing to this as such – they’re not licensing attorneys – but it does give the lie to any notion that affiliate sales are always treated like third party sales. I think that whether the rate was equitable and whether HS fulfilled its fiduciary duty to the authors are related but separate questions and I don’t see the second one coming out good for HS. MiraNovember 26, 2012 at 2:04 pm Good. This sounds very good. Let’s have a judge looking at those contracts. Feeling grateful to those authors (and their lawyers!)who are suing Harlequin – blazing a trail for all of us! Ashley McConnellNovember 26, 2012 at 4:37 pm I wonder how the “licensing” argument is going to mesh with the Supreme Court looking at the “first sale” doctrine–Eminem might not have won that lawsuit depending on which side the Court comes down. Bronwen EvansNovember 26, 2012 at 10:37 pm What I can’t understand is how any author would now trust a HMB contract. They seemingly are not playing fair with authors. AmyNovember 27, 2012 at 11:02 am I suspect some authors are less enthusiastic about Harlequin than they used to be. ArachneNovember 28, 2012 at 7:39 am Harlequin’s Actions remind me of the Monty Python Sketch from The Meaning of Life– The Miracle of Birth: Obstetrician 1: Get the EEG, the BP monitor, and the AVV. Obstetrician 2: And get the machine that goes ‘ping!’. Obstetrician 1: And get the most expensive machine – in case the Administrator comes. Patient: What do I do? Obstetrician: Nothing, dear, you’re not qualified. Hospital Administrator: Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ‘ping!’. This is my favorite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to – that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account. [The doctors and onlookers applaud.] Hospital Administrator: Thank you, thank you. We try to do our best. Well, do carry on. Peering into the future and seeing more value in the Random Penguin merger The trade of authorship

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15332

Look away To safeguard privacy rights, reduce the number of public employees who can search citizens’ records Criminal databases have improved the speed and efficiency of law enforcement investigations in Ohio. Yet the growing number of public employees with access to such information has led to abuses of privacy. Such access needs to be limited, and discipline for violations needs to increase.A records clerk for the Lucas County Sheriff’s Department faces a criminal charge of abusing the state’s Law Enforcement Automated Database System (LEADS). The database includes state and national data on parole status, warrants, criminal histories, missing persons, driving records, driver’s license images, vehicle ownership, and stolen property.Click here to read more Blade editorials.Sheriff John Tharp says he fired the employee because she used LEADS to make background checks for “no reason.” She was reprimanded in 2002 for the same offense, and suspended for a month without pay in 2011 for running the names of fellow employees through the database.Former sheriff James Telb said this week that the 2011 incident was not a felony, and that LEADS agreed to let her face internal discipline by his department. LEADS is administered by the Ohio State Highway Patrol.Abuse of LEADS can lead to denial of an agency’s access to the database, which is rare, and firing of the offender. Nearly 35,000 employees in about 2,000 law enforcement agencies across the state have access to the network.Similarly, more than 26,000 law enforcement employees in Ohio and parts of Pennsylvania have access to the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway (OHLEG) administered by the state attorney general’s office. OHLEG permits searches of archived evidence, criminal histories, protection orders, and information about missing children and gangs.Even taking duplication into account, it appears that too many people are exposed to the temptation to roam through the private details of citizens’ lives. An advisory committee recently proposed severely limiting access to OHLEG, after it was revealed that the state is using new facial recognition technology. Attorney General Mike DeWine has promised to adopt the panel’s recommendations.Giving 35,000 people access to LEADS might not seem excessive in a state with 11.5 million residents. But instant technology greatly multiples the ability to root through records and do damage.It’s time for Columbus to look beyond efficiencies and say: Wait a minute.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15333

Florida same-sex marriage ban declared unconstitutional in fourth ruling TAMPA, Fla. — A south Florida judge on Tuesday became the fourth in recent weeks to strike down the state's same-sex marriage ban, in a case involving the estate of a gay man who owned property in Florida. Frank Bangor, who lived in Pennsylvania before his death in March, left his estate to the man that he married in Delaware. This included property in south Florida's Palm Beach County. In finding the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, Circuit Court Judge Diana Lewis limited her ruling to the specific circumstances involved in the probate case. The ruling did not include an order for Palm Beach County officials to begin issuing marriage licenses, according to Equality Florida, a gay rights advocacy organization. Since late June, three other state court rulings have also rejected the same-sex marriage prohibition approved by Florida voters in 2008. Those cases have been stayed pending appeals.

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15421

Category: United States What is the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act? Assets gifted to children must be held in a custodial account until the child turns 18, often with a parent or guardian acting as trustee. B. C. C. The Uniform Gifts to Minors Act is a law that concerns assets — such as bank accounts, securities and brokerage accounts — that have been transferred to minors. The act is in effect in four U.S. states; the other 46 states and Washington D.C. have replaced it with slightly different legislation called the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. Under either act, the assets transferred to a minor must be held by a custodian for the minor until he or she reaches a certain age. The law allows assets to be transferred without the need for a trust fund, and it allows them to be taxed based on the minor's tax bracket rather than that of the person who gave the gift, such as the parents of the child. Ad In the U.S., a uniform law is one that has been agreed upon by a national committee and adopted by legislators in each state. When states amend the laws, they are no longer uniform. The Uniform Gifts to Minors Act was superseded by the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act in most of the U.S. starting in 1986. Under the more recent act, the kind of assets that can be transferred to the minor are not limited, as they are under the earlier one. The age of maturity is also later under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, set typically at 21 (although it can be as old as 25), where it was usually 18 under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act. The minor’s custodian is responsible for controlling the assets and managing, holding, and investing the funds in the beneficiary’s best interest. He or she is typically compensated for performing these intermediary duties. After the child reaches the age of maturity, he or she gains control over the assets. It would be a violation of the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act if when a parent or adult used the gift for his or her own purposes. Another violation of the would be if the gifter takes back or revokes the gift before the minor reaches the designated age of maturity. One disadvantage for the minor is that the assets will be counted against him or her during considerations for financial aid when he or she enters college. Ad What is a Custodian of Records? What is the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act? What is the Emancipation of Minors? What is a Child Trust Fund? What is a Uniform Law? What is Minors Law? What is a Uniform Act? julies My parents had an UTMA account for both my sister and I. This was in the hopes that we would use this money for college. My sister was older than me, and used this money to help pay for her college. By the time I was old enough to claim the money, I was not interested in going to college. I didn't have any idea what I wanted to do, and wanted to use the money for a new car and place to live. It didn't take me long to go through the money. After a few years of making not much more than minimum wage, I realized how important a college education was. At that time, I really wished I had not spent all the money my parents had saved up for me. I can see advantages and disadvantages to these type of accounts. In my case, it didn't work out the way my parents hoped it would. SarahSon When I worked in an investment office, I saw several custodial accounts that were set up as Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA) accounts.Most of the time this was done for tax benefits for the parents. The funds were often invested in mutual funds. The advantage of this is that any gains were not taxed at the parents income tax bracket.Although I could see the advantages of this, I am not sure it made as much sense later on down the road.When the kids were old enough to apply for financial aid for college, they had to take into account the fund balance in their mutual fund.This worked as a disadvantage instead of an advantage when it came to qualifying for financial aid. Post your comments

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15561

Home | News | Fighting for immigrants’ rights: A passion for Stacie Hunhoff '12 Clinics: Center for Immigrants' Rights Fighting for immigrants’ rights: A passion for Stacie Hunhoff '12 Stacie Hunhoff ’12 is realizing her dream of helping immigrants obtain desperately needed legal help. Immigration law is notoriously complex and deadline-driven, but the need for legal help far exceeds what many immigrants can afford. Hunhoff helps address that divide as an intern at the Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center, a nonprofit organization that provides legal and education resources to detained populations in Pennsylvania. After her first year of law school, Hunhoff interned at Hogar Immigrant Services in Falls Church, Virginia, where she assisted noncitizens who were applying for legal status or petitioning to bring family members to the United States legally. Her work at the Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center (PIRC) last summer and this semester has allowed her to see another side of the immigration process – that from the eyes of detained. Located less than a mile from York County Prison, PIRC is a critical source of legal services to immigrants detained by DHS With the possibility of imminent deportation awaiting their clients, losing a PIRC case bears tremendous risk, Hunhoff explained. “Last year at Hogar, none of my clients were in removal proceedings, but rather were applying for lawful status in an ‘affirmative’ manner,” Hunhoff said. “At PIRC, my clients are in removal proceedings and have, allegedly, done something to make them deportable from the U.S. As a result, they are applying for relief from that deportation.” During her time at PIRC, Hunhoff worked on an asylum case for a gay man from the Middle East during which she spent a lot of time researching the conditions for homosexuals in the client’s home country and writing a declaration to the court, explaining when he first realized he was attracted to other men and why he believes he will be harmed if forced to return to his country. “Having spent a lot of time talking with my client, I learned what it was like to grow up in his home country, especially as a closeted gay man,” Hunhoff said. “I learned a lot about Islam and my client’s home country in the process, including information about honor killings and conflicts between different groups of people and regions within the country. I also learned how badly homosexuals are treated in my client’s country and the risk he faces if he is forced to return to his country. The client’s personal story and fears coupled with my collection of objective information about his home country were important ingredients in building a case argue that asylum should be granted,” Hunhoff said. Challenges faced by immigrants an uphill battle “Because there is no equivalent to a public defender in immigration court, unless a noncitizen can afford to hire his own lawyer or can find a lawyer to represent him pro bono, he is forced to face the complex immigration system by himself,” said Hunhoff. “Lawyers spend years trying to understand immigration law. Imagine how difficult it is to be a non-English speaker with little or no education trying to navigate the system on your own. This is made even more difficult if the noncitizen is detained and cannot freely obtain the evidence that would help prove his case,” explained Hunhoff. “This country is better because of the immigrants that are a part of our society, and I want to be able to help them come to or remain in the United States and be productive members of society,” Hunhoff said. “The best part of my work at PIRC is being able to help even a few people with this process. My asylum client only has one cousin who lives in the U.S. – in Texas – and the rest of his family lives in his home country. Had he not had someone helping him, he would’ve been unable to obtain the research and evidence needed to pursue his asylum claim,” Hunhoff said. Thankfully, with my assistance and the assistance of PIRC, he at least has a fighting chance to win his case.”

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15567

A blog about women, prisons, the arts, and activism. Buy the book! Razor Wire Women Doin’ Time: Through the Visiting Glass Write to Incarcerated Contributors North Carolinians Organize to End the Death Penalty, a post by Ashley Lucas An organization called People of Faith Against the Death Penalty has launched a campaign to repeal the death penalty in the state of North Carolina, and they brought renowned anti-death penalty activist Sister Helen Prejean to North Carolina to speak at several events this week. This effort comes on the heels of the Republican-controlled NC State legislature’s repeal of the Racial Justice Act, which provides prisoners the opportunity to appeal their death sentences on the basis of racial discrimination. Successful appeals on the grounds of the Racial Justice Act do not result in death row prisoners being released from prison or in the overturning of their convictions; rather, the Racial Justice Act enables death sentences to be converted into life sentences. The Racial Justice Act (see full text here), championed by State Senator Floyd McKissick of Durham, responds to the fact that death sentences are much more likely to be handed down in cases which involve a black defendant and a white victim than any other possible combination of races for defendants and victims. For an excellent report on the statistical data and a review of several studies which prove the racial bias of sentencing in capital punishment, see this article on the Death Penalty Information Center Website. This body of evidence on racial inequality in capital cases first drew national attention in 1986 when the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case called McClesky v. Kemp. In this case, lawyers arguing on behalf of a black man convicted of murdering a white police officer in Georgia cited the Baldus study as evidence of racial discrimination in capital sentencing. The court assumed the validity of Baldus et al.’s study yet ruled that this data was “insufficient to demonstrate unconstitutional discrimination in the Fourteenth Amendment context or to show irrationality, arbitrariness, and capriciousness under Eighth Amendment analysis.” McClesky was executed in 1991, and despite many follow up studies which confirm and expand the findings of the Baldus study, our nation continues exhibit blatant racial bias in executing its citizens. Though the North Carolina legislature has voted to repeal the Racial Justice Act, this battle is not yet lost. Governor Beverly Purdue still has the power to veto this repeal and uphold this ground breaking legislation. To urge the governor to veto the repeal of the Racial Justice Act, click here. Last night Sister Helen Prejean addressed an audience of at least a hundred people at Trinity United Methodist Church in downtown Durham. The event was introduced by an advocate from Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation (MVFR)–a group which brings together the families of both murder victims and executed prisoners to oppose the death penalty. A woman named Jocelyn spoke about the day that her son was shot to death in Durham and the enduring trauma to her family, including her three granddaughters who are growing up without a father. Jocelyn still feels hatred for the unknown perpetrator who killed her son, but she would not want that person, if found and convicted, to be executed. She does not want another mother to lose a child and feels that all violence, including state-sanctioned executions, only leads to more violence. The next speaker to take the podium was Rose, the sister of a man named Ernest who was executed in Raleigh. She described her family’s suffering during the nine years that Ernest spent on death row and the time they spent together on the day of his execution. Since Ernest’s death, Rose, her family, Ernest’s attorneys, and a community of supporters vowed to work to end all executions in North Carolina, and to this end she, Jocelyn, and others like them have continued to tell their stories to all who will listen, even though it obviously pains them greatly to retell the most devastating moments of their lives. Sister Helen thanked and honored Jocelyn and Rose as she described her personal calling to end the death penalty. Retelling a story she recounts in her book Dead Man Walking–which has also been adapted into an Academy Award-winning film and an excellent play–Sister Helen spoke of how what began as simple correspondence between her and a Louisiana death row prisoner led to a life’s vocation of anti-death penalty work. She has now accompanied six men to their deaths, acting as a spiritual adviser to the condemned and witnessing their executions. She reminds us of the dignity of human life and urges us not to perpetually judge any person for the very worst thing that he or she ever did. She asks Christians to remember that Jesus always invoked the sanctity of life and never called for anyone’s death, and as she describes in her second book The Death of Innocents, she urged Pope John Paul, II, to firm up the Catholic Church’s stance against the death penalty. Through her tireless advocacy, she calls on each of us to stop killing people, through caring for our neighbors and working to end the violence in our communities and the violence being done by the government in our names. A local religious leader said a prayer after Sister Helen finished speaking. In the periods of silence in between each portion of the prayer, I could hear quiet sobbing from those sitting in the pews all around me. I was struck by the sheer numbers of people in my own community whose lives are shaped by murder, prisons, and the death penalty. I thought of Jocelyn and Rose and their willingness to support the same cause, though public rhetoric often casts victims’ families and prisoners’ families as being irrevocably at odds with one another. Each of us who believes that killing is wrong must stand together now with Jocelyn, Rose, and Sister Helen to demand an end to the death penalty in North Carolina and in the rest of the United States. To lend your support to this vital cause, please contact your state and federal legislators, speak to your family and friends about why you oppose the death penalty, and get involved with activist organizations who are already doing excellent work on this front: Contact Governor Bev Purdue to urge her to veto the repeal of the Racial Justice Act. Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation: Founded in 1976, Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation (MVFR) is a national organization of family members of victims of both homicide and executions who oppose the death penalty in all cases. MVFR includes people of many different perspectives. Because violent crime cuts across a broad spectrum of society, our members are geographically, racially and economically diverse. (descriptions of MVFR and the other organizations that follow in this list are taken from their own websites and promotional materials) Capital Restorative Justice Project: The mission of the Capital Restorative Justice Project is to promote healing and nonviolent responses within North Carolina communities torn apart by capital murder and executions. Durham Congregations in Action (DCIA): DCIA seeks to engage and empower people of faith to create a community of justice and peace through common prayers and acts of compassion; and with prophetic courage we act as advocates for the dignity and well-being of all persons, recognizing that behind every human face is the face of God. People of Faith Against the Death Penalty (PFADP): People of Faith Against the Death Penalty is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, interfaith organization whose mission is to educate and mobilize faith communities to act to abolish the death penalty in the United States. Founded in 1994 in North Carolina, PFADP focuses its programs on organizing among faith communities in the South. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP): The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) is the nation’s oldest organization dedicated to the abolition of the death penalty. We are comprised of an extensive network representing more than 100 state and national Affiliate organizations and thousands of advocates and volunteers. Our members include families of murder victims, persons from all points on the political and religious spectrums, past and present law enforcement officials and prominent civil and racial justice organizations working to end the death penalty forever. Truth in Justice: Truth in Justice is an educational nonprofit organized to educate the public regarding the vulnerabilities in the U.S. criminal justice system that make the criminal conviction of wholly innocent persons possible. The Innocence Project: The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 to assist prisoners who could be proven innocent through DNA testing. To date, 280 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 17 who served time on death row. These people served an average of 13 years in prison before exoneration and release. Death Penalty Focus (DPF): Founded in 1988, Death Penalty Focus is one of the largest nonprofit advocacy organizations in the nation dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment through public education; grassroots and political organizing; original research; media outreach; local, state, and nationwide coalition building; and the education of religious, legislative, and civic leaders about the death penalty and its alternatives. Northwestern Center on Wrongful Convictions: Since its founding following the 1998 National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty, the Center has been instrumental in the exonerations of 23 innocent men and women in Illinois. Before the founding of the Center, members of its staff were instrumental in 14 additional exonerations — including that of Gary Dotson, who in 1989 became the first person in the world to be exonerated by DNA. The Center was the first university-based innocence project to accept non-DNA cases as well as DNA cases. Of the 37 exonerations in which the Center or members of its staff have been involved, just over half —21— were non-DNA cases. Though, as the above list demonstrates, many people in the U.S. are committed to ending the death penalty, executions continue. Please get involved and help end this long standing practice of state sanctioned violence. Activism, Analysis, Death Penalty, For Those Outside, Jurisprudence, News razorwirewoman ← Critical Pedagogy in Prisons? A Brief Reflective Essay, By Jodie Lawston and Gabriel Jones Razor Wire Women Recognized at UNC, a post by Ashley Lucas → 5 Responses to “North Carolinians Organize to End the Death Penalty, a post by Ashley Lucas” Dead Man Walking: An Evening with Sr. Helen Prejean in Durham | Black, White and Gray - […] Helen actually reach out to have personal contact with prisoners. (check out Lucas’s blog post on the talk). The following day, a friend confirmed that, saying, “I think of myself as a […] A Meditation on Compassion and Incarceration, a post by Ashley Lucas « Razor Wire Women - […] When I heard Sister Helen Prejean speak last week, she told a story which she also wrote in her acclaimed book Dead Man Walking about the father of a murder victim expressing his grief over the idea of the death penalty. His child had been killed by a man whom Sister Helen would later accompany to his execution, and this father–a Catholic–objected to the death penalty but felt pressured by family and friends to call for the death of the man who killed his child. People told this father that he owed it to his child to demand the killer’s death; they said that anything less would be a sign that this father did not truly love his child. This brand of retribution ran counter to the father’s religious beliefs and also did not seem logical to him. How could another death in any way alleviate the loss of his child? How could executing someone else’s son be just or righteous? Nevertheless, the people surrounding this grieving father tried to make him feel like he was wrong to have compassion and concern for the person who killed his child and the mother of the condemned man. […] No Room at the Holiday Inn: Our Christmas Visit, a post by Ashley Lucas « Razor Wire Women - […] applied in a racist fashion. To read an earlier post on this blog about the Racial Justice Act, click here. Thank you, Governor Purdue, for upholding this landmark law which makes a significant step […] Another Attempt to Thwart NC’s Racial Justice Act and Reflections on Conquergood’s “Lethal Theatre,” a post by Ashley Lucas « Razor Wire Women - […] after midnight last night in an unsuccessful attempt to override Gov. Purdue’s veto of the Racial Justice Act. The Republican dominated Senate voted to overturn Purdue’s veto, but the conservatives in […] North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act Repealed: Major Setback in Civil Rights | Razor Wire Women - […] in the jury. (For earlier writing on this blog about the Racial Justice Act, click here, here, and here.) This law saved lives, and now we have taken a giant step backwards in protecting the civil […] Buy RAZOR WIRE WOMEN from an indie! Buy RAZOR WIRE WOMEN from the publisher! Institute on Women and Criminal Justice Just Detention International Mercy Heart Prison Activist Resource Center Prison Arts in the News Prison Creative Arts Project Prison Culture Blog Resistance Behind Bars Tenacious: A Zine of Art and Writing by Women in Prison Texas Jail Project The Action Committee for Women in Prison The Inside-Out Center Women and Prison: A Site for Resistance Women Behind the Wall Women's Prison Association

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15723

About LII / Get the law / Find a lawyer / Legal Encyclopedia / Help Out End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years. Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you. We regret any inconvenience. Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material. Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct Comment - Rule 6.2 [1] A lawyer ordinarily is not obliged to accept a client whose character or cause the lawyer regards as repugnant. The lawyer’s freedom to select clients is, however, qualified. All lawyers have a responsibility to assist in providing pro bono publico service. See Rule 6.1. An individual lawyer may fulfill this responsibility by accepting a fair share of unpopular matters or indigent or unpopular clients. A lawyer may also be subject to appointment by a court to serve unpopular clients or persons unable to afford legal services. Appointed Counsel [2] For good cause a lawyer may seek to decline an appointment to represent a person who cannot afford to retain counsel or whose cause is unpopular. Good cause exists if the lawyer could not handle the matter competently, see Rule 1.1, or if undertaking the representation would result in an improper conflict of interest, for example, when the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client‑lawyer relationship or the lawyer’s ability to represent the client. A lawyer may also seek to decline an appointment if acceptance would be unreasonably burdensome, for example, when it would impose a financial sacrifice so great as to be unjust. [3] An appointed lawyer has the same obligations to the client as retained counsel, including the obligations of loyalty and confidentiality, and is subject to the same limitations on the client‑lawyer relationship, such as the obligation to refrain from assisting the client in violation of the Rules. an LII sponsor

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15772

Richard Hinds found guilty of Nicola Furlong's murder Richard Hinds has been found guilty of the murder of Irish student Nicola Furlong in Tokyo last May. He was given a sentence of a minimum of five years and a maximum of ten years with labour. Chief judge Masaharu Ashizawa said this was the maximum sentence possible because Hinds was a minor under Japanese law. He said Hinds' testimony was "not credible" and had "tainted the honour of his victim". Judge Ashizawa said the court concluded he had strangled Ms Furlong using either a towel or a tank top, both of which had traces of her DNA. He said the attack was "atrocious and vicious in nature". The 21-year-old Wexford woman was found dead in the Keio Plaza hotel in Tokyo's Shinjuku district on 24 May last year. Hinds, 19, from Tennessee in the US, had denied her murder.He showed no emotion as the judge delivered the verdict. He briefly said goodbye to his family before he was led away. Ms Furlong's family have expressed anger at the sentence handed down to Hinds. Speaking outside the court, Ms Furlong's mother Angela said: "Nicola's life was worth more than that. It really, really was. It's good that they've cleared her name. "Nicola had done nothing wrong. It was all him and his lies that brought us here. We still don't know the truth, what happened in that room, but we know that Nicola did nothing wrong. We knew that coming out anyway." Ms Furlong's sister Andrea said she was "absolutely disgusted" at the sentence. "I'm so angry and I'm so hurt. We had so much faith in the Japanese doing justice for us and I don't feel we got it. So I'm disgusted," she said. Reacting to the sentence, her father Andrew said: "We said at the start it was going to be down to the Japanese. "When we found out he was going to be tried as a minor, we knew what he was going to get ... We hope it's more than five and up to ten." Family angry at portrayal of Ms Furlong Mr Furlong reiterated the family's anger at how his daughter was portrayed by the defence. He said: "The way they tried to paint Nicola, there's not a hope in hell was she like that. All her friends knew her. "I hope everyone that didn't know her realises that she wasn't a bit like they were trying to make out. "We got her name cleared, and that's what I came out [for] and hopefully to get more of a sentence, but that didn't happen. We went with the Japanese. It's their country. I'll take it. "I don't want to ever hear his name mentioned again, so whatever happens from now on, I've no interest in him whatsoever." Mrs Furlong said her daughter's honour had been restored by the verdict. She said: "We know what type of little girl Nicola is. She always will be a very special little girl to us. "She's not what that person [the defence] tried to make her out to be and thankfully the whole nation, the whole world can see that now. Nicola's a good girl." Mrs Furlong said the family would go home and try to move on. Andrea Furlong said she would never return to Japan. Her father said it would not be easy to settle back. He said there would be emptiness, but they could now start their grieving and hopefully Ms Furlong could rest in peace. Ms Furlong had been in Japan as an exchange student from Dublin City University. She had been studying at the Takasaki City University of Economics in Takasaki, Gunma Prefecture, northwest of Tokyo. Crime and Legal Leasuithe iarrtha ag an AE ar achomharc na hÉireann i ...

法律

2016-50/3656/en_head.json.gz/15838

Greenwich Village McDonald's Employee Rayon McIntosh Smacks Down Two Sweathogs Who Assault Him, Now Faces Assault Charges A Greenwich Village McDonald's employee is now facing assault charges after he used a metal rod to defend himself against two loudmouth sweathogs who jumped the counter and assaulted him. The assault, which took place at the McDonald's at the corner of Sixth Avenue and West 4th Street in Manhattan, was recorded on video. One video was already taken down by YouTube; here is a replacement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQafDUUCkpY From the Village Voice comes this account: Two women entered the McDonald's location a little after midnight on Thursday morning and soon got into an argument with McIntosh, one of the cashiers in the crowded store, after he told them he had to check a $50 bill they'd just given him to make sure it wasn't counterfeit. The video shows the women -- identified as Denise Darbeau and Rachel Edwards -- vaulting over and going around the counter at Rayon McIntosh, who flees to the rear of the fast fooder. Then McIntosh re-emerges swinging what appears to be a metal rod or pipe and chaos ensues. McIntosh struck the two females at least 10 times. One was taken to the hospital with a fractured skull and broken arm, while the other sustained only minor cuts and bruises. Mcintosh is being held on $40,000 bail and has been charged with two counts of felony assault and one count criminal possession of a weapon, while the two females were charged with menacing, trespassing, and disorderly conduct. WCBS Channel 2 also published a story, and both media outlets are painting McIntosh as the bad guy. Comments posted to both sites, as well as the New York Daily News, overwhelmingly support McIntosh and condemn media bias against McIntosh. CNN notes that McIntosh has now been fired by McDonald's. Village Voice sanctimoniously proclaims that Rayon McIntosh has a criminal record, having spent a ten-year stretch in prison after shooting to death a classmate at a Bronx high school. But according to Brian W on the WCBS website, McIntosh's conviction was for manslaughter, not murder. He accidentally shot a friend when he took a .380 pistol out of his pants before going to confront some people they had a dispute with. The gun went off and the bullet passed through the aorta of his friend and then hit an 8 year old in the leg. Not intentional. So here's a black guy who does a 10-year stretch in the pen, then when he gets out, instead of going back to the hood and selling drugs or robbing, he decides to defy the stereotype and play it straight. He gets a $10 per hour job starting at the bottom of McDonald's. In other words, he's working for a living like Herman Cain instead of becoming a parasite like Jesse Jackson. Now, because of a couple of fatassed sweathogs who couldn't control themselves, he's been fired and is in jail. And the local media is piling on this guy. He'll probably get the Bernhard Goetz treatment. Anonymous10/15/2011 9:09 AMjustifiable self-defense. Give the kid a medal.ReplyDeleteAnchorage Activist10/15/2011 10:07 AMAbsolutely. If someone starts a defense fund, I would consider contributing to it.ReplyDeleteAdd commentLoad more...

法律