Source: http://santosgere.wordpress.com/
Timestamp: 2014-07-31 07:22:04
Document Index: 573315667

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 244', '§ 1254', '§ 236', '§ 1226', '§ 240', '§ 1230', '§ 212', '§ 240', '§ 240']

LawNepal ~ The Law is above the King ! | The Law is above the King ! Site Maintained by Advocate Santosh Giri, LLM (US/Nepal) | Specialization : Human Rights Law of Nepal [CAT, ICERD, ICESCR, ICCPR, CEDAW, Regional and International Instruments] | Freelance Media Monitoring on Human Rights, Legal Development and Violation of Human Rights in Nepal.
Nepali Business in US
British Embassy Wall Collaspe Deaths to be granted mere £3,000
LexGiri	Leave a comment
Its an irony, how British Embassy has undermined the customary compensatory damages and tort laws and is trying to compensate the families of the deceased a mere “3200 Pounds” compensation.
Per www.accident-claim-expert.co.uk, under British Fatal Accident Act 1976 “close relatives can claim a bereavement payment – the pain and suffering for the loss of a close family member. This is a fixed sum of money and is divided amongst those entitled to claim it. As from the beginning of 2009 the amount is £11 800. You are entitled to claim bereavement damages if you are the wife, husband or civil partner of the deceased. If the deceased was a minor (under the age of 18 years) – you can only claim if you are a parent of the deceased and if the deceased was an illegitimate child you can only claim if you are the mother.”
Likewise, www.camplaw.co.uk ran headlines in June 2009 as “£30,000 fine for company in tragic wall collapse death accident”.
Similarly, per www.levenes.co.uk, in November 2008 “Yorkshire construction firm Illson has been ordered to pay £6,800 after one of its workers sustained serious back injuries when he fell more than three metres from a terrace retaining wall on a construction site in Leeds” and that “A building contractor has been fined £7,000 after a worker broke his back when a wall fell on him at a construction site in east London.”
Furthermore, on February 22, 2011 in an incident similar to Nepal involving a government authority and its negligence to adequately inspect, repair and avoid personal as well as public injuries, www.the-claim-solicitors.co.uk made it public that “Parents, whose toddler was crushed to death when a brick wall collapsed in high winds, may now claim compensation from Camden Council in London since its negligence has been found responsible for the fatal personal injury.” It further states that, “The council-owned boundary wall around a housing estate was only half a brick wide and it had been built in the 1970s. Cracks were found in the structure in 1997 and repairs had been made, but these were not carried out correctly. The London Borough of Camden, last year, initially denied it had failed in its health and safety duties but changed its plea in October 2010 to guilty, although saying it had done all that was reasonably practical to ensure the safety of the wall. However, Judge Deborah Taylor found the council’s inspection systems were “wholly inadequate” and that it had been responsible for suitable repairs being completed. The council was fined a total of £72,000 and ordered to pay £65,000 prosecution costs for the offences. The victim’s parents, who may consult a no win no fee solicitor regarding a damages payment, praised the persistent work of Health and Safety Executive inspectors in establishing liability for the personal injury accident.”
As the Embassy of United Kingdom, falls under the similar category of a Government Council, this is a dismay, disregards to the rule of law, equity and equality by the founders of common law. It is clear that the British Government is trying to avoid further liabilities and disregard the customary compensatory tort laws, applicable to the diplomats under the International Law.
The government should immediately demand that a just compensation be made to the grieved families as a just bereavement payment in the similar amount as imposed on Camden Council in London in 2011.
Categories: Human Rights, Justice, Laws, Recent Developments, Shameful Laws, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers
For the People, By the People, From the People; WTF are the politicians doing here?
LexGiri	1 comment
May 28, 2011 – The Judgement Day!
Yes, you read it right! Its true for our beloved Nepal.
With less than 12 hours remaining, either to unconstitutionally extend the Constituent Assembly’s term by Midnight May 28, 2011, yet again surpassing the peoples mandate given to the 601 CA members back in 2008 to promulgate a constutition; Rule of Law in Nepal is yet again stuck in a political limbo.
Jurisprudence classes had defined Law and Politics to be intertwined and dependent on each other. Law for Politics or Politics for Law was the debate in our law classes back in 2002 during LLM. I always opined on favor of the Law, as the supreme document of the land, that straightens out the political, economic and social processes.
Nepal has a troublent history in terms of legal development. First, though the nation’s DNA can be traced back as early as 5-6000 years old based on epic Hindu manuscripts; we did not have a written law until 1800s. Well there were Royal decrees before that. A Malla Dynasty king announced a set of laws about 5 centuries ago, as Human Justice Science (manav nyaya shastra); followed by another Shah Dynasty King about 4 centuries back, promulgating The 26 Commandmants. Then came his descendant, a powerful Shah king, who united Nepal into 3 times its todays size, until being curtailed by the British Empire in 1800s, after the historical Anglo-Gurkha War, which the English were defeated! Yes! They were defeated from colonizing Nepal! This King, pronounced few more oral rules. It was only in 1860’s, the Powerful Rana Dynasty Coup-De-Tat Prime Minister, became the first Nepalese ever to have set his foot in the “Outer World” – Europe. Legend has it, he met Nepolean, who had issued Nepolean Code, and then he met The Queen of England and learned Lawmaking process and then he returned with a group of Indian law drafters in his palace. The Shah King was behind bars under his supervision. In 1863, the First Written Code was released, majorly based on the Hindu caste hierarchy and rules he wanted to impose, such as curtailing civil, political, economic, cultural and social rights. In 1950, the Rana dynasty was overthrown with India’s support and the Shah King resumed power.
Then started a political-legal roller coaster!!!
Between 1950 and 2011, there has been 6 forms of governments: Rana’s Oligarchy followed by Constitutional Monarchy in 1951, replaced by Anarchy after failure of Multiparty Democracy for 10 years, establishing a 30 year Autocratic Absolute Monarchy until 1990, upgraded to Constitutional Democratic Monarchy until 2001 Royal Massacre of the most popular Shah King, continued by both active and inactive Coup-de-tat of another Shah King from 2002 to 2006; overthrown by a consensus between Armed Maoists, Democrats and Communists in 2006 to promulgate a new constitution and then conduct a Parliamentary election; which of course has not happened till date.
An amazing thing throughout this spaghetti political drama; is that, the Judiciary has remained intact, untouched, except for few organizational changes within. At times, there have been no executive, no legislative and the nation runs on the sole decisions of the Supreme Court, where there is a political question. The Apex court has, revived overthrown governments, sacked governments, ordered governments, questioned governments and when the government fails to fulfill its obligations, theres no option for the Apex court, but to watch, wait and see for yet another Writ of Mandamus requiring Amicus Curie, to define the geo-political scenario of Nepal and pave a middle way out between the conflicting parties.
Last week, the Supreme Court once again decided, criticising its own previous verdict allowing an extension of the Constitution Assembly for 6 months, as unconstitutional, as the Interim Constitution only mandates 1 ONE Single Uno ‘Ek’ extension for 6 months only.
The irony is, the 601 Daily Allowance receiving, 2012 Model Automobile enjoying, misusers of the diplomatic passports, victims of literal public slaps, contract killer hirers, who do not deserve to be termed as “chosen by the popular will”; are still engaged in yet another drama; the drama of quitely renewing the CA term, while Kathmandu sleeps, around midnight, like they did the last time. The diplomats, like always, issue a joint statement, using, copy and paste terms such as ‘denouncing’, ‘saddening’, ‘peace’ etc. The people watch aloof, caught between any-time reinstigating armed terrorism of the Maoists, who refuse to surrender arms, even when they hold the Home and Defense Office! Oh yes! and there are fishermen, who always fish in the troubled waters, trying to revive the legendary ‘Chhepu-The Lochness Monster’ of Nepal, from the waters.
Burial Rights Dispute
A week after a Nepali Christian fraternity demanded burial rights and threatened to agitate, a non-Christian ethnic group on Monday demanded burial rights followed by a strong protest in Kathmandu.
Kiratis have become the latest victim of the government directive denying burials of Christians and Kiratis near the Pashupatinath temple where many of their ancestors and family members are interred.. The Nepali government has failed to provide them alternative burial sites.
http://mideast.beforeitsnews.com/story/386/952/Burial_rights_spark_protest_in_Nepal,_law_makers_arrested.html
CJ against formation of a Constitution Court
Chief Justice Ram Prasad Shrestha has said the provision of two courts at federal level would invite problems and delay justice to people
See: http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2011/mar/mar15/news01.php
Categories: Human Rights, The Judiciary
Is there a way to watch Nepal v. Afganistan ACC U19 Match Live?
Any suggestions or leads would be highly appreciated. Go Nepal!!!
CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL – While in Deportation/Removal Proceedings for both Permanent Residents and Nonimmigrants
LexGiri	2 comments
§§ 244(a), 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“Act”), Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163,
8 U.S.C. § 1254e.
Exclusion: § 236, of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226
Removal: §§ 240A(a), (b), 8 U.S.C. § 1230A(a), (b)
See: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoirforms/eoir42b.pdf for the instructions and forms. Please seek competent legal representation.
Two types of Cancellation of Removal that available to an alien in removal proceedings. Section A; for Lawful Permanent Residents: In order to request this type of cancellation of removal, an alien must demonstrate: (1) he has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence status for not less than five (5) years; (2) he has resided in the United States continuously for seven (7) yeras after having been admitted in any status; (3) he has not been convicted of an “aggravated felony” as defined by the Immigration laws (See section 101(a)(43) of the Act.) [e.g., regardless of how the State Court characterized the offense, such as non-dangerous or non-aggravated, an offense may still be designated as an “aggravated felony” under Federal immigration law.
Section B; for non-permanent resident aliens (undocumented, nonimmigrants, etc.): In order for an alien to request this type of cancellation of removal, an alien must demonstrate: (1) he has been physically present in the United States for ten (10) years preceding the date of the request; (2) he has been a person of good moral character during those ten (10) years (e.g., no criminal/immigration record); (3) he has not been convicted of an offense as described under §§ 212(a)(2) [controlled substance violations, crimes involving moral turpitude], 237(a)(2) [deportable criminal offenses], 237(a)(3) [documentary fraud]; (4) that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen of the United States or a lawful permanent resident.
An application for Cancellation of Removal under § 240A(a) must be made on Form EOIR-42A.
An application for Cancellation of Removal under § 240A(b) must be made on Form EOIR-42B.
Both applications require a filing fee of $100 to be paid to the U.S. INS.
Additionally, applicants must pay a $25 fingerprinting fee to the U.S. INS.
Both types of applications should be submitted with a Biographic Information Form, Form G-325A and supporting documentation and exhibits to demonstrate eligibility for the requested relief.
Categories: Human Rights, Justice, Laws, Legal Process
Department of Labor Releases List of Slave-Made Goods
Stakeholders	Categories
Viewed by	164,687 readers
Blog at WordPress.com. The INove Theme.	LawNepal ~ The Law is above the King !	Blog at WordPress.com. The INove Theme.	Follow
Follow “LawNepal ~ The Law is above the King !”