Daily Mail 5th January 2016 published an article by Colonel Richard Kemp.- What other country would pay lawyers to persecute its own war heroes? Colonel Kemp is a retired Army Officer who had a distinguished military career including tours of duty commanding troops in operational theatres such as Afghanistan – Wikipedia Colonel Richard Kemp CBE. Whilst there are points in the Kemp article with which issue could be taken, matters of considerable concern are raised and they ought not to be lightly dismissed as some sort of Daily Mail anti-human rights diatribe. Regrettably, the newspaper does have a tendency to use certain decisions of the courts – especially the European Court of Human Rights – to try to ridicule the whole of human rights law. 2. Policy Exchange has produced an interesting report – Clearing the fog of war: saving our armed forces from defeat by judicial diktat and this is examined further in my post of March 2015 – Human Rights on the Battlefield.
3. IHAT – The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) is continuing its work and it may take until 2019. Colonel Kemp has not exaggerated the number of cases under consideration. 4. The Al-Saadoon litigation refers to the number of cases – see the judgment of Mr Justice Leggatt in March 2015. Leggatt J refers (at para 2) to there being at least 1230 cases. Leggatt J’s judgment is indicative of the extensive range of preliminary issues which this type of litigation is capable of raising. The consequential legal costs will be very high. 5.The Armed Forces disciplinary system is strong and is set out in the Armed Forces Act 2006 which created, for the first time, a single disciplinary system for all three of the Armed Forces. 6. Geneva Conventions – The various Geneva Conventions bind the UK in international law and are duly recognised by the Armed Forces of the Crown. They are not, of course, recognised by non-State actors such as those who opposed UK Forces in Afghanistan or, at the present time, Islamic State (Daesh). 8. In Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement (Belfast Agreement April 1998) dealt with paramilitary prisoners.
It provided for accelerated release of prisoners convicted of Scheduled Offences. No members of the Armed Forces had been convicted of such offences and so this was not applicable to them. 9. Legal Aid – it certainly has seemed to be readily available to this type of claim. 10. Solicitors and Discipline: Leigh Day is one firm of solicitors which has handled Iraq matters. The Solicitor’s Regulation Authority has referred the firm to the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal – see the SRA statement 6th January 2016 and their earlier statement 15th January 2016. The referral to the tribunal arises from the Al-Sweady Inquiry. The original Al-Sweady Inquiry website appears to have been taken down but the inquiry report is available via the UK government website. Of particular interest are the Inquiry’s conclusions – see Conclusions para 5.196 to para 5.202. The government has a noticeable enthusiasm for action against these solicitors.
On October 18, an Obama-appointed judge ordered that the teen be allowed to abort her baby “promptly and without delay” after it was revealed U.S. ’t facilitate the abortion. On October 24, however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 6-3 that the U.S. On October 25, the baby was aborted due largely to the rushed effort of abortion activists. Cole said the government subjected Jane Doe to “shaming as she waited” to abort her child. “This administration has gone to astounding lengths to block this young woman from getting an abortion,” said Cole. “The abortion industry’s foundation, legal or moral, is built on obfuscation and lies,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, told LifeSiteNews. “Abortion has been sold to women as a liberating thing – a quick, easy solution to their problems. ] how they were taken advantage of by opportunistic lawyers who didn’t let facts get in the way of their agenda,” she explained. “The Department of Justice’s allegations do not surprise us at all.
Back in August of 2012 I first reported on a complaint filed by 3M Corp. Meanwhile, aside from that lawsuit, 3M moved to disqualify Covington in the case in which it was representing the state against 3M. I posted my comments on that here. Although 3M claimed a violation of the hot potato doctrine as the basis for its motion, the court decided it on different grounds. Covington and its client then appealed the disqualification order and I wrote my thoughts on their arguments here. I argued that once the court finds that the past representation of 3M and the current representation of the state against 3M are substantially related, Covington’s arguments are relatively weak. In July 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the disqualification order, but Covington then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. For my post on this go here, which has a link to the opinion itself. Now, almost two years after the affair began, the Minnesota Supreme Court has reversed and remanded the case holding that the lower court did not make enough findings to support its conclusion that the cases were substantially related. This does not mean that Covington will not be disqualified; only that the court needs to make further findings to determine if it is justified to disqualify the firm. The Legal Profession blog has a note on the decision here. Thanks to the Legal Ethics Forum, you can download the opinion here.
Attorneys for the former day-to-day manager at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse lower court decisions that he remain in jail pending sentencing on numerous fraud-related convictions. Sentencing in the case is scheduled for next month. The appeal was docketed March 15 on behalf of Sholom Rubashkin by attorney Nathan Lewin, a long-time friend of the Rubashkin family well-known in both Jewish and judiciary circles for his defense of Pres. Richard Nixon, U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, actress Jodie Foster and several prominent Orthodox Jewish individuals. Counsel has appealed directly to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who presides over the Iowa judicial district in which Rubashkin’s case is being heard, to grant immediate release on bail pending his sentencing and further appeals. The Postville raid remains one of the largest single-site immigration enforcement actions in U.S. Lewin asserts that federal prosecutors have been overzealous in the Rubashkin prosecution from the start, submitting him to considerably more severe restrictions and potential punishment than other employers targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. Lewin also believes that the judge presiding over Rubashkin’s case allowed prejudicial evidence of alleged immigration infractions into the fraud-related case.
Such perceived irregularities in the case continue to incense the Orthodox Jewish community of which the Rubashkin family is a part. Key among their questions is the government’s assertion that Rubashkin, a father to 10 children and prominent member of the Postville Jewish community, is a flight risk if he were to be granted bail pending sentencing and appeal. The latest blow to the Rubashkin bail hopes came in February when the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to act on petition requests. “We are deeply concerned about the seeming pattern of overzealous prosecution in this case,” said Rabbi Pesach Lerner, executive vice president of the National Council of Young Israel. Those who believe Rubashkin has been treated unjustly have launched a new Web site to present their case, Justice for Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin. The former plant supervisor faces several decades in prison at his upcoming sentencing. In addition to the federal case, Sholom Rubashkin, his father A. Aaron Rubashkin and other plant officials also face state charges of child labor law violations.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, struck down core provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The Court declared Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, invalidating the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions must seek federal approval of their voting changes under the Act. This decision is a major setback for voting rights and will have a real, detrimental impact on voters. First, minority voters will not be informed of voting changes occurring in their community, as they were until the Shelby County decision. Second, the Shelby County decision means that changes in voting procedures will take effect immediately, without any review of whether those proposed changes harm minority voters. Third, minority voters now will bear the heavy burdens of time and expense of litigating to stop racially discriminatory voting procedures. Fourth, the preclearance provisions have a clear legal standard (retrogression) that was easily understood by state and local governments. That clear legal standard will no longer be applied to covered states and political subdivisions as a result of the Shelby County decision. The Court’s decision is also a radical act of judicial activism. It is a slap in the face to the congressional authority to enact legislation to enforce the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution.
Acquisition of Land – Whether can be made by State ignoring report of Land Acquisition Collector ? Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5- A(2) that particular land is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration should be made. This necessarily implies that the State Government is required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5-A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment and final Order dated 05.04.2011 passed in C.W.P.
No. 7746 of 2009 and order dated 16.12.2011 passed in Review Application No. 388 of 2011 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim. 3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal. The appellant is the owner of 5 Kanals 6 Marlas of land out of which 934 square yards have been left out of acquisition. 4. It is the case of the appellant that while issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the property adjoining to the land of the appellant, which belongs to one M/s. Harpreet Food, was released. Though the respondent Authority has released a portion of the appellant’s property, some part of the built-up and constructed portion of the house was not released. 5. The appellant therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana registered as Writ Petition No. 7746 of 2009, challenging the acquisition of his land by the Authority.
The said petition got tagged along with other similar petitions filed by different affected parties and the Writ Petition No. 7711 of 2009, titled New Vidya Niketan Educational Society Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 7. The learned senior counsel Mr. Pallav Sisodia, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the High Court failed to appreciate that there was a construction already made by the appellant for residential purpose. Therefore, as per the policy of the Government of Haryana, the constructed portion including the amenities and other built up areas are required to be released from the process of acquisition. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Manjit Singh, appearing on behalf of the State contended that the appellant had illegally raised construction on this land without permission of the concerned authority. Hence, the appellant cannot now seek exemption from acquisition on the ground that there is a residential construction on the land and therefore, the land cannot be acquired. In Kamal Trading (P) Ltd.
“14. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5-A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. 15. Hearing contemplated under Section 5-A(2) is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and make a report. The report of the Collector referred to in this provision is not an empty formality because it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the Collector’s recommendations and the record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the LA Act makes a declaration under Section 6 conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose.
Formation of opinion by the appropriate Government as regards the public purpose must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. It is, therefore, that the hearing contemplated under Section 5-A and the report made by the Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations assume importance. It is implicit in this provision that before making declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act, the State Government must have the benefit of a report containing recommendations of the Collector submitted under Section 5A(2) of the LA Act. In the case of Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Pvt. “30…..Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5- A(2) that particular land is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration should be made. This necessarily implies that the State Government is required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons.
Further, in the case of Women’s Education Trust and Anr. Also, in an earlier case in Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors. State of Bihar & Ors. 4 SCC 255 this Court observed that compliance of Section 5A of the Act is a sine qua non for acquisition of land. “10.…..The decision of the Collector is supposedly final unless the appropriate Government chooses to interfere therein and cause affectation, suo motu or on the application of any person interested in the land. These requirements obviously lead to the positive conclusion that the proceeding before the Collector is a blend of public and individual enquiry. The person interested, or known to be interested, in the land is to be served personally of the notification, giving him the opportunity of objecting to the acquisition and awakening him to such right. 10. In the light of the foregoing cases, it is evident that the government has to consider the report of the Land Acquisition Collector while making declaration of acquisition of land under Section 6 of the Act. Further, if the government is coming to a conclusion which is contrary to the report, then the government has to provide appropriate reason for the same.
United States, abortion remains among the most heated and widely contested topics of modern times. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue in the groundbreaking case of Roe V. Wade in 1973. That case, decided primarily on the grounds of the privacy protections afforded Americans under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, set a landmark precedence which has yet to be overturned. The highest court in the land is not the only venue for such debates on the subject though. This complex topic is certainly one that arouses several opposing and compelling rationales as to the reasons why this concept should be employed or resisted, with a basis for support and opposition rooted in moral, cultural, logical, and personal values. When particulars are involved, the debate often becomes muddled. Most of the exceptions that bar a woman from choosing to eradicate her pregnancy include the gestational stage of her pregnancy and the method she wants to employ. For example, partial-birth abortions, once somewhat common place, have now become prohibited by US law. Specifically, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which defeated a constitutional challenge four years later in Gonzales V. Carhart, gives criminal penalties for performing such a procedure. Probably the next avenue for this continuous debate takes the form of a pill. The morning after pill, available across the U.S. Georgia and Alaska, is marketed as a new form of contraception but labeled by opponents as an “easy fix” abortion pill. From bigger cities like Atlanta to smaller communities, the morning after pill debate continues to make headlines. For more information about morning after pill Atlanta or morning after pill Georgia, simply click the link.
A number of recent polls have put Illinois in the news, and not in a good way. Illinois fared poorly in a recent Gallup poll of state residents’ trust in their own state governments. Illinois and Rhode Island are also teamed in an even more recently released Gallup poll where state residents advise whether theirs is a good state in which to live. Only 18% of Rhode Island residents thought their state was the best, or one of the best states, in which to live. But Illinoisans can not be smug: Only 19% of our residents thought that Illinois was at least one of the best states in which to live. On the other hand, only 17% of Rhode Island residents thought their state was the worst state in which to live; one in four Illinois residents — 25% — thought ours is the worst. Montana topped this poll, with 77% of Big Sky State residents thinking theirs is the best state, or at least one of the best states, in which to live. This merely moderately cynical view of local corruption did not apply to survey respondents from Chicago.