The operation of the Points Based System has been put at risk by the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Pankina and of the Administrative Court in English UK. The Treasury Solicitors Department also specifies that “interim guidance” had been issued to case workers at the Home Office. There seems to have been no attempt to publicize this guidance in the UK on the UKBA website or anywhere else. Neither is it on the Entry Clearance Guidance site. The first important thing to notice about the “interim guidance” is that it deals only with the particular criteria of the Points Based System Policy Guidance which featured in Pankina. Therefore this interim guidance applied the judgment in Pankina in as limited a way as possible – people were to succeed in their applications if they could show that they had the money when they have made their application. Caseworkers were informed that not to apply the three month requirement. The second important thing about the “interim guidance” is that it is no longer applicable. Also announced on Friday 23 July 2010 was the UKBA’s POINTS-BASED SYSTEM MAINTENANCE (FUNDS): POLICY DOCUMENT. What is remarkable about this new Statement of Changes in the Rules is the fact that Parliament has been provided with no opportunity whatever to consider them. The usual convention is for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to lay any new Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules before Parliament not less than 21 days before the changes come into effect. But this time they come into effect the day after the Statement is laid. Some people would say that this is a vain hope.
A lot of people wonder, is playing rummy legal in India? Yes, it is the only card game which is legal in India and has been declared to be a game of skill by the Supreme Court. As the judgements are passed by the Supreme Court of India, hence rummy online is also 100% legal to play with real money. Each of the games has its own rules with a different set of game play. And the opportunities to win more are in points and pool rummy. To play rummy online, you need to get registered at the Ace2Three website. Regular Player – Signup with Ace2Three and become a regular player. With the regular member you can play with play chips and you must be 18 years to become a regular player. Premium Players – To become a premium member, you need to purchase real chips to play rummy for real cash. For this, you must be 21 years of age to play with real chips.
1. They refused to disclose the Facebook stock holdings of their family members. 2. They ignored well-settled legal precedents (some they themselves wrote). 3. They ignored shocking new evidence that Mark Zuckerberg withheld volumes of evidence in the case. 4. They violated Leader Technologies’ due process rights by creating new arguments and evidence for Facebook in the secrecy of chambers without a hearing. 5. They failed to disclose personal conflicts of interest. 6. They collaborated with Facebook’s law firms; even timing their rulings to accommodate Facebook’s media needs. 7. Their college friends at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission issued an exemption from long-standing stock rules in one day that pumped the value of their Facebook holdings in the IPO. Few Americans know this, but the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1978 in Stump v. Sparkmen that judges are immune from prosecution for their actions, no matter how incompetent, negligent, malicious such conduct might be, even if the conduct violates the law. The Supreme Court stated in Stump that “Despite the unfairness to litigants that sometimes results, the doctrine of judicial immunity is thought to be in the best interests of ‘the proper administration of justice .
When a case is heard at the Supreme Court, the docket is filled with briefs of amicus curiae trying to say something that will catch the court’s attention. With so many briefs filed, they sometimes cancel each other out in a flutter of pdf files sounding variations on the same themes. However, amicus briefs are much less common at the Court of Appeals level. Recently I was part of an effort where a panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed itself in one instance and reversed a district court in another. The cases are Hawk v. Engelhart (In re Hawk), 871 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. Lowe v. DeBerry (In re DeBerry), 2018 U.S. Appl LEXIS 5772 (5th Cir. In this post, I would like to share how our amicus briefs came together as well as some tips on amicus practice before the Fifth Circuit. The issue in Hawk and DeBerry was whether a chapter 7 debtor who disposed of exempt property post-petition could lose that exemption if the proceeds were not reinvested within the period allowed by state law.
Outside of bankruptcy it is clear that proceeds that are not reinvested lose their exempt status and become subject to claims of creditors. However, under the Bankruptcy Code, if there is not a timely filed objection to exemption, the exemption is allowed, even if it was frivolous. Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. Following Frost, there was a split between Texas bankruptcy courts as to whether Frost’s logic would apply in a chapter 7 case. Two cases made their way to the Fifth Circuit at about the same time. In Lowe v. DeBerry (In re DeBerry), 2017 U.S. Dist LEXIS 113203 (W.D. Bankruptcy Judge Craig Gargotta had ruled that proceeds from post-petition sale of a homestead could not be recaptured once the exemption became final. However, he was reversed by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth. In Hawk v. Engelhart (In re Hawk), 556 B.R. 788 (S. D. Tex.
Bankruptcy Judge Jeff Bohm had ruled that proceeds from an IRA lost their exempt status if they were not reinvested within sixty days notwithstanding failure to object to the original exemption. He was affirmed by U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon. Thus, there was two cases proceeding to the Fifth Circuit where the District Court had ruled that property could lose its exempt status in a chapter 7 case. I was approached by Professor Christopher Bradley to see if I would be interested in participating in an amicus brief in the DeBerry case. Chris had more than an academic interest in the issue (pun intended). He had clerked for Bankruptcy Judge Tony Davis. Judge Davis had written an opinion, In re D’Avila, 498 B.R. 150 (Bankr. W. D. Tex. Frost did not apply in chapter 7. After finishing his clerkship and working in private practice, Chris had obtained an appointment at the University of Kentucky School of Law. I had written at least five blog articles on the disappearing exemption issue, including one which strongly criticized the Frost decision. Michael Baumer, who is a homestead expert within the consumer bar, agreed to join our group.
We hastily filed our brief in the DeBerry case and waited. A few days later, a different panel of the Fifth Circuit handed down an opinion in Hawk v. Engelhart (In re Hawk), 864 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. This posed a huge problem for us because under the rule of orderliness, one panel of the Fifth Circuit could not overrule another. Thus, we fashioned a second amicus brief arguing that the en banc Fifth Circuit should reconsider the Frost decision, or, in the alternative, limit it to the chapter 13 context. Retired Bankruptcy Judge Leif Clark joined our group of collaborators for this second brief. Judge Clark had presciently written about the issue in In re Bading, 376 B.R. 143 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Zibman could be applied even in the absence of a timely exemption. In the interest of telling a compact story, I am not explaining all of the legal arguments in detail. The Hawk panel vacated its prior opinion and substituted an opinion limiting Frost to chapter 13 cases.
One of the points that the panel relied upon was part of the ruling by Judge Ronald King in the Frost case that the case would have come out differently in a chapter 7 proceeding. Since we did not cite these comments in our brief, it is possible that our brief did not change the result. A few months later, the Fifth Circuit released its opinion in DeBerry in which it reversed the District Court and affirmed Judge Gargotta. The DeBerry opinion cited our brief which was gratifying. Amicus practice before the Fifth Circuit is a specialized area with strict time limits. An amicus brief must be filed within seven days after the brief of the party it supports. Otherwise, there is not sufficient time to compose a credible brief. Unless a brief is filed with the consent of both parties, it must be accompanied by a motion for leave to file the brief with a copy of the proposed brief. The proposed brief must state the interest of the amicus.
Generally it is better to have an organization with an interest in the point of law sponsor an amicus brief. In our case, we were not able to find a sponsoring organization. However, having a professor and a retired judge among our collaborators certainly did not hurt. An amicus brief is limited to half the length of the brief it is supporting. This means that the maximum length of an amicus in support of en banc hearing or rehearing is 1,950 words. This post is 1,401 words long which gives an idea of just how short 1,950 words is. P. 32(a)(7)(B), which allows for an amicus of up to 6,500 words. One final note is that the Fifth Circuit is a forum where strict compliance with format is enforced. I have had to resubmit briefs on multiple occasions to correct technical issues. There are two pieces of advice here. The first is to adhere strictly to the time limit for resubmitting a brief. The second is to be nice to the clerk’s office. While it is frustrating to have to revise a brief for format issues, the clerk’s office is uniformly willing to walk practitioners through how to make it right. Staying friendly with the clerk’s office will avoid a world of unpleasantness.
Not reading the fine print of the credit cards you use is a sure invitation to have your blood sucked. Now a days millions of people are using credit cards to make purchases. “Penalty interest rate” and “universal default” are provisions included by banks in their credit card offers which they claim are necessary to offset risks. These provisions are legal as long as issuers can say they warned you. The rates and fees in these provisions are all out of proportion to the risks. Issuers have used better ways in the past to protect themselves. For example, they used to cut customers off after they hit their credit limits, which I think was a good thing for the user. 29 per billing period) and permanently higher rates. This can be devastating for the budget of many users. So be careful-always read and understand the fine print before it is too late.
Never pay your credit card bills late even by an hour as your interest rate can be increased permanently. 14.8 billion (or 11% of their revenue) were collected on penalty rates -which averaged about 24% this year according to the Consumer Action. To make things worse for the user the new rates can be applied retroactively to purchases already made. Companies usually specify an exact time by which payments must be received. If they don’t specify it, you should contact them to find out. Be aware that even if your mortgage or other payment is late (under the “universal default”) credit card issuers can raise your rates because you are now classified as high risk. One bank was found charging a 35% universal default rate by Consumer Action. Having too many inquiries into your credit history can also trigger universal default rate and you may be charged a fee thus lowering your credit rating. 7.7 billion on penalty fees in 2003. There is no legal cap on banks’ interest rates. And the Supreme Court in 1996 prevented states from setting limits on late fees. Legislations are underway to ban the “universal default” interest rates based on alleged missteps with another issuer, ensure that penalty fees match issuers’ costs and ban over-limit fees. Whether this actually happens or not time will tell. But until then you have to be extra careful and read every fine print because it is all in there. Survetement Lacoste Are you looking for more info on how to fix credit score? Click Here to claim your “Credit Repair Tips” report, absolutely FREE!
In a victory for strong courtroom advocacy, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that punishing lawyers for “incivility” in defence of their clients should be done only in exceptional cases for fear of limiting their independence. Only when lawyers act in bad faith or have no factual underpinning for their arguments should they be at risk of punishment for incivility, the court said in 6-3 decision on Friday. 200,000 fine and month-long suspension and dismissed all misconduct charges against him. Adding an exclamation point, it ordered the law society to pay him his costs from the beginning. Mr. Groia’s decade-long battle brought the obligation of lawyers to be civil, as set out in their professional codes of conduct, into conflict with their requirement to advocate fearlessly. It began with his defence of John Felderhof, a senior officer with Bre-X Minerals Ltd., who was charged with insider trading and authorizing misleading news releases. Mr. Felderhof was acquitted in 2004. Mr. Groia said he received a warning from the law society during the trial that it was keeping an eye on his defence tactics.
Charged in 2009 with professional misconduct, he lost at the law society, which said he made repeated personal attacks on prosecutors without a reasonable basis for doing so and he lost again at Ontario’s Divisional Court and Court of Appeal. Mr. Groia — who was elected by his fellow lawyers to the law society’s board of directors in 2015 — said the Supreme Court ruling set an important precedent. The acts arose initially over the prosecution’s failure, as Mr. Groia saw it, to fully disclose its case against Mr. Felderhof. He accused prosecutors of adopting a win-at-all-costs mentality and of lacking integrity. He was partly mistaken about the prosecutors’ legal duties, the Supreme Court said. But the prosecutors’ own comments had provided some factual foundation to Mr. Groia’s claims and even the law society acknowledged that he had acted in good faith, the court said. And when the judge presiding at the Felderhof trial eventually sought to curb Mr. Groia’s criticism of the prosecutor, Mr. Groia mostly complied, the court said. Groia told The Globe and Mail that his firm had defended Mr. Felderhof when he could not afford to pay “because we believed in his innocence. For me to then be confronted with a 17-year battle with the law society for doing my job for John, I found very disheartening. In some ways, he said, the long fight changed him for the better. “I’m now a much more empathetic lawyer than I was before.
The short answers are: it depends; and probably. Because, students, circumstances, and bar results have changed in the last decade. Traditionally, because of the general difficulty of state bar exams, a majority of law school graduates had chosen to take some form of external bar preparation course. Despite the rigors of law school and the emphasis on legal analysis, culminating in writing essay exams, state bar exams were found to be difficult to pass. Within the traditional setting, law schools had emphasized the precepts of IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion), and thus concentrated their classes on these precepts to culminate in training students to be very adept at approaching, analyzing, and writing essay exams. For bar exam takers, this left a gap – the dreaded multiple choice questions called the MBE. As a result, commercial companies targeted law graduates with bar preparation courses. Although most companies advertised overall bar preparation courses, the courses emphasized how students could approach and answer the MBE questions.
Obviously, this was the logical extension for these bar preparation courses since those students were already well immersed in essay writing from their three years in law school. With regard to teaching how to master the MBE, some of these companies were good, and others not so much. However, because of these courses, many students were able to successfully navigate the morass of those dreaded MBE questions. To this day, those companies who continue to offer external bar preparation courses have remained true to their original academic/business plan. Thus, their course emphasis remains with the MBE questions. During the past decade, circumstances have changed. First, as widely reported in publications such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the ABA Journal and others, law school enrollment has been on a steady decline. As a result, many law schools have lowered entrance requirements. This change, coupled with other academic and societal changes have helped create a different environment for the law student today. As a consequence, bar pass rates in many states (e.g. California, New York and several others) have been on a steady decline.
The trend of lower pass rates continues, and law school deans are concerned for a couple of reasons. First, a published high pass rate is a marketing incentive to attract new students to their school, and if it is declining, students will look elsewhere. In addition, for those schools accredited by the ABA, there lurks a proposal to increase the accreditation standards for a school to maintain a 75 percent pass rate – a rate in which not many schools currently enjoy. In California, the second largest state in terms of bar examination takers, law school deans have a solution. A detailed report was developed and recently forwarded to the State Supreme Court for their decision. In the report, the State Bar recommends keeping the cut pass line at 1440 and commission more studies, while the committee of law school deans recommends reducing the cut pass line. However, an interesting fact did emerge from all of this analysis – generally the decline in the bar pass rate is not due to lower scores on the MBE.