Bringing back black money from foreign banks was one of the most crucial issues in agenda of almost all political parties of India during last parliamentarian elections. Once the elections were over, this issue was also forgotten by a newly elected government for a short time. However, the Supreme Court of India has asked government administration to make the culprit list open to the public and now this issue is flying high in the Indian media and the community. Black money refers to funds earned by individuals or companies on the black market, on which income and other taxes have not been paid. The total amounts of black money that are deposited by Indians in the foreign banks are unknown. This issue was lightened up by Swami Ramdev, a spiritual saint and social activist who has gained much acclaim around the world due to his meditation and yoga practices. After some giant scams like 2G, Commonwealth and Coalgate, black money issue was brought up by opposition parties. It is said that many of renowned business tycoons, politicians and film stars have their bank accounts in different foreign banks and if brought back, can make Indian economy better.
The problem is how to bring back black money and what punishment can culprits get if they found guilty? Furthermore, there is a need to start newly fast-track courts to conduct trials for all those black money culprits and make sure that the hearings are held and quick judgments are announced after the investigation. Government needs to act fast irrespective of culprits’ designation and party background. According to a recent report published in this week by Special Investigation Team (SIT) on black money, out of 628 account holders in the Swiss bank, almost half of accounts are found with zero bank balance. The government needs to take action before account holders can reach to their accounts. It is said that bringing back black money from foreign banks seems an impossible task especially in a country like India due to corrupted politicians and unethical politician-businessmen team up. It will be interesting to know what happens in an upcoming days as this issue is not going to slow down as it seems. Nevertheless, we really hope that government will come up with some profound mechanism to bring back the black money. Till then, let’s dream. There is nothing wrong with it.
On the devolution issues, the court unanimously concludes that neither section 1 nor section 75 of the NIA is of assistance in this case, and that the Sewel Convention does not give rise to a legally enforceable obligation. The government is NOT legally compelled to consult the devolved institutions. The devolution Acts do not REQUIRE membership of the EU. The policing of the SEWEL CONVENTION is NOT a matter for the courts. Does the triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union by the exercise of the prerogative power without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland impede the operation of section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998? On the devolution issues, the court unanimously concludes that neither section 1 nor section 75 of the NIA is of assistance in this case, and that the Sewel Convention does not give rise to a legally enforceable obligation.
Post of 27th June 2016 arguing that an Act of Parliament was required – It is Brexit (3) – the role of Parliament. In that post, only 4 days after the referendum, I argued that Article 50 TEU made a clear distinction between the decision to leave and the notification. It was therefore necessary to be clear how the decision was made in accordance with UK constitutional requirements. It appeared at the time that the referendum result could not amount to a decision taken in accordance with constitutional requirements because the referendum was not legally binding on anyone to do anything. Parliament could have legislated to make it legally binding but had not done so. It followed from this that, in order to achieve a decision made in accordance with constitutional requirements, an Act of Parliament was necessary. Notice to the EU could follow once the Act was in place. The Brexit litigation concentrated on the power to give notice rather than on whether a legally binding decision had actually been made. Further, when the appeal was heard in the Supreme Court, devolution issues had been raised by Northern Ireland. The Brexit litigation (including the appeal) proceeded on the basis of an agreed position that Article 50 notification could not be unilaterally revoked by the UK. That question remains unresolved. The post of 27th June also has links to articles both for and against the view that legislation was required. Marston Moor was the largest battle ever fought in England. It was a victory for Parliamentary forces in the civil war. The eventual result was that the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown was established.
The Kiryas Joel School District must reinstate a fired teacher and give him back pay with interest, a state appeals court ruled on Friday. The Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court said that Supreme Court Justice John K. McGuirk was correct in 2007 when he ordered the school district to reinstate the teacher, Robert Pollock. McGuirk, who hears cases in Goshen, found that the district violated Pollock’s rights under state Education Law by firing him in 2003 without bringing charges or holding a disciplinary hearing. The district appealed McGuirk’s ruling to the Appellate Division. Friday’s unanimous ruling by a four-judge panel upheld McGuirk and sent the case back to him to decide how much back pay Pollock is entitled to receive from the district. The Kiryas Joel School District serves special education students in a village whose 20,000 residents are nearly all Satmar Hasidic Jews. Children who don’t require special education attend privately funded religious schools.
Innocent people go to jail. Unfortunately, some people are in jail today because they did not hire a qualified criminal defense attorney capable of handling their case in a jury trial. When this occurs, all hope is not lost. The accused can seek to have his conviction reversed and a new trial ordered through the appellate process. This process consists of appealing the trial court’s conviction and, if necessary filing an application for post-conviction relief with the trial court. These two procedures are similar but distinct and, often, people get them confused. Anyone convicted of a crime has 30 days from the day his sentence becomes final to file a written notice of intent to appeal his case. In Louisiana, a criminal sentence will become final automatically within 30 days it is imposed or 30 days after a motion to reconsider sentence is ruled upon. Once the notice of appeal is filed, the criminal defense attorney handling the appeal must also designate what pre-trial hearings and portions of the trial that need to be transcribed and made part of the appellate record.
Once the transcript is prepared and court pleadings and minutes are certified, the judicial district clerk of court will lodge the official trial court record with the court of appeals. Upon receipt of the official record, the court of appeals will issue a briefing schedule to the defense attorney and the district attorney advising them when their briefs are due. Any side wanting to orally argue their case before the court of appeals must file a written request to do so within 30 days of the record being lodged with the court of appeals. At some point the Court of Appeals will issue a ruling. The losing party has the option of petitioning the Louisiana Supreme Court to review that decision. The formal process to do this is called a writ of certiorari. Neither the defendant nor the State has an automatic right to appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court on any conviction that does not involve death penalty.
An appeal is simply a review of any judicial rulings made before or during the trial itself. During an appeal, the focus is solely upon the rulings of the trial judge. Any newly discovered evidence can be presented on an application for post-conviction relief after the appeal is lost. This application is filed at the trial court. Anyone seeking to introduce newly discovered evidence must show how the evidence could not have been discovered before trial through the exercise of due diligence. If the court believes the newly discovered evidence would have impacted the verdict a new trial can be ordered. Additionally, an inmate can challenge his trial attorney’s ability to handle his case correctly on post-conviction. He will do this by raising a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Anyone seeking to file a post-conviction application in Louisiana must do so within 2 years from the date his conviction becomes final. In most cases, the conviction becomes final the date the Louisiana Supreme Court denies granting a writ of certiorari. But, in cases where the writ is granted, it is 2 years from the date of judgment. Some people do not seek review to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The judgment in those cases becomes final 2 years after the date of ruling by the Circuit Court of Appeals. In a few instances people will challenge the validity of their guilty plea on post-conviction. The prescriptive period for those cases is 2 years from the date their sentence becomes final. Despite the 2 year time limitation for filing a post-conviction relief application, we recommend that our client’s file their claims during the first year. This recommendation is made to preserve the client’s right of having their claims preserved for review by a federal district court should we be unable to obtain relief at the state court level.
The reader knows a secret that the judge obviously does not know: that Henry’s memorial has nothing to do with Henry but can be laid at the door of rivalry between the Protestants and the Catholics. Edgar Lee Masters was born on August 23, 1868, in Garnett, Kansas; the Masters family soon relocated to Lewistown, Illinois. The fictional town of Spoon River constitutes a composite of Lewistown, where Masters grew up and Petersburg, IL, where his grandparents resided. Masters briefly attended Knox College but had to drop out because of the family’s finances. Masters married Helen Jenkins in 1898, and the marriage brought Master nothing but heartache. In his memoir, Across Spoon River, the woman features heavily in his narrative without his ever mentioning her name; he refers to her only as the “Golden Aura,” and he does not mean it in a good way. Masters and the “Golden Aura” produced three children, but they divorced in 1923. He married Ellen Coyne in 1926, after having relocated to New York City. He stopped practicing law in order to devote more time to writing. Masters was awarded the Poetry Society of America Award, the Academy Fellowship, the Shelley Memorial Award, and he was also the recipient of a grant from the American Academy of Arts and Letters. On March 5, 1950, just five months shy of his 82 birthday, the poet died in Melrose Park, Pennsylvania, in a nursing facility. He is buried in Oakland Cemetery in Petersburg, Illinois. Lyrical PoetryWhat is a Lyric?
If history is any guide, I’ll have to update this post as more information becomes available — and that will be my plan, as time permits. Amee Elizabeth Alonso is a sole practitioner with offices in Chicago’s Loop. She was licensed in Illinois in 1994. Alonso was briefly a candidate for a countywide vacancy in the March primary; she withdrew from the race before the end of 2017. Her husband is U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Luis Alonso. Marina E. Ammendola was appointed to the Circuit Court by the Illinois Supreme Court in February 2017. She was an unsuccessful candidate for a 14th Subcircuit vacancy in the March primary. A former school teacher, Ammendola has been licensed as an attorney in Illinois since 1989. Ammendola made the Chicago newspapers at the turn of the century when she represented Ald. Ed Burke and his wife, now-Supreme Court Justice Anne M. Burke, in the “Baby T” custody case. Before setting up her own practice in 2001, Ammendola worked for Patricia C. Bobb & Associates.
The Illinois Supreme Court appointed Judge Charles Stanley Beach to the Circuit Court in September 2017. He was unsuccessful candidate for a 6th Subcircuit vacancy in the March primary. Licensed as an attorney in Illinois since 1996, Beach operated his own practice, Charles S. Beach, P.C., from 1999 until his appointment. A six-time Chair of the Chicago Bar Association Traffic Law Committee, Beach is the author of “Traffic Court Practice and Procedure,” written for the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education. Lloyd James Brooks (pictured at right) is a founding partner of the Matteson-based Consumer Legal Group. While Brooks focuses his practice mortgage foreclosure defense, having taken a number of such cases up on appeal, he also engages in other consumer protection litigation, real estate and insurance coverage matters. Brooks is also a Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter. Jeffrey George Chrones (pictured at right) is a shareholder in Johnson & Bell, where he serves as outside counsel to Pace Suburban Bus Service and otherwise focuses his practice on transportation, toxic tort, employment and product liability. Judge Gerald Vernon Patrick Cleary III currently sits by appointment to a 10th Subcircuit vacancy.
He was an unsuccessful candidate for this vacancy in the March primary. Cleary has served as a Cook County Circuit Court judge since 2015, when he was appointed to a countywide vacancy. He withdrew his candidacy for that vacancy before the 2016 primary. At the time of his first bench appointment, Cleary was a partner with Pappas, Davidson, O’Connor & Fildes, P.C. Before joining Pappas, Davidson, Cleary was a partner at SmithAmundsen. From 1990 to 1997, Cleary was associated with Querrey & Harrow. Jean Golden is a partner with Cassiday Schade, where she co-chairs the firm’s Insurance Practice Group. Sanju Oommen Green is one of only two finalists this year who was also a finalist for the 2016 associate judge selection. In one of those glass half empty/ glass half full conundrums, Green was also a finalist for the 2014 associate judge selection. Green is an Assistant State’s Attorney, serving as a first chair prosecutor at 26th Street. Licensed in Illinois since 2000, she is a Past President of the Asian American Bar Association.
According to the AABA website, Green was also a founding member of the Chicago Chapter of the National Asian Pacific Islander Prosecutors Bar Association, serving as secretary on its national board. James Edward Hanlon, Jr. is currently the Chief of the Special Litigation Division in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. Licensed as an attorney in Illinois since 1984, Hanlon was at one time an equity partner in two Big Law firms, Howrey, LLP (in the Global Litigation Group) and what is now called Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. He sought 12th Subcircuit vacancies in 2014 and 2016. He is married to Circuit Court Judge Kay M. Hanlon. Michael James Hogan, Jr. is a Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney. He has been licensed in Illinois since 1999. I believe he is the son of former Cook County Circuit Court Judge Michael Hogan. Nathalina Antionette Hudson is an Assistant U.S. Joan Marie G. Kubalanza is currently a partner with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, LLP, specializing in insurance law and insurance coverage matters.
DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. So says the Florida Supreme Court in an opinion issued last week. Franklin was sentenced to three 1,000 year concurrent sentences and the Parole Commission set his presumptive parole release date in the year 2352. Franklin, now 51 years old, has spent his entire adult life in prison. As a result, and pursuant to Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) and its progeny, Franklin filed a 3.850 which was denied by the trial court. The First DCA affirmed. On Tuesday, November 6th, Election day, I wrote about the election contests that might interest our readers. The judicial contests in Dade and Broward and two of the constitutional amendments. But, the bigger point of the post, the title “Elections Matter”, was clearly missed by more than a few voters. As a result, it looks like we will be calling Ron DeSantis “Governor” for at least the next four years. That is unless the recount somehow manages to find some 33,700 more votes for Andrew Gillum. So, it’s the decisions in cases like Franklin that we, as lawyers, and by extension, the clients we represent, have to look forward to over the next 20-30 years, or possibly even longer. PS: Please join me in wishing the Justice Building Blog and Horace Rumpole a Happy 13th Birthday. It was on November 16, 2005 that Rumpole first posted. I was invited to join the Blog a few months later. Today’s post is the 3,599th posted over the past 13 years. Thank you Rumpole for allowing me the opportunity of contributing to your Blog.
We are re-establishing the ideals of community unity, family sanctity, and leadership accountability in the state of Kansas. Many people from all around the state of Kansas have volunteered their valuable time and resources for this cause. We are volunteers, there are no salaries or commissions, only the shared goal to protect the rights of Kansan’s families and their community. With our ongoing efforts to partner with the community and grass root organizations, we continue to grow and make a difference. Through this opportunity we hope to inform and educate you about multiple issues effecting you and your family. Our primary goal is to root out the Judiciary and the corruption that is Kansas courtrooms. The Judiciary is the third arm of government empowered by the constitution and the laws of the United States and each State individually and vested with the Judicial (legal) power of this country. It has the sole responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, laws and administering justice. This Judicial branch is a “Public” service institution and is the branch that is responsible for the day to day administration of the Courts and Tribunals of this land.
It was intended to be the “WEAKEST” branch of our government. In its complete failure to provide this mandate, the Judiciary has failed miserably to uphold the independence of the Judiciary, to show a commitment to the true and proper interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of our country. It has failed to ensure the speedy and unfettered administration of Justice brought to the door step of our citizens and has implemented a fear or favor standard in its delivery of justice. Judicial accountability is a single-issue to end the rampant and pervasive judicial corruption in the legal system of the United States. We have to expose judicial immunity in order to deal with it and realize the effect and danger of its continued existence in our society. We need to recognize that this can only be achieved by making the judicial branch of government answerable and accountable to an entity other than itself. It is the result of the judiciary’s arbitrary abuse to follow the doctrine of law that leaves the people without recourse when their inherent rights are violated.
Judges are not free, in a constitutional context to twist words to mean what they want them to mean. It is one thing for a judge to convict on a mistake of fact or law while protecting the rights of due process, counsel and the jury. It’s a completely opposite ordeal to convict in absentia without notice or hearing in a “private trial”, or in chambers without a reporter. The average American does not realize that most of these criminals are in powerful positions and have created a wall of immunity for those who are in power. ANSWER: These people have immunity; we have to stop this in its tracks now. “Absolute judicial immunity” protects not only “judicial acts’ with subject matter of jurisdiction but the conspiracy and conspirators that surround those acts. I want you to read that sentence again until it sinks in to the true reality of where and what this does. Given that immunity means, the implication or being that you can’t sue, you have no mechanism in place for discovery for the truth in determinations.