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

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 Bonds Sanford – Corporations and rivers now have rights. Animals are next

Source     : Philly News
By             : Stu Bykofsky
Category :  Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Corporations and rivers now have rights. Animals are next

In a stunning move, India last month granted “living person” status to the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, making polluting the rivers akin to assaulting a human. A week earlier, New Zealand made the Whanganui River a “living entity” with legal rights. Sound crazy? Maybe less so when you remember that in the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby cases, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled companies are like people and have certain rights.

If rivers and businesses have rights, why not animals, ask animal advocates excited by the river rulings.“Legal personhood is not determined by biology, but by public policy,” argues Steven Wise, founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project. For decades he has been a lawyer for what he calls “nonhuman clients.” Existing animal welfare statutes, he says, “don’t provide recourse against the inherent cruelty of depriving self-aware, autonomous beings of their freedom, the company of others of their kind and their natural habitats.” His goal is to pry open the law.

One success last year was the Oregon Supreme Court, contrary to the usual legal view, ruling that dogs are more than “property.” Nonjudicial successes included getting elephants out of the Ringling Bros. circus and killer whales out of Sea World, reflecting Americans’ changing attitudes toward captive animals. Achieving “rights” for animals is poised to be the next great social revolution, but no one is suggesting that animals get the right to vote or to drive. The “rights” would be limited, like those enjoyed by children. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is considered extremist by some, yet founder Ingrid Newkirk’s definition of “rights” is moderate: “The decent, commonsense idea that if a living being can suffer, whether child or Chihuahua, man or mouse, it is wrong to impose that suffering on them needlessly,” she tells me.

Some animals do enjoy limited “rights,” says Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, “including not to be tortured or harmed in a malicious way. Others have the ‘right’ not to be confined in small cages and crates.” Achieving those protections was painful and slow.

If “rights” were conferred, it would raise ethical considerations. Could we raise animals as food?
Yes, we could, says Tara Zuardo, a lawyer for the Animal Welfare Institute. “There are countries like Germany that have animals written into the constitution, but they still raise animals for food,” using humane methods. “We predict that courts will increasingly issue decisions declaring that animals are not merely property and deserve certain legal rights,” she says. A 1992 amendment to the Swiss Constitution recognized animals as “beings” instead of “things,” and in 2008 a committee of the Spanish Parliament conferred legal rights on great apes.

If a river has rights, how can they be denied to animals, which are sentient, and capable of feeling emotions such as joy, fear, loneliness?
“There is a trend toward recognizing that humans aren’t the be-all and end-all for those who deserve protection,” says Matthew Liebman, director of litigation for the Animal Legal Defense Fund. He cites cases around the world, from Spain to Argentina — where great apes have been accorded special protections and some formal “rights.” For decades, the Nonhuman Rights Project has been going to court to secure rights for chimpanzees, but it hasn’t yet achieved a breakthrough. It came close when it sued to have set free Leo and Hercules, two chimpanzees being held for research at Stony Brook University. The case stalled in 2015 when Stony Brook returned the chimps to the University of Louisiana, out of the court’s jurisdiction. PETA is in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that a chimp named Naruto holds the rights to pictures he took of himself using a camera set up and left in a forest.

Sound crazy? As crazy as Ringling giving up elephants?
Humans and chimpanzees share about 98 percent of the same DNA, and some humans have been freaked out ever since Charles Darwin wrote that humans are descended from apes.

Read more here: philly.com/philly/columnists/stu_bykofsky/If-corporations-and-rivers-have-human-rights-why-not-animals-.html

Seminole County Bail Bonds – Supreme Court grants amendment in General Legal Council writ

Source     : Ghana Business News
By             : Agency Press
Category :  Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Supreme Court grants amendment in General Legal Council writ

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave green light to Professor Stephen Kweku Asare a United State based Ghanaian lawyer to amend a writ he had filed against the General Legal Council (GLC). In October 2015, Prof. Asare, the plaintiff proceeded to the apex court over the legality of the modes of admission used by the Ghana School of Law to admit LLB holders into the Professional Law course by the School.

He contended that the number of people who are admitted into Ghana School of Law was woefully small considering the number of people who possessed LLB. At today sitting’s Ms Ofosua Amagyei, counsel for the plaintiff drew the attention of the seven member panel presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse that she had filed application for leave to amend their writ.

According to her the amendment was minor and it was to put the year 2015 issues in context because the Ghana School of Law had completed with their admission that year and had gone ahead with that of 2016. Mr Kizito Beyuo who represented the GLC and Mrs Dorothy Afriyie Ansah, Chef State Attorney who represented the Attorney General did not oppose to the amendment.

The court therefore gave the plaintiff’s lawyer two days to file the amendment whilst the defendants in the matter were given seven days to respond if any. It therefore adjourned the matter to May 2 stating that it would be taking the memorandum of issues by the parties in court on the said date.

Prof Asare had gone to the Supreme Court to seek a declaration that that GLC’s imposition of entrance examination  and interview requirements for the Professional Law Course violates Articles 11 (7) 297 (d) 23, 296 (a) (b) and 18 (2) of the 1992 Constitution. He is seeking a declaration that that the GLC’s exclusion of persons who have qualified under Regulation 2 of LI 1296 from pursuing the Professional law course violates Article 11 (7) 297 (d), 23, and 296 (a) and (b) of the Constitution. The Plaintiff is also praying the court for an order directed at the GLC to specify within 60 days; alternative places and modes of instructions that would afford all persons meeting the requirement of Regulation 2 of LI 1296 an opportunity to pursue the profession component of legal education, the completion of which entitles them to take the qualifying certificate examinations as determined by the GLC.

Read more here: ghanabusinessnews.com/2017/04/12/supreme-court-grants-amendment-in-general-legal-council-writ/

Bail Bonds Sanford – California Supreme Court’s latest slippery evasion of federal arbitration law

Source     : Blog Pacific Legal News
By             : Deborah J. LaFetra
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

California Supreme Court’s latest slippery evasion of federal arbitration law

Sharon McGill sued Citibank under California’s consumer protection laws for alleged unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card account. McGill signed a contract that contained an arbitration provision and twice was offered the opportunity to opt-out of the arbitration provision. She did not opt-out. Citibank therefore asked the court to compel McGill to arbitrate her claims, which were covered by the arbitration provision. The trial court held that she must arbitrate her claims for monetary damages and restitution, but that California law prohibits arbitration of public injunctive relief claims. That “California law” refers to California Supreme Court decisions in Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans and Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. that render arbitration provisions unenforceable if they require arbitration of injunctive relief claims brought for the public’s benefit under the Unfair Competition Law, California Legal Remedies Act, or False Advertising Law. PLF filed an amicus brief supporting Citibank. Today, in McGill v. Citibank, the California Supreme Court invalidated the arbitration contract and did so in a decision that is particularly at odds with itself.

Authored by Justice Chin, the introduction to the unanimous opinion summarizes the holdings (1) that the waiver—which the court characterized as preventing litigation over public injunctive relief in any forum—violates California public policy and is thus unenforceable; and (2) that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt “this rule of California law” or require enforcement of the waiver provision. One would be forgiven for thinking that “this rule” referred to the Broughton-Cruz doctrine that was the primary subject of the petition for review and all of the briefing in the courts below except McGill’s petition for rehearing, but the Court later explains that “the Broughton-Cruz rule is not at issue in this case” and focuses instead solely on the “any forum” argument that McGill first raised during oral argument in the Court of Appeal.

The Court bases this surprising result on the standard language of the arbitration contract that provides that all disputes between the parties will be resolved in arbitration; that “the arbitrator will not award relief for or against anyone or is not a party”; and that arbitrations are conducted and awards are made on an individual basis instead of on a class-wide or representative basis. The combination of the agreement to arbitrate disputes plus the agreement to forego public injunctive relief in arbitration means that there is no forum in which McGill can seek public injunctive relief. In other words, although McGill agreed to submit her claims to arbitration, the Court invalidates the agreement because she also agreed to limit the remedies to which she would have been entitled if she prevailed on her claims. Because the public injunction remedy is considered “primarily for the benefit of the public” rather than for the plaintiff’s own benefit, the Court held that waiver of this remedy is invalid and unforceable. Yet no law mandates plaintiffs to request public injunctive relief; they may choose to omit it without consequence. The Court then brushes aside the idea that its holding is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act by characterizing the rule as a “principal of California law that governs contracts generally” as opposed to an arbitration-specific holding.

The Court’s decision has two foreseeable results. First, Citibank almost certainly will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review this decision, and PLF will support that petition. Second, because the Court dodged entirely the question of whether the Broughton-Cruz doctrine remains viable in light of Supreme Court cases that undermine its premises, the law on this point remains in disarray in both federal and state courts. Some courts understand that Broughton-Cruz is defunct in light of Supreme Court decisions in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, while other courts continue to apply it. The Supreme Court’s patience with the California Supreme Court’s ever-more-creative reasons to invalidate arbitration contracts grows thin. In DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia (2015), the Supreme Court slapped down a California anti-arbitration theory for half a dozen reasons, noting that the case was governed by “present well-established law.” This case, too, could have and should have been similarly resolved. Instead, litigation goes on . . . ultimately right back to the Supreme Court.

Read more here: blog.pacificlegal.org/california-supreme-courts-latest-slippery-evasion-federal-arbitration-law/

Bail Bonds Sanford – Should Supreme Court justices have unlimited tenure?

Source      : Wacotrib News
By              : LORI A. RINGHAND PAUL M. COLLINS JR.
Category  : Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Should Supreme Court justices have unlimited tenure?

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch took the hot seat and offered testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If confirmed, he will be one of only 113 people to sit on the high court since it was established in 1789. Why have so few people had this honor? Because the Constitution effectively grants life tenure to justices. The Constitution states that justices “shall hold their office during good behavior” and that they can be removed only by impeachment. In the 228-year history of the Supreme Court, only one justice has been impeached (and he was not removed); the others have served until their voluntary retirement or death. The United States is rare among the world’s constitutional democracies in granting unlimited tenure to unelected high court judges. The system does have some advantages. It protects justices from the influence of ordinary politics and allows them to focus on constitutional duties without considering any decision’s effects on future career opportunities. Nonetheless, legal scholars and political scientists increasingly question whether life tenure remains a good idea. While scholars disagree about the exact numbers, our Supreme Court justices are serving longer and longer terms; presidents have incentives to choose younger and younger nominees; and the justices themselves appear to delay retirement in the hope of having an ideologically compatible president select their replacements. Moreover, the confirmation process has become increasingly contentious, culminating last year in Senate Republicans refusing to even grant a hearing to President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. As a result, many scholars propose a shift to staggered 18-year terms. What are the pros and cons of such a change? Here’s a breakdown.

What would be good about 18-year terms?
First, term limits could make appointments less politically fraught. Our research shows that selecting Supreme Court nominees has always been political. That’s not a bad thing. Having elected officials select Supreme Court justices ensures that, over time, the Supreme Court’s decisions do not get too far out of step with public opinion. Such indirect public accountability probably is essential in a system like ours, where our justices are charged with deciding how words written hundreds of years ago apply to contemporary situations. But when the nation’s politics are polarized, partisan antagonism can shut down the entire system, as happened with Garland’s nomination and may happen now. Staggered 18-year terms could help prevent that, lowering the stakes for each nomination while retaining an appropriate level of democratic accountability. When fully implemented, 18-year terms would evenly distribute appointments so that each president would nominate two justices per term, with a midyear election falling in between. Vacancies would be predictable and evenly paced, draining confirmation hearings of much of the current drama. If a sitting justice dies or needs to step down before his or her expected resignation date, the seat could be temporarily filled by a lower court judge or a retired one, drawn from a pool and thus sitting by designation. Second, by tying appointments more predictably to each election’s results, this system would increase the Supreme Court’s democratic accountability. Studies have found that justices over time “drift” from the ideological preferences of the governing coalition that appointed them. More frequent turnover would reduce this drift. The Supreme Court’s views would better reflect the choices of the American people rather than vagaries of chance and time.

One major problem with life tenure is that justices serve for so long that they can become out of touch with the nation they help lead. Staggered 18-year terms minimize this risk. Finally, term limits could increase the quality of nominees. Like it or not, one of the driving factors behind current presidential appointments is a nominee’s age. Individuals older than about 60 years of age are unlikely to be appointed. (Garland, age 63 at the time of his nomination, was likely picked in part in hopes that his relatively advanced age would reduce opposition to his appointment.) This means presidents are intentionally excluding a sizable number of highly qualified individuals from serving on the Supreme Court. Term limits solve this problem.

And what would be bad about 18-year terms?
First, term limits may hurt judicial independence. One of the chief arguments against term limits is that life tenure frees the justices from political or popular pressure. Justices are not elected officials, and we don’t want them to respond too much to the passing passions of ordinary politics. We also don’t want them to worry too much about post-Supreme Court careers. Shorter terms could prompt justices to think too much about how their votes play in the arena of public opinion or — worse — how they may limit or help future earnings. Second, the Supreme Court’s legitimacy might be threatened by shorter terms. Life tenure enables the justices to interpret and apply the Constitution exactly the way they see fit, without considering pressure or repercussions. This perception of independence may be important to what scholars call the Supreme Court’s “diffuse support” — the perception that people support the Supreme Court regardless of disagreement with particular decisions because they believe the Supreme Court overall is engaged in something other than ordinary politics.

Third, staggered 18-year terms could not eliminate all risk of political gamesmanship. A determined Senate majority could still refuse to act on a nomination or vote down a nominee they found unacceptable. But term limits would change the political calculations and incentives by creating a predictable, fair distribution of seats over time and making each individual vacancy less consequential. The final argument against term limits may be the most important: They may be impossible to implement. Creating legally enforceable Supreme Court term limits would almost certainly require amending the Constitution. That’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. Any solution short of a constitutional amendment would require getting justices and senators to agree to change the norms and customs governing retirement and confirmation. In other words, they would have to voluntarily agree to play by a new set of rules. Given the state of politics today, that may be too much to ask. Lori A. Ringhand is the associate dean for academic affairs and J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law at the University of Georgia School of Law. Paul M. Collins Jr. is a professor of political science and director of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. They are the authors of “Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change.”

Read more here: wacotrib.com/opinion/columns/guest_columns/lori-ringhand-paul-collins-jr-washington-post-should-supreme-court/article_8bcfada4-5a57-53ba-a30c-29657d912f56.html

Seminole County Bail Bonds – Supreme Court justices pondering tax case appeal by liquidators of oldco Rangers

Source     : The Courier UK News
By             : Press Association
Category :  Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Supreme Court justices pondering tax case appeal by liquidators of oldco Rangers

Last year, judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh granted BDO’s request to take its case against an earlier legal ruling to the Supreme Court in London. It comes after Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) won an appeal in November 2015 over the use of the now-outlawed employee benefit trusts (EBT) at the football club during the first decade of the century.

The Court of Session ruling agreed with HMRC’s contention that the scheme, which involved payments to former Rangers employees, amounted to ”a mere redirection of earnings which did not remove the liability of employees to income tax”. The judges decided any income derived from employees’ services is classed as earnings and subject to income tax.

The decision was in relation to Murray Group companies, including the liquidated company now called RFC 2012 plc, and does not affect the current regime at Ibrox. BDO is bidding to overturn the ruling and f ive Supreme Court justices are examining w hether the Court of Session erred in law in reversing the original tribunal outcome.

The case is being heard by the court’s president Lord Neuberger, deputy president Lady Hale and Lords Reed, Carnwath and Hodge. After legal argument concludes on Thursday, the justices will reserve their decision for a ruling to be given on a date to be fixed.

Read More : thecourier.co.uk/news/uk-world/387059/supreme-court-to-hear-tax-case-appeal-by-liquidators-of-oldco-rangers/

Bail Bonds Sanford – Supreme Court Considers Whether N.C. Law Violates First Amendment

Source      : NPR News
By              : Nina Totenberg
Category  : Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Supreme Court Considers Whether N.C. Law Violates First Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to strike down a North Carolina law that punishes registered sex offenders who use social media. Most of the justices voiced doubts about the law during oral arguments today. Here’s NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: It was, to be blunt, sex day at the Supreme Court. The justices heard two cases both involving men who’d been punished for having consensual sex with a minor. In one case, a 21-year-old legal resident of the U.S. was ordered deported after he pleaded no contest to having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend. That would not be a crime in 43 states or under federal law, but it was enough to get him deported as having committed an aggravated felony in California. In the second case, a North Carolina man was convicted first for having sex with a minor and arrested again seven years later because he signed up for Facebook and posted a message on it.

Lester Packingham was a graphics design student at the Art Institute of Raleigh-Durham when he was arrested in 2010 for having sex with an underage girl. He received a suspended jail sentence and kept a clean record for seven years, until he was arrested again, this time for violating the state’s ban on social media. He’d posted a message on his Facebook account thanking God for not getting a traffic ticket.  LESTER PACKINGHAM: I said, praise God I didn’t receive a ticket. Praise Jesus, thank God.

TOTENBERG: In the Supreme Court today, Packingham’s lawyer, David Goldberg, argued that the social media ban punishes vast swaths of core First Amendment speech that is totally unrelated to the government’s interest in preventing child abuse. Questioned by various justices, Goldberg conceded that a registered sex offender might be barred from communicating with a minor on social media or barred from some sites as a condition of parole, but this law, he contended, is a far broader denial of a fundamental right to free speech.

Justice Ginsburg – some states take away other fundamental rights. They prohibit ex-felons from voting or having guns. Justice Sotomayor – is this law too broad, or is it not precisely targeted enough or all of these things? Justice Kennedy puckishly quoted Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s line, let me count the ways. Next up to the lectern was North Carolina Deputy Attorney General Robert Montgomery, who faced an immediate question from Justice Kagan. The president now uses Twitter, she observed. All 50 governors and all 100 senators, every member of the House has a Twitter account. This has become a crucially important channel of political communication. And a person couldn’t go into those sites and find out what these members of our government are thinking or saying or doing. Indeed, some 50 million Americans use these sites for religious community purposes, she said.

Montgomery replied – there are alternatives to social media sites. Justice Kennedy – assuming we had a public square a hundred years ago, could you say this person couldn’t go into the public square? Montgomery replied that registered sex offenders have alternatives like blogging, but that didn’t seem to be a good enough answer for much of the court.

Justice Breyer – do you have a statute that bars convicted swindlers from discussing money? Answer – swindlers are not sex offenders. These are some of the worst criminals who have abused children, and there’s a high recidivism rate. Justice Kagan – except that you exempt any website that provides a chat room or photo sharing, like Snapchat, where the most dangerous activity can take place.

Lawyer Montgomery – there are plenty of people who get information fine without social networking. Justice Ginsburg – the point is that by cutting off these people from Twitter and Facebook and many other sites, you’re cutting them off from a very substantial part of the marketplace of ideas.

In the deportation case, the justices were almost as skeptical, noting for instance that the state law makes it a crime to have sex with a minor who is three years younger. Said Justice Kagan, that could mean it’s a crime for a college junior to have sex with a freshman.

Read More : npr.org/2017/02/27/517563229/supreme-court-considers-whether-n-c-law-violates-first-amendment

Bail Bonds Sanford – Same-sex marriage law goes into effect in Finland

Source     : Chronicle Live News
By             : Yle
Category :  Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Same-sex marriage law goes into effect in Finland

Same-sex marriage became legal in Finland. Same sex couples also gained the legal right to adopt children. According to a Local Register Office’s figures some 41 couples across the country are scheduled to marry this week. The Local Register Office of western Finland, which collected data from across the country, says that some 41 same sex couples plan to get married this week. Same-sex marriage became officially legal in Finland on Wednesday. Maria Lunabbas, who works as a notary public at the Local Register Office in western Finland, says there are fewer same sex couples getting married this week than she had expected.

Lunabbas said that some regional register offices around the country told her that they hadn’t received a single same sex marriage notification for this week. Back in November 2014, gay rights activists and same-sex marriage supporters celebrated the approval of gender-neutral marriage laws by Finnish Parliament.

Pivotal citizens’ initiative

The legislation was also a pivotal moment for participatory democracy in Finland, as the law was started as a citizens’ initiative to legally recognise marriage for same-sex couples. Even though same sex marriage was approved by MPs in 2014, a separate citizens’ initiative petitioned by conservative activists was presented to Finnish lawmakers just weeks before the law was to go into effect. But that initiative was thrown out and Finland now counts itself among the 22 countries of the world where it is legal for same sex couples to get married.

Read More : chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/driving-laws-changing-heres-you-12669480

Seminole County Bail Bonds – California Supreme Court justice discusses education and immigration at CSUN

Source     : Sundail News
By             : Nathan Hickling
Category :  Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

California Supreme Court justice discusses education and immigration at CSUN

California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar visited CSUN Thursday to speak to students on a variety of issues, including the importance of diversity in the courtroom and offering lingual services to non-English speakers in court. Cuéllar was introduced and asked questions by Dr. Gabriel Gutiérrez, Chicano studies department chair, and Melisa Galván, Chicano studies assistant professor, who spoke on the importance of immigration law to CSUN students. “Many of our students come to us for advice about how to deal with actual cases,” Gutiérrez said.

Cuéllar, who served on the former president of the United States, Barack Obama’s transition team, provided his guidance. “My watchboard has always been what can I do from my position,” Cuéllar said. “I was enormously dedicated and passionate about trying to get it right and trying to help the president stay true to what he had promised during the campaign.” Cuéllar also spoke of the challenges he faced as a Mexican-born student in California and how his experiences living along the border gave him a unique perspective in law, something he listed as one of his strengths as a justice. “In a place like Calexico you see a lot of the struggles that are part of our state’s history,” Cuéllar said. “I felt that the whole point of my being there was that I could bring something different to the discussion.”

Cuéllar was born in Matamoros, Mexico, but later moved to Calexico in the Imperial Valley. Fluent in Spanish and English, he spoke of the importance of providing services in court to Californians who are not proficient in English as part of the California court’s Language Access Plan Implementation Task Force. We [the task force] were engaged in a historic expansion of how we engaged in these issues,” he said of the roughly seven million Californians who the plan targets. According to Cuéllar, this is a challenge for the courts because it requires individuals to attend court, and it would be wrong for one to walk out uncertain about what to do, and not be able to deal with the proceedings because one cannot pay for an interpreter.

Cuéllar said some of the most important legal services being worked on are offering interpreters in civil court cases and making sure that the court buildings themselves are accessible, including everything from signs to forms.“It takes money, it takes effort, it takes an engaged population… it takes mentors, it takes lawyers who care about the issue,” he said of the plan.

Read More : sundial.csun.edu/2017/02/california-supreme-court-justice-discusses-education-and-immigration-at-csun/