#Chief Judicial Magistrate

[rightnewshindi]

डिप्टी कमिश्नर को चीफ जुडिशल मजिस्ट्रेट को धमकाना पड़ा भारी, हाई कोर्ट ने किया तलब

Jammu Kashmir News: जम्मू-कश्मीर हाई कोर्ट ने एक आईएएस अधिकारी को आपराधिक अवमानना मामले में हाजिर होने का आदेश दिया है। अधिकारी गांदरबल में डिप्टी कमिश्नर पर पर तैनात हैं। आईएएस अधिकारी श्यामबीर पर आरोप है कि उन्होंने चीफ जूडिशल मजिस्ट्रेट फयाज अहमद कुरैशी के आदेश के बाद उनसे बदला लेने की कोशिश की और निजी हमला किया गया। जज ने उनके खिलाफ मुआवजे के एक मामले में फैसला सुनाया था। कोर्ट ने उनकी सैलरी…

[whencyclopedia]

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review. In the decision, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the court struck down a congressional statute as unconstitutional for the first time in US history, thereby establishing the United States Constitution as a legal – not just a political – document.

Prior to the Marbury case, the Supreme Court was the weakest branch of the federal government. It had reviewed only 63 cases in the twelve years before 1801 and was viewed as a useless, aristocratic institution by many ardent Republicans, some of whom sought to do away with the federal judiciary entirely. In February 1803, the Court heard Marbury v. Madison, a case in which Secretary of State James Madison had withheld a commission for a federal office from a political opponent, William Marbury; Marbury had petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, which would force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court, ruled that while Marbury was legally entitled to the commission, the Supreme Court could not help him by issuing a writ of mandamus. The statute that empowered it to do so – Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 – was, in fact, in conflict with Article III of the Constitution. For this reason, the Marshall Court took the unprecedented step of striking down Section 13.

By striking down a congressional statute, Marshall had established the principle of judicial review – that is, a court's ability to uphold or strike down a law based on its constitutionality. Another major consequence was that the US Constitution was now no longer just a political document – a statement of the political ideals of the United States – but was a legal document as well, one which all federal and state courts and legislatures must adhere to. The case is therefore considered the single most important decision in US constitutional law and remains one of the most significant cases in the history of the US Supreme Court.

Background: Creating a Federal Judiciary

The federal judiciary – conceived at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and enshrined in Article III of the resultant United States Constitution – proved to be a controversial institution in the first decade of its existence. Americans were generally predisposed to distrust judges, whose flowing robes, rigid court protocols, and high benches smacked of the monarchism all too recently cast aside. It was not lost on the people that the federal judges were modeled closely off the colonial magistrates they had replaced, who themselves had been selected by the king and had – in the patriotic memories of the Americans, at least – arbitrarily wielded their authority. Thomas Jefferson, in 1776, referred to judicial decisions as "the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious, designing men" who were looking after political interests rather than enforcing the law (Wood, 402). This suspicion was carried over to the new American courts, whose judges were, in many instances, appointed rather than elected and served life tenures rather than limited terms of office, neither aspect seeming to hint at an enlightened government institution.

The makeup of this controversial body was roughly outlined in Article III of the Constitution, which vested judicial power in "one supreme court" of the United States as well as "such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish". The Supreme Court was granted original jurisdiction – or the power to hear a case for the first time – over cases that involved ambassadors, public officials, or individual states as parties in the suit. It was also given appellate jurisdiction – or the power to hear cases on appeal – over a broader range of suits involving constitutional or federal law. Although Article III left things rather vague, the courts were fleshed out by the First Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This act created a system of federal circuit courts and district courts under the Supreme Court and expounded on the powers of the judiciary. Section 25, for instance, allowed federal courts to overturn any state law or state court ruling that violated a federal treaty. Additionally, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act – which will become important later – allowed the judiciary to issue legal orders called writs of mandamus to government officials, which would force them to adhere to federal law.

While this expansion of judicial authority certainly ruffled a few feathers, the judiciary was still by far the weakest branch of the federal government. Neither Article III of the Constitution nor the Judiciary Act of 1789 had given the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. This refers to a court's ability to declare an act of the executive or legislative branch to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid, a function that the Supreme Court is best known for today and considered a vital part of the checks and balances of federal power. Without this authority, the Supreme Court wielded minimal influence in the first decade of its existence and was widely disregarded by the other two branches. In fact, between 1789 and 1801, it heard only 63 cases, none of which had any long-lasting importance. Since the federal courts were still seen as aristocratic bodies that hindered the rights of the states, some hardcore Republicans wanted to do away with the federal judiciary altogether. This was how matters stood when the US presidential election of 1800 swept such Republicans into power, placing the judiciary in jeopardy.

Continue reading...

[silicacid]

oh my god they extended the detention of Dr Muhammad Abu Salmiya, director of Al Shifa hospital

Gaza City Shifa Hospital Director Muhammad Abu Salmiya recently had a hearing before an unidentified Israeli civilian Magistrate's Court via videoconference in which his detention was extended, sources have told the Jerusalem Post.

Abu Salmiya is being criminally probed by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) under current war emergency regulations relating to Hamas and other terrorists connected to the war.

As part of those regulations, Abu Salmiya is also still unusually being prevented from meeting with a lawyer.

Though sources did not identify the civilian court, traditionally, the Beersheba courts have handled a variety of Gazan terror cases.

As of Monday, the Post had only been hinted informally by some sources that he remained in Shin Bet custody, with the IDF legal division, the Shin Bet, the Justice Ministry, and the police all declining to comment on the record.

The IDF and the Shin Bet announced his arrest on November 23, but since then have given no official update. Under standard rules in Israeli civilian courts, the state must generally file an indictment within a certain number of days or, in exceptional circumstances, within a few weeks, in order to justify keeping a suspect in detention. In the Israeli military courts that deal with West Bank Palestinians, the military prosecution sometimes has up to a period of months to file an indictment, during which the Shin Bet could keep someone in detention if it involves a security crime. There is also administrative detention, which is an entirely different track, but that is usually reserved for terrorists who are expected to perpetrate violence, something Salmiya has not been accused of.Israel also has a law for “unlawful combatants” which is being used to deal with at least 150 or more Hamas terrorists who were captured while fighting IDF forces. It appears that Israel is applying these rules to Abu Salmiya.

Expansion on detention? On November 28, the Palestinian-leading Middle East Monitor reported that “the Government Media Office in Gaza said yesterday evening that Israel had extended the detention of the director of Gaza’s Al-Shifa Hospital for an additional 45 days.” No Israeli office has confirmed the specific number of days his detention was extended, but when previously questioned about the handling of other unlawful combatants arrested during the war, the IDF said, “there are terrorists who were captured in connection with the slaughter perpetrated by a terror organization and who are detained by the State of Israel. This is according to the law, whether based on [judicial] detention orders or whether based on the authority of IDF officials who have jurisdiction to order their detention. Regarding the latter category, judicial review regarding any continued detention will take place before a judge 45 days from the date of the detention order.” Back on November 23, questioned repeatedly earlier in the morning about why he had been arrested and why no official announcement had gone out at that point, Israeli and IDF officials' responses alternated from surprise at the event to a promise that an announcement would go out soon.

However, even the 2:30 p.m. announcement on November 23 did not make any direct charges against the Shifa chief. Rather, the announcement said that he had been arrested and brought to the Shin Bet for interrogation after significant testimony and video evidence from others that Shifa had been used as a command center for Hamas during the director's tenure. The statement stated, "The terror group Hamas utilized many resources, including electricity in order to strengthen its tunnels which it built under the hospital. In addition, Hamas kept military items stored in the hospital and in its immediate surroundings." In addition, the statement read that after the October 7 Hamas mass terror attack on Israel's South, the terror group "used the hospital as a refuge for its terror forces and even brought Israeli hostages to there who were kidnapped during the day of slaughter. A pathology report confirmed that soldier Noa Marciano was murdered on the grounds of Shifa Hospital." Next, the statement said vaguely that, "a decision regarding his detention would be made in conjunction with the findings of the investigation regarding his involvement with the hospital's connection to terror." Salmiya faces allegations of “aiding the enemy during wartime and providing service to terror organizations,” the al-Quds news network reported. If true, Salmiya would still eventually need to be prosecuted in a special unlawful combatants proceeding or in Israeli civil or military courts. The US generally held unlawful combatants of al Qaeda after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon only if they were battlefield arrests, not mere conspirators or those who had aided the terror group in logistics, as Salmiya may eventually be accused of. However, Israel’s law on unlawful combatants could be used more broadly. There was heavy global criticism of Abu Salmiya’s arrest when it was announced.

[lboogie1906]

Jurist Joseph Woodrow Hatchett (September 17, 1932 – April 30, 2021) was a lawyer and judge. He worked in private practice, was a US Circuit Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit, and served on the Florida Supreme Court.

He was born in Clearwater, Florida. He graduated from FAMU with a BA. He served in the Army as a lieutenant. He graduated from Howard University School of Law with a JD. He was a cooperating attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He served in the Marine Corps Reserve as a lieutenant colonel and judge advocate. He was a consultant for the Daytona Beach Urban Renewal Department. He was an Assistant US Attorney for the Middle District of Florida. He was the First Assistant US Attorney. He was a special hearing officer for conscientious objectors in the Department of Justice.

Governor Askew appointed him to an associate justice seat on the Florida Supreme Court. Retained in office in the general election. He was the first African American to serve as a Florida Supreme Court Justice and the first retained on the Florida Supreme Court in a statewide election. He served as a Magistrate of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida before being appointed to the Florida Supreme Court.

He was nominated by President Jimmy Carter to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His service was terminated due to reassignment to the Eleventh Circuit. He was the first African American to serve on a Federal Appeals Court in the Deep South. He served as Chief Judge. He was a Member of the Judicial Conference of the US.

He held an honorary Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) from four institutions, including Florida Memorial College, Stetson Law School, Florida A&M University, and Howard University. An effort to honor him by renaming the United States Courthouse in Tallahassee after him. President Joe Biden signed the measure into law through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act on June 25, 2022.

He was preceded in death by his wife Betty but is survived by their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence

[beardedmrbean]

Pavel Durov, the founder and chief of Telegram, was to appear in a French court Wednesday to face possible charges of failing to curb extremist and illegal content on the popular messaging app after his arrest at the weekend.

Russian-born Durov, 39, was arrested at Le Bourget airport outside Paris late Saturday.

After almost four days of questioning in detention by French investigators he was handed over to judicial authorities who will decide further measures, a source close to the case told AFP.

A Paris investigating magistrate will decide whether to press charges against Durov, and the judiciary would then rule on whether he will be remanded in custody or allowed to go free, possibly under judicial control with restrictions on his movements.

As part of a probe that was confidentially opened on July 8, Durov is being investigated on suspicion of 12 offences related to failing to curb extremist and criminal content on Telegram, sources close to the investigation have said.

The tech mogul founded Telegram as he was in the process of quitting his native Russia a decade ago. Its growth has been exponential, with the app now reporting over 900 million users.

An enigmatic figure who rarely speaks in public, Durov is a citizen of Russia, France and the United Arab Emirates, where Telegram is based.

Forbes magazine estimates his current fortune at $15.5 billion, though he proudly promotes the virtues of an ascetic life that includes ice baths and not drinking alcohol or coffee.

Numerous questions have been raised about the timing and circumstances of Durov's detention, with supporters seeing him as a freedom of speech champion and detractors as a menace who wilfully allowed Telegram to get out of control.

Le Monde newspaper reported Wednesday that Durov had met French President Emmanuel Macron on several occasions prior to receiving French nationality in 2021, via a special procedure reserved for those deemed to have made a special contribution to France.

The Wall Street Journal added that at one lunch in 2018, Macron -- who along with his team was in the past an avid user of Telegram -- had suggested it should be headquartered in Paris, but Durov refused.

The Canard Enchaine weekly newspaper said that when he was arrested Durov had claimed he was in Paris to dine with Macron, which the Elysee denied.

'In no way political'

In a post on X to address what he called "false information" concerning the case, Macron said Durov's arrest was "in no way a political decision" and it was "up to the judges to rule".

In Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the charges were very serious and thus needed "no less serious evidence".

"Otherwise this would be a direct attempt to restrict freedom of communication, and, I might even say, directly intimidate the head of a large company," he said.

The UAE meanwhile said it was "closely following the case" and had requested consular access for him.

Among those voicing support for Durov is fellow tech tycoon and chief executive of X, Elon Musk, who has posted comments under the hashtag #FreePavel.

Durov left Russia a decade ago as he was setting up Telegram amid an ownership squabble concerning his first project, the Russian social network VKontakte.

But his departure from Russia was reportedly not an abrupt exile: according to the Vazhnye Istorii news site, citing leaked border data, he visited the country more than 50 times between 2015 and 2021.

'Nothing to hide'

Durov, who has been based in Dubai in recent years, arrived in Paris from the Azerbaijani capital Baku and was planning to have dinner in the French capital, a source close to the case said.

France's OFMIN, an office tasked with preventing violence against minors, issued an arrest warrant for Durov in a preliminary investigation into alleged offences including fraud, drug trafficking, cyberbullying, organised crime and promotion of terrorism.

Telegram said in response that "Durov has nothing to hide and travels frequently in Europe".

Telegram has positioned itself as a "neutral" alternative to US-owned platforms, which have been criticised for their commercial exploitation of users' personal data.

It has also played a key role since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, used actively by politicians and commentators on both sides of the war.

But critics accuse it of hosting often illegal content ranging from extreme sexual imagery to disinformation and narcotics services.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Like other Khoisan ex-convicts in Van Diemen’s Land, Witnalder had no means by which he could return home. He was destitute after being discharged from the convict system and became an object of ridicule to certain elements within the local populace. On 10 September 1862, he was before the bench on yet another charge of disturbing the peace. The Police Superintendent told the bench that Witnalder was ‘constantly insulted by idle boys’. Another witness, Mr Jones, said that he had seen Witnalder ‘insulted by mischievous boys’. Despite such evidence of bullying, the Stipendary Magistrate found the prisoner guilty and fined him 1 shilling. Superintendent Propsting took pity on the man and immediately paid the fine, kindly preventing Witnalder being returned to prison (from which he had only recently been released) for defaulting. Following a similar incident in early December 1862, Witnalder appeared before the bench to answer another charge of disturbing the peace. The ‘eccentric little Kaffir, well-known for his military peculiarities’ told the court that some boys had annoyed him thus causing the fracas. Provocation was not considered sufficient mitigation of his alleged crime. Witnalder was fined 10 shillings and costs, and was required to serve fourteen days in prison if he failed to come up with the money. Several weeks later, on 23 December 1862, Witnalder appeared before the Stipendary Magistrate AB Jones Esq, and Captain Bateman at the Police Court along with a 14-year-old boy, William (or Henry as his name was also reported) Collard. Both were charged with committing an ‘unnatural offence’ and were committed to face trial. The prisoners spent Christmas 1862 in gaol waiting to learn their respective fates. Witnalder and Collard (now referred to as Cornwall Collins) stood trial on Wednesday 28 January in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice, Sir Valentine Fleming. In keeping with the sensibilities of the time, the newspapers reporting the case found the details to be ‘quite unfit for publication’. Nevertheless, the boy had legal representation and much was made in evidence over whether the boy’s mouth had been covered by Witnalder as the ‘unnatural offence’ (sodomy) was being committed. It was found that the boy had allegedly been silenced by the other prisoner, Witnalder, and was therefore a victim rather than a co-conspirator. The police constable was reprimanded for withholding this crucial evidence from the court. Collard was found not guilty, but retained in custody to bear witness against the older man. He was then sworn in, and tearfully gave evidence that he had been assaulted by Witnalder and had not consented to the man’s attentions. The boy’s ordeal in the stand lasted an hour, following which other witnesses were called. The jury retired for only ten minutes before returning a ‘guilty’ verdict. Witnalder once again faced the extreme penalty of the law.

On Thursday 5 February 1863, the Executive Council met and considered Witnalder’s case. It resolved that the death penalty would be carried into effect. Some members of the public expressed outrage (albeit muted because of the nature of the prisoner’s alleged offence). The local Hobart newspaper implored ‘the Councillors of the Governor with whom rests the prerogative of mercy, to weigh well all the circumstances’. A submission from an unnamed advocate was reprinted in the Mercury’s columns, comparing Witnalder’s predicament with Summers who after being convicted of sodomy in July 1862 had his death sentence commuted to transportation for life. Summers, the writer contended, had been in ‘full possession of his senses’. The injustice in upholding the death sentence upon Witnalder, a man ‘little better than a savage’ was made apparent: ‘Summers is surely more responsible than this half tamed brute. And as Summers was not hung, will not the sacrifice of Whitnalder’s [sic] life be a Judicial or rather an Executive Murder?’ The appeal failed, and several days later the Mercury reported that Summer’s case had ‘special circumstances’ which did not apply to Witnalder’s. The reading public was assured that despite the public deploring the application of the death penalty, the Executive had considered all facets of Witnalder’s case in minute detail before deciding to uphold his sentence. The under-sheriff visited Witnalder at the Hobart Town Gaol to read the warrant for his execution. While there, he found the Protestant prisoner mistakenly had been attended by the Roman Catholic clergy since being condemned. On Friday 20 February 1863, Witnalder was roused from his cell at three thirty to prepare for death. He was joined by the Reverend Mr Hunter, who guided him in prayer. By eight that morning, a small crowd comprising the under-sheriff, keeper and under-keeper of the gaol, eight police constables and their sub-inspector, and reporters from the daily newspapers had assembled at the gaol. The only other witness was a Mr Lowe from Victoria. Witnalder emerged from his cell in Hunter’s company, the prisoner’s arms pinioned at his sides. The prayerful men were followed by the executioner. Because of Witnalder’s diminutive size, heavy weights were attached to his feet so he would not suffer more than was necessary. Witnalder ‘saluted’ the onlookers with ‘an abrupt bow’, before the cap was drawn over his head, the noose adjusted, and the flooring removed from under his feet. He was said to have died easily, and had asked Hunter to tell those gathered that he was innocent of the crime for which he had suffered." - Kristyn Harman, Aboriginal Convicts: Australian, Khoisan and Māori Exiles. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2012. p. 188-192.

[foremyth]

the seventh division may have lost that function over time but it used to be the armed hand of the C46—the military extension of soul society's judicial organ, in which as its captain nobutsuna acted as the executioner and chief magistrate. he worked in tandem with chika shihouin to build an effective intelligence/prosecution system

[apothekosm]

Militaristic Might & Cultural Conversations

Small break from Apotheosis writing so I can break down details on what life is like in the Empire! (or what it SHOULD be like, once my people get their heads out of their asses and fucking listen to me!)

Under a big cut, cause its long as fuck.

GOVERNMENT!

Ruling the Skrull empire is an absolute monarch, called an emperor or empress. A leader that has absolute command over the Military Arm of Skrull Existence (arm is doing it a disservice, the military makes up about 80% of all Skrull existence).

Supreme command being what it is, there is still a dedicated amount of bureaucracy, delineation and 'buck-passing' that goes on beneath the One In Charge. These roles are highly regimented, and are uniformly followed across all worlds that exist within the Empire. They include, but aren't limited to:

Chancellor: Chiefs of Staff, given 'dominion' over clusters, acting as 'figureheads' and 'decision makers' whenever the Empress isn't around to cast the official decree herself.

Imperial Council: A 'council' comprised of each world's Chancellor, their chosen Prelates, & varied Priests, reporting directly to The Empress if & whenever she deems that a council must be convened.

War Council: A 'council' comprised of the High Generals & Military Leaders. Those who have proven themselves capable of waging war, and have shed hallowed blood in the name of the Skrull Empire. Simply being 'of high rank' does not qualify one for a seat on the War Council, it is a question of one's service and their ability that allows them access.

High Court: Collections of Judges, Magistrates, Barristers & Select Priests, that gather on the Throneworld in order to deal with judicial issues that affect the Empire as a whole. Each individual world has its own attempt at the Skrull court system, all of which are offshoots or variations of the High Court.

Governors: Individuals thats have dominion over individual worlds in the Empire. Tasked to Govern that world according to the will of their Empress.

Priests of the Mind: Telepathic Skrulls that serve the High Court. Present in every trial that takes place within the empire, in order to maintain the veracity of all sworn statements. While not POWERFUL telepaths (looking at some of you X-Men), they're plenty strong enough to scour the minds of the average Skrull.

Priests of the Sciences: Tech-Minded skrulls that serve the High Court. Intelligent beings that have long studied the technological advancements of 'lesser races', stripping them of their value and adding that value to the Empire as a whole.

Priests of the Magic: Similar to the Priests of the Sciences, Priests of the Magic are students of the arcane and act as Arcane Advisors to the high ranking members of the empire. Working in tandem with the Priests of the Sciences, and the Priests of the Mind, the Priests of the Magic are dedicated to both mystically enhancing the empire as a whole, as well as preventing any sort of magical assault on the Empire from foreign entities.

MILITARY!

The Skrull empire, even at its most disjointed, is a vast war machine. It consists of an imperial star fleet with thousands of warships and the requisite ground forces to staff & fill those warships.

The smallest Skrull warship is still fucking massive, the IWV Anelle (the smallest warship in the Skrull fleet, a personal battleship for Emperor Dorrek) is the size of Pluto in the Local Cluster of the Milky Way.

Despite their variation in size, ranging from miniscule to massive, each warship carries within it enough firepower to shatter entire worlds, and to eviscerate stars. Hidden DEEP in the annals of High Holy armories are weapons that have been forbidden from ever being used again. Weapons capable of wiping out entire species, as a whole, and overnight. These weapons are admonished across the empire, forbidden by verbal & written decree, and stricken from most official mandates. But they do exist. And the 'keys' to launch them are constantly being cut... Just in case.

Skrull forces are organized into various types of units including fleets, legions, and squadrons. Within the subdivisions of service, they have branches that are specialized, including the "Sci-Ops Division" (an equivalent would be AIM), the "Engineering Corps" (Stark Industries), and the "Observation Corps" (SHIELD). They also have super-soldiers, the Super-Skrulls which is a force that numbers in the thousands, and has unique and well hidden training facilities stationed around the universe at large.

Ana'Hira herself was raised & trained at one such training facility! She might've been a grand super-skrull if... ah. Never mind.

All Skrulls join the military when they are of age. (The age of enlistment on Skrull worlds is eight. Eight cycles around the sun, and you must serve.) Mandatory service lasts for four years, after which all children of the Empire are free to leave military service and resume their lives as civilians. Most who do serve only do so for the mandatory period and then peacefully transition out.

Training for the warriors is brutal in the Skrullian armed forces. A 'contemporary' example would be the Spartans of Ancient Greece. The weak perish at the hands of their betters, and only the strong graduate and earn their place in Skrull Societ.

Nobody is allowed to go AWOL (Absent without leave~), and those that do are pursued relentlessly across the Universe. When those who do go AWOL are caught, they are returned to the Throneworld to face the High Council and soon after, assuming their leave is considered unlawful, The Executioner.

The Skrullian way of war is one in which mercy is never shown and every shot must be for the kill. Honor is measured by a warrior's victories and not diminished by actions human society would consider 'unjust', like killing civilians & non-combatants all the same.

That being said, Skrull warriors are ruthless but they are not unnecessarily cruel. To them obliterating a population for obliteration's sake is both distasteful and pointless.

Skrull warriors carry within them a warrior's code, although not all Skrull soldiers adhere to that code of honor. It is not something that's drilled into each and every soldier, but something that the more venerated & respected instructors offer to their charges.

The Skrulls respect & have been known to honor enemies who have shown great feats of courage and valiant skills in battle, such as the great Kree warrior Mar-Vell. (R.I.P. Big Dog)

The more refined of the warriors are also acutely aware of the debts & draws they've accumulated over their lives. Honoring any debts & shows of respect they may receive, even if it means allowing a hated enemy to go free while surrounded by certain death.

SOCIETY!

At the top of Skrull society is the imperial sovereign ruler. It is a society in which the elite have titles of nobility, including Baron (or Baroness) and Count (or Countess). Skrullian society is divided into castes, including; the Scientist caste, the Warrior caste, and Worker caste.

Despite being a caste-based system, Slavery is NOT practiced in the Skrull empire! The ONLY time slavery was even mentioned in the same breath as the Chosen people was... (i'm sighing in real life right now, i swear to god) The Skrulls that exist on Kral IV. Absolutely OBSESSED with Terran Culture, they... they sort of... started kidnapping people from across the galaxy to force them to fight in gladitorial arenas for the amusement and entertainment of the gamblers & high rollers that came to the planet.

Kral IV got blown up in a Guardians comic a few years ago, so...

Now! Although the Skrulls are a war-bound race that practices rapid expansion across the universe, most Skrulls tend to live peaceful lives! Like humanity, and other sentient races in the universe, the Skrulls have ambition! They're a people that have the capacity to feel love and to feel hatred.

They are not just zealots frothing at the mouth for the opportunity to wage bloody war across the stars, they are a species with ups, downs and all. A complex species with a complex and multi-faceted history, no two Skrull worlds raise their children in the same fashion, even if they do try to raise their children to the same ideals.

[mariacallous]

Two protesters were “reasonable” in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum” outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.

Lord Justice Popplewell and Justice Fordham said no fault in law was made by a senior district judge last November in finding Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, not guilty of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent.

In response to a request for a judicial review from the director of public prosecutions, the high court found that Judge Goldspring, who is also described as a chief magistrate, had made the important finding that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith, and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly.

There was nothing to undermine Goldspring’s conclusion that criminalising the words “Tory scum” would be a disproportionate interference in the two protesters’ rights, the high court ruled.

Tom Wainwright, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers representing Wood and Haslam, said the judgment represented an important defence of the right to freedom of expression.

He said: “Just the idea that someone can be convicted for saying this is bizarre in the first place. The director of public prosecutions was trying to put the burden on the defendants to show that they hadn’t crossed the line – the crucial question of when free speech crosses the line into something that is criminal.

“What this judgment confirms is that it is not for the defence to show that, but it is for the state to show that there is a good reason to restrict free speech and that a conviction is the only way that could be done.”

Wood and Haslam were outside the Midland hotel in Manchester, where the Conservative party annual conference was taking place in October 2021, when Duncan Smith, a former welfare secretary, emerged to walk to the Mercure hotel for a conference about Brexit. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and her friend Primrose Yorke.

As Duncan Smith crossed the road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. The former Tory leader removed the traffic cone, called the protesters “pathetic” and continued on his way.

Haslam and Wood had followed Duncan Smith from a short distance. They separately called him “Tory scum”. Wood added:“Fuck off out of Manchester.”

Wood defended her comments on the grounds that her job working with homeless people in her local community meant she felt very strongly about the impact that Conservative party policies were having on people’s lives.

Haslam’s comments were made in a speech in which he cited child poverty homelessness, and a lack of action over the climate emergency as reasons “why people hate you, why people call you scum”. He added: “It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes from what you have done to ordinary people’s lives … shame on you, Tory scum.”

Neither of the protesters had been aware of or encouraged the act of putting a traffic cone on Duncan Smith’s head.

Their comments came after Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, had been recorded at her party’s conference describing the Conservatives as “homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum”.

The high court ruled that the defence needed to set out the facts for a “reasonable conduct defence” in relation to the freedom of expression and assembly rights in the European convention on human rights, but that it had been up to the prosecution to demonstrate the proportionality of an interference with those rights, which it had not done.

[beautiful-basque-country]

Again: protesting judicial attacks against Basque and Basque speakers' rights = ETA

Juan Luis Ibarra, the former president of the High Court of the Basque Autonomous Community, has stated that the criticisms made in society and in Basque culture of the recent sentences that reduced the language rights of Basques are "an echo of the campaigns used by the Basque National Liberation Movement to intimidate the Basque judiciary" between 1996 and 2001. Ibarra compared these criticisms to the "campaigns made to remove the legitimacy" of the judicial power by ETA.

Basque President Iñigo Urkullu highlighted the magistrates' "lack of sensitivity" towards Basque. On the other hand, the Government's spokesperson and Minister of Culture and Language, Bingen Zupiria, announced that he will file two appeals against the sentences of the Chief Justice of the Basque Country, "for annulling ten articles" of the decree that regulates the use of Basque in the Basque municipalities. [context: in little Basque-speaking municipalities where almost 100% of people adresses the town council in Basque, the decree granted that the official paperwork of the council could be just in Basque; it was annulled because it MUST be bilingual].Also, Zupiria stated that judgments and political attitudes that question the officiality of the Basque language are worrying.

The Basque Language Council has organized a demonstration on Nov 4, in Bilbo. The protest against "veredicts that despise Basque and Basque speakers" has been supported by several social actors, including unions ELA, LAB, ESK, CGT/LKN, Steilas, Hiru, EHNE, Etxalde, Lanartea, Olatu Koop and Basque Pensioners.

[x]

[seemabhatnagar]

“Passport Issuance Amid Pending Criminal Cases: A High Court’s Perspective”

Kashif Ahmed v. Union of India

Criminal Writ Petition 2067/2024

Subject Issuance of passport when a criminal case is pending

Before Lucknow High Court

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shameem Ahmad

Order Writ Petition was allowed on 22.03.2024 with the observation that no hard and fast straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding issuance of permission or giving no objection by the court concerned for issuance of passport.

Facts

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth Lucknow denied permission for renewal of the passport to the Petitioner Kashif Ahmad on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction.

The Passport of the petitioner expired on 30.11.2019 and the marriage of his brother-in-law is scheduled in Saudi Arabia on 30.04.2024 and he wanted to attend the ceremony.

In December 2019, five cases were registered against him given his protest against the Citizen Amendment Act & National Register for Citizens. In all these pending criminal cases, the charge has not yet been framed by the Court.

Aggrieved by the denial of permission by the ACJM-Lucknow, the Petitioner approached Lucknow High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus.

Submission of Petitioner's Counsel

The Petitioner’s Counsel contended that the Magistrate didn’t apply his mind while rejecting the application of the Petitioner.

Submission of the Respondent's Counsel

The Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India too affirmed the submission of the Petitioner’s Counsel quoting the Office Memorandum dt.10.10.2019 which provided an exemption to citizens of India against whom criminal proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

1.      For the period as specified in the order of the court.

For renewal after the expiry of the stipulated period, a fresh court order is required specifying a further period of validity of the passport for travel abroad

2.      If no time is specified, a passport shall be issued for one year.

The passport can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not traveled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and in the meantime, the order of the court is not canceled or modified.

3.      If the time specified for travel abroad is less than one year but the validity of the passport is not specified then it shall be issued for one year.

And passport can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not traveled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and in the meantime, the order of the court is not canceled or modified.

4.      If the time specified for travel abroad is more than one year but the validity of the passport is not specified then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel as specified in the order.

In this situation renewal of the passport requires a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad.

5.      Apart from this, the citizen has to give an undertaking in writing to the passport-issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, would appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.

6.      For issuance of a passport, a declaration has to be made by the applicant that the applicant has not been convicted by any Court of Law in India for any criminal offence and has not been sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more than two years with other relevant information.

Seema Bhatnagar

[thatstormygeek]

Hey, remember when the cops raided that newspaper editor's house and then his mom died the next day?

The number of legal guardrails authorities blew through Aug. 11 in their quest to seize computers and terrorize, intentionally or not, the publishers and staff of the Record should be of concern to anyone who cares about democracy. New reporting by KSHB-TV makes it clear that it wasn’t just local authorities who kicked federal and state protections in considering the execution of a search warrant on a newspaper, but that the state’s highest investigative agency, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, knew about the impending raid — and did nothing to stop it.

Cody had left his role as a captain with the Kansas City, Missouri, police department under a cloud of scrutiny in April and took the job at Marion, a town of fewer than 2,000 in east central Kansas. In early October, after being suspended by the city council, Cody resigned as Marion police chief. Viar, the magistrate judge, was the target of a disciplinary complaint from a Topeka resident who was outraged Viar would sign off on the warrant. On Dec. 6, the Kansas Commission on Judicial Conduct said in a letter it had dismissed the complaint, saying there wasn’t evidence of “incompetence.”

[thellawtoknow]

Judiciary System in South Africa 101: The Important Aspects

The Judiciary System in South Africa: A Pillar of Democracy Historical Context and Constitutional Foundations Structure of the Judiciary in South Africa 1. The Constitutional Court 2. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) 3. The High Courts 4. Magistrates’ Courts 5. Specialized Courts Role and Functioning Challenges Facing the Judiciary Landmark Court Cases in South Africa: Shaping Justice and Society 1. S v Makwanyane and Another (1995) 2. Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie (2005) 3. Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom (2000) 4. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice (1998) 5. Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly (2016) 6. Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security (2001) 7. Khosa v Minister of Social Development (2004) 8. Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly (2006) Impact and Legacy Conclusion The Judiciary System in South Africa: A Pillar of Democracy The judiciary system in South Africa is a cornerstone of its democratic framework, embodying the principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law. Emerging from a tumultuous history of apartheid and systemic injustice, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s transition into a constitutional democracy. This essay explores the structure, functioning, challenges, and impact of South Africa’s judiciary system, highlighting its significance in safeguarding human rights and fostering social cohesion.

Historical Context and Constitutional Foundations The judiciary sytem in South Africa operates under the framework of the Constitution, enacted in 1996. This transformative document is celebrated for its progressive stance on human rights and the establishment of an independent judiciary. The Constitution replaced the oppressive legal framework of apartheid, which had enabled racial segregation and gross injustices. The judiciary sytem in South Africa was entrusted with the critical task of interpreting and upholding constitutional principles. Section 165 of the Constitution explicitly guarantees the independence of the judiciary, ensuring it remains free from interference by the executive or legislative branches. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights, enshrined in the Constitution, grants South Africans a broad spectrum of rights, which the judiciary is mandated to protect. Structure of the Judiciary in South Africa The South African judiciary is a hierarchical system designed to uphold the Constitution and administer justice efficiently. It includes several tiers of courts, each with specific jurisdictions and responsibilities, ensuring accessibility and specialization in adjudicating diverse legal matters. Below is a detailed exploration of its structure: 1. The Constitutional Court At the pinnacle of South Africa's judiciary system is the Constitutional Court, established to safeguard the Constitution and uphold its supremacy. It is the highest authority on constitutional matters and has played a transformative role in shaping the nation's legal and social landscape. - Jurisdiction: The Constitutional Court deals exclusively with issues related to constitutional interpretation. It hears cases involving disputes about the constitutionality of laws, policies, or actions by state organs. It also addresses appeals from lower courts when a constitutional question arises. - Composition: The court is composed of 11 judges, including a Chief Justice and a Deputy Chief Justice. Judges are appointed by the President, following a transparent process involving the Judicial Service Commission and public participation. - Notable Judgments: - S v Makwanyane (1995): Declared the death penalty unconstitutional, emphasizing the right to life and human dignity. - Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie (2005): Legalized same-sex marriage, reflecting the court's commitment to equality and non-discrimination. Through its rulings, the Constitutional Court has reinforced democratic values, protected minority rights, and upheld the principles of justice and fairness. 2. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) The Supreme Court of Appeal occupies the second-highest tier in the judiciary and serves as the final appellate authority for non-constitutional matters. - Jurisdiction: The SCA hears appeals on civil and criminal matters from the High Courts. While it does not deal with constitutional issues directly, it may hear cases involving such matters if not exclusively reserved for the Constitutional Court. - Composition: The court is based in Bloemfontein and consists of a President, a Deputy President, and several judges of appeal. Judges are appointed by the President following recommendations from the Judicial Service Commission. - Role and Importance: The SCA ensures consistency in the interpretation and application of the law across the High Courts. Its decisions are binding unless overturned by the Constitutional Court. 3. The High Courts The High Courts are regional courts with jurisdiction over serious civil and criminal matters. They act as an intermediary between the lower courts and the higher appellate courts. - Jurisdiction: High Courts address: - Serious criminal cases that exceed the jurisdiction of Magistrates’ Courts. - Civil cases involving substantial monetary claims or complex legal issues. - Appeals and reviews from Magistrates’ Courts. - Administrative law matters, such as judicial reviews of governmental decisions. - Structure: High Courts are established in each province, with divisions covering specific geographic areas. Some provinces have multiple seats of the High Court to ensure accessibility. - Specialized Divisions: Many High Courts have specialized divisions, such as Commercial Courts and Environmental Courts, to address complex and technical cases efficiently. 4. Magistrates’ Courts Magistrates’ Courts form the backbone of the judiciary system and handle the majority of cases, making justice accessible to the general population. - Jurisdiction: These courts are divided into: - District Courts: Handle minor civil disputes and less serious criminal cases, such as theft or assault. Their monetary jurisdiction is capped at a specific limit. - Regional Courts: Deal with more serious criminal cases, such as rape and armed robbery, and civil disputes involving higher monetary claims than district courts can handle. - Role: Magistrates’ Courts are vital in ensuring that justice is delivered at the community level. They address everyday legal issues, relieving higher courts of excessive caseloads. 5. Specialized Courts To address the unique challenges posed by South Africa’s socio-political context, several specialized courts have been established. These courts enhance the judiciary’s capacity to address specific legal needs: - Labour Court: Deals with labor disputes, including unfair dismissals and workplace discrimination. It plays a critical role in enforcing labor laws and protecting workers' rights. - Land Claims Court: Handles cases related to land restitution and ownership disputes, a critical issue given South Africa’s history of dispossession and apartheid-era injustices. - Equality Courts: Established under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, these courts address discrimination and hate speech cases, promoting social cohesion and equality. - Children’s Courts: Focus on matters involving child welfare, such as guardianship, adoption, and child abuse. - Small Claims Courts: Provide a simplified and cost-effective avenue for resolving minor civil disputes involving claims below a certain monetary threshold. - Specialized Commercial Crimes Courts: Deal with white-collar crimes, such as fraud and corruption, to enhance efficiency and expertise in handling complex financial cases. The judiciary system in South Africa, with its layered and specialized structure, is designed to ensure that justice is accessible, efficient, and tailored to the nation's diverse legal needs. From the Constitutional Court’s role as the ultimate guardian of constitutional rights to the Magistrates’ Courts’ local-level accessibility, the judiciary exemplifies a commitment to upholding the rule of law and addressing historical injustices. By integrating specialized courts, the system also ensures that complex societal issues are handled with expertise, further solidifying its role as a pillar of democracy. Role and Functioning The judiciary serves several critical roles in South Africa: - Adjudication of Disputes Courts resolve disputes between individuals, organizations, and the state, ensuring that justice is served impartially. - Constitutional Oversight The judiciary monitors the actions of the legislative and executive branches, ensuring they conform to constitutional mandates. This check-and-balance mechanism is vital in preventing abuse of power. - Protection of Rights By interpreting the Bill of Rights, the judiciary safeguards fundamental freedoms and ensures accountability for human rights violations. - Social Transformation Given South Africa’s history, the judiciary is tasked with promoting social justice and addressing historical inequities through its judgments. Challenges Facing the Judiciary Despite its achievements, South Africa’s judiciary faces several challenges: - Case Backlogs Overburdened courts and delays in case resolution undermine public confidence in the judiciary. This issue is particularly acute in Magistrates’ Courts. - Access to Justice Economic disparities mean that many South Africans cannot afford legal representation. Although Legal Aid South Africa provides assistance, the demand often exceeds available resources. - Corruption and Ethical Concerns While relatively insulated, instances of corruption or unethical behavior within the judiciary threaten its credibility and independence. - Transformation Imperatives The judiciary continues to grapple with the legacy of apartheid, including the need to diversify its ranks and make courts more representative of South Africa’s demographics. Landmark Court Cases in South Africa: Shaping Justice and Society South Africa’s judiciary has been instrumental in upholding the principles of democracy, equality, and human rights through a series of landmark court cases. These rulings have addressed critical social, political, and economic issues, shaping the country's legal landscape and influencing its transformation into a more just society. Below are some of the most significant court cases in South African history: 1. S v Makwanyane and Another (1995) Topic: Abolition of the Death Penalty Court: Constitutional Court - Background: This case marked one of the first significant decisions of the Constitutional Court. The applicants, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty. - Ruling: The court declared the death penalty unconstitutional, citing its incompatibility with the right to life (Section 11 of the Constitution) and the right to dignity (Section 10). The court emphasized the values of ubuntu (humanity) in its reasoning. - Significance: This ruling abolished capital punishment in South Africa, reaffirming the country's commitment to human rights and setting a progressive tone for the judiciary. 2. Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie (2005) Topic: Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Court: Constitutional Court - Background: The case arose from a challenge to the common-law definition of marriage, which restricted it to heterosexual couples, and the Marriage Act, which failed to recognize same-sex unions. - Ruling: The Constitutional Court ruled that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violated the rights to equality and dignity. The court gave Parliament one year to amend the Marriage Act, leading to the Civil Union Act of 2006. - Significance: South Africa became the first African nation to legalize same-sex marriage, showcasing the judiciary's role in advancing LGBTQ+ rights. 3. Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom (2000) Topic: Socio-Economic Rights and Housing Court: Constitutional Court - Background: Irene Grootboom and others were evicted from informal settlements and left homeless. They argued that the government had failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide access to adequate housing. - Ruling: The court held that while the government’s housing policy was comprehensive, it did not adequately address the needs of vulnerable groups, such as those in emergency situations. It directed the state to develop policies to address these gaps. - Significance: The case underscored the enforceability of socio-economic rights and highlighted the state's obligation to provide for marginalized and vulnerable populations. 4. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice (1998) Topic: Decriminalization of Homosexuality Court: Constitutional Court - Background: The case challenged the constitutionality of laws criminalizing consensual same-sex relations under the common-law offense of sodomy and the Sexual Offenses Act. - Ruling: The court struck down these provisions as unconstitutional, ruling that they violated the rights to equality, dignity, and privacy. - Significance: This case marked a pivotal moment in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights in South Africa, reinforcing the principle of equality for all citizens. 5. Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly (2016) Topic: Presidential Accountability Court: Constitutional Court - Background: This case involved the refusal of then-President Jacob Zuma to comply with the Public Protector’s findings on the misuse of public funds for upgrades to his private residence in Nkandla. - Ruling: The court ruled that the Public Protector's findings were binding and that Zuma had violated the Constitution by failing to adhere to them. It also criticized Parliament for failing to hold the President accountable. - Significance: This case strengthened accountability mechanisms and reinforced the independence of Chapter 9 institutions like the Public Protector. 6. Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security (2001) Topic: Gender-Based Violence and State Accountability Court: Constitutional Court - Background: The case arose from the brutal assault of Carmichele by a man released on bail despite a history of violent offenses. She sued the state for failing to protect her. - Ruling: The court held that the state had a duty to protect citizens from gender-based violence and could be held liable for failing to do so. It emphasized that the Constitution imposes positive obligations on the state to safeguard fundamental rights. - Significance: The case highlighted the judiciary's role in addressing systemic failures in protecting women from violence, aligning with constitutional values. 7. Khosa v Minister of Social Development (2004) Topic: Rights of Non-Citizens Court: Constitutional Court - Background: This case challenged the exclusion of permanent residents from accessing certain social grants available to South African citizens. - Ruling: The court ruled that denying permanent residents access to social grants violated their constitutional rights to equality and dignity. It affirmed that socio-economic rights apply to non-citizens within the country’s borders. - Significance: This decision reinforced the inclusivity of South Africa’s human rights framework, extending protections to non-citizens. 8. Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly (2006) Topic: Public Participation in Lawmaking Court: Constitutional Court - Background: The case involved allegations that Parliament had failed to adequately facilitate public participation during the legislative process for certain health-related bills. - Ruling: The court emphasized that public participation is a constitutional requirement in the lawmaking process and found that Parliament had failed to meet this obligation. - Significance: This case underscored the importance of participatory democracy and ensured that legislative processes are inclusive and transparent. These landmark cases reflect the South African judiciary's pivotal role in advancing democracy, protecting human rights, and addressing systemic injustices. From safeguarding socio-economic rights to promoting accountability and inclusivity, these rulings have significantly shaped South Africa’s legal and social evolution, reinforcing the judiciary’s status as a pillar of democracy. Impact and Legacy The judiciary’s role in post-apartheid South Africa cannot be overstated. Landmark rulings have shaped the nation’s social and political landscape, affirming the rights of marginalized groups and fostering inclusivity. For instance, its decisions on land restitution and socio-economic rights have contributed to redressing historical injustices. Furthermore, the judiciary’s independence has been a bulwark against political overreach, maintaining a delicate balance between the branches of government. Read the full article

[starbiopic]

Troubles Mount for 11 Cast Members of ‘IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack’! Complaint Filed in Muzaffarpur Court, Bihar

The Netflix web series ‘IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack’ is facing a lot of controversy. A complaint has been filed against 11 people, including the director Anubhav Sinha, producers, and actors like Dia Mirza and Pankaj Kapur. This complaint was filed in the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Court of Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Why the Controversy? The controversy started because the series used Hindu names…