Tuesday, May 15th, the Boulder City Council unanimously passed a ban on semi-automatic rifles with cosmetics they didn’t like, a ban on standard capacity magazines, and bump fire stocks. The ordinance prohibits the sale and possession of assault weapons, as defined by the city. Also outlawed are magazines with high-capacity magazines and bump stocks. Owners of the latter two items will have until July 15 to dispose of or sell them. Assault weapons will be grandfathered in; those in possession of such firearms have until the end of the year to receive a certificate proving prior ownership. The grandfather clause was an olive branch to gun owners, said Councilman Sam Weaver, as was the abandonment of an early proposal to establish a registration system for assault weapons in the city. At the meeting where the Boulder City Council adopted their ban, representatives from the Mountain States Legal Foundation vowed that they would oppose the measure in court. They have kept their word. In a release sent out late last night, the Mountain States Legal Foundation announced that they had filed suit in US District Court for the District of Colorado.
The lead plaintiff is Jon Caldara who is a member of the Boulder Rifle Club. In addition, Caldara is the president of the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank, based in Denver. “This ban is tantamount to Boulder attempting to stop drunk driving by banning Subarus,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, attorney with Mountain States Legal Foundation representing the plaintiffs. “The West wasn’t won with a registered gun,” said William Perry Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation’s president. 1,000 in fines and ninety (90) days in jail per violation. Mountain States Legal Foundation, founded in 1977, is a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundation dedicated to individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system. In 2012, Mountain States Legal Foundation, on behalf of its clients, prevailed in the Colorado Supreme Court in Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The Court’s unanimous decision in that case confirmed the right of concealed carry permit holders to possess concealed firearms on the public university’s campus.
It was only during the 1936 presidential elections that the American labor problems attracted nationwide attention. An often-told story was that of a young female factory worker who attempted to hand a note to President Franklin Roosevelt, who was then campaigning for reelection. Although the girl’s attempt was thwarted by one of the closed-in aides, President Roosevelt asked the aide to get the note. After being reelected back into office, President Roosevelt waged a long and hard battle for the enactment of a minimum wage standards law, which was stirred by the young girl’s note. Aside from the strong opposition coming from different business sectors, the history of American laws have it on record that in 1923, a Supreme Court in Washington D.C. 15 minimum weekly work pay for maximum 35 to 40 hours per week. In addition, they vowed not to resort to child labor nor employ anyone under 16 years old.
Patriotic American consumers joined the cause by boycotting products of manufacturers who did not have the “badge of honor;” this badge identified products manufactured by businesses who supported the minimum wage movement and the ban against child labor. In the meantime, the Supreme Court continued to strike out appeals for the implementation of laws recognizing standards for wages on the premise that they hindered the worker’s right to set his own price for his services. However, a glimmer of hope started to shine through when, in 1937, the Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of implementing minimum wage standards for women. Read on to the next page for the continuation of the minimum wage law history and its victory. President Franklin Roosevelt, along with millions of American workers and supporters, had emerged victorious as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 was finally instituted. The very first wage-floor passed by the FLSA of 1938 was at 25 cents per hour, and a cap of 44 hours per week was likewise implemented. The most significant change contributed by the minimum wage laws was the ban and restrictions against child labor. Every US state, city, and county is free to institute their own standards of minimum wage higher than the standard set by the federal government. In cases of conflict between the standard set by the lower unit and that of the federal government, the standard with higher minimum wage will prevail. 4.25 per hour during the first 90 days of employment. Employers hiring persons with disabilities may apply or seek approval from the Department of Labor to pay only sub-minimum wage as compensation for the disabled employee based on grounds of impaired productivity. 2.13 as direct wages from their employers. 2.13 plus the actual tips received by the employee is equivalent to salaries computed at the minimum wage rate, the employee is entitled to receive all of his earned tips.
When you get stuck in a case that is enforceable by law, you may have to deal with more than just a few troubles. There is a lot to mull over and one of the most important things is to find the best lawyers that can help you to turn the case in your favor. When the case is critical, only top lawyers in India can help you as they have experience and understanding of law, so they can turn the tables in your favor. Today searching for anything has become easier since internet technology has come into play. Now, all you need to do is, connect to the internet and locate one of the best law search engines from where you can search for a lawyer near your location. These search engines provide you with easier way to search for lawyer as you just need to choose your location and then, the list of lawyers around the selected location will be on your screen. This is how you can save great deal of your time, efforts as well as your hard earned money.
Contact details of lawyers are also available that will make it easy for you to get in touch with lawyers in difficult times. Apart from this, such law search engines are also helpful for lawyers, judges and law firms. Here you can find legal blogs India as these Indian law blogs can help lawyer in research on any case or to collect the necessary information. Law search engines work as an Indian law dictionary and you can search the case just by entering legal and suitable term. From private council to tribunal court, and high court to Supreme Court, you can get details of almost any case. So, whether you are any individual searching for a lawyer, or you are a lawyer or judge looking for cases to study, you can Google up for law search engines that are dedicated to offering these kinds of services. Cost may vary as per the services so you need to make a wise decision by comparing the cost and services law search engines have to offer. So, there is no need to wait and waste more of your precious time, just Google up for one of the best law search engines right now.
So we just had a historic social media-powered Million People March. Specifically, what can we do to control corruption? Instead of reinventing the wheel, I suggest that we learn from the best and apply what works. Two Asian neighbors that were once deep in the morass of endemic corruption prove that no country is condemned to the vicious cycle of poverty and the concomitant corruption that shackles and prevents its people from breaking it. For decades, corruption was a way of life in Singapore. To reverse the tide, the British colonial government created the Corrupt Practices and Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in 1952, a very small unit of civilian investigators that held court in small nondescript offices at the Supreme Court Building. After gaining independence in 1959, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew moved the CPIB to the Prime Minister’s Office and made it a key partner in nation building. Hong Kong too was mired in corruption for decades. Bribery, commonly called “tea money,” “black money,” or “hell money,” was standard.
But public outcry in the early 70s (which reached a crescendo in 1973 when a brazenly corrupt police officer slipped out of the country while under investigation) led to the creation of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Hong Kong’s pragmatic leadership dispatched a task force to Singapore to observe and learn from CPIB. The result: a dramatic turnaround! 51,946, also higher than that of the U.S.). Of course, it’s not as simple as reaching out to our friends in Singapore and Hong Kong for consultations and creating our own an anti-corruption agency. CPIB and ICAC did not wave a wand to make corruption disappear overnight. But it’s a necessary first step to create a culture that brooks no dishonesty in both private and public transactions. Their approach is multi-pronged, from values formation (education, anti-corruption videos, etc.) to removing the conditions that breed corrupt behavior (transparent processes, streamlining of government services, high salaries for government employees, etc.).
Lee Kuan Yew, arguably Asia’s most respected elder statesman, is also wont to point out the need to have political will at the top. And Lee Kuan Yew’s single most compelling corollary advice: stigmatize corruption. The public outcry over the Napoles scam has created a momentum along this line. The public shaming of the political and civilian perpetrators sends a clear message to our people, especially the young, that corruption is not just socially unacceptable—it is utterly shameful. Openings for a cultural sea change do not occur that often. President Aquino should seize this opportunity by creating an independent no-nonsense anti-corruption agency and appointing (for lack of a better millennial-generation word) a badass leader to head it—preferably someone with the maniacal determination of Senator Miriam Santiago. The outraged citizenry too should sustain its vigilance by institutionalizing watchdog activism (e.g., formalizing anti-corruption groups). He wrote the National Bookstore bestseller How to Win (or Lose) in Philippine Elections (Anvil Publishing, 1998) and is now based in the U.S.
] Tuesday that foreign lawyers cannot practice law within the country. Parties included both law firms and individual lawyers from the UK, US, France and Australia. ], foreign lawyers cannot practice law in India without reciprocity. To be eligible to practice law in India, a person has to be an Indian citizen and have graduated with a law degree from an Indian university. Foreign nationals are only allowed to practice law in India if the national’s home country allows Indian lawyers to practice there. “We have already held that practicing of law includes not only appearance in courts but also giving of opinion, drafting of instruments, participation in conferences involving legal discussion,” the court stated in its opinion. The court held that foreign lawyers may not engage in the practice of law in the form of litigative work. However, they may engage in arbitration proceedings if the case pertains to international commercial arbitration. In addition, foreign lawyers may also provide legal advice for Indian nationals concerning international commercial arbitration. Said foreign lawyers will still be subject to Indian Bar rules of ethics. ], the court said.
Upset with lawyers publicly targeting judges, a Supreme Court judge Wednesday said they were “destroying the institution” and reminded lawyers that “they will survive only if this institution survives”. Justice Arun Mishra, who along with Justice U U Lalit was hearing a case related to admissions to two medical colleges in Kerala, made these remarks when a group of senior lawyers kept pressing their case. On April 5, the bench had stayed an ordinance issued by Kerala that regularised admissions to the two medical colleges. “When a judgment is passed, you go to this TV, that TV and discuss court proceedings. Everyday this is happening. Who is spared in this court? Every judge is targeted. By one arrow you want to kill all. You people are destroying this institution. If this institution is destroyed, then you people won’t survive,” Justice Mishra said. Meanwhile, Justice Chelameswar, who is retiring on June 22, turned down an invitation from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for a farewell in his honour. SCBA president Vikas Singh said he had met Justice Chelameswar twice and requested him to attend the event. On Wednesday, members of the SCBA executive committee also met him with the request that he attend the function planned for May 18. “But he declined, citing personal reasons,” Singh said. Justice Chelameswar has also not been attending farewell functions being organised by the SCBA for other retiring judges.
An appeal is really the end of a longer process. By the time a case is filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court, most of the legal activity in the case has already taken place. There has been, for example, some problem or dispute in the community that could not be resolved informally between the parties. There has been the institution of a legal case, negotiations, investigation, filing of documents, research, settlement efforts, motions, a trial or hearing, a decision by a judge or jury and a decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Generally, only then can a case be appealed to the Supreme Court. Most appeals heard by the Supreme Court come after the Court of Appeals has reviewed a final decision by a judge or jury in a lower court. The Supreme Court receives cases from the Court of Appeals on petitions for review or accelerated review. However, several types of cases bypass the Court of Appeals and go directly to the Supreme Court including appeals of murder cases in the first degree and cases coming from the Tax Court and Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals.
A party who is dissatisfied with a lower court’s decision may file an appeal. The one exception is that, under the constitution, no appeal can be made after a person is found not guilty of a criminal charge. Every case follows a certain route to the Supreme Court. Before appealing, normally a person considers the cost, time, and work involved in the appeal, as well as the potential effect on the law of a Supreme Court ruling on that matter. In addition, the party making the appeal must have some basis or legal reason for the Supreme Court to review the case. Was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict? Was, for example, the law interpreted correctly by the Court of Appeals? Does the law involved in the case meet constitutional standards? Does the case raise issues of statewide importance? It is legal issues such as these, among others, that the Supreme Court studies and decides.
Just when you thought things couldn’t get much worse, the Oregon Legislature has decided to fast track a PERS bill that will make retirees the beasts of burden to carry the load for funding public schools. From the beginning, this has been set out as a contest between two conflicting contracts – the PERS contract, and the so-called contract with schools to provide a quality education for our students. So now, the issue comes down to robbing retirees to pay for “the children”. Not only is this just wrong, wrong, wrong, what lesson does it teach the children. 400 million reduction in PERS employer contribution rates. This money, or at least the money retained by the schools, will be redeployed to do things “for the children”. Several groups are strongly favoring reductions in retiree COLA (even if not the current proposal), but nothing in the current bill will actually help the situation on the ground.
The public schools have always been a vast wasteland of unnecessary spending, although none of the unnecessary spending has ever been at the classroom level. 400 million to insure that my granddaughter’s classroom sees every single dime of money that you’ve taken from her grandpa’s retirement fund. I am a cynical person. I spent my entire career in education, although higher education instead of K-12. I remain close to the scene at my former employer. I get weekly emails telling me the latest goings on. So while teaching positions are frozen, tuition continues to rise, faculty continue to be paid well-below comparator institutions, the University can find enough money to hire a new “Vice President for Customer Service”. I confess to being flabbergasted by this appointment. Who are PSU’s customers? What will the VP for Customer Service do? Assuming that the students are the customers, will the school then adopt the retail adage that the “customer is always right”? 55 million in extra benefits every two years as a result of a legal case that occurred early in their working careers. 400 million reaches the classroom, while the remainder goes to support the bloated and corrupt bureaucracy of the public schools. 400 more million dollars in payments that should be due now, today.
United States v. Ruvalcaba, No. 09-3782 (6th Cir. Panel of Judges Martin, Siler, and Bell (W.D. Ohio’s section 2923.161 provides that no person, without the privilege to do so, shall knowingly discharge a firearm at or into an “occupied structure” that is a “permanent or temporary habitation of any individual” and defines “occupied structure” broadly. This term covers houses, buildings, outbuildings, water- and aircraft, railroad cars, trucks, trailers, tents, vehicles, shelters, and other structures that are maintained as permanent or temporary dwellings. The definition covers temporarily unoccupied structures and it does not matter whether a person is actually present. The statute, the Court concluded, covers behavior that “inherently presents a serious potential risk of injury to another.” Firing a gun can “have unintended, dangerous consequences.” This conclusion holds even if the structure was unoccupied. The offense is also sufficiently similar to the enumerated offenses. While section 2923.161 does not require the intent to do harm, one must necessarily make a conscious decision to fire a gun when one discharges it at an occupied structure. Firing a gun in this manner presents a risk to others and is aggressive.