For two weeks in the summer of 1974, the eight Supreme Court justices who were deciding on United States v. Nixon had been reviewing the details of the case and considering the lawyers’ arguments. Executive privilege was given as the defense’s argument for not turning over the tapes that had been requested. But the real issue was: Is the president above the law? The justices answered that question 40 years ago. And while the Supreme Court considered the matter, all kinds of things were happening in the Watergate case. The day after the justices heard arguments, the House Judiciary Committee released its own versions of transcripts of eight conversations that had been released earlier by the White House. When the White House transcripts were compared to the Judiciary Committee’s transcripts, it was clear that several long Watergate-related passages had been omitted in the White House version. A week later, Nixon refused to comply with the House Judiciary Committee’s last four subpoenas. The day before that, the White House had furnished some John Ehrlichman notes to the Judiciary Committee, portions of which were blacked out.
A few days later, Nixon attorney James St. Clair assured the committee that the deletions had been made by mistake, but the public relations damage had clearly been done. The Judiciary Committee also made public five volumes of evidence that challenged the White House’s argument that national security was the reason for the wiretaps. The minority counsel, Albert Jenner, was replaced a couple of days later – after saying the case for impeachment was persuasive. A couple of days before the Supreme Court announced its ruling, St. Clair declined to say whether Nixon would comply if the Supreme Court ordered him to turn over the tapes. The next day, House Judiciary Committee member Lawrence Hogan, a Republican from Maryland, announced he would vote for impeachment. Hogan had already decided not to seek re-election to the House and was instead seeking the governorship of his state. On July 24, 1974, Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski told the Baltimore Sun that he was “appalled” by the White House’s refusal to say whether it would obey a Supreme Court order to turn over the tapes.
And such an order was handed down later that day. By an 8-0 vote, the justices ruled that Nixon had to turn over the records of 64 Watergate-related conversations. St. Clair, wrote Bod Woodward and Carl Bernstein, had been certain he would win the case. The president is not above the law. Nor does he contend that he is,’ St. Clair had told the court. He hoped that the president understood what that meant. Nixon had never told him exactly what he would do if there were an adverse decision, but St. Clair knew that his own legal advice to the president had to be unqualified compliance. The president eventually agreed to a kind of compliance. He told St. Clair that he would need to time to review the tapes before turning them over – weeks, perhaps months. St. Clair wasn’t sure he could arrange that. Jaworski was eager to get the tapes for use in the upcoming coverup trial.
India is one country where you can find Hindu Gods having animals as their celestial vehicles. And, no wonder as this nation is a hub of an extraordinary variety of biodiversity as well as habitats. You will be enthralled to see some of the rarest species of wildlife animals and birds. India Travel Guide gives you an insight into the wildlife tourism that has been gaining popularity amidst travellers from all walks of life for a long time now. There is so much that you can do once you land here. You can get customized wildlife safari tour packages as per you budget and need. Due to human sprawl and poaching, the number of wildlife animals has gone down over the last few hundred years. India was home to 100,000 tigers, however today only some 1500 hundreds are left. However, India’s diverse and rich wildlife remains intact even today. India comprises 12 per cent of earth’s birds and fish, 412 species, thus ranking 9th in the world of mammals.
The boost in conservation has led to the popularity of Wildlife tourism. The result of which is that India, today, abodes 14 biosphere reserves, 500 wildlife sanctuaries and 100 national parks. In an effort to safeguard the scarce wildcat, Tiger, in the month of July 2012, the apex court of the country, Supreme Court, passed judgement according to which tourism was banned in the areas that are home to Tigers. The prohibition is divisive, and might not last long. Karnataka is the home to largest numbers of tigers. You can find around 300 tigers here in six famous tiger reserves of which one is Bandipur National Park. Kanha National Park and Bandhavgarh National Park are two other famous places where you can see tigers roaming for sure. India tour guide is the best way to learn about these nationals parks and reserves. India has an exotic variety of various birds. Some of the Bird Sanctuaries are located right in the middle of the country in cities like Mumbai and Bangalore. These two places are ideal for bird watching. However, if you are looking for serious bird watching then Gujrat is the state to go. Nal Sarovar Bird Sanctuary is Gujarat is one the best places where you can see some of the best species of birds. Located in Rajasthan, Keoladeo Ghana National park makes for a spectacular hot spot for bird watchers. Migrating birds from different parts of the world can be seen here. You can hire a bicycle to see magpies, parakeets and sunbirds. Vedantangal Bird Sanctuary in Tamil Nadu, Southern India, is home to several forest and lake birds along with storks, herons and cormorants, to name a few.
Chicago Options Associates, the Illinois Supreme Court recognized something it called an “advance payment retainer” which would allow a client to give a lawyer money the client wanted to keep away from the client’s creditors. Surprisingly, however, even though it makes little sense, the concept of the advanced payment retainer had not been challenged before the court until this year. In Earlywine, the husband did not want to share his funds with his wife who was indigent. In an attempt to prevent her from getting access to the money, the husband gave the money to his attorney as an advanced payment retainer. This makes sense to me and I think the decision reached the correct result. You can read the full opinion here. What the court failed to accept, however, is that the same thing could have been said about the conduct of the client in Dowling. Although the court reached the correct result in this case, it should have taken the chance to get rid of the problem it created with its decision in Dowling. As it is, an advanced payment retainer refers to money that belongs to the attorney, even though it is not actually earned until the work is performed. How it can be earned and not earned at the same time is a mystery. And if it is owned by the attorney, but not earned and thus owed to the client if not used, how can the attorney deposit it in either the general account or the trust account without commingling?
The following article is taken from the Berliner Morgenpost of April 25, 2006, and was kindly translated from the German by Gates of Vienna reader Borussia in Berlin. This is raw data; Dymphna may want to apply “I Could Scream” to it later. But what I notice is that the “youths”, needless to say, are Muslims, although the article avoids the M-word. What was the motive to force such a violent abortion? Was fathering a kaffir baby just too much humiliation and dishonor for the family? The original article (in German) is here. 1. They were not convicted of robbery because the only reason they took her cell phone was to prevent her for calling for help! I suppose the robbery charge would have stuck had it been determined that they stole the phone for their own personal use e.g. perhaps to call out for pizza. Also note that the focus is on the supposed intent of the bastards, not in the actions that they chose to carry out. Remember, there are justices sitting on the US Supreme Court that think European law should be the model for US judicial decisions. The initial shocking reports had not been exaggerated.
The 16 year old Hassan El-Ch. 15 year old girl on December 3, last year. Both received a comparatively high youth sentence in a criminal case held before the Berlin regional court, from which the public was excluded. Hassan El-Ch., who comes from a Lebanese family, was sentenced to three years and six months; Oktan P., of Turkish origins, received three years. The verdict is not yet binding and the convicted have one week to appeal. The youths will remain in detention. The 16 year old El-Ch. Following this, El-Ch. and Oktan P. released the schoolgirl, convinced that the unborn baby had now actually died. Judge Miczajka spoke of an insidious, and extremely brutal methodology. The juvenile court considered the fact that that the two young people inquired again about the death of the unborn baby while abusing their victim as particularly despicable. Angelina R. initially remained lying in the schoolyard, but was then able to drag herself into the nearby gymnasium to ask for help. The unborn child was saved in the hospital by a Caesarean section. According to court reports, the mother and child are — at least physically — in good condition. The conviction of the two juvenile offenders followed a jointly committed abortion attempt and grievous bodily injury. A further accusation by the public prosecutor’s office – a case of robbery – was not upheld by the court. The accused had taken a mobile phone from the girl, according to Judges Miczajka, but this probably did not occur in order to keep it, but to prevent Angelina R. from getting help quickly. A conviction because of attempted homicide or attempted murder is not legally possible, the judge explained, since this crime does not apply to unborn life. The youth court considered in mitigation the confessions of the two accused who had no previous record. In addition, Hassan El-Ch.
India has one of the oldest legal systems in the world. Its law and jurisprudence stretches back into the centuries, forming a living tradition which has grown and evolved with the lives of its diverse people. The fountain source of law in India is the Constitution which, in turn, gives due recognition to statutes, case law and customary law consistent with its dispensations. Statutes are enacted by Parliament, State Legislatures and Union Territory Legislatures. The Indian Parliament is competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the Union List. State Legislatures are competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the State List. While both the Union and the States have power to legislate on matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, only Parliament has power to make laws on matters not included in the State List or the Concurrent List. In the event of repugnancy, laws made by Parliament shall prevail over law made by State Legislatures, to the extent of the repugnancy.
The State law shall be void unless it has received the assent of the President, and in such case, shall prevail in that State. Laws made by Parliament may extend throughout or in any part of the territory of India and those made by State Legislatures may generally apply only within the terrirory of the State concerned. Hence, variations are likely to exist from State to State in provisions of law relating to matters falling in the State and Concurrent Lists. On the 28th of January, 1950, two days after India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic, the Supreme Court came into being. The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building which also housed India’s Parliament, consisting of the Council of States and the House of the People. The inaugural proceedings were simple but impressive. They began at 9.45 a.m. Judges of the Federal Court – Chief Justice Harilal J.Kania and Justices Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Bijan Kumar Mukherjea and S.R.Das – took their seats.
In attendance were the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Orissa, Assam, Nagpur, Punjab, Saurashtra, Patiala and the East Punjab States Union, Mysore, Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat and Travancore-Cochin. Along with the Attorney General for India, M.C. Setalvad were present the Advocate Generals of Bombay, Madras, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, East Punjab, Orissa, Mysore, Hyderabad and Madhya Bharat. Present too, were Prime Minister, other Ministers, Ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of foreign States, a large number of Senior and other Advocates of the Court and other distinguished visitors. After its inauguration on January 28, 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in a part of the Parliament House. The Court moved into the present building in 1958. The building is shaped to project the image of scales of justice. The Central Wing of the building is the Centre Beam of the Scales. In 1979, two New Wings – the East Wing and the West Wing – were added to the complex. In all there are 15 Court Rooms in the various wings of the building. The Chief Justice’s Court is the largest of the Courts located in the Centre of the Central Wing.
The original Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges – leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. In the early years, all the Judges of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. The Supreme Court of India comprises the Chief Justice and not more than 25 other Judges appointed by the President of India. Supreme Court Judges retire upon attaining the age of 65 years. The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English only. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution to regulate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court. The Attorney General for India is appointed by the President of India under Article 76 of the Constitution and holds office during the pleasure of the President. He must be a person qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court. These are Advocates who are designated as Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India or by any High Court. The Court can designate any Advocate, with his consent, as Senior Advocate if in its opinion by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law the said Advocate is deserving of such distinction. A Senior Advocate is not entitled to appear without an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court or without a junior in any other court or tribunal in India. Only these Advocates are entitled to file any matter or document before the Supreme Court. They can also file an appearance or act for a party in the Supreme Court.
A 47-year-old Asian elephant named Happy has lived in isolation at the Bronx Zoo for the past 12 years. A team of lawyers is now fighting for Happy’s freedom, saying she’s a legal person who’s been falsely imprisoned. If this sounds familiar, it’s probably because you’re recalling similar cases involving the rights of chimpanzees. In this latest case, the lawyers are the same, as is the state in which the hearings are being held—but the species is different. Bannister of the Orleans County Supreme Court in New York state issued an order of habeas corpus for Happy, who is being represented by the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), an animal welfare group. It’s the first time in U.S. The legal implications here are significant; should the judge agree with the habeas corpus order—which recognizes a person’s right against unlawful detention—it could mean that Happy, and by consequence all elephants, are legal persons under state law. The court has scheduled a hearing for December 14 in Albion, New York, where lawyers from both sides will make their case.
Previously, the NhRP was able to secure habeas corpus orders for chimpanzees, which were ultimately rejected in court. The NhRP lawyers, it would seem, are hoping for better luck with elephants. “Upon a determination that Happy is being unlawfully imprisoned,” states the new order, the court will “order her immediate release from Respondents’ custody to an appropriate sanctuary, preferably the Performing Animal Welfare Society. Breheny, director of the Bronx Zoo and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which operates the zoo. “We are thrilled Happy’s case is moving forward,” Steven M. Wise, founder and president of the NhRP, said in a statement. Happy was born in the wild and brought to the United States when she was still an infant. Though the NhRP lawyers lost their previous habeas corpus cases, there’s reason to believe the Happy case may go a bit differently. Earlier this year, as the State of New York Court of Appeals upheld the 2017 ruling of an intermediate appellate court, one of the appeals court judges, Eugene Fahey, issued a provocative concurring opinion.e.
] is in fact based on nothing more than the premise that a chimpanzee is not a member of the human species,” wrote Fahey in his closing opinion statement. Fahey said he “struggled with whether this was the right decision,” adding that though he concurs with the court’s decision, “I continue to question whether the Court was right to deny leave in the first instance,” he wrote. “The issue whether a nonhuman animal has a fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus is profound and far-reaching. It speaks to our relationship with all the life around us. Ultimately, we will not be able to ignore it. Fahey’s statement may not have a bearing on the December 14 hearing, but it could represent an evolution of thought on the matter. It’ll be increasingly difficult for U.S. Kerry Bowman, a bioethicist at the University of Toronto, said this latest case is indicative of a larger trend. “This case is reflective of a slow, steady movement in Western culture that challenges the exclusion of moral worth and value for all life that is nonhuman life,” Bowman told Gizmodo. “Arguments against often revolve around creating a slippery slope in relation to human rights and identity. Yet justice and compassion lie at the heart of human rights; by judiciously extending rights in a case like this, we in turn deepen human rights. We’ll update this post should we hear back.
Grappling with the meaning of social-media relationships, a divided Florida Supreme Court on Thursday said judges do not have to disqualify themselves from cases in which they are Facebook “friends” with attorneys involved in the cases. Chief Justice Charles Canady, writing for the majority in a Miami-Dade County case, drew distinctions between Facebook relationships and other types of friendships. Canady wrote that court precedents establish that “not every relationship characterized as a friendship provides a basis for disqualification. “A Facebook ‘friend’ may or may not be a ‘friend’ in the traditional sense of the word,” Canady wrote for a four-member majority that included justices Ricky Polston, Jorge Labarga and Alan Lawson. But Justice Barbara Pariente, in a dissent joined by justices R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince, said the court should adopt a “strict rule” requiring judges to remove themselves from cases involving lawyers who are their Facebook friends. For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
“The bottom line is that because of their indeterminate nature and the real possibility of impropriety, social media friendships between judges and lawyers who appear in the judge’s courtroom should not be permitted,” Pariente wrote. The ruling stemmed from an appeal filed by the Herssein Law Group, which has been involved in a legal battle with a former client, United States Automobile Association, about attorney fees and alleged fraud and breach of contract. The law firm sought the disqualification of Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko because she was a Facebook friend with attorney Israel Reyes, who was hired to represent a company official in the case. Butchko refused to step aside, leading the Herssein Law Group to take the issue to the 3rd District Court of Appeal. After losing at the appeals court, the Herssein Law Group went to the Supreme Court, which agreed to consider the issue. “Just don’t be Facebook friends with lawyers who appear in front you,” he said. “It goes back to the word I came up (with) in the beginning (of the arguments) — which is optics. In his 20-page majority opinion Thursday, however, Canady offered a lengthy comparison of Facebook friendships and other types of relationships. “In short, the mere fact that a Facebook ‘friendship’ exists provides no significant information about the nature of any relationship between the Facebook ‘friends,’” Canady wrote. “Therefore, the mere existence of a Facebook ‘friendship’ between a judge and an attorney appearing before the judge, without more, does not reasonably convey to others the impression of an inherently close or intimate relationship.
In a case brought by the Pink Pistols, Judge Richard Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction against DC’s “good reason” requirement for a carry permit. The case, Grace and Pink Pistols v. DC, seems to have kept under the radar until now. The text of the decision is here. Earlier this year, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had rejected the arguments of the Second Amendment Foundation in Wrenn v. DC. That case had been sent back to the District Court after it was found that Judge Frederick Scullin of New York had not been properly appointed to hear the case. With the NRA Annual Meeting opening on Friday, the National Rifle Association was quite thrilled by the result. Federal judge orders D.C. Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association (NRA) today responded to an order issued by a federal judge in Grace and the Pink Pistols v. District of Columbia that instructed D.C. ’s code that barred most D.C. “Today’s order is a victory for Second Amendment rights and has real implications for the safety of law-abiding citizens,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. In the ruling issued today, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a D.C. “Legislation that restricts the law-abiding does nothing to reduce crime and is unconstitutional. The NRA is glad that fact was recognized in federal court today,” concluded Cox. The ruling prohibits law enforcement from enforcing the concealed carry ban temporarily while the constitutionality of the ban continues to be argued in court. The NRA will continue to support this suit financially.
“It seemed impossible that he would survive,” said Samaydeen’s brother Yaseen, who like his sibling goes by one name. Since rallying, Samaydeen has assembled a high-profile legal team to seek justice. On July 17, India’s highest court issued 11 suggestions for how to deal with mob violence and lynching. It has also called on the government to consider new laws to curb the problem across the country, including legislation to deal with cow-protecting vigilantes. After the attack on Qureshi and Samaydeen, the Supreme Court, which both advises and hands down rulings, urged authorities in the state of Uttar Pradesh to investigate the crime with a view to preparing a case against the attackers. The Supreme Court’s suggestions are not compulsory, and a future trial is not a given. State police and officials have not responded to repeated requests for comment. Still, a lawyer for Samaydeen Vrinda Grover says she sees progress in what she calls a fight against right-wing extremism. That the Supreme Court is considering the case provides “a glimmer of hope, not only to the victim’s family … but hope for all citizens who believe this kind of mobocracy is wrong,” she said. The fight has come with a cost. Tensions are running high in Muslim Madhapur, a cluster of small brick homes dotted along crooked unpaved roads. The village of some 2,200 is encircled by Hindu communities. Samaydeen has been in hiding since the attack and has not returned to his home, wife and seven children in Madhapur. His house, a few doors from the neighborhood mosque, now has 24-hour police protection in the form of a barefoot officer lounging on a bed in the building’s moss-encrusted courtyard. An old rifle sits tucked under his leg. His lawyers have advised Samaydeen to stop speaking to journalists. This leaves his brother Yaseen, a quiet bearded man who wears a traditional long tunic over loose pants, to act as his spokesman and receive visitors. Yaseen is still visibly shaken by what happened to his brother.