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

Sanford Bail Bond – US Supreme Court Strengthens Fashion Copyright

Source     : Apparel News
By             : Andrew Asch
Category : Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bond

US Supreme Court Strengthens Fashion Copyright

The fashion business might become more litigious, thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision, according to a discussion about the court’s decision at law firm Freeman Freeman & Smiley LLP in Los Angeles’ Century City district. The Supreme Court made a decision March 22 on the case Star Athletica L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands Inc. At issue in the case was whether Varsity Brands could copyright an element of a cheerleading uniform such as a chevron or a stripe. The court voted 6–2 in favor of Varsity Brands, a Memphis, Tenn.–headquartered company that is the dominant manufacturer of cheerleading uniforms. It had sales of $1.2 billion in 2014, according to a statement from company owners Charlesbank Capital Partners.

On the day of the decision, Varsity Brands Chairman and Founder Jeff Webb said that the court ruling was a vindication for designers. “We were honored to serve as advocates and fighters for the basic idea that designers everywhere can create excellent work and make investments in their future without fear of having it stolen or copied,” Webb said in a statement. The Council of Fashion Designers of America wrote an amicus brief supporting Varsity Brands’ case. Todd M. Lander, an intellectual-property litigator with Freeman Freeman & Smiley, said that the decision would set the tone for fashion copyright for years. “I don’t see in the ensuing few years any real movement in the courts to restrict protection in textile designs,” he said during a March 23 discussion of the case at Freeman Freeman & Smiley’s office, which offers a panoramic view of West Los Angeles stretching to downtown. “If you are a manufacturer, you should assume that designs are protected irrespective of how generic or ubiquitous you believe designs are in the marketplace. If you lend money to manufacturers, this has become a cost of business. This will be part of the apparel industry for the foreseeable future.”

Lander said that litigation over textile copyright has dramatically increased in the past 15 years. Robert Ezra, head of Freeman Freeman & Smiley’s Fashion Law department, said that the recent decision might result in an uptick of copyright litigation. “Copyright protection has been expanded,” Ezra said. “The more rights a holder has, the more likelihood that there is a violation of those rights.”

During the case, lawyers for Star Athletica, a St. Louis–area company that also makes cheerleader uniforms, argued that design details such as chevrons, zigzags and stripes could not be separated from cheerleading uniforms. These details have no separate identities and cannot be protected by copyright. If details are taken away, the cheerleading uniform would be nothing but a dress, Star Athletica’s attorneys said. According to federal law, details from a garment must be recognizable by themselves, or must be able to stand alone from the garment, in order to be considered worthy of a copyright. While Star Athletica said that stripes, chevrons and other details on cheerleader uniforms were generic and could not be protected by copyright, Varsity Brands’ lawyers argued stripes, chevrons and other markings defined and created points of difference between cheerleading uniforms. Take the details away, a cheerleading uniform could be identified as a cheerleading uniform. Other manufacturers could make a garment with the same cheerleader’s silhouette and have it be identified as a cheerleader’s uniform. But companies such as Varsity Brands can copyright art details and protect them, Varsity Brands’ lawyers contended. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion of the court. “Just as two-dimensional fine art correlates to the shape of the canvas on which it is painted, two-dimensional applied art correlates to the contours of the article on which it is applied. The only feature of respondents’ cheerleading uniform eligible for a copyright is the two-dimensional applied art on the surface of the uniforms,” Thomas wrote. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer dissented from the opinion.

Ilse Metchek, president of the Los Angeles–based California Fashion Association, said that the ruling strengthens current law and reinforces the value of a copyright. “You cannot copyright the shape and pattern work of a garment,” she said, adding that the new ruling doesn’t deviate from existing copyright law, which protects original artwork. “It reestablishes the principle that art is protectable.” Companies looking to protect themselves from litigation might design their own prints, Freeman Freeman & Smiley’s Ezra said. A company could also confirm that fabric suppliers own the prints they sell and possess registration for them. If a company is willing to secure those working with the print against legal responsibility, the company has confidence in using the product.“There is a lot of clip art that is not copyrighted,” Ezra said. “If you need a tulip, go find a tulip in clip art. There are a lot of clip-art designs in the public domain.”

Read more here: apparelnews.net/news/2017/mar/30/us-supreme-court-strengthens-fashion-copyright/

Bondsman in Seminole County – European Court of Justice lays down the law on Kodipocalypse

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

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 off.

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

Seminole County Bail Bonds – Feds tell Supreme Court that mug shots should stay secret

Source     : USA Today News
By             : Sean Rossman
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Feds tell Supreme Court that mug shots should stay secret

The Justice Department won’t budge from its position that federal mug shots of criminals should be kept secret, arguing in a U.S. Supreme Court brief that jailhouse photos are “embarrassing, nonpublic” moments that add to defendants’ grief. The agency clarified its stance as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether federal law enforcement, like many states, should be required to hand over booking photos.

“Mug shots reveal much more than the sterile fact of arrest and booking,” the Justice Department wrote in a Supreme Court brief filed this month. “They graphically depict individuals in the embarrassing, nonpublic moment of their processing into the criminal justice system.” The case has been appealed to the nation’s highest court following a lawsuit brought by the Detroit Free Press newspaper. The Free Press, which is owned by Gannett, the publisher of USA TODAY and dozens of other newspapers, has challenged the federal government over its decision not to release the mug shots of four Michigan police officers charged with public corruption charges in 2013.

The Free Press has won four lawsuits over the issue. The agency’s response aligns with the rulings of three federal appeals courts, which determined the photos should be kept from the public. In July, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found the promotion of mug shots on the internet and social media have made booking photos more “embarrassing and humiliating” than before.

The Justice Department, in its latest response, played to the demeaning nature of the photos. “The adage that one picture is worth a thousand words is apt in this context,” the response said. “The visual depiction of the individual’s appearance at booking in a law-enforcement facility reflects a uniquely powerful and lasting image of what can be one of the most difficult episodes in an individual’s life.” Lawyers for the Free Press have contended the government is less interested in protecting the reputations of the accused, but rather want to have a grip on the flow of information to the press.

Read more here: usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/22/feds-tell-supreme-court-mug-shots-should-stay-secret/100787328/

Bail Bond Seminole County – Supreme Court rules for disabled girl, service dog

Source     : USA Today News
By             : Richard Wolf
Category :  Bail Bond Seminole County , Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Supreme Court rules for disabled girl, service dog

The proverb “every dog has its day” came true at the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the family of a 13-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and her goldendoodle, Wonder. In a case that was closely watched by the disability community, the high court ruled unanimously that Ehlena Fry’s family can pursue a lawsuit against her former public school district for denying access to her service dog.

Lower courts had ruled that the family first had to exhaust all administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act before seeking damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the justices ruled that if the family did not pursue a solution under IDEA, it can sidestep that process in search of its real goal: providing Ehlena with greater physical and emotional independence. “Nothing in the nature of the Frys’ suit suggests any implicit focus on the adequacy of (Ehlena’s) education,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote. “The Frys could have filed essentially the same complaint if a public library or theater had refused admittance to Wonder.”

Even so, the 8-0 ruling leaves open the possibility that a lower federal court still could require exhaustion of the IDEA administrative process, depending on further fact-finding. As often happens as court proceedings drag on, Ehlena was moved to a different Michigan elementary school that welcomed Wonder — now 10 and retired as a service dog — and even put the pooch’s mug shot in its yearbook. Over the years, the lawsuit against the Napoleon Community Schools became more about principle than keeping the girl and her goldendoodle together.

A number of justices had seemed sympathetic to the Frys’ argument during oral arguments in October. Forcing them to negotiate with school officials over Ehlena’s educational program seemed unfair, they said, when her education wasn’t the problem. Rather, the Frys wanted Wonder — not a human aide — to perform such tasks as helping Ehlena in the bathroom and through doorways. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer expressed concern that a decision in the Frys’ favor could allow families of children with disabilities to gain an advantage over school districts by threatening ADA lawsuits while negotiating their educational programs. But Roberts acknowledged that requiring the Frys to go through the IDEA process when their concerns were not about education was “a kind of charade.” The case was the first of two heard this term that could influence how schools handle children with disabilities. In January, the justices also appeared to side with the family of a Colorado student with autism seeking a more substantial education under the IDEA law. That case, likely to be decided this spring, could have a broader impact on thousands of students with disabilities.

Read more here: usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/22/supreme-court-disabled-girl-wonder-service-dog/98214948/

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – State’s high court to ‘ride the circuit,’ visit high school

Source     : MC Clatchy DC News
By             : The Associated Press
Category :  Bail Bondsman in Sanford , Bondsman in Seminole County

State’s high court to ‘ride the circuit,’ visit high school

The Rhode Island Supreme Court will hear oral arguments at Woonsocket High School in a tradition known as “riding the circuit.” The state’s high court will hear three cases at the school Wednesday. Chief Justice Paul Suttell says it’s an opportunity to take the court’s work out of Providence to show students and the public how their justice system works.

The court will hear arguments in a lawsuit involving serious injury to a man while target shooting, an appeal of a criminal conviction for robbery and an appeal of a criminal conviction for possession of a firearm.

The court revived the centuries-old tradition of traveling throughout its jurisdiction within the last 16 years to reach out to the community.

Read more here: mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article146277844.html