Seminole County Bail Bonds – Legal Damages Upheld in Fatal Jeep Fire

Source     : Wall Street Journal
By             : MIKE SPECTOR
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford, Seminole County Bail Bonds

Legal Damages Upheld in Fatal Jeep Fire

A Georgia appeals court upheld $40 million in legal damages against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV stemming from a Jeep fire that killed a 4-year-old boy. The Court of Appeals in Georgia on Tuesday rejected Fiat Chrysler’s arguments that a trial judge erred last year in allowing certain evidence and in determining damages, among other contentions. The judge had reduced the damages from $150 million that jurors originally delivered against the auto maker for wrongful death and pain and suffering. Fiat Chrysler is “considering our legal options, including asking the Georgia Supreme Court to review this decision,” the Italian-U.S. auto maker said in a statement. The case stemmed from a March 2012 crash that killed Remington Walden, a 4-year-old boy riding in the back seat of a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee rear-ended by a pickup truck in Bainbridge, Ga. The Jeep featured a rear-gas tank that leaked after the collision, setting the vehicle ablaze and killing the child.

The Jeep was among more than a million vehicles with rear fuel tanks subject to a “customer satisfaction campaign” in lieu of an official recall as part of a deal reached with federal regulators in June 2013. Fiat Chrysler agreed to recall more than 1.5 million Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty sport-utility vehicles with model years ranging from 1993 to 2007 featuring rear gas tanks that regulators deemed an unreasonable safety risk. The company agreed to install trailer hitches on the backs of vehicles for added protection. Fiat Chrysler blamed the fatal Georgia crash on the truck driver hitting the Jeep at a high rate of speed and maintained the 1999 Jeep wasn’t defective and met or exceeded all applicable federal safety standards, including the one for fuel-tank integrity. But jurors sitting for the trial last year told The Wall Street Journal they were persuaded by a medical examiner’s testimony that the Walden boy survived the rear-end collision and later died from a fire linked to the Jeep’s gas tank. Many of them felt the vehicle should have been recalled. They deliberated for less than two hours in April 2015 before finding Fiat Chrysler 99% at fault for the fatal crash and attributing 1% blame to the truck driver.

“Remi’s parents are very appreciative of the Court of Appeals’ decision,” said Jeb Butler, one of the lawyers who tried the case on the family’s behalf. U.S. highway safety regulators in July 2015 hit Fiat Chrysler with a then-record $105 million penalty for lapses spanning nearly two dozen recalls covering millions of vehicles, including older Jeeps with rear-gas tanks. Regulators accused Fiat Chrysler of lagging in installing trailer hitches on the Jeeps. Fiat Chrysler said owners were often unwilling to seek repairs despite the company’s outreach. In the 2015 settlement with regulators, Fiat Chrysler agreed to offer cash to owners of recalled Jeeps to encourage them to get repairs or additional money on top of the value of their vehicles if they traded them in. The Georgia appeals court rejected a number of arguments from Fiat Chrysler, which claimed the jury’s original verdict was motivated by passion and prejudice and a desire to punish the company. The court also dismissed the auto maker’s contention that the trial judge failed to sufficiently reduce the damages. Fiat Chrysler also unsuccessfully protested discussions during the trial of Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne’s income and a suggestion from plaintiffs’ lawyers that the company deserved imprisonment instead of the driver who rear-ended the Jeep. Nor was the court persuaded that the trial judge abused his discretion by allowing plaintiffs to introduce evidence of 17 other rear-end crashes involving Jeeps with rear-gas tanks.

Read more : wsj.com/articles/legal-damages-upheld-in-fatal-jeep-fire-1479250142

Bail Bonds Sanford – The legal questions at the heart of the High Court Article 50 ruling

Source     : BBC News
By             : Clive Coleman
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford, Seminole County Bail Bonds

The legal questions at the heart of the High Court Article 50 ruling

The Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas put it in this way: “The sole question in this case is whether, as a matter of the constitutional law of the United Kingdom, the Crown – acting through the executive government of the day – is entitled to use its prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 for the United Kingdom to cease to be a member of the European Union.” He stressed that it was a “pure question of law” with “no bearing” on the merits of the UK withdrawing from the EU. Many of today’s papers took issue with that. In beginning his judgment, Lord Thomas firmly asserts the critical importance in our law of the sovereignty of parliament: “The most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown with the consent of both Houses of Parliament is supreme.” He quotes a predecessor, Lord Bingham, who said: “The bedrock of the British constitution is… the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament.”

Kings and queens
He then turns to the Crown’s prerogative powers. These are a collection of executive powers derived from the Crown from medieval times. Once exercised by all-powerful kings and queens, they have been dramatically reduced over centuries and the residue are now vested in the hands of ministers. Exercising them is controversial because they have the effect of by-passing our “supreme” Parliament. Lord Thomas says: “An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers.” So, prerogative powers are strictly limited and in the relationship between them and Parliament it is Parliament that very firmly has the upper hand, because, “This subordination of the Crown [ie the executive government] to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom”, he says. In other words, Parliament is king – top dog of the constitution. The government cannot use executive powers to override legislation. Only legislation can override legislation. That, in essence, was the argument of Gina Miller, the investment manager who was the lead claimant in the case.

So when can ministers use prerogative powers?
It is agreed and part of our law that they can be used in international relations and the making and unmaking of international treaties. That is permissible because generally exercising these powers in this arena has no effect on domestic law, so there is no collision with parliamentary legislation, and parliamentary sovereignty is not affected. The government argued that using prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 was a “classic exercise of the royal prerogative”, and that if Parliament had not wanted it used it would have said so in the 2015 European Union Referendum Act.

Rights enjoyed
Where the government came a cropper is that it fully accepted that triggering Article 50 by using prerogative powers would have the effect of changing domestic law. By enacting the 1972 European Communities Act (the 1972 Act), which took the UK into what was then the European Economic Community, now the EU, Parliament made EU law part of our law. Rights enjoyed by you and me were written into our law via the 1972 Act. However, the government argued that Parliament must have intended that ministers would keep the prerogative power to withdraw from EU treaties and so would continue to have the power to choose whether EU law – including the rights given to us under it – should continue to have effect in domestic law. Gina Miller’s lawyers argued that once Article 50 is triggered some rights, such as the right to vote in EU elections and to petition the European Court of Justice, would be extinguished forever. They claimed that it was not enough for the government to assert that many rights would be restored later in the Great Repeal Bill. The court categorically disagreed with the government. Lord Thomas concluded that, “Parliament intended EU rights to have effect in domestic law and that this effect should not be capable of being undone or overridden by action taken by the Crown in exercise of its prerogative powers.”

Slam dunk!
“The Crown cannot, through the exercise of its prerogative powers, alter the domestic law of the United Kingdom and modify rights acquired in domestic law under the ECA 1972 or the other legal effects of that Act. “We agree with the claimants that, on this further basis, the Crown cannot give notice under Article 50(2).”

Slam, slam, dunk, dunk.
The judgment did not go on to say specifically that an act of Parliament is needed to give ministers the authority to trigger Article 50. The judges were understandably keen to keep some constitutional distance and not be seen to be telling Parliament precisely how to exercise its sovereignty. However, it is almost impossible to see how Parliament could give its authority to ministers to serve notice under Article 50 without full-blown primary legislation, ie an act of Parliament.

Massive political consequences
What is now an epic legal battle reveals arguably the great constitutional clash of our time. A government used to getting its way has been stopped in its tracks by independent judges, unelected and who some regard as unaccountable, but who through the mechanism of judicial review can defy ministers, if what they are proposing is unlawful. The judges may have been deciding a purely legal point, but it is a legal point with massive political consequences. These tectonic plates of our constitution will grind up against each other again next month when the government appeals to the Supreme Court. For the first time ever, all 11 permanent justices, including those from Northern Ireland and Scotland, are likely to sit – underlining the importance of what is at stake. If the High Court’s ruling is overturned, the government’s problems in triggering Article 50 probably disappear. If it is upheld and the government is forced to bring in an act of Parliament to give it the authority to trigger our withdrawal from the EU, the timing and manner of Brexit is thrown into confusion.

There is an intriguing further option.
The Supreme Court could in theory refer the question of the construction of Article 50 to the European Court of Justice, which is in effect the EU’s Supreme Court. But asking that court to adjudicate on the mechanism for the UK departing the EU, and by implication consider issues relating to the sovereignty of Parliament, would be so drenched in irony it would be almost unthinkable.

Read more : npr.org/2016/11/07/501005648/with-fewer-legal-tools-in-hand-justice-department-prepares-to-monitor-election

Bail Bond in Sanford – China’s New Cybersecurity Law Rattles Foreign Tech Firms

Source     : Wall Street Journal
By             : JOSH CHIN and EVA DOU
Category :  Bail Bond in Sanford , Sanford Bail Bond

China’s New Cybersecurity Law Rattles Foreign Tech Firms

China’s government has approved a broad new cybersecurity law aimed at tightening and centralizing state control over information flows and technology equipment, raising concerns among foreign companies operating in the country. The law, passed by the standing committee of China’s rubber-stamp parliament and made public on Monday, says agencies and enterprises must improve their ability to defend against network intrusions while demanding security reviews for equipment and data in strategic sectors. The law also makes censorship a matter of cybersecurity, threatening to punish companies that allow unapproved information to circulate online. It further requires network operators to provide “technical support” to authorities for national security and criminal investigations.

The law drew criticism from foreign business groups due to the expansive list of sectors that are defined as part of China’s “critical information infrastructure,” making sectors including telecommunications, energy, transportation, information services and finance subject to security checks. China’s lawmakers described the law as necessary to bolster its data security at a time of multiplying threats. A spokesman for the Cybersecurity Administration of China at a press conference Monday dismissed concerns among foreign companies that Chinese demands for “secure and reliable” or “secure and controllable” technologies could exclude their products. “Whenever we bring up secure and reliable…some of our friends, especially our foreign friends, their heads swell up. They see it as synonymous with trade barriers,” said Zhao Zeliang, the CAC spokesman. “This is a misunderstanding, a biased view.”

China, often accused of supporting cyberattacks on other countries while also depicting itself as a frequent victim of hacking, has moved aggressively to bolster cybersecurity since Chinese President Xi Jinping came to power four years ago. Efforts accelerated in 2013, when former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden described extensive U.S. government hacking of Chinese networks. The government was rattled again the following year, when Microsoft Corp. decided to end support for Windows XP, aging software that was widely installed in China. “These issues confronted China quite violently with the reality that they were reliant on foreign technology,” said Rogier Creemers, an expert in Chinese internet and media law at the University of Leiden, in the Netherlands.

The security reviews stipulated in the new law revive concerns among U.S. companies that they will be forced to disclose their source code and other corporate secrets to the Chinese government to prove their equipment is secure, said Jake Parker, vice president of China operations for the U.S.-China Business Council, a trade group representing U.S. companies in China. “We’ve heard from companies that they feel these policies cite national security for protectionist purposes,” Mr. Parker said. The cybersecurity law doesn’t specify what the security reviews will entail. The idea of requiring source-code disclosure was floated in drafts of several Chinese regulations last year, then was removed after strenuous protest from the U.S. and other countries.

Read more : wsj.com/articles/china-approves-cybersecurity-law-1478491064

Sanford Bail Bonds – Legal Analysis Of ‘The Little Mermaid’ That Will Ruin Your Childhood

Source    : Above The Law News
By            : STACI ZARETSKY
Category : Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bonds

Legal Analysis Of ‘The Little Mermaid’ That Will Ruin Your Childhood

If you’re an attorney, you know that having a firm grasp of the law tends to ruin many television shows and films. Plot lines become completely implausible because you simply know too much about the law. Take, for example, this important scene from Disney classic The Little Mermaid, where Ariel signs a contract with Ursula, trading her voice for legs so she can find her one true love, Eric — a man who she’s only met once — on land. Silly sea millennial.

When you were a kid, you probably cringed during this part of the movie, but as a full-blown law student or lawyer, you’re probably singing to yourself, “Look at these laws, aren’t they neat? Wouldn’t you think my Restatement’s complete?” Shon Faye, a London-based comic and writer, felt the same way, and she’s performed an analysis of the many ways Ariel could have annulled her contract with Ursula.

Read more : abovethelaw.com/2016/11/legal-analysis-of-the-little-mermaid-that-will-ruin-your-childhood/?rf=1

Bail Bond Sanford – A Coup Against the Supreme Court

Source     : New York Times
By             : THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Category  : Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bond

A Coup Against the Supreme Court

People don’t usually remember it this way, but on Dec. 13, 2000, Vice President Al Gore gave one of the most important speeches in American history. Mr. Gore had contested the initial results of the Florida vote count and prevailed in the Florida state courts, but the Supreme Court had voted, 5-to-4, the day before to end the recount and effectively hand the presidency to George W. Bush. “Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken,” Mr. Gore said. “Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it.” The frenzied battle over a few hundred votes had spawned intense anger across the country — but it had been resolved “as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.” Mr. Gore’s concession that night still stands as the most powerful reaffirmation in modern times of the Supreme Court’s unique and fragile role in the American system of government. Millions of people were furious at the justices’ decision in Bush v. Gore — many believed it was the result not of legal reasoning but of rank partisanship — and yet virtually everyone followed Mr. Gore’s selfless lead, accepted the court as the final arbiter of the dispute, and moved on. There were no riots in the streets, no attempted coups, no “Second Amendment solutions.” There was, instead, a peaceful transfer of power: the hallmark of a civil society operating under the rule of law.

Sixteen years later, the Supreme Court sits crippled, unable to resolve the most pressing legal questions facing the country. Two events — the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February and the unprecedented refusal of Senate Republicans to even consider President Obama’s pick to fill the vacant seat — have converged to throw the court’s future as a functioning institution into doubt. This scenario would have seemed unimaginable a year ago. But Tuesday’s vote — for president and for control of the Senate — will determine whether the court remains short-handed for months or, as Republicans are now threatening if they hold the Senate, for years. Last month, Senator Richard Burr, of North Carolina, told supporters that if Hillary Clinton wins, “I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas suggested he was happy with the current situation, and said, “There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices.” Even Senator John McCain, who once joined with Democrats in an effort to depoliticize the judicial nomination process, recently told a radio show, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.”

Step back for a moment and consider the radical absurdity of this position. Senate Republicans first justified their refusal to hold hearings or a vote on Mr. Obama’s nominee before the presidential election because “the people’s voice” needed to be heard. That was always a transparent lie. Now, apparently believing their candidate, Donald Trump, will lose, they are acting as though the Supreme Court is the property of the Republican Party. This mind-set isn’t just a matter of a few senators going rogue. Leading conservative groups are embracing the argument, happy to destroy a principle of American politics — to privilege partisanship over the Constitution itself. Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the influential Cato Institute, wrote two weeks ago that “it would be completely decent, honorable, and in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote against essentially every judicial nominee” a President Clinton would name. Last Thursday, the vice president of Heritage Action for America, a top conservative think tank, said Senators McCain, Burr and Cruz were taking “exactly the right position,” and that an effective, long-term blockade of the court will require “an immense amount of willpower” from Senate Republicans. A small number of Republican senators have expressed discomfort with this idea, but when was the last time public interest won out in today’s Republican Party?

The indefinite blockade not only hobbles the justices’ ability to resolve current cases, it takes open aim at the court’s legitimacy as the sole unelected branch of government. Because the court “has no influence over either the sword or the purse,” as Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, its legitimacy and authority depend entirely on the shared public acceptance of its verdicts. Today’s Republicans are essentially saying the court is nothing but another political body, and that justices should be treated as ideological sock puppets of the president who nominated them. Yes, the justices come with political beliefs and backgrounds, but that makes it all the more important to demand that they work harder than the rest of us to struggle against their biases and preserve their independence. This is why, for instance, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was wrong to comment on Mr. Trump’s candidacy — words for which she later apologized. Until this year, no one disputed that the president should have wide latitude in picking justices. In 1993, Senate Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of Justice Ginsburg, President Bill Clinton’s first nominee. And even though they voted in large numbers against Mr. Obama’s first two nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, they did not try to block those nominations from going forward. Senate Democrats voted unanimously to confirm Ronald Reagan’s choice of Justice Scalia in 1986 and allowed full votes on Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, both of whom they strongly opposed. In 2016, Republicans have blown this delicate balance to pieces, all to keep a conservative majority. Of course, the court has had a majority of Republican-appointed justices for nearly half a century, through the normal processes of advice and consent. But now, Republicans want to maintain that majority, even if that means tossing out all political norms. This majority, they hope, would promote a worldview where fewer people have rights, where women do not have reproductive choices, where lawmakers can make it harder for minorities to vote, where religious people are free to disregard laws protecting people they don’t like. Such a court could use a severe interpretation of the Constitution to ensure that American politics can be flooded with unlimited money, that reasonable gun restrictions are struck down, that corporate interests prevail over those of consumers, and that basic environmental regulations are turned back. Make no mistake: That is the court Americans would get under a President Trump. Still, Senate Democrats would have an obligation to consider and vote on his nominees, just as Republicans would have that obligation to Mrs. Clinton’s choices. No doubt, there would be Democratic voices demanding that their senators mimic the Republicans’ shameful example. But the Constitution asks more of all of us than that. In the next Congress, regardless of who wins on Tuesday, the very survival of the court as an independent body will be at stake.

Read more : nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/a-coup-against-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0

Sanford Bail Bond – Transgender Bathroom Cases the Supreme Court Won’t Hear, and Why They Matter

Source     : Daily Signal News
By             : Kelsey Harkness
Category : Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bond

Transgender Bathroom Cases the Supreme Court Won’t Hear, and Why They Matter

A mother who is part of a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s transgender restroom mandate for schools says she is encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision to review a similar case. That case, arising from a Virginia school system, could set a national precedent in the debate over transgender individuals using public facilities according to what they say is their gender identity. It may determine the fate of more than a dozen lawsuits involving the same issue across the country. The Supreme Court announced Friday that it would hear issues in the case involving Gavin Grimm, 17, a transgender student who was born female but identifies as a male. Grimm wants to use the boys’ restroom at Virginia’s Gloucester High School. An Illinois parent involved in a similar suit told The Daily Signal she is “encouraged” by the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case of G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board and hopes the high court will honor the rights of parents and minor children by “reinstating basic privacy and dignity in our public schools.”

The mother, who has a child at Fremd High School in Palatine, Illinois, asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitive nature of the lawsuit there. She is part of a group of 51 families who sued the Obama administration over its interpretation of federal law known as Title IX. “Girls should never be forced to undress in the presence of young men,” she said in an email to The Daily Signal, adding: There are sensitive solutions for students who are struggling with these issues that don’t violate the privacy of many other students at the school. Schools will always have a duty to protect the privacy and preserve the dignity of all children because every child matters. We hope the [Supreme] Court remembers this. While the Illinois case won’t be heard before the Supreme Court this term, legal experts say that lawsuit—and others like it—had an important influence on the court’s decision to take up the transgender bathroom issue.

“[These cases] have shown that there’s a split on this issue and there is likely to continue to be one,” said Matt Sharp, a lawyer at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the 51 families in Palatine. “I think if every one of these cases had gone the wrong way, I don’t know that the court would have taken the Gloucester case.” The Gloucester County School Board, located in Virginia, says it’s pushing back on Grimm’s request to use the boys’ restrooms at Gloucester High School due to privacy concerns of other students. Instead, the school board offered private facilities for Grimm to use. Lawyers for the school board argue that the Obama administration overstepped its legal authority when it threatened to withhold federal funding if the school does not comply with the administration’s interpretation of Title IX. Title IX is the federal law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program. Whether Title IX applies to transgender students is at the heart of the transgender bathroom debate in schools. In May, the Obama administration issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to schools nationwide arguing that it does, and that schools must allow transgender students to use restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-specific facilities based on their gender identity.

The Daily Signal sought comment from the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Grimm in the Gloucester County case, but a representative did not reply before deadline. Parents and school boards across the nation objected to the Obama administration’s mandate, arguing that Title IX wasn’t intended to apply to a person’s gender identity. They argued that allowing students to use the restrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity rather than biological sex would violate the constitutional privacy rights of other students. Nationwide, at least 13 other lawsuits address the same issue. So far, courts have been divided in their rulings. Those cases include:

Pointing to the stay the Supreme Court issued in August, which allowed the Gloucester school district to keep restrooms and locker rooms separated by biological sex, they predicted that other school districts would follow suit. “Because the Supreme Court ordered that male and female bathrooms be preserved until it addresses the question on the merits, only an ideologically driven lower court would impose new gender identity policies in schools ahead of the decision,” said Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center at The Heritage Foundation. “Additionally, a federal court has ordered the [Obama] administration to stop threatening schools with funding cuts for not adopting radical new shower, bathroom, and locker policies, so the mischief should be contained until the Supreme Court decides,” Severino told The Daily Signal. This means the situation will not change in North Carolina, where a new law known as House Bill 2 sparked a national controversy during which the NCAA decided to relocate some of its national championship games from the state. The North Carolina law mandates that people use bathrooms and locker rooms in schools, public universities, and other government buildings based on the gender listed on their birth certificates.

A federal judge recently issued an injunction blocking the University of North Carolina from enforcing HB 2 and requiring the school to open its restrooms and locker rooms to students based on their gender identity. “If the [Supreme] Court rejects the administration’s radical gender theory in the Gloucester case, it will be a death blow to the government’s suit against North Carolina because it is based on the identical legal theory,” Severino said. A federal judge in Texas reached the opposite conclusion in a similar case brought by a Texas school district, issuing a nationwide injunction against the Obama administration’s transgender bathroom mandate and blocking enforcement. The Supreme Court decided to review issues in the Grimm case in Gloucester County, Virginia, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled in the transgender student’s favor. Looking at Supreme Court statistics, Sharp of Alliance Defending Freedom said, he is cautiously optimistic about the outcome. “If they take a case, the odds are they’re going to reverse the decision below,” Sharp said, adding: It’s not 100 percent, obviously, but generally the court’s not going to take a case and say the lower court got it right. That’s part of my cautious optimism with the Gloucester case—the odds are they’re going to say the 4th Circuit got it wrong in some regard because otherwise they would have just let that decision stand and waited until some other cases came up. However the Supreme Court decides, the ruling could be irrelevant if Congress votes to add gender identity to Title IX. That “would be incredible hard,” Sharp said, adding:

Yes, there’s always a possibility that a Democrat Congress can turn around and do that—that’s always been a risk—but I think it becomes harder and harder every year for them to do. I think one of the reasons is, there’s not discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity going on. There’s not a widespread problem … there’s no allegation that Gavin Grimm is being denied an education opportunity. But if Congress did act to add gender identity to Title IX, Sharp said, “at least it went through the Democratic process and not through an agency sending a letter to every school and mandating it.” “I wouldn’t like it,” the lawyer said, “but at least it’s democracy in action.”

Read more : dailysignal.com/2016/11/01/transgender-bathroom-cases-the-supreme-court-wont-hear-and-why-they-matter/

Bondsman in Seminole County – Legal hitches in NAB law to act against owners

Source     : KSN News
By             : EMMA GREY ELLIS
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford , Bondsman in Seminole County

Legal hitches in NAB law to act against owners

The top investigators of the country have revealed that no institution other than National Accountability Bureau (NAB) can probe the issue of offshore companies as only the bureau can seek information from other countries under mutual legal assistance but there are serious legal hitches in the NAB law to proceed against the ruling family and others. “Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) talks about the money laundering allegedly committed by selling steel mills ‘Gulf Steel’ in Dubai in 1980 in $9 million. But the problem is, even if the money was allegedly launder in 1980, the NAB cannot take action against any corrupt practice occurred before 1985 as the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Ordinance 1999 came into force from the 1st day of January 1985. Hence in order to take action against this particular issue there will be a need of constitutional amendment”, informed a top investigator on condition of anonymity.

Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, former president Supreme Court Bar Association while talking to The News says, without constitutional amendments the Judicial Commission on offshore companies would be a fruitless exercise and will meet the fate of Memogate Commission. The top investigators and the legal experts believe that in order to make the investigation against the ruling family effective, there would be need of constitutional amendment to NAB ordinance as it is the ultimate agency that can carry out investigations into the Panama papers and offshore companies issue. Otherwise the whole exercise of constituting judicial commission to probe Panama papers and offshore companies would bring no fruit.

The top investigators are of the view that according to PTI’s stance if the alleged money laundering of $9 million committed by Sharif family in 1980, even then it would not possible for NAB to take any action against the family as at that time none of the member of Sharif family was holding any public office. Unfortunately there is no law which could be exercised to hold any private citizen accountable in the alleged money laundering charges unless these are proved. When asked, according to NAB response to Supreme Court the bureau cannot initiate any inquiry, how NAB could be the major agency to carry out the probe. They believe that NAB itself cannot start investigation into the matter as there are several other government departments which need to initiate the inquiry first. The ultimate agency for investigating the offshore companies is NAB as no other government department including FIA can probe the matter.

The first step to initiate the inquiry into the offshore companies’ issue is that Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) starts the process, as this is a matter of tax exemption and tax evasion. The NAB’s role would be on the final stage. He said even FIA could not investigate the foreign transactions as only NAB was authorised to probe such matter. However, any investigation into such issue like Panama papers or any other offshore company would take more than six months as normally the foreign countries take a lot of time to fulfill their legal process before handing over the required documents. Another major hitch or obstacle in this issue is that all these information and points regarding alleged money laundering have already been discussed in the Lahore High Court which has acquitted the Sharif family in 2012. Hence, the question is when a person is already acquitted in a same case from high court, how difficult it would be for the complainant to get different verdict from another judicial forum. For this purpose the petitioners have to find out solid and conclusive evidence against the respondents. Otherwise it will face the same fate, commented the legal experts. Another question arises that the Supreme Court has already made it clear that it would give its verdict only on the basis of any conclusive evidence. It is not known to anyone whether PTI or any other petitioner has any evidence which could be termed “conclusive” before the apex court on the basis of which it could take any decision. The documents annexed with PTI petition include London High Court judgment, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s statement on May 16, 2016 and some other papers. However, even the honorable judges of the Supreme Court have questioned the counsel for PTI on the evidence and remarked that London High Court verdict has not mentioned Maryam Nawaz Sharif.

Talking to The News, Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, said the issue of alleged money laundering of Sharif family in 1980 was outside the legal ambit of NAB. There is a need of legislation without which this whole exercise would be fruitless. “The Supreme Court would have to face a difficult legal proposition that under what law it will constitute a commission and how it would delegate the powers to probe a matter which actually occurred some 36 years ago. In my opinion it’s a legal and political issue now and this could only be addressed through promulgation of an ordinance”, commented Syed Ali Zafar. Secondly there is a serious issue that NAB has no such law which could take action or initiate inquiry against a private citizen. Therefore before initiating any inquiry or probe against the ruling family they need legislation to delegate special powers to the Judicial Commission or even NAB. Therefore, he said to expect that the commission would finish its task in a month or two was not be possible as it might take at least three to six months.

Read more : thenews.com.pk/print/162296-Legal-hitches-in-NAB-law-to-act-against-owners

Seminole County Bail Bonds – Opposing sides in high court justice retention issue speak out

Source     : KSN News
By             : EMMA GREY ELLIS
Category : Seminole County Bail Bonds , Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Opposing sides in high court justice retention issue speak out

The controversy over whether to unseat the Kansas Supreme Court justices after they overturned the death sentences of the Carr brothers has more families of victims speaking out. In a news conference Wednesday, the family Jodi Sanderholm, an Arkansas City teen who was brutally murdered nine years ago, announced they are joining the group Kansans for Justice. The group wants to oust the current justices on the court. Jodi’s killer, Justin Thurber, was sentenced to death for her murder in 2009.

“My fear is that these judges are going to overturn his death sentence, and then my family is going to be put through more torture to where then we’ll have to file with the US Supreme Court,” said Jennifer Aldridge, Jodi Sanderholm’s sister. On the other side of the issue, the group Kansans for Fair Courts spoke in favor of keeping the supreme court justices. They say if the justices are thrown out, Governor Brownback will have the final say in appointing new judges.

“Why in the world would we give Governor Brownback the power to appoint five of the seven supreme court justices that could impact this state for up to two more decades?” asked Ryan Wright with Kansans for Fair Courts. Kansans will decide on November 8th if the judges will retain their seats on the high court.

Read more : ksn.com/2016/11/02/opposing-sides-in-high-court-justice-retention-issue-speak-out/

Bail Bond Seminole County – Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Case Involving Auer Deference

Source     : Natlaw Review
By             : Andrew R. Roberson & M. Miller Baker
Category :  Bail Bond Seminole County , Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Case Involving Auer Deference

The US Supreme Court (Supreme Court) granted certiorari in the case of Gloucester County Sch. Bd. V. G.G., No. 16-273, which involves a dispute as to whether an unpublished letter by a Department of Education (Department) official purporting to interpret the agency’s regulatory interpretation relating to discrimination on the basis of sex is entitled to Auer deference. The petition for writ of certiorari specifically asked the Court to consider three questions: (1) whether the Court should retain the Auer doctrine; (2) if Auer is retained, whether deference extends to the unpublished agency letter; and (3) with or without deference, whether the Department’s interpretation of its own regulation should be given effect. The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari was limited to Questions 2 and 3 presented by the petition.

We have previously discussed Auer deference in the tax context here and here. Although the Supreme Court has declined to address whether the Auer doctrine should be retained, it will be interesting to see if the Court follows its recent opinions in this area and further curtails the application of the doctrine given the unpublished form in which the Department’s interpretation was rendered in the Gloucester County case. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has taken the position in prior litigation that interpretations in unpublished IRS guidance are eligible for Auer deference. The Tax Court, on the other hand, has indicated that to be entitled to Auer deference an IRS pronouncement must be issued in published form so that taxpayers are aware of such guidance in preparing their tax returns.

Read more : natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-grants-certiorari-case-involving-auer-deference