Illinois Supreme Court Adopts Uniform Bar Exam

Recently, there have been many cases related Triple Talaq law in India, many of which have also been the talk of the town due to the media spotlight provided to some of them. As we all know that Islam is one of the oldest religions of the world and majority of the world population follows Islam after Christianity. The laws around kinship, succession, marriage or divorce are all prescribed under the Holy book of Muslims, the Kuran as well as the various volumes of Hadees. Though, the laws mentioned in the book is misinterpreted by many Muslim scholars today and hence has become a topic of criticism mainly due to the custom of polygamy and Triple Talaq. Even though, the holy book has clearly mentioned that Talaq or divorce should be avoided until and unless it is impossible to stay in the bond of marriage or take it forward. The mean of Talaq is dismissal.

But, literally it means setting free, or breaking ties or restraint or letting loose. In the law of Sharia, it means freedom from bondage of marriage only and not any other bondage. Well., legally it means marriage dissolution using appropriate words as per the Islamic law. This procedure of dissolution of marriage is done as per the holy Quran and Hadees laid down by Prophet Mohammad. As per this mode, the couple can revoke marriage before the end of three Tuhrs, viz time period between two menstrual cycles. The man has to pronounce the word Talaq at the end of every Tuhr and hence, they do get time for revoking their decision. The holy Quran and Prophet Mohammad have hold marriage as a sacred union and the parties have to undergo reconciliation before divorce. Apparently, as per the holy book and Prophet Mohammad one of three things important for happiness is a righteous wife and also that the bond of marriage and that the bond with wife should be kept intact. While Biddat means innovation, Prophet Mohammad has also said that innovation that is not in agreement of Islam or holly Quran is not permissible.

However, the worst part of Talaq-ul-biddat is that it allows a person to dissolve his marriage just by uttering the word Talaq three times. This is also against the Holy Quran statement which says that Men would have to wait till Iddat or period of waiting was completed hence not approve worthy. Well, Talaq-ul-Biddat came into existence during the reign of Caliph Umar in the second century of Islamic Era. He enforce the Triple Talaq mode that too in order to avoid hassles as it was the need of those times. The practice of it had started as a form of convenience by the Arabs who were on the world conquering spree during the era of Caliph Umar. After conquering parts of the Gulf, the Arabs would bring along male and female slaves to Mecca and Madina. The females were very attractive and the Arabs wanted to marry them but the law did not allow irreconcilable divorce. Hence, in order to satisfy their own wants the law of triple alaq at one go was enforced so that they could remarry. This law is said to come into practice from these times. Recently there was a historic hearing for around six petitions as well as a suo motto PIL that challenged the validity of nikahhalala as well as triple Talaq in Muslims. The Supreme court state during the hearing that it would primarily find out whether the practice was Islam fundamental. If it is then, they would not interfere there. Secondly, if triple Talaq was sacramental and can be enforced as a fundamental right was the other aspect which they would look into. They also stated that the law was not on any side. It was meant for the equality of the genders as they were on the side of gender justice and women equality. As they believed that Triple Talaq was definitely against the dignity of women, irrespective of religion, they would include triple Talaq in the gender justice issue.

Today we have over 400 privately-owned ‘free to air’ news channels telecasting news and related contents for almost 24 hours a day. Millions of audiences in India are glued to those channels for newsfeeds because of its speed, lucidity, and entertaining nature, making it a billion-rupee empire. The growth in alternative media, as India today supports nearly 400 million smartphone users, has however posed a serious threat to both print and electronic (radio and television) media. Because of extreme speed, cheaper and participatory in temperament, social media has turned out to be a giant entry breaking most of the barriers faced by the mainstream media. But unfortunately, both the news channels and alternate media outlets in India are yet to be taken under the purview of PCI. Voices have been raised in different forums for enhancing and empowering the PCI with the inclusion of news channels and also portals under its ambit. Otherwise, the actual aim and thrust of PCI may dilute some day. This should be a wakeup call for us!

When people hear the word Seychelles Company they think about white sand beaches and cocktail umbrella. What has not come to mind is the level of confidentiality granted to companies registered in the jurisdiction. Many are unaware of the legislation which the Government has put in place to protect the directors and beneficial owners of the Society of Seychelles to be the target of lawsuits frivolous or unruly. In most cases government agencies are also excluded from obtaining information on businesses registered in the same court. When a company is established in the Seychelles the register receives information from the bare bones on the company and nothing else. Seychelles. This feature adds privacy allows owners of shares who are in fact the real owners of the company to remain anonymous. These actions can be easily transferred from one person to another without having to change the books of the company or make notations of company documents.

Since the shares are not required to be kept in the office of the registered agent, they can be physically delivered to their new owner at closing. One of the least known about privacy, but the best value and protection aspects of owning a business Seychelles is a small and well hidden piece of legislation. According to this law and requires that any order to take legal action any company registered in Seychelles, the person reading the company must first file a complaint and obtain permission from the Supreme Court of Seychelles to proceed. These decisions are difficult to obtain and there was no one issued in more than eight years.This is one of the mechanisms of protecting the least known but most effective place for the Company Seychelles rivaling that of Nevis. As local legislation governing the Corporation of Seychelles continues to grow and diversify more and more companies and individuals take advantage of the privacy features of the entity. With tens of thousands of companies already established, it will continue to be a steadily increasing number of companies formed per year. Current Society of Seychelles is a pioneer in the offshore world to the extent that financial and personal privacy is concerned and competence is strongly committed to maintaining this status for a long time to come.

United States v. Smith, the Sixth Circuit returned to its earlier holding that North Carolina robbery qualifies as crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines’ residual clause. In 2014, the Sixth Circuit had decided this very issue in Mr. Smith’s case, holding that North Carolina robbery was a crime of violence under the residual clause. However, in light of Johnson, the Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded the case. After the Sixth Circuit ruled that the guidelines’ residual clause was void for vagueness, it remanded Mr. Smith’s case to the district court. The district court then ruled that the robbery was a crime of violence under both the elements clause and the enumerated offenses clause. While Mr. Smith’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Beckles, holding that the guidelines’ residual clause was—in fact—valid. Accordingly, when Mr. Smith’s case arrived before the Sixth Circuit again, the court decided to rely on its prior holding.

Rand Paul can say whatever crazy shit he wants to become more popular with the Republican base. But when he says the president is “plotting” against other Americans, it’s up to the rest of the civilized world to dismiss him as a dangerous kook. And he’s just one cog in the crazy machine. Last week, House Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. In the Senate, Republicans are blocking Obama’s nominees to head the EPA and the Department of Labor, and have prevented — for years — anybody from being named to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The most important appellate court in the United States, the D.C. Circuit court (which is like the Supreme Court’s mini-me because it rules on so many federal issues), has had four vacancies forever. In fact, John Roberts sat on this court before being appointed to the Supreme Court in 2005, and his seat is still vacant because Republicans won’t put somebody there who changes the balance of power. At what point does obstruction become treason? Isn’t that a reasonable question now, especially with Obamacare? It’s the law of the land, affirmed by the Supreme Court, but Republicans are still trying to defund it and screw it up any way they can. Aren’t they “plotting” against their country?

An amended complaint was filed Friday, August 13th, in the NRA’s challenge to Chicago’s new gun laws. The case, Benson et al v. Chicago et al, was originally filed on July 6th. The original complaint can be found here. So what has changed? 1. Two new plaintiffs added. Michael Hall, Sr. of Chicago and Rick Pere of Round Lake, Illinois have been added as plaintiffs. Mr. Hall is a 52-year-old Chicago resident, married with 5 kids, a Marine veteran, hunter, and works in the telecommunications industry. The complaint notes that he often works from home and that his truck has been burglarized twice while sitting in his driveway. Mr. Pere is self-employed as a police-firearms and security-firearms instructor. He served as a police officer in various Illinois municipalities for over 15 years. In addition, he has over 30 years of service in the U.S. Army, Illinois Army National Guard, and the U.S. Air Force Reserves. He has also served as a military contractor in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti. He wants to be able to open a shooting range in Chicago where he could offer firearms training instruction as well as sell firearms.

The amended complaint still retains most of the original complaint word for word. It has updated the references to the McDonald decision to include the actual Supreme Court citation instead of the slip opinion. Stylistically, it has tightened up some of the language and clarified other things. One major change is to include the race of the plaintiffs living in the City of Chicago. While this does serve to illustrate the racial diversity of the plaintiffs, it feels cumbersome. Unless I am missing something, I think illustrating the racial diversity of the plaintiffs could have been done just as well, if not better, by the use of press releases and having the plaintiffs available for media interviews. The original complaint as filed had eight counts. This number has been reduced to five in the amended complaint. Counts II, VI, and VII were dropped in their entirety. The old Count II challenged the age restrictions in the Chicago.

Count VI challenged the “unsafe handgun” portion of the ordinance. Finally, Count VII challenged the banning of laser sight accessories. 4. Dropped challenges to age restriction, unsafe handgun list, and laser sights. The amended complaint dropped all challenges to the age 21 restriction to obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit (CFP). Likewise, the challenges to both the unsafe handgun list and laser sights were dropped in the amended complaint. Given that some states like California and Massachusetts have approved handgun lists, the decision may have been made to wait to challenge this part of the ordinance. The California handgun list is currently by challenged in the case of Pena v. Cid. That case has been stayed pending the outcome of the 9th Circuit’s decision in Nordyke v. King. I don’t know why the laser sight and accessory complaint was dropped except that it was a minor part of the original complaint.

5. New emphasis on lawful transportation. While the original complaint did mention the ability to transport a firearm from one location to another – lawful transportation – the emphasis on this was lost in the mix. The amended complaint puts new emphasis on this and mentions it specifically in their request for a declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief against the new ordinance. In the descriptive part of the complaint, more verbiage has been added to describe the plaintiff’s desire to “transport” firearms between Chicago and other locations outside of the city. There is also an added emphasis on the one working gun per CFP per household requirement along with the restrictions on the definition of “home” being within the four walls. The complaint mentions that Mr. Hall wants to be able to provide self-defense for all of his property and not just within the home. Moreover, the complaint goes into detail on the risk a homeowner faces from a home invasion and argues that the one working gun provision increases the risk.

Illinois became the 30th state to adopt the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) June 8 when the Illinois Supreme Court approved it to be the main component for bar admission. The UBE is a nationwide test that allows test takers to transfer scores between states, which improves mobility of Illinois attorneys. The Illinois Board of Admission to the Bar held public hearings in Springfield, Carbondale, and Chicago in 2016 to provide information on the UBE and to seek comments regarding its potential adoption. The comments received were overwhelmingly supportive of the change. That same year, the Illinois State Bar Association Board and Assembly issued recommendations that the supreme court should adopt the UBE. The UBE was first administered in 2011. It is a bar examination prepared by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which has been adopted in 29 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. The Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar had proposed to the supreme court that the UBE be adopted as the Illinois bar examination. More information is available on the board website. The rule amendments (704, 704a, 706) are available on the Illinois courts website.

26.1 billion. The obscene valuation signals another effort by Barack Obama to bankroll his retirement and ongoing efforts to create his new world order. Microsoft and LinkedIn (more specifically ex-PayPal executives) are key players in the carefully crafted emergence of social networking as a universal spy data gathering utility for the NSA. New, Jun. 19, 2016: The very same former PayPal owners “founded” all things Facebook (e.g., Reid Hoffman, James W. Breyer, Peter Thiel, Joseph Lonsdale, Matt Cohler). In 2004, Breyer became chairman of the National Venture Capital Association with fellow director Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, the C.I.A. Londsdale and Theil formed Palantir in 2004 to sell special data snooping services to the NSA. Question: How can a public entity like the C.I.A. Silicon Valley venture capital business like In-Q-Tel? Through the issuance of a string of Executive Orders since Bill Clinton in 1995, this illegal spying on U.S. The leadership also patiently placed loyalist weasel attorneys, largely from Harvard Law, inside the regulatory agencies who, when given the signal, looked the other way.

For example, Facebook’s unprecedented exemption on Oct. 15, 2008 from the 500 shareholder rule was decided by Thomas J. Jim, a Harvard Law graduate and Latham & Watkins LLP attorney. The Latham firm is peopled with insiders loyal to James W. Breyer, Facebook’s venture capitalist, a fellow Harvardian. Breyer’s venture capital firm Accel Partners LLP is also peopled with Harvardians. Over two thirds of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are Harvard Law graduates, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.—sole overseer of the FISA Court. During the energy stimulus boondoggle, Energy Secretary Steven Chu closed his eyes and approved tens of billions of dollars to Harvardian Barack Obama donors, like Elon Musk, with no experience in energy. His energy “advisers” were McBee Strategic LLC and Cooley Godward LLP, Facebook’s attorney. Closer to home, who do you think wrote those long, slimy customer license agreements that you ignore when you sign up for a service? These same weasel attorneys wrote them. The devil is in that detail. You give up all to your personal privacy and data when you click them.