Sanford Bail Bond – New Chief Justice named for WV Supreme Court of Appeals

Source    : WVVA News
By            : Paul Hess, WVVA Internet Director
Category : Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bond

New Chief Justice named for WV Supreme Court of Appeals

Tucker County native Allen H. Loughry II will become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for the first time on January 1, 2017. Chief Justice Loughry, the first Justice from Tucker County, will exercise a unique leadership role as the presiding officer and head of the state’s judicial branch of government. The Chief Justice acts as the administrative leader of the Supreme Court and the state’s lower courts. In addition to presiding over oral arguments, an important daily duty of the Chief Justice is to rule on motions to recuse judicial officers in lower courts and to assign replacement magistrates, family court judges, and circuit court judges when one of those judicial officers is unable to serve in a particular case due to a conflict of interest. “I am enormously honored to have the opportunity to serve as Chief Justice,” he said. “I will work hard to do the best job I can in moving the court system forward. The elected judicial officers and our court employees in West Virginia do an excellent job, and I am proud to be a part of our judicial system.” A native of Parsons and a graduate of Tucker County High School, he said he believes that his parents as well as his small town upbringing have benefitted him throughout his professional career and will help him during his term as Chief Justice. “Growing up in a small community and having supportive parents taught me the values of honesty, integrity, and hard work,” he said.

Outside of his daily judicial responsibilities, Chief Justice Loughry focuses on his initiative, the “Leaders of Tomorrow Program.” By speaking about the court system and his judicial philosophy to groups of students and to youth organizations, he tries to teach leadership skills, the need to focus on academic success, and the importance of honesty, accountability, and making a positive difference in their communities. “It’s important to me to send the message to our next generation of young West Virginians that they do matter, they do count, and they can achieve anything they set their minds to if they work hard and play by the rules,” Chief Justice Loughry said. “I have always believed that an average person, if qualified, should be able to participate in the political process regardless of their income, political connections, race, gender, or class.” Chief Justice Loughry believes Justices play an important role in promoting confidence in the state’s judiciary. “Justices should treat everyone the same and follow the law rather than follow a political agenda,” he said. “The Supreme Court should never be political. Justices must be able to make impartial decisions based solely upon our laws. The process must be fair whether we are dealing with a baker or a billionaire. This is necessary for both individual liberty and economic prosperity and serves even a far more important goal of maintaining public trust in the legal system as it keeps the other political branches in check.” He was humbled when he was elected to the Supreme Court in 2012.

“I am deeply honored that West Virginians voted for me four years ago and allowed me to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court,” Chief Justice Loughry said. “I said during my campaign that if the citizens of this State would honor me with their votes, that I would serve them with honor, and that is how I approach this job on a daily basis, and that is certainly how I will approach the job as the Chief Justice.” Chief Justice Loughry has a bachelor’s of science degree in journalism from West Virginia University. While at the University, he worked as a reporter for The Parsons Advocate and also wrote for the [Morgantown] Dominion Post and was a freelance writer for The Associated Press. Chief Justice Loughry also obtained four law degrees: an S.J.D. (Doctor of Juridical Science) from American University, Washington College of Law, where he had the distinction of being one of the first three people (and the only one from North America) to be admitted to the SJD program. Justice Loughry also has an LL.M. (Master of Laws in Criminology and Criminal Justice) from the University of London; an LL.M. (Master of Laws in Law and Government) from American University, Washington College of Law; and a JD (Juris Doctor) degree from Capital University School of Law, where he graduated with the honor of Order of the Curia. On October 4, 2013, the American University, Washington College of Law awarded him its Distinguished Alumnus Award.

In 1999, Chief Justice Loughry completed the program of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law through the American University, Washington College of Law Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, and the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, Institute of Human Rights. He also studied law in England at the University of Oxford and received the program’s top political science award. In 1997, he completed a legal externship at the Ohio Supreme Court. He also served as a personal assistant to the Tucker County Prosecuting Attorney in 1988 and 1989. Justice Loughry served as a Special Assistant to former U.S. Rep. Harley O. Staggers, Jr., and as a Direct Aide to former West Virginia Governor Gaston Caperton. Justice Loughry was a Senior Assistant Attorney General in the West Virginia Attorney General’s Office from 1997 to 2003. He served in both the Appellate and Administration Divisions and was appointed as a special prosecuting attorney on numerous occasions to handle criminal cases throughout West Virginia. In 2003 he began working as a law clerk at the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, a job he held when he was elected to the Court. In 2006, he published the book Don’t Buy Another Vote, I Won’t Pay for a Landslide, a non-partisan look at West Virginia’s history of political corruption.

Read more : wvva.com/story/34131821/2016/12/26/new-chief-justice-named-for-wv-supreme-court-of-appeals

Bondsman in Seminole County – Supreme Courts National Anthem order – Is it law-asks legal expert

Source     : First Post News
By             : FP Staff
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford , Bondsman in Seminole County

Supreme Courts National Anthem order – Is it law-asks legal expert

The Supreme Court’s Wednesday order that all cinema theatres should play the National Anthem before a movie is screened has come under immense criticism. Gautam Bhatia, who practices law in Delhi and teaches visiting courses at the National University of Juridical Sciences, in his blog post — The Illegality of the Supreme Court’s National Anthem Order — came down heavily on Supreme Court’s order and said that the observation made by the apex court is an example of “judicial censorship”. Bhatia writes: Judicial censorship is suo motu judicial action restricting the freedom of speech, in the absence of an existing law. In my view, judicial censorship is not contemplated by the Constitution, and judicial orders that engage in this form of censorship are illegal and void.

Arguing that the freedom of speech and expression can only be restricted (cites Article Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2)) with an existing law and in the absence of which one cannot impede it, Bhatia questions the legality or the illegality of Supreme Court’s order. (If) Supreme Court judgments and orders were to constitute “law” under Article 13, then every such judgment or order would be subject to a further fundamental rights challenge. Dipak Misra J’s order, for instance, could be challenged in a separate writ petition by either the cinema owners or cinema-goers as a violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Perhaps this might not be such a bad thing, but in Naresh Mirajkar vs State of Maharashtra, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court categorically held that this could not be done.

In the end, Bhatia argues that the Supreme Court argument is only justified under Article 142 which authorises the Court to pass any decree or order “necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.” However, Article 142 also specifies that this must be done in “the exercise of its jurisdiction.” If my argument is correct, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to restrict speech in the absence of a law, simply by passing orders. And Article 142 cannot be a carte blanche to do anything that takes judicial fancy on any given day.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that the National Anthem must be played in public theaters across the country before a movie, minus any dramatisation. It also ordered that the national flag be shown on screen when the anthem is played. The apex court directed the Centre that the order should be given effect in a week’s time and be circulated to all the states and Union Territories. A bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Amitava Roy said that this would instill a feeling of constitutional patriotism and nationalism. “It is the duty of every citizen to abide by the ideals ingrained in the Constitution and as such show respect to the National Anthem and the national flag,” the bench said. “People must feel this is my country and this is my motherland,” the bench said. “At the root of protocol for national anthem, is respect for national identity, integrity and constitutional patriotism,” the bench said.

Read more : firstpost.com/india/supreme-courts-national-anthem-order-is-it-law-asks-legal-expert-in-blog-post-3133960.html

Seminole County Bail Bonds – Police can shoot dog if it barks or moves, court rules

Source     : NBC 26 News
By             : Mina Abgoon
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Police can shoot dog if it barks or moves, court rules

Police are permitted to shoot a dog if it moves or barks when an officer enters a home, according to a federal court ruling. The decision comes after a 2013 incident in Michigan that left two dogs dead, FOX 32 reports. Police were executing a search warrant on a home, looking for drugs, when they shot and killed two dogs.

Mark and Cheryl Brown filed a petition with the court to hold the officers of Battle Creek responsible for the deaths of two pit bulls, according to FOX 32. One officer testified that he shot the first pit bull after it moved a few inches in an alleged “lunge” towards him. The dog then ran away from the officer to the basement, where it was shot again and killed, according to court documents.

Another officer reportedly shot the second dog in the basement after it simply barked. According to the documents, the officer saw “there was blood coming out of numerous holes in the dog and…did not want to see it suffer so he put her out of her misery and fired the last shot.” In court, the Brown family apparently failed to prove that the dogs neither lunged nor barked. Judge Eric Clay wrote in the decision that — viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer — the dog posed “an imminent threat to the officer’s safety.” He further wrote,“The standard we set out today is that a police officer’s use of deadly force against a dog while executing a search warrant to search a home for illegal drug activity is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when…the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety.”

Read more : nbc26.com/news/national/police-can-shoot-dog-if-it-barks-or-moves-court-rules

Bail Bond Seminole County – Give judges a role in legal regulation, Society suggests

Source     : lawgazette News
By             : Michael Cross
Category : Bail Bond Seminole County , Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Give judges a role in legal regulation, Society suggests

Giving the judiciary a role in appointments to the Legal Services Board could help protect the independence of the legal profession, the Law Society has suggested. Responding to the government’s call for opinions on the future existence and shape of the legal super-regulator, Chancery Lane warns of the international perception that the LSB is an arm of the state.

‘Therefore it is critical that the LSB not only acts independently from governmental control, but is also seen to be independent from governmental control,’ the Society says. One way to do this would be to further remove the appointments process to the LSB from the state. ‘One way to achieve this would be to give more control over LSB appointments to senior judges,’ it suggests.

The proposal follows a call last month by the lord chief justice for judges to have a role in regulation to protect advocacy standards. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd told the House of Commons justice committee that judges’ interests should be represented whenever changes are made to the legal regulatory framework. Consultation on the government’s ‘tailored review’ into the LSB and Office for Legal Complaints closed on 24 November. The Society said it had ‘a number of observations’ which cut across the questions raised in the consultation, so its response takes the form of a paper rather than specific answers. Among to topics it raises is the LSB exceeding its remit. ‘One example where, in the Society’s opinion, the LSB did go beyond the scope of its role was in the publication of a briefing paper on Alternatives to Handling Client Money,’ it states.

‘The briefing raised concerns around the risks of authorised persons holding client money without consideration of the significant benefits that this brings to the market. The briefing did not identify the risks inherent in any alternative proposal.’ Another example is the LSB’s research on the unregulated sector. ‘In the Society’s opinion, the LSB should not divert its limited resources away from its core role of overseeing the frontline regulators.’

However the Society notes examples where the LSB ‘has provided effective challenge to the frontline regulators’. For example it notes that in 2014 the LSB refused to approve an application from the Solicitors Regulation Authority to reduce the minimum level of professional indemnity insurance. ‘The Society also believes that the LSB has done a good job providing oversight and challenge to the Legal Ombudsman in respect of its operations.’It also describes the LSB’s approach to transparency as ‘very positive’.

Read more : lawgazette.co.uk/law/give-judges-a-role-in-legal-regulation-society-suggests/5059183.article

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – Belfast gay-themed cake case will not go to UK supreme court

Source     : The Guardian News
By             : Article Release
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford , Bondsman in Seminole County

Belfast gay-themed cake case will not go to UK supreme court

Northern Ireland’s attorney general cannot refer back to the supreme court the case of a local bakery fined for refusing to bake a gay-themed cake. John Larkin QC’s legal bid to get the supreme court to review court rulings against Ashers Bakery was deemed to have come in too late, Northern Ireland’s lord chief justice said on Wednesday. In October the court of appeal in Belfast upheld a conviction that found Ashers guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a pro-same sex marriage themed cake. The family-owned firm in the original case was also ordered to pay £500 compensation to the local gay rights activist Gareth Lee, whose legal action was backed by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

Lee had tried to buy a cake depicting the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie below the motto “Support gay marriage” for an event to mark International Day Against Homophobia in 2014. In his ruling on Wednesday the lord chief justice, Declan Morgan, said that the attorney general’s move came after the case against the McArthur family-owned firm had ended. “We do not consider there are exceptional circumstances in this case which require us to re-open proceedings,” Sir Declan said in his judgement. The rejection of Larkin’s request for a supreme court hearing came about after lawyers for the McArthur family were also refused a plea to appeal the verdict in the same court seven days ago.

The Ashers case has received international attention, and highlighted the tensions between gay rights reformers and the politically influential and socially conservative born-again Christian lobby within Northern Ireland. Gareth Lee placed his order at Ashers Bakery shortly after the Democratic Unionist party used its power of veto in the Northern Ireland assembly to block moves to make gay marriage legal in the province. The region is the only part of the UK where same-sex marriage is still not recognised in law. Lee claimed the baker’s refusal to bake his cake made him feel “like a lesser person” and so he made a formal complaint with the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland who acted on his behalf though the courts. The DUP has a strong base in the province’s evangelical Christian community and was founded out of the late Dr Ian Paisley’s Free Presbyterian church. The party has consistently blocked proposals in the assembly from other parties including their main partners in government, Sinn Féin, to legalise gay marriage.

Read more : theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/belfast-gay-themed-cake-case-will-not-go-uk-supreme-court

Bail Bonds Sanford – European Court Hands Down Data Collection Curb

Source     : Wall Street Journal News
By             : JENNY GROSS
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

European Court Hands Down Data Collection Curb

European governments can’t require internet companies to retain data indiscriminately, the European Union’s top court said Wednesday in a ruling that could complicate their efforts to expand surveillance powers. The decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union is the latest blow to law enforcement authorities in Europe who say they need access to communications data to fight terrorism and other crime. The ruling is a boost for privacy advocates and paves the way for further legal challenges against surveillance laws in EU countries, including the U.K., where sweeping new measures will come into effect next year. The ruling says surveillance laws that allow for “general and indiscriminate” retention of electronic communications are unlawful because they allow authorities to draw conclusions about people’s private lives.

The verdict came in reply to legal challenges against new data retention laws in Sweden and in Britain, which just passed measures requiring communications companies to keep records of every website and messaging services that individuals have accessed for a year. A debate over data collection by governments has flared in Europe and the U.S. since Edward Snowden, the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor, leaked documents that shone an uncomfortable spotlight on surveillance powers in the U.S. and the U.K. While intelligence authorities say they need broader surveillance powers to keep pace with advances in technology to combat threats from terrorists and other criminals, privacy advocates say bulk collection of data is ineffective and unlawful.

Over the last decade, data-retention laws in several countries, including Germany, have been struck down on privacy grounds. Last year, a court in The Hague said a Dutch data retention law, which requires telecom providers to collect and store data for as long as 12 months, violates citizens’ right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data. In 2014, the ECJ stuck down the bloc’s data retention directive, paving the way for the appeals that gave rise to this case. The ruling raises questions about whether parts of Britain’s controversial law could be overturned. Privacy advocates, including British lawmaker Tom Watson who filed the lawsuit, said the judgment proves elements of the U.K. law are unlawful.

David Davis, the minister who is overseeing Britain’s exit from the EU, had jointly challenged the U.K. government with Mr. Watson but dropped out when he was appointed to Prime Minister Theresa May’s cabinet in July. “Most of us can accept that our privacy may occasionally be compromised in the interests of keeping us safe, but no one would consent to giving the police or the government the power to arbitrarily seize our phone records or emails to use as they see fit,” Mr. Watson said in a statement after the ruling. The U.K. government said it was disappointed with the judgment. A spokeswoman said the government is considering the judgment’s potential implications and that it would ensure plans are in place so that officials can continue to acquire data in a way that is consistent with EU law.

Julian King, the European Commissioner for the Security Union, said officials will need to look at the ruling in detail to see what impact it will have on the bloc’s rules and counterterror efforts. “There are implications that the member state directly concerned will no doubt be looking at. And there may be wider implications that we need to look at but it’s too early to say,” he said in a press conference. The ruling also raises questions about transferring data between the U.K. and other European countries once the U.K. leaves the EU, a potential complication for law enforcement authorities.

Read More : wsj.com/articles/european-court-hands-down-data-collection-curb-1482334547

Bail Bonds in Sanford – New US Okinawa base backed by Japan Supreme Court

Source     : BBC News
By             : Agency Press
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

New US Okinawa base backed by Japan Supreme Court

Japan’s Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the government’s plan to relocate a US airbase to a remote part of the island of Okinawa.The island’s governor wanted the base moved off Okinawa altogether and built in another part of Japan.

The US has about 26,000 troops and several bases in Okinawa as part of a deal with Japan after World War Two. Many Okinawans, including the governor, object to the alleged crimes and accidents attributed to the troops.

The government wants to move the US Futenma airbase from its densely populated site to a more remote area. Land reclamation work has already begun off the shore of Camp Schwab, the US base in Henoko, south of Nago city.

But construction work was suspended in March while judges heard the case. Resentment at the US presence has been growing among Okinawans, particularly since the 1995 gang-rape of a 12-year-old girl by US troops. Residents have also complained about the environmental impact of land reclamation.

Read More : bbc.com/news/world-asia-38381107

Sanford Bail Bonds – House Panel Urges New Law for U.S. Cellphone Surveillance

Source     : Wall Street Journal News
By             : DEVLIN BARRETT
Category : Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bonds

House Panel Urges New Law for U.S. Cellphone Surveillance

A House committee has recommended Congress pass a new law to create national standards for how police officers and federal agents use powerful cellphone tracking technology in their investigations. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee staffers issued a bipartisan report Monday, the result of a yearlong probe launched after The Wall Street Journal and others wrote about how investigators were scanning innocent people’s cellphones without search warrants to try to find criminals.

The technology, known as cell-site simulation, essentially mimics a cellphone tower, forcing all the phones in range to identify themselves, even if it means those phones drop calls or otherwise have their service disrupted. Such devices have a variety of brand names or nicknames, including dirtbox, Stingray and Hailstorm. The Journal reported in 2014 that the U.S. Marshals used such devices in small Cessna airplanes around the country to hunt for fugitives. From the air, those devices are capable of scanning tens of thousands of phones at a time in order to hunt for a single suspect’s phone. The Journal also reported the Marshals developed the technology with help from the Central Intelligence Agency. The Marshals have since used the airborne devices in conducting armed raids on drug suspects in Mexico.

The committee, led by chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) and ranking member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), launched its investigation in the wake of those reports and others. Five months later, the Justice Department announced it was revising policies on use of the technology by its investigative agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Marshals. As part of the new guidelines, all Justice Department agencies now have to get a warrant from a judge before using such devices, authorities said, though there are some exceptions. “Documents and information obtained by the committee confirmed varying standards for employing cell-site simulation devices among federal, state, and local law enforcement,’’ the report concluded. For years, the federal government and many states didn’t require a search warrant to deploy such a device, and some states still don’t.

The committee found that the Justice Department has 310 such devices, and the Department of Homeland Security has 124 of them. Such technologies, the report concluded, “represent a valuable law enforcement tool, but their domestic use has obvious and serious implications for citizens’ Constitutional rights…There must be a universal and well-understood standard by which these technologies are deployed.’’

A Justice Department spokesman said policy changes made last year “enhanced transparency and accountability, improved training and supervision, established a higher and more consistent legal standard and increased privacy protections in relation to law enforcement’s use of this critical technology.” The report calls for Congress to create clear rules for how the government—and private entities—use such devices. Until that happens, the committee said, the Justice Department and DHS shouldn’t fund such technology for local police unless those police agencies agree to certain privacy standards. The panel also urged authorities to stop hiding facts about the devices from judges and courts trying to weigh the rights of suspects.

Read More : wsj.com/articles/house-panel-urges-new-law-for-u-s-cellphone-surveillance-1482178238

Bail Bond Sanford – Xerox ordered to pay $4.9 million in legal fees

Source    : Democrat and Chronicle
By            : Gary Craig
Category : Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bond

Xerox ordered to pay $4.9 million in legal fees

A federal judge has ordered Xerox Corp. to pay nearly $4.9 million to the lawyers of employees who alleged that the company once secretly used a mechanism that significantly reduced workers’ pensions. U.S. District Judge David Larimer ordered Xerox to pay the attorney fees in a ruling last week. The Xerox lawsuit, filed in 2000, has traveled a twisting journey, twice reaching a federal appellate court and once making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The lawsuit was filed by employees who once left the company — either by choice or layoff — then later returned. While the number of affected employees who sued was only about 100, the lawsuit was widely watched because of questions about Xerox’s apparent lack of transparency with its pension calculations. The federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, allows lawsuits from pensioners who believe they have been illegally shortchanged or cheated. Larimer’s ruling about the legal fees noted the complexity of the case, and said that Xerox has the wherewithal to pay.

“There is no question that Xerox can satisfy an award of fees, and I believe that an award would serve to deter similar ERISA violations in the future,” Larimer ruled. Xerox officials declined to comment on the ruling. The lawsuit focused on Xerox’s use of so-called “phantom (pension) accounts,” a practice it has since stopped.

The practice worked like this: An employee leaves the company and is given a lump-sum pension. Later the worker returns, thinking a pension is starting again with years of service in place. However, Xerox instead created the phantom account, which calculated how much the earlier pension would have earned if invested in the market. Xerox then added the earlier lump-sum pension amount and its estimated earnings and subtracted it from the later pension. That practice, which employees said was used without their knowledge, practically wiped out the second pension for many.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs sought $7.6 million in fees. Larimer reduced the amount, saying there was some “fat” that could be trimmed, that a different hourly fee should be used, and that the billing records of the original attorney, who is now deceased, could not be completely reconstructed. California attorney Peter Stris, who now represents the Xerox employee who first sued, said in an email, “Judge Larimer has ordered Xerox to pay our firm nearly $5 million of attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 days. That said, other motions remain pending. So this epic litigation will soon continue into its 17th year.” Still to be resolved is an interest calculation on the payouts. In 2012 Xerox released about $10 million in pensions to those who had sued — money taken either in lump sums or annuities. Before that, the retirees had received no pension payments since the lawsuit was filed. A federal appellate ruling in 2013 prompted a recalculation of the money owed the pensioners, and another $6.5 million was awarded. The legal fees are separate from the $16.5 million awarded to pensioners.

Read More : democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2016/12/18/xerox-ordered-pay-49-million-legal-fees/95517348/

Sanford Bail Bond – Abortion Law Changes and Legal Implications

Source     : WYSO News
By             : JERRY KENNEY
Category :  Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bond

Abortion Law Changes and Legal Implications

Ohio Governor John Kasich Tuesday took action on two bills restricting abortion in the state. One measure, known as the heartbeat bill, would have banned abortions at a fetus’ first detectable heartbeat, which could come as early as six weeks for some women, who may not yet realize they are pregnant.

The governor vetoed that bill, saying it would never survive a court challenge and would cost taxpayers thousands of dollars.

But Kasich did sign a second bill into law outlawing abortions after 20 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest. Existing Ohio law bans abortions after 24 weeks. For Politics Ohio, WYSO’s Jerry Kenney spoke with Robert Vaughn, assistant professor of criminology at Cedarville University, about how the 20-week bill changes the current abortion law in Ohio and what potential legal challenges may lie ahead.

Read More : wyso.org/post/politics-ohio-abortion-law-changes-and-legal-implications#stream/0