Cook County Associate Judge Mathias W. Delort is a candidate for the Cahill vacancy on the Illinois Appellate Court. In Chicago, home of America’s largest unified court system, judges tackle a heavy workload of cases involving all manner of human tragedy, strife and conflict. As a judge, I strive to administer justice fairly, humanely, efficiently, and promptly. I am running throughout Cook County for an open seat on the Illinois Appellate Court in the March 20, 2012 Democratic Primary. My ballot position is number 112, and I am endorsed by President Toni Preckwinkle, the Cook County Democratic Party, and the Independent Voters of Illinois. As the author of over 100 published judicial opinions, I am uniquely qualified to serve on the Illinois Appellate Court. That’s why both the Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association gave me the highest possible rating, “Highly Qualified”, for the appellate court. Before becoming a judge, I practiced law for over twenty years, representing local governments, public school districts, community colleges, neighborhood organizations, labor unions, and individuals.
During that time, I served as the municipal attorney and prosecutor for many suburban communities, representing police officers, firefighters and first responders, and helping elected officials economically address countless legal issues. The breadth of my knowledge and practice is illustrated by the fact that I argued six cases before the Illinois Supreme Court, a remarkable number for an attorney in private practice. I also argued over twenty cases in the local state and federal appellate courts. I am currently an Adjunct Professor at The John Marshall Law School, teaching Voting Rights and Election Law, and guest-teaching real estate and Illinois constitutional law classes from time to time. I was an equity partner in Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd., one of Chicago’s most distinguished mid-size law firms. I chaired the firm’s Local Government Law Practice Group and appeared in courthouses throughout the entire state. I was the first attorney in Illinois to be named a Local Government Fellow by the International Municipal Lawyers Association, a distinction which requires passing a challenging examination and publishing a scholarly article.
In 2006, my peers (including his competitors) named me a “Super Lawyer” in the field of Cities and Municipalities Law (Law and Politics Magazine) and a “Leading Lawyer” (Chicago Law Bulletin Publishing Company). In 2007, I was appointed to serve as an Associate Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Because of my reputation for hard work, diligence, and legal acumen, I was promptly assigned to the Chancery Division and given the difficult assignment of serving in mortgage foreclosure court. I currently preside over a docket of over 8,000 pending cases and have won praise from borrowers, lenders and their attorneys for my scholarship, compassion, and efficiency. While many of these cases involve single-family homes, others are complex disputes involving large downtown office buildings and other commercial properties. I have also spoken widely to publicize the court’s mortgage foreclosure mediation program. My 200-page bench book on real estate and foreclosure law is now used by judges across Illinois. The role of a judge encompasses much more than showing up at the courthouse and handling the daily call.
The court is a public institution. As such, those in authority must constantly evaluate its effectiveness in administering justice and how it interacts with the public and the legal community. 1. Developed a single, uniform order used when judges appoint receivers in commercial foreclosure cases and posted it on the court’s web site. 2. Developed over 20 model courtroom forms to enhance legibility, shorten waiting time for writing of orders, and improve homeowners’ understanding of the nature of their orders. 3. Coordinated development of the Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section of the court web site, marking the first time the Chancery judges’ standing orders, contact information, motion schedules, and courtroom forms were available on-line for reference by attorneys and litigants. 4. Served as chair of the Procedures Subcommittee of the Illinois Supreme Court Mortgage Foreclosure Committee. The subcommittee is developing a large number of recommendations for court rule and statutory changes to improve the foreclosure process for homeowners and litigants. 5. Wrote a 200-page bench book on mortgage foreclosure law and “best practices” courtroom procedures, now used by judges across the state. 6. Established the first courtroom hand-out for self-represented homeowners, containing a comprehensive, easy-to-understand checklist of tasks to perform for the next court date and listing resources for homeowners. 7. Trained new judges in the section on case law and courtroom procedures, and developed curriculum and course materials for that training. 8. Established the practice of using law school summer externs to annually perform tasks in chambers, such as updating case files, culling obsolete files, and updating computer logs, all free of charge to the taxpayers.
There are two contested judicial contests in the northwest suburban 13th Judicial Subcircuit. In the race for the Tobin vacancy, Democrat Carol L. Barnes (at left) will face Republican Margarita Kulys-Hoffman. Kulys-Hoffman is already serving as a judge, having been appointed to the post by the Illinois Supreme Court and, in September, being elected as an Associate Judge of the Cook County Circuit Court. Barnes did not participate in the Chicago Bar Association evaluation process and was automatically found “NOT RECOMMENDED” as a consequence. She also did participate in the Alliance of Bar Association evaluation process; she was therefore found “not recommended” or “not qualified” by each of the Association members including the Chicago Council of Lawyers. Here is what the CBA had to say about Kulys-Hoffman:Judge Margarita Kulys Hoffman is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. The Council stated:Margaret Kulys-Hoffman has been a lawyer since 1983. She was appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2006. She currently presides over traffic court and misdemeanor courtrooms in the Rolling Meadows courthouse. The Council, in an earlier evaluation done before she took the bench, found Judge Kulys-Hoffman Not Qualified due to insufficient litigation experience. The Council’s current evaluation is based on her performance as a judge. She is considered by lawyers appearing before her to have good legal ability and temperament. She is praised for her courtroom management skills in high volume courtrooms. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court. The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times both endorsed Kulys-Hoffman.
Failure to pay Child Support in Rhode Island is not an excuse to cancel or deny a parent visitation in Rhode Island (RI). Nonpayment of child support or contempt for failure to pay child support is not a justification to deny your ex-girlfriend / ex- boyfriend or ex-husband or ex-wife a visit with your child. It makes no difference whether you share joint custody or whether you have sole custody of your child. All Rhode Island Family Court Judges and Magistrates believe that it is not appropriate to punish the child by denying visitation merely because a person is not supporting the child. If a person is behind on child support or has failed to pay child support for the child then he / she must file a motion for contempt for failure to pay child support. If you deny visits because your ex is a “deadbeat” or is in noncompliance with a child support order then you could be held in contempt for failure to comply with a visitation order. If you are repeatedly found in contempt of a child visitation order in Rhode Island then you could lose custody / placement of your children. If you are unhappy with the visitation order or want to modify visitation then you must file a motion to modify visitation. It is not appropriate to use failure to pay child support as a justification to unilaterally impose a different visitation schedule then the court order. The Rhode Island (RI) Supreme Court licenses all lawyers and attorneys in the general practice of law, but does not license or certify any lawyer / attorney as an expert or specialist in any field of practice.
Commercial/Trusts Lawyer (2-5 years PAE) Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC | Join A Company that Recognises Effort & Expertise! · Break away from Private Practice/Law Firm Environment! Insurance/Litigation/Shipping Lawyer – Career Growth role within Global Firm! Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC | Further Develop Your Expertise & Advance Your Career! Leading Partners of Global Law firm! Planning, Environment & Local Government Lawyer (Senior Associate level) Category: Property Law | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC | Join Leading National Commercial Law Firm! · Inclusive & Supportive Team Environment! The Victorian state government has elevated two judges to the Court of Appeal and appointed three new justices to the Supreme Court. Lesley Taylor QC has been appointed to the Supreme Court, following 20 years of experience as a criminal law and human rights specialist, replacing Justice Lex Lasry, who retired in June. Steven Moore QC, a barrister of two decades, is replacing Justice Emerton on the Supreme Court bench. And Andrew Tinney SC has also been appointed to the Supreme Court, filling a new position, following stints as a Crown prosecutor and senior Crown prosecutor.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled unanimously that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education was one of the cornerstones of the civil rights movement, and helped establish the precedent that “separate-but-equal” education and other services were not, in fact, equal at all. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that racially segregated public facilities were legal, so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal. The ruling constitutionally sanctioned laws barring African Americans from sharing the same buses, schools and other public facilities as whites—known as “Jim Crow” laws—and established the “separate but equal” doctrine that would stand for the next six decades. In the case that would become most famous, a plaintiff named Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, in 1951, after his daughter, Linda Brown, was denied entrance to Topeka’s all-white elementary schools. The case went before the U.S.
District Court in Kansas, which agreed that public school segregation had a “detrimental effect upon the colored children” and contributed to “a sense of inferiority,” but still upheld the “separate but equal” doctrine. When Brown’s case and four other cases related to school segregation first came before the Supreme Court in 1952, the Court combined them into a single case under the name Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Thurgood Marshall, the head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, served as chief attorney for the plaintiffs. At first, the justices were divided on how to rule on school segregation, with Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson holding the opinion that the Plessy verdict should stand. But in September 1953, before Brown v. Board of Education was to be heard, Vinson died, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower replaced him with Earl Warren, then governor of California. Displaying considerable political skill and determination, the new chief justice succeeded in engineering a unanimous verdict against school segregation the following year.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court did not specify how exactly schools should be integrated, but asked for further arguments about it. Though well intentioned, the Court’s actions effectively opened the door to local judicial and political evasion of desegregation. While Kansas and some other states acted in accordance with the verdict, many school and local officials in the South defied it. Though the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board didn’t achieve school desegregation on its own, the ruling (and the steadfast resistance to it across the South) fueled the nascent civil rights movement in the United States. In 1955, a year after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, backed by enforcement by the Justice Department, began the process of desegregation in earnest. In 1976, the Supreme Court issued another landmark decision in Runyon v. McCrary, ruling that even private, nonsectarian schools that denied admission to students on the basis of race violated federal civil rights laws. By overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine, the Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education had set the legal precedent that would be used to overturn laws enforcing segregation in other public facilities. But despite its undoubted impact, the historic verdict fell short of achieving its primary mission of integrating the nation’s public schools. History – Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment, United States Courts. Brown v. Board of Education, The Civil Rights Movement: Volume I (Salem Press). Cass Sunstein, “Did Brown Matter?
“Aadhaar empowers the marginalized section of the society and gives them an identity,” Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri said in delivering the 1,448-page verdict. Aadhaar — meaning “foundation” in Hindi — provides each citizen with a unique 12-digit number, linked to their iris scans and fingerprints. The government’s original idea was to be able to easily identify people fraudulently claiming government benefits, such as food or fuel rations. But over the years, it has morphed from a welfare delivery tool to a near-necessity for everyday life in India. Citizens have been asked for their Aadhaar cards to access a host of government and private services, including new bank accounts, school enrollments and airline reservations. The Supreme Court’s order will restrict the program’s usage to government services only — Aadhaar will be necessary for collecting food rations or fuel subsidies but no longer for opening a bank account or getting a new cellphone SIM card. Children, upon reaching adulthood, can now opt out of the program, should they no longer need welfare services from the state, the court said.
“The majority has upheld the goal of Aadhaar and said that it pursues a legitimate state aim,” said Zoheb Hossain, a government lawyer. He added that the state could still pass legislation to allow private organizations to use Aadhaar. Prasanna S., a lawyer representing petitioners, said the court delivered a “body blow” to the “vision of the Aadhaar project as a universal and ubiquitous ID.” The order “effectively makes Aadhaar voluntary, not mandatory,” he said. Over the past decade, more than a billion citizens were enrolled in the government’s database. But the program’s flaws were evident. Critics say that some of India’s neediest were denied their food rations and other welfare entitlements because of authentication errors or Internet connectivity problems. 11, and HuffPost reported that hackers were using a patch to disable security features of the enrollment software and could easily create fraudulent identities. In 2012, a retired high court judge from the southern Indian city of Bangalore filed the first petition against the program to the Supreme Court, saying that Aadhaar had no statutory basis and violated the right to privacy.
K.S. Puttaswamy, now 92, was worried that the program could be abused by illegal immigrants from neighboring countries, who might have used their biometric ID cards to claim citizenship. As the government’s program expanded, the retired judge’s petition swelled into a movement centered on privacy, security and denials of welfare entitlements due to authentication problems. More than two dozen petitioners raised problems with Aadhaar, including a retired army general and the scientist who helped create eLocutor — Stephen Hawking’s single-button electronic voice machine. They said that Aadhaar was a dangerous “Big Brother” program and could be used to keep tabs on how citizens spend money, where they travel and whom they call. “As the Snowden revelations show, if the state has the power, there is always a temptation,” said Nachiket Udupa, one of the petitioners, referring to former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked details of the U.S.
’s electronic surveillance programs. [An Indian journalist discovered a huge breach in a government database. Government lawyers disputed claims that privacy was at stake, saying that the data was kept in “silos” — so a bank would never know if someone had claimed monthly rations or filed taxes. The lawyers filed reports demonstrating how fraud — double-dipping, ghost beneficiaries and counterfeit identities — added enormous strain to the country’s stretched welfare system. Trillions of rupees were allocated by the government for the welfare program, and more than half the money never reached beneficiaries, Attorney General K.K. This was the heart of the quandary facing the five-judge panel: the state’s duty to provide welfare services to India’s huge population so it can have a dignified existence versus citizens’ right to privacy. Though the program will continue, Apar Gupta, a lawyer for the petitioners, said the verdict was an “incremental victory” for privacy activists. India’s biometric program was supposed to end corruption. But the neediest may have been hit hard.
The appellant’s services as Public Relations Officer, All India Radio, were terminated because of the reduction in that post. If that be the true position, the order passed under 1234 s. There is, therefore, no discrimination simply because the one and not the other procedure is adopted unless it is shown that it operated to the prejudice of the public servant. It was also argued that even if the provision of law was not very clear and was susceptible to two interpretations, one which was more beneficial to the assessee had to be given effect to. The objective of builder in writ petition was to get land demarcated as unencumbered. Government servant not in permanent or quasipermanent service: Provided that the service of a Government servant in quasi- permanent service shall not be liable to termination under cl. And whereas it is the opinion of the Governor of Bihar that the above mentioned barren land/agricultural land and its part thereof is necessary for immediate acquisition. Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, then in operation, the primary constitutional guarantee to them is one of a reasonable enquiry as mentioned above. 1080, the Constitution does not guarantee an enquiry under any specific statutory provision or administrative rules. 496 is an absolute and an indefeasible right; and despite the order of the High Court, that right would still be available to the appellant. The said application was not for the purpose of demarcation and would not enure to the benefit of the Builder.
Campaigners have been celebrating a recent Supreme Court ruling which has opened the way for thousands of asbestos-related claims. A panel of five Supreme Court judges ruled that insurance liability should begin at the time an employee was exposed to asbestos – not when the symptoms appeared. In practice, this means that families of people who have died after exposure to asbestos will now be able to pursue a compensation claim. The decision went against insurance companies who sought to limit their liability, arguing that insurance policies should not cover asbestos-related disease after employees have left their job. The court disagreed, instead endorsing a ‘historical causation’ approach. This means an employer must still be held accountable for exposing their workforce to asbestos, even if health complications only become apparent later down the line. Consequently, the company who provided the employers’ liability insurance at the time of asbestos exposure must take responsibility for the claim. Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, declared the “responsibility holiday” is now over for insurers.
“This is a landmark ruling which will affect thousands of victims of asbestos”, he said. Leon Taylor, partner at City firm DLA Piper, said the result will be “a relief” to thousands of disease victims and their families whose asbestos-related insurance claims have been on hold pending the court ruling. “For the insolvent insurance companies involved, their administrators and liquidators now have the judicial guidance they needed to satisfy their obligations to properly manage claims in the interests of all the companies’ creditors”, he added. Have you suffered an asbestos-related disease? If your health has been adversely affected as a result of asbestos exposure, you need to discuss your options with a legal expert. This is because your employer is responsible for your health and safety while at work. Therefore if you were exposed to asbestos during the course of your work duties, your employer will have failed to maintain his duty of care towards you. If this negligence subsequently causes you to suffer an injury such as mesothelioma or another asbestos-related illness, you will be entitled to claim compensation. This remains true even if you are no longer in same employment. To speak to a solicitor who specialises in work injury claims, contact work accident solicitors.
Even though it’s been a few hours now, I’m guessing you’re still pinching yourself to make sure you’re not dreaming. But yes, it happened. At 10:07 this morning, the conservative Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, not only joined with the liberal justices to completely uphold almost every single part of the Obama health care law, he wrote the majority opinion himself! In fact, he went even further. The other four justices? They didn’t just vote to overturn the individual mandate part of the law, they all voted to kill the entire Act. The media is already spending much time talking about the mandate being the “centerpiece of the law,” but the real news is that if you ever have a pre-existing condition, you cannot now be denied insurance. If you are a young adult without health insurance, you can now stay on your parents’ plan until age 26. The insurance company can no longer say there is a lifetime cap to your coverage.
I know that our side is not used to victories and so we’re not quite sure how to respond when we get one out of the blue. So, yes, the bill is highly flawed and somewhat wrong-headed – but what it IS is a huge step in the right direction. And today’s court decision cements that. The right wing knows this and they are probably unraveling in some not-so-pretty ways right now. And that’s why today is a great day. The Right has been smacked down by one of their own! So take some time tonight to celebrate; this is a victory for the people. Or that our babies would have a better chance of surviving their first year like they do in the 48 countries that have a better infant mortality rate than we do? Exactly who is opposed to this? You’d have to be a bit…crazy. And that, I’ve come to believe, is the true divide in this country. It’s not blue state vs red state, liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republican.