Bail Bondsman in Sanford – The Supreme Court Sets a Higher Standard for Special Education

Source     : Real Clear Education News
By             : Brian Rogers, Mihir Zaveri, and Gabrielle Banks
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford , Bondsman in Seminole County

The Supreme Court Sets a Higher Standard for Special Education

Amid the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearings, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District and handed down what may prove to be the most important special education ruling in thirty-five years. The unanimous decision in Endrew F. smacks down the Rowley decision which has, since 1982, fueled an often-contentious relationship between parents and school districts. It was tough news for a man awaiting confirmation to the highest court as Gorsuch had supported the Rowley standard as a federal judge in the Tenth Circuit. Despite that drama, the Endrew F. ruling is good news for children, families and special educators, and a crucial milestone in the 40th year of implementing federal special education law. Under Rowley, public schools were only required to establish a floor for opportunity through their special education programs. The Endrew F. decision ruled that a floor, alone, was insufficient. It reflects a belief in the potential of all students by requiring that schools offer “an IEP [individualized education plan] reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”  Endrew F. is not specific; it does not prescribe a definition of progress or offer grade level equivalents that are the basis of mainstream schooling.  The Endrew F. case shifts the position of the school district from one that must satisfy a minimum standard to one that must offer a reasonable hope of progress and in doing so, takes a step toward fulfilling the promise of special education that started with President Ford’s signing of Public Law 94-142 in 1975.

Few teachers today can remember the “bad old days” when a school administrator could refuse to enroll a child with a disability. When Congress passed Public Law 94-142, it was focused on the million children who were excluded from public schools and on the lack of quality services for many of those severely challenged children who were enrolled. It became illegal after the law to exclude children from school because of a disability. The law was rooted in a commitment to access—all children are entitled to a public education. But the law was not written for benefit. Public Law 94-142 and its successor, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), do not set academic, social or behavioral expectations. The law watched after the outcomes for children by giving parents an unprecedented role in designing and approving the program for their children. Giving parents a voice in their child’s IEP was an amazing feat. Congress knew that parents were not educators and that many parents lacked an adequate education themselves. But Congress also knew that parents love their children. Giving parents a voice was revolutionary in 1975 and still remarkable today. But the administrative realities of having mom and dad engaged in the IEP process mounted as the number of children covered under the law grew to more than 6 million.

Perhaps it should be no surprise that a law designed to address access ultimately failed to advance equity. Compliance superseded opportunity as the law’s primary focus. Sadly, the cost of compliance fueled fiscal nightmares for state and district leaders. Special education became a maintenance system for too many students whose disabilities remained static. Serving the students was mandatory; improving their lot in life was not. But Endrew F. changes that. The reauthorization of IDEA now looms large and presents an opportunity for the U.S. Department of Education to recapture the high ground in special education. While President Trump’s “skinny budget” showed no decrease in support for special education, it also showed no increase or no move to the full funding that has eluded federally guided special education since its implementation. Endrew F. is an upgrade for children and a concomitant increase in expenditures for school districts. States and districts will now look for guidance and leadership from an understaffed U.S. Department of Education in the application of Endrew F. In recent decades, special education has drifted from its role as a champion of access and of care for those with disabilities to a compliance-driven model. Children should not have to pay for the organizational inadequacies of the education system or for the underfunding of special education. But they do. The Endrew F. decision provides a mandate for school districts to move beyond de minimus and toward appropriate progress. It’s a step in the right direction and a move in keeping with the law’s original intent as a champion for those with disabilities.

Read more here : realcleareducation.com/articles/2017/04/11/the_supreme_court_sets_a_higher_standard_for_special_education__110141.html

Bail Bonds Sanford – New bill could make fantasy sports games legal in AL again

Source     : WBRC News
By             : Ugochi Iloka
Category :  Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

New bill could make fantasy sports games legal in AL again

If you were big into fantasy sports before they became illegal in Alabama, you may have a chance to do it all again. Senator Paul Sanford who’s sponsoring the Fantasy sports bill said they expect to vote on it in the Senate next week.

What’s different this time is taxes will be involved but don’t worry for the most part you won’t be paying for it. The operators for games like DraftKings and FanDuel fantasy platforms will be footing the tax bill. Senator Sanford said in the House they decided the games don’t fall under the state’s anti-gambling regulations, Ben Blackwell who was in town for a Dave Matthews Concert agrees.“I don’t consider it gambling I think it’s more like a gentleman friendly betting kind of game but it’s not really for the money. This has got skill involved if you don’t know what you are doing you’re not going to win,” said Blackwell.

Blackwell said people should have the option to choose whether to play, the fantasy sports sites.“It’s good fun to have with your friends that’s all it is. I don’t even understand why it’s illegal,” said Blackwell. Especially when there is a big demand Senator Sanford tells me 700,00 Alabamians were playing in 2014 when fantasy sports wasn’t illegal. Blackwell explains why the games are entertaining. “At the end of the season you get some bragging rights and rub it in people’s nose a bit,” said Blackwell.

In the bill operators of the game would be taxed 85-thousand dollars annually and pay 6 percent of their gross receipts to the state. “If Alabama can prosper from a little piece of that pie and everybody can have fun who cares,” said Blackwell. Senator Sanford said if you win a prize from playing fantasy sports you would have to claim it on your income tax per the bill.

Read more here : wbrc.com/story/35337417/new-bill-could-make-fantasy-sports-games-legal-in-al-again

Bail Bonds in Sanford – European Court of Justice lays down the law on Kodipocalypse

Source     : The Register News
By             : Andrew Orlowski
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

European Court of Justice lays down the law on Kodipocalypse

Europe’s highest court has made it easier for member states to halt the sale of media sticks with preloaded pirate streaming links and add-ons. The past few months have seen significant growth in pre-configured streaming boxes or USB sticks. These use the Kodi platform, an open-source player, configured by a vendor with add-ons that enable access to pirate TV services.

The UK has approved realtime blocks by ISPs during popular Premier League games until the end of the English season to gauge the effectiveness of blocking the streams at source. Meanwhile, trading standards officers and police have launched raids on vendors. The European Court of Justice was invited to give its opinion on a Dutch district court case involving a vendor of one player, filmspeler.nl. The court today decreed that the vendor’s actions constituted a “communication to the public”.

This is a peculiar doctrine specific to European law, not found in the Berne Convention, which some of Europe’s top legal experts believe is based on a mistranslation. URLs were deemed not to be a “communication to the public” last September. It’s a cumbersome analog to the idea of secondary liability, which takes into account intent, as it did for Grokster in the US Supreme Court in 2005. But the advantage for legal wonks and lawyers in Europe is that they can continue to evolve the concept for years to come. Only a cynic would suggest that lawyers and legal academics profit from such confusion, so we won’t.

The ECJ decided that:
In the present case and having regard, in particular, to the content of the advertising of the multimedia player and to the fact that the main attraction of that player for potential purchasers is the pre-installation of the add-ons concerned, the Court finds that the purchaser of such a player accesses a free and unauthorised offer of protected works deliberately and in full knowledge of the circumstances.

The media player was clearly being sold for a profit, so that’s that, the court ruled.

Read more here : theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/ecj_kodi_addons/

Sanford Bail Bonds – Supreme Court: Cities can sue banks under U.S. housing law

Source     : DenverPost News
By             : Mark Sherman | The Associated Press
Category :  Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bonds

Supreme Court: Cities can sue banks under U.S. housing law

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that cities may sue banks under the federal anti-discrimination in housing law but said those lawsuits must tie claims about predatory lending practices among minority customers directly to declines in property taxes. The justices’ 5-3 ruling partly validated a novel approach by Miami and other cities to try to hold banks accountable under the federal Fair Housing Act for the wave of foreclosures during the housing crisis a decade ago.

But the court still threw out an appellate ruling in Miami’s favor and ordered a lower court to re-examine the city’s lawsuit against Wells Fargo and Bank of America to be sure that there is a direct connection between the lending practices and the city’s losses. Miami claimed that Wells Fargo and Bank of America, as well as Citigroup, pursued a decadelong pattern of targeting African-American and Hispanic borrowers for costlier and riskier loans than those offered to white customers. The loans to minority homeowners went into default more quickly as well, the city said.

Wells Fargo and Bank of America appealed the ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing that cities can’t use the Fair Housing Act to sue over reductions in tax revenues. The banks said the connection between a loan and the tax consequences is too tenuous. Citigroup did not appeal, though its lawsuit also would be affected by what the appeals court does in response to Monday’s ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his majority opinion a city can make claim for financial harm under the anti-discrimination housing law. But he said the second issue, tying the loans to the drop in tax revenues, is more difficult. Breyer wrote that there must be “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.”

The appeals court should decide that issue, Breyer said. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have given the banks what they asked for and dismissed Miami’s lawsuit. Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy sided with Thomas. The banks claimed that a ruling for Miami could lead to lawsuits asking for billions of dollars. The city said those fears were unjustified and pointed to similar lawsuits filed by Baltimore and Memphis, Tennessee, that were settled for less than $10 million each.

Read more here : denverpost.com/2017/05/01/supreme-court-us-housing-law-cities-sue-banks/

Bail Bond Sanford – Gorsuch On Sidelines As Supreme Court Decides Insurance, Legal Sanctions Cases

Source     : Forbes News
By            : Daniel Fisher
Category :  Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bond

Gorsuch On Sidelines As Supreme Court Decides Insurance, Legal Sanctions Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions today affecting legal sanctions and the power of states to control insurance contracts, noting in each one the non-participation of the court’s newest Justice, Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch heard his first oral arguments yesterday and will likely contribute to a few decisions before the end of the session, restoring the court’s 9-0 roster after more than a year of operating with a deadlock-prone eight justices following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In Coventry Health Care v. Nevils, the nation’s highest court reversed its equivalent in Missouri, ruling that federal law trumps a Missouri statute prohibiting insurance companies from collecting medical expenses from the lawsuit winnings of policyholders.

The 8-0 decision rejected the Missouri Supreme Court’s reasoning that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to overrule state laws, doesn’t extend to contractual provisions of health insurance policies provided to federal employees. Coventry had demanded that plaintiff Jodie Nevils repay $6,592 in medical expenses from a car accident that he later recovered in a lawsuit against the driver of the other vehicle. Missouri, like several other states, has laws prohibiting insurers from collecting from policyholders in such conditions, a process known as subrogation. But Congress clearly intended federal law governing health policies for government employees to preempt any law regarding the payment of benefits, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the unanimous opinion.

The court sent the case back to Missouri for reconsideration after the Office of Personnel Management issued an opinion asserting preemption. But the Missouri Supreme Court held its ground, saying the Supremacy Clause only affects “laws,” not contractual terms between the government and private insurers. Ginsburg dismissed the distinction as “semantics” and ordered the case reversed and remanded. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence agreeing in the judgment but voicing concern that the federal law could give the President unconstitutionally broad powers to dictate the terms of contracts. But since nobody brought up that argument, he said, it should be left to the lower courts to consider on remand. The court also decided unanimously, in Goodyear Tire v. Haeger, that the oft-overturned Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals got it wrong again when it upheld $2.7 million in sanctions against the tire maker for failing to turn over potentially incriminating evidence in a lawsuit over a tire blowout. The lower court approved of the sanctions because Goodyear’s behavior was “truly egregious,” but it should have restricted sanctions to legal fees the plaintiffs incurred directly because of the missing evidence. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion.

Read more here: forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/04/18/gorsuch-on-sidelines-as-supreme-court-decides-insurance-legal-sanctions-cases/#408326a73fb2