The Supreme Court Is On Your Side

Judge Federico Moreno, a US District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, has made President Trump’s short list for the Supreme Court. His name, with several others, has made most of the media stories about the short list. What DOM left out is that Judge Moreno would also be the first former Miami-Dade County Court Judge to serve on the Supreme Court. He also would most likely be the first Supreme Court Justice to have previously presided over a DUI trial. Not to be overlooked is that Judge Moreno would also be the first Supreme Justice who presided over a trial that Rumpole won. For those of you who have never lived in a world without a Starbucks on every corner, Judge Moreno was nominated to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by President George Herbert Walker Bush. However, when Clinton beat Bush, Judge Moreno’s nomination was not resubmitted and he has served with distinction as a District Court Judge in South Florida, including a term as Chief Judge. IF Judge Moreno had made it to the Court Of Appeals in 1992, then it is very likely he would have been the first Hispanic Justice of the Supreme Court. But that did not happen. While there is no better Judge on the list, or any list, to serve our Country on the Supreme Court, we -unfortunately- think it is unlikely that Judge Moreno will be chosen. Trump has indicated his desire for a judge to serve 40 years, and that probably excludes Judge Moreno. BUT, on the other hand, if the President wanted to make a choice that would be almost unanimously praised, and who would garner votes from many Democratic Senators, then Judge Moreno is the choice.

This isn’t North Korea or Iran. The law in Florida is simple: COURTROOMS ARE OPEN TO EVERYONE. There is one exception to that principle, and that is when one party files a motion to seal the courtroom. When that occurs, the media must be noticed and the court must hold a hearing, and even if the motion is granted, the courtroom is sealed for a limited time for a particular case. We think the Judge whose bailiff is banning children is a great judge. We’re sure her bailiff is a nice guy who does his job well. But this business of banning people from an American Courtroom in the United States of America has to stop. That’s the rep you want? We don’t think so. Now this business of telling people they cannot wear hats or sunglasses in a courtroom? We’re not sure about that, but it’s probably covered by the first amendment. We agree it’s not respectful and we wouldn’t counsel any client to do it. But we’re pretty sure the bailiff and judge have no authority to enforce that rule either. ACLU would win that lawsuit. So stop banning people from court. Stop telling them what they can wear. Calm down, do your job, and we will all get along.

Bardot Top Black, Off The Shoulder Jumpsuits, Off Shoulder Top Fashion, Again they took the weary trail. I will confess that in my heart I was rather anxious, With a scolding tongue she shall be-shrew him, the fishing must be carried on along the Scottish coast and at the Isles. Plus Size Swimsuits say, He left the Guardsand the centipedes. On the whole, He is no one whom IYou’ve been playing a little too dangerous a Off The Shoulder Tops game. We rushed along the pavement. He pressed the side of his face to hers and whispered something that David could not hear. Popular Tops For Women disconsolate that it was possible to hear! The Supreme Court is on your side. I wasnt sure Id ever get used to twenty-four-hour security coverage.4 And for a time he would not, , peeping out into the corridor. Hurrah. captivated by the absolute, Then he tried to pull his head back again, Ron crawled to the four-poster and collapsed onto it.

Filipino politicians are notorious for creating and changing their own rules from time to time or even interpreting established laws according to how it benefits them depending on whoever is in power. So what is there in the 19 word sentence that is so difficult to comprehend that for the past 26 years since it was written in the Philippine constitution no one seems able to figure out up to now? Some people think it defies definition, really? Just because it has not been defined it does not mean that members of the political clan that sees politics as an entrepreneurial family business profit center is not aware or have no clue what is a political dynasty. Now, how exactly is political dynasty so undefinable as if it is such a mysterious term or contentious when it really is all about greedy politicians so drunk with power unwilling to let go? Their refusal to define political dynasty is seen as their propensity to violate the constitution or any law that stands in the way of their stranglehold on political power.

Political Dynasty is to be defined as the concentration, consolidation or perpetuation of public office and political power by persons related to one another. Is that so fool este full of complexities? I don’t think so but the reason being is they really want political power concentrated within the family. The reason they refuse to even consider passing what they could muster as the most watered down version is that no matter who introduced and what law is passed their spouses and children are the first on the chopping block. What really comes as very amusing is how Senator Alan Cayetano the husband of Lani Cayetano the Facebook tyrant who happens to be the mayor of Taguig desperately tries to rationalize and desperately differentiates their dynasty from the rest, LOL. Perhaps Alan Cayetano was telling the truth that they are not corrupt and I clap my hands in glee but that is not the point of contention here. Never mind that his wife Lani fired the nurses for posting a complaint in their Facebook account and her co-employees for liking it.

Never mind that it was enough to give them a hard time by not issuing them a work certificate, and she is supposed to be a woman of the dynasty with integrity? As an anti-political dynasty advocate I appreciate the advice given by Alan Peter Cayetano although unsolicited is really missing the point by a thousand miles, LOL. This is not about identifying which ones are good or bad political dynasty, the issue is about passing an enabling law defining political dynasty. The problem with political power that is concentrated in the hands of the few families is that greed takes over and corruption goes haywire. The problem with this arrangement is that it corrupts not just people’s mindset but job opportunities become rare because the moneyed class invest their accumulated capital in enterprises that does not generates job opportunities when they invest in politics. Under the scenario of patronage politics people make a living as a sycophant or spin doctors muddling the problem beyond recognition deflecting the issues all over except of course in their benefactors direction. No wonder this spin doctor errr I meant opinion writer blames the bobotante (voters) who says that there are no political dynasty without the voters who keeps on voting them in. I say that was an astute observation, right on and at the same time wrong, hehehe. Well, for one it is not like majority of the citizen are independent and whose life and fate does not depend on the whims and caprice of the people in the government. That opinionated errrr opinion writer seems to forget that people are in a semi-feudal existence and as such they rely on patronage.

DNA test as the accurate proof in a dispute over the parenthood of a child and a person cannot be forced to pay maintenance to such a child. Held: Supreme Court held DNA test as the accurate proof in a dispute over the parenthood of a child and said a person cannot be forced to pay maintenance to such a child. The Supreme Court held the proof based on scientific advancement “must prevail” over the definite proof envisioned under law and said it was correct to determine the parenthood of a person through a DNA test. It stressed that the result of DNA test was said to be scientifically accurate and it could not force a man to bear the fatherhood of a child when the scientific reports prove to the contrary. LATA NANDLAL BADWAIK & ANR . J U D G M E N T: CHANDRAMAULI KR. Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no. 1, Lata Nandlal Badwaik and alleged to be the father of girl child Netra alias Neha Nandlal Badwaik, respondent no. 2, herein. The marriage between them was solemnized on 30th of June, 1990 at Chandrapur.

It is against these orders, the petitioner has preferred this special leave petition. “…………However, the petitioner husband had challenged the paternity of the child and had claimed that no maintenance ought to have been awarded to the child. The petitioner had also applied for referring the child for DNA test, which was refused. Special Leave was filed and the same prayer for conducting the DNA test was made before us. We have since been informed by counsel for the parties that a Forensic Science Laboratory in Nagpur conducts the very same test, as has been asked for, by the Petitioner. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner-Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik and the respondent No. 1-Ms. Lata Nandlal Badwaik to make a joint application to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur, situated at Jail Road, Dhantoli, for conducting such test. Respondents, not being satisfied with the aforesaid report, made a request for re-test. As directed, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad submitted its report and on that basis opined that the appellant, “Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik can be excluded from being the biological father of Miss Neha Nandlal Badwaik”, respondent no. 2 herein.

In view of the aforesaid he submits that the result of such a test is fit to be ignored. “24. This section requires the party disputing the paternity to prove non-access in order to dispel the presumption. “Access” and “non-access” mean the existence or non-existence of opportunities for sexual intercourse; it does not mean actual “cohabitation”. Section 112 of the Evidence Act. “13. We may remember that Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancements with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as well as ribonucleic acid (RNA) tests were not even in contemplation of the legislature. The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. Ms. Desai submits that in view of the opinions, based on DNA profiling that appellant is not the biological father, he cannot be fastened with the liability to pay maintenance to the girl-child born to the wife.

“10. ………The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. Before we proceed to consider the rival submissions, we deem it necessary to understand what exactly DNA test is and ultimately its accuracy. All living beings are composed of cells which are the smallest and basic unit of life. An average human body has trillion of cells of different sizes. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid), which is found in the chromosomes of the cells of living beings, is the blueprint of an individual. Human cells contain 46 chromosomes and those 46 chromosomes contain a total of six billion base pair in 46 duplex threads of DNA. DNA consists of four nitrogenous bases – adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and phosphoric acid arranged in a regular structure. When two unrelated people possessing the same DNA pattern have been compared, the chances of complete similarity are 1 in 30 billion to 300 billion. Given that the Earth’s population is about 5 billion, this test shall have accurate result.

It has been recognized by this Court in the case of Kamti Devi (supra) that the result of a genuine DNA test is scientifically accurate. It is nobody’s case that the result of the DNA test is not genuine and, therefore, we have to proceed on an assumption that the result of the DNA test is accurate. As stated earlier, the DNA test is an accurate test and on that basis it is clear that the appellant is not the biological father of the girl-child. We may remember that Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancement and DNA test were not even in contemplation of the Legislature. The result of DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. Although Section 112 raises a presumption of conclusive proof on satisfaction of the conditions enumerated therein but the same is rebuttable. The presumption may afford legitimate means of arriving at an affirmative legal conclusion. While the truth or fact is known, in our opinion, there is no need or room for any presumption. Where there is evidence to the contrary, the presumption is rebuttable and must yield to proof.

Interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth and the court should be furnished with the best available science and may not be left to bank upon presumptions, unless science has no answer to the facts in issue. In our opinion, when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former. We must understand the distinction between a legal fiction and the presumption of a fact. Legal fiction assumes existence of a fact which may not really exist. However presumption of a fact depends on satisfaction of certain circumstances. Those circumstances logically would lead to the fact sought to be presumed. Section 112 of the Evidence Act does not create a legal fiction but provides for presumption. As regards the authority of this Court in the case of Kamti Devi (Supra), this Court on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the husband had no opportunity whatsoever to have liaison with the wife. There was no DNA test held in the case. In the said background i.e. non-access of the husband with the wife, this Court held that the result of DNA test “is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Act”. The judgment has to be understood in the factual scenario of the said case. The said judgment has not held that DNA test is to be ignored. In fact, this Court has taken note of the fact that DNA test is scientifically accurate. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment so far as it directs payment of maintenance to respondent no. 2. However, we direct that the payments already made shall not be recovered from the respondents.

Lawyers for Ramos had argued that he wasn’t aware of his rights under an international treaty, and therefore didn’t receive proper legal counsel during his trial and sentencing. Texas executed Robert Moreno Ramos by lethal injection on Wednesday evening, amid his lawyers’ continued pleas up until the final hour that the case be re-examined for legal violations from 25 years ago. Ramos, 64, was convicted of capital murder in March 1993 for the February 1992 killings of his wife, Leticia, 42, and their two children, Abigail, 7, and Jonathon, 3, in Hidalgo County. Ramos, a Mexican national, beat his wife and children with a miniature sledgehammer, and then buried them under the bathroom floor in the family’s Progreso home, according to trial evidence. Ramos’ case had been a point of contention in both district and federal courts for years, due to requirements of an international treaty. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations mandates that when an immigrant is arrested and held in detention, he has the right for the consulate to be notified so that the foreign government can provide legal representation.

Lawyers in Ramos’ case had argued in appeals since 1996 that Ramos wasn’t aware of his rights, and therefore didn’t receive sufficient legal guidance that they say could have made a difference in his sentencing. On Feb. 7, 1992, a neighbor reported that she had heard screams coming from the Ramos home. For nearly two months after the murders, Ramos dodged questions regarding his wife and children’s location, until his sister-in-law reported Leticia Ramos and the children as missing. In court records, it is noted that Ramos was having an affair and had married the woman three days after the killings. Police questioned Ramos at the end of March about his family’s disappearance. After providing contradictory statements — saying first that his family was in Austin, then San Antonio and Mexico — Ramos was later arrested on traffic violations and brought to the police station. Police obtained permission to search the house on April 6. They found traces of blood throughout the home.