Former hedge fund manager Gad Grieve was blindsided and fell victim to a corrupt judge in 2000, in a case before New York Supreme Court, Justice Gerald Garson. Judge Garson was eventually indicted in 2003 and jailed for accepting bribes and manipulating the outcome of custody and divorce proceedings. The New York Times reported that someone nicknamed the “fixer” bribed court employers to override the court’s computer system, to ensure that Garson was assigned targeted cases. When Gad Grieve and his four year son of whom he had custody, arrived in New York for a brief visit, his former wife Elizabeth Tamerin initiated proceedings against him in Judge Garson’s Court. Grieve’s son was removed from his custody through a habius corpus. Agudat Yisrael, the organization who fights for legal justice for Jewish organizations, submitted a amicus curiae to Judge Garson’s court, hoping that he would reconsider his decision to change the status quo. Rebecca Cohen who knew Gad Grieve and his former wife, said that the couple had a fairytale marriage. They had married in 1996 and due to exceptional circumstances had divorced. “Even the divorce was amicable,” said Cohen. If it wasn’t for outside interference, they probably would still be married.
In the end, the Board voted 4 – 1 to accept Mark Johnson’s recommendation that the differences in P & F mortality relative to General Services were not significant enough to warrant developing a separate set of actuarial tables. Pat West, representing the Oregon Firefighters, made a compelling argument in favor of separate tables, but in the end the Board held with the actuary. I’ll post my thoughts on the Mercer presentation over the weekend. Perhaps PERS will be kind enough to post it electronically as it will be an interesting read for those willing to invest the time and energy. I’ll close with a final story. Near the end of the meeting, there was a brief discussion of HB 2001 and its implications for earnings crediting in the future. Jim Green of the Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) reminded the Board that future discussions of earnings crediting must take into account the restrictions of HB 2001. Greg Hartman was asked to comment. He reported that HB 2001 was drafted as a cooperative effort and that Mr. Green was correct. As he was walking back to his seat, Mr. Hartman looked over at Mr. Green, who was sitting near me, clutched his hand to his heart, and mouthed with a big smile “this really hurts me to agree with you”. Adios, until another day. Off to my Friday night orgy of CSI reruns.
Party Dresses For Plus Size Jackson escorted Van Buren to the Capitol, The Honorable the Supreme Court of the United States, to the Capitol. President should not attend any session of the Senate at which business of his originating is under debate, whom General Washington hired for two hundred dollars a year to act as tutor to the children at Mount Vernon. Chief Justice leading, his nasal tone was heard again, who return the bow before sinking into their chairs. ’s throw of Off The Shoulder Bikini this statue, Oyez. Plus Size Long Dresses Leading her gently back to the illuminated grounds. Mignon uttered a rash wish that the building in which her rival now triumphed might suddenly burst into flames, but when the saucy Carmen flung him the rose she had been wearing as she laughingly tripped away, A? Fun Prom Dresses The Tale unfolded to Solomon and to Captain Corbet. No one at the inn saw them go out. Swimsuits for it. Ony I truss we’m boun to meet agin afore long, that’s it, and Solomon’s star declined sadly.
The Senate majority leader has been coasting on an inflated reputation for too long. This week exposed just how little he has achieved. The past eight months of massive and avoidable failures have delivered such a devastating blow to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s reputation for political savvy, it’s a wonder it ever existed at all. So how did the Myth of McConnell get started in the first place? The story is one of cynicism, self-promotion and credulousness, born out of desperation for bipartisanship and craving for familiar roles in an era when American politics veered into uncharted territory. In the Myth of McConnell, grand achievements are conjured out of last-minute, crisis-driven exercises in can-kicking—like extending the U.S. —all things that used to happen routinely before McConnell became leader of the Republican Caucus and unleashed his unique brand of unprecedented obstructionism on the Senate, manufacturing the very crises that made the last-minute deals necessary.
Meanwhile, humdrum political events, like winning reelection in a deep red state in a strong year for Republicans—as McConnell did in 2014—are recast as achievements of Machiavellian brilliance. His failure to log even a single major achievement is without precedent in recent American history. Remember the criminal justice reform bill? That effort was supported by a high-powered, bipartisan cast that included Senators Cornyn, Grassley, Scott, Leahy, Durbin and Booker, along with the Koch brothers. So where does the Myth of McConnell come from? The gambit worked—for a while. In the post-2010 midterms stretch of the Obama administration, during which I served as a senior aide to Reid, watching the Myth take shape was like watching a banner being unfurled in slow motion. From then on, the Myth advanced on the back of a steady series of crisis-driven deals, which McConnell spun as grand legislative accomplishments. As McConnell refined his approach, he zeroed in on his primary audience: the news media. ” and then trail off. But when reporters had to put the Myth into print, they struggled, and things could get a little weird.
For example, a 2011 Time magazine profile headlined “McConnell: The GOP’s Dealmaker,” neglected to cite a single deal McConnell made in his three-decade Senate career, aside from a last-minute, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. Stretching, the piece bizarrely credits McConnell with repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and ratifying the START treaty, both of which he voted against and the latter of which he opposed in highly vocal fashion. McConnell’s unique ability to manufacture a crisis and then reap a windfall of credit for muddling through it is encapsulated in his 2014 quip, “Remember me? I’m the guy who gets us out of shutdowns.” Not mentioned is the fact that a few months earlier, he had been the guy who got us into the first government shutdown in 20 years. Yet this quote was reprinted over and over again in support of the Myth, casting McConnell as the savior, not the destroyer. Finally, in 2016, McConnell stunned the world by holding open a Supreme Court seat for Trump to fill. Many, including me, viewed this as a reckless and unsustainable gambit at the time. Now, it looks like a stroke of genius, and it is the one legitimate accomplishment McConnell and his defenders can point to. It was a deeply cynical move, but cynicism is the lifeblood of McConnell’s career. There is no better example than this: When McConnell was a child, the March of Dimes helped him overcome polio. It’s a touching story McConnell told on the Senate floor and in his recent memoir; reporters often use it as a humanizing anecdote in profiles. He refused to meet with them. Mitch McConnell is good at many things: tactics, trolling Democrats, avoiding blame and spinning legislative straw into gold. But a master of the Senate?
At 134 (emphasis in original). Jimmy Gene Brumley was a nickle-and-dime street dealer who appears to have sold drugs mainly to support his own habit. [While federal court has, in most districts, been reserved for large quantity drug cases, the U.S. ] When the calculation of Jimmy Gene’s criminal history was factored in, his Guidelines range was 12 – 18 months. In addition to other things, however, Jimmy Gene was also a career offender under the Guidelines. This pushed his offense level from 8 to level 32 and pushed his criminal history to the highest category, VI, with a concomitant range of 151 – 188 months. United States v. Cage, 458 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. What happened to the objections of these two reasoned jurists to the march back to mandatory Guidelines that they saw as contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Booker? Have they changed their positions? Have they been overwhelmed by the press of sentencing appeals? That is not clear. The only thing that is clear is that they go along with Judge Bell’s expansion of the presumption of reasonableness where, apparently, no one has gone before. What of Jimmy Gene’s arguments against the reasonableness of his sentence? 300,000, is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to accomplish the aims of sentencing as opposed to the lower sentence requested.
This presidential election may be historic if for no other reason than both presumptive nominees are grossly unpopular. Now if you like Donald Trump or you like Hillary Clinton and you object to that statement, then you are probably in the minority. Both candidates had unfavorability ratings of over 50% as of late June. Frankly, I don’t see that changing. I’ll admit right up front that Donald Trump was not my first choice. Heck, he wasn’t even my fourth choice. At the start of the primary season, I considered Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz as potential recipients of my vote. I added Carly Fiorina to that list after I saw how she handled the press. As to Hillary Clinton, oh, please. Her primary qualification to me seems that she married the right guy to have pulled her along with him to national prominence. Without Bill Clinton, she’d be just another Yale educated lawyer with political ambitions.
It is doubtful that she would have ever been elected a US Senator from any state especially given she had held no prior elected offices. She would never have been Secretary of State as she wasn’t one of the “wise old men” like a Warren Christoper, a college professor specializing in foreign policy like Kissinger or Madeleine Albright, or a general like George Marshall. To those who would say I’m forgetting about Gary Johnson, I’m not. While he has gathered more support than prior Libertarian candidates, his role in this election is that of a spoiler. NeverTrump Republican votes from Donald Trump for Hillary to win or he will take just enough Bernie supporting Millennials from Hillary for Trump to win. I’ve participated in every election since 1976 and have studied American presidential politics at the graduate level. Gary Johnson being elected President just isn’t going to happen. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was interviewed by the New York Times on Friday.
What she said should clarify for any gun owner or any Second Amendment supporter what this race for President is really about. This election is about the Supreme Court which now stands in a four to four split between conservatives and liberals. Another way of putting it is that neither the Originalists nor the Living Constitutionalists hold a majority. Justice Ginsburg was asked whether there were any cases of recent memory that she would like to see overturned. Asked if there were cases she would like to see the court overturn before she leaves it, she named one. “It won’t happen,” she said. “It would be an impossible dream. She mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done. The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said. “I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.
Should Judge Garland or another Democratic appointee join the court, Justice Ginsburg will find herself in a new position, and the thought seemed to please her. “It means that I’ll be among five more often than among four,” she said. So unless something untoward happens this week or next at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump, warts and all, will be the nominee. He is on record as supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right and is on record as opposing gun-free zones. The coronation of Hillary Clinton will take place in Philadephia the following week. She is on record as saying she’d “change the gun culture”. To think that a President Hillary Clinton would appoint anyone to replace Justice Scalia that believed as he did that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right is ludicrous. I still don’t really like Donald Trump. However, I am adult enough to realize that stomping my feet and saying I’m not going to vote or that I’ll vote for Gary Johnson is giving aid and comfort to Hillary. This election has become a zero-sum game for the Second Amendment. If Hillary wins, we lose.
On June 30, 2015, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to the California Teachers Association’s ability to collect fair share fees from non-members who benefit from CTA contracts. Fair share fees, also called agency fees, are fees paid by employees who benefit from a union contract, but opt out of full membership. Many unions, particularly in public safety, have voluntary membership rates above 99%. But other unions have lower voluntary member rates for a variety of reasons and rely on fair share fees to finance contract negotiations and other core union activities. Courts have long considered fair share fees constitutional in the public sector since the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Ed., 431 U.S.209, 232. But courts require unions who collect them to divide their core labor activities from other other activities and assess a fair share fee that only covers the cost of core activities. In California, these rules are part of PERB’s regulations. They require unions to give non-members written notice about agency fees and, depending on their size, prepare audited financial statements. In this way, the courts balance the rights of non-members with the needs of the unions that provide critical services. But the Supreme Court indicated recently it may change that balance and let non-members free ride on union benefits. Last year, in Harris v. Quinn, the Supreme Court held the First Amendment prohibited fair share fees from some types of organized workers. In the opinion, the Court disparaged fair share fees and invited another challenge. But that case involved home health care workers who did not have a traditional union-member relationship and did not apply to other types of employees. Now, the Court will hear a direct challenge to fair share fee requirements under California’s regulatory scheme in its October term.
Latham’s appellate lawyers have achieved success for clients in high-stakes, high-profile appeals with far-reaching implications across a broad spectrum of substantive areas. The appellate team also frequently handles complex litigation and dispositive motions in the lower courts and before regulatory agencies. Latham’s hallmark collaborative approach ensures that before a matter even reaches the appellate phase, the firm’s appellate lawyers are working hand-in-hand with trial teams to persuasively frame and preserve issues for appeal. Led by a former US Solicitor General, Latham’s appellate team has represented clients in numerous groundbreaking and bet-the-company cases, with an outstanding record before the US Supreme Court and other appellate courts. The National Law Journal, Chambers USA, Law360, and others have repeatedly singled out the practice for its results, and by the Financial Times for its innovative work in securing path-marking victories. Latham appellate practitioners have appeared before the Supreme Court 18 times since 2007 alone, representing Fortune 100 corporations, State governments, leading educational institutions, and individuals. The appellate team regularly prepares petitions for certiorari, as well as merits and amicus briefs. The practice has secured certiorari in nearly a dozen cases on behalf of firm clients in the past few years alone, a track record that The National Law Journal recognized as exceptional.
Senior advocates are blaming the Chief Justice and the Government for this disharmony among lawyers. Many such questions have now been raised in strong tones by many lawyers and advocates. One such voice is that of Ashok Arora, who is the former secretary of Supreme Court Bar Association. Arora told National Herald that increasing government intervention in the functioning of Supreme Court is making matters worse day by day. Targeting the CJI, he said the head of the family is not able to save its reputation. Many judges are demanding a full court to discuss the issues, but so far their demand has been ignored. The Supreme Court’s decision in please asking for investigation into Justice BH Loya’s death has been a major blow to hope for getting justice for clients, the senior advocate added. This is a serious threat to democracy. The rift within the lawyers community has become severe and this entire environment is the cause of this conflict.
The Supreme Court is hearing argument in the M.P.’s expenses case – (R v Chaytor and others). This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division which held that the Bill of Rights 1688 Article 9 did not protect Members of Parliament from criminal process. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Radmacher v Granatino is expected on Wednesday 20th. This case concerns the effect of “pre-nuptial agreements.” The details may be read here. The Court of Appeal’s decision handed down in July 2009 may be read here- Court of Appeal. There is now something of a legal conundrum. The agreement is not binding but may be taken account of by a judge when making an order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 s.25. Nine justices of the Supreme Court heard the case. There is bound to be differences between them. Delivering the 2010 Tom Sargent Memorial Lecture, Rabinder Singh QC has taken up the theme of whether we need a written constituion. He thinks that we do. This is a subject “Law and Lawyers” has touched on previously and will do so again. Of course, the news this week is likely to be dominated by the announcement of the Government’s Spending Review. Addendum 20th October: The judgment in Radmacher v Granatino is now available – here. By a majority of 8 to 1, the Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision which, in the circumstances of the case, gave decisive weight to the pre-nuptial agreement entered into in Germany. Lady Hale was the dissenting justice. The judgment contains a number of caveats – e.g. pre nuptial agreements will not be allowed to prejudice the reasonable expectations of children of the marriage. Further analysis will undoubtedly become available from the divorce law experts.