#best civil lawyer in Supreme Court

[lawandlegal]

Advocate Narender Singh: Redefining Criminal Lawyer for Supreme Court of India Excellence

Setting New Standards in Supreme Court Advocacy

Advocate Narender Singh is a trailblazer in the field of criminal law. Known for his expertise, he consistently sets benchmarks in Criminal Lawyer for Supreme Court of India litigation. His practice revolves around precision, innovation, and relentless pursuit of justice.

A Stellar Career in Criminal Law

Narender Singh has handled a vast spectrum of criminal cases, from complex constitutional issues to landmark judgments. His unparalleled grasp of the Indian Penal Code and procedural law positions him among the top criminal lawyers in India.

Mastering Supreme Court Dynamics

Best Criminal Lawyer for Supreme Court of India proceedings require in-depth knowledge and strategic planning. Advocate Singh has mastered these dynamics, ensuring his clients receive strong and effective representation. His ability to navigate the intricate procedures of the apex court is a hallmark of his practice.

Expert in High-Stakes Litigation

Advocate Narender Singh has a proven track record in high-stakes cases. He excels in defending clients facing serious charges, crafting strategies that lead to favorable outcomes. His experience includes:

Handling criminal appeals and revisions.

Filing and defending Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).

Securing bail and anticipatory bail in critical situations.

Why Advocate Narender Singh Is a Trusted Name

Legal Expertise: Deep understanding of criminal jurisprudence and court procedures.

Strategic Thinking: Ability to anticipate and counter opposing arguments.

Client-Centric Approach: Prioritizes clients’ needs with clear communication and personalized strategies.

Results-Oriented Practice: Delivers success through meticulous planning and flawless execution.

Redefining Advocacy Through Innovation

Narender Singh’s legal practice stands out due to his innovative approach. He combines traditional legal knowledge with modern techniques to address today’s challenges. His adaptability ensures success in even the most unprecedented situations.

Commitment to Justice and Fairness

Advocate Singh’s unwavering commitment to justice forms the foundation of his career. He believes in equal representation for all and works tirelessly to uphold the principles of fairness in every case he handles.

Navigating Complex Legal Issues with Confidence

Narender Singh specializes in resolving intricate legal matters, including:

Constitutional challenges and interpretations.

Cases involving national importance.

High-profile criminal defenses with significant legal implications.

Choosing Advocate Narender Singh for Supreme Court Matters

When facing a legal challenge in the Advocate for Supreme Court of India, you need an advocate with exceptional skills and experience. Narender Singh’s dedication, knowledge, and results-driven approach make him the ideal choice for criminal litigation.

Contact Advocate Narender Singh Today

For expert guidance and representation in Supreme Court criminal matters, Advocate Narender Singh is ready to assist. Reach out today and secure the legal expertise you deserve.

Conclusion

Advocate Narender Singh is redefining excellence in criminal law for the Lawyer for Supreme Court of India. His unparalleled expertise, innovative strategies, and client-focused approach have made him a standout figure in the legal community. Trust him to deliver justice with unmatched professionalism and integrity.

[mariacallous]

The US supreme court heard one of the most consequential LGBTQ+ rights cases in its history on Wednesday, with arguments that laid bare the conservative supermajority’s broad threats to civil rights, bodily autonomy and decades of legal precedent.

In US v Skrmetti, the court is weighing Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, one of 24 state laws across the US prohibiting treatments that are part of the standards of care endorsed by every major medical association in the country.

The case originated with three trans youth and their parents who sued Tennessee, arguing the care – puberty blockers and hormone therapy – was medically necessary and “life-saving”. The Biden administration joined the case, asserting Tennessee’s law was unconstitutional.

The case hinges on the legal question of whether Tennessee’s healthcare ban constitutes a form of sex discrimination that merits “heightened scrutiny”, which would mean the case be returned to lower courts for a more rigorous review. But the oral arguments made clear that a ruling against the trans plaintiffs could have far-reaching implications for trans rights and anti-discrimination protections more broadly.’

The US and the ACLU argued that the law is discriminatory and bans treatments based on sex classifications; under Tennessee’s ban, cisgender boys with delayed puberty can be prescribed testosterone, but transgender boys are barred from accessing the same treatments for gender-affirming care. Tennessee argued that the law is an “across the board rule” to “protect minors” from “risky” medical interventions.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the US solicitor general, noted that the court would “turn its back on 50 years of precedent” if it sided with Tennessee’s arguments that the law does not constitute sex discrimination warranting closer scrutiny.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, repeatedly compared Tennessee’s ban with the prohibition on interracial marriage, overturned by the landmark Loving v Virginia decision in 1967: “Some of these questions … sound very familiar to me, [such as] the arguments made back in the day, the 50s and 60s, with respect to racial classifications.” Jackson later added: “I’m worried that we’re undermining the foundations of some of our bedrock equal protection cases.”

“I share your concerns,” responded the ACLU’s Chase Strangio, the first out trans lawyer to appear before the court. “If Tennessee can have an end-run around heightened scrutiny … that would undermine decades of this court’s precedent.”

Kate Redburn, co-director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, explained after the arguments that there was the potential for an outcome that “would authorize a much broader range of sex discrimination, which has been previously found unconstitutional.

“There could be situations where the government could distinguish between people by sex, and courts would not intervene,” they continued, saying a ruling in favor of Tennessee could make it easier for states to pass policies that discriminate on the basis of pregnancy or other reproductive choices, for example: “Regulations that we now would say are based on stereotypes – especially stereotypes about what women’s proper role is – depending on how expansive this opinion is, those stereotypes could be authorized.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal, also noted that a decision declaring that the ban on care is not discriminatory could open the door to bans on gender-affirming healthcare for all trans people, not just youth: “You’re licensing states to deprive grown adults of the choice of which sex to adopt.”

Matthew Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general, responded that the “democratic process” was the “best check on potentially misguided laws”. Sotomayor interjected: “When you’re 1% of the population, or less, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process is going to protect you. Blacks were a much larger part of the population and it didn’t protect them. It didn’t protect women for whole centuries.”

“That was a chilling moment,” said Sydney Duncan, senior counsel at Advocates for Trans Equality, who sat in the courtroom. “Is the next step to ban adult healthcare? The state didn’t have a great answer there.” She noted that Tennessee’s law is rooted in “bad science” and misinformation. Doctors cited as expert witnesses for the state have repeatedly been discounted and rebuked by US judges for their lack of credentials and anti-trans bias, the Guardian recently reported.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, asked Prelogar about bans on trans people in athletics: “If you prevail here … would transgender athletes have a constitutional right to play in women’s and girls’ sports?” Prelogar responded that the sports issue – which has become a focus of Republicans’ culture war – was related to a different legal question. Kavanaugh’s questions raised some concerns from advocates that the outcome could have broader impacts for LGBTQ+ rights beyond youth healthcare.

“The justices likely see this case as a potential harbinger of future litigation and constitutional questions about trans people’s equal protection,” Redburn said.

Rice also claimed that trans plaintiffs were seeking a “right to engage in nonconforming behavior”. Redburn said the remark was noteworthy and raised broader concerns about people’s rights to self-expression:

“You can see the motivation is not, as the state has suggested, to protect the health of children, which is something that states have a right to regulate, but instead is based on not only particular animus towards transgender individuals, but also a broader social vision that upholds a certain gender hierarchy.”

The conservative justices appeared reluctant to intervene and block Tennessee’s ban, which means the outcome next year could deliver a dramatic blow to trans rights at a time of escalating attacks on LGBTQ+ equality across the US.

“It’s so important that we understand this case as deeply connected to … laws on race and sex discrimination more broadly,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of United for Reproductive and Gender Equity (Urge), an advocacy group. “These questions of what is privacy, what is autonomy, can we control our bodies and our families – these are all intertwined.”

The questions from Jackson and Sotomayor, she said, made clear that “the struggle for the recognition of trans people’s humanity cannot be separated from questions of race and gender equality that have long been cornerstones of this nation’s jurisprudence”, McGuire said.

She noted that anti-abortion and anti-trans activism were closely linked and that this case would probably be followed by efforts to ban adult gender-affirming care, birth control, IVF and other healthcare: “We have seen the right use marginalized people as the tip of the spear for a much larger attack … This voracious desire to be involved in our most personal, private decisions has no end.”

Imara Jones, a podcaster and CEO of the news organization TransLash, who sat in the room, noted that the healthcare under threat was long established: “If you eliminate gender-affirming care, you’re going to be shortening people’s lives and diminishing the quality of their lives. It’s a very real impact. This is not a constitutional or esoteric consideration for trans people. It’s as personal as it gets.”

Bamby Salcedo, a longtime activist and president of the TransLatin@ Coalition, said she and other advocates were bracing for a harmful ruling, but added: “For many of us as a community, hope is the last thing that will die. Regardless of the outcome, we as people are resilient … and we are going to continue to exist despite the oppression we may experience because of this decision. We are going to continue to fight like hell for all of us to be protected.”

[batboyblog]

A Tale of Two Judges

In federal court in Florida today a judge struck down a Florida law banning gender affirming care for minors as well as rules from the state's medical authority that set up barriers to trans adults seeking care

At the same time a federal court in Texas blocked guidance from the Biden Administration's Department of Education that Title IX should be understood as protecting trans students

And I think this is a great illustration that elections last LONG after they're finished, one judge blasted Florida's law as unconstitutional and quoted Dr. King in framing trans rights as the same as the struggle for racial equality and called on the courts to support them. The other gleefully sided with Republicans with Texas AG Ken Paxton declaring "“Joe Biden’s unlawful effort to weaponize Title IX for his extremist agenda has been stopped in its tracks"

The Judge in Florida was Senior Judge Robert Hinkle, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, Hinkle took the semi-retirement known as senior status in 2016, but still hears cases as he did here. Hinkle also ruled in 2014 that Florida's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The Judge in Texas is Judge Reed O'Connor, He was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007. O'Connor is very active in the conservative Federalist Society, Conservative Lawyers and Texas Attorneys General try to file their insane, legally nonsense, show boat cases in his court because if they get him he'll rule for the Republican side and against the Democratic side no matter what. In 2016 he blocked Obama Admin rules that declared Title IX meant trans students should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice. While the Obama team appealed, once Trump was elected the rule was pulled and the case died.... hm. O'Connor is best known as that crazy man who ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in 2018, he was reversed, he ruled the Indian Child Welfare Act was unconstitutional, he ruled in 2022 the US Navy couldn't require Navy SEALS get Covid vaccines.

all to say when you get into a voting booth remember one of the things you vote for is Judges, who have a huge amount of power, and you can either get cool progressive minded judges who will still be making ground breaking rulings to protect civil rights 28 years after being nominated, or you can get conservative hacks who rule whatever wing nut thing they see on Fox 18 years after being nominated. During his Presidency Trump got to nominate 234 federal judges (Biden is currently at 201) including 3 Supreme Court Justices (Biden has 1) And those judges will be with us for years not like 10 years, or even 20, or even 30, no no no, Judge Albert Branson Maris was nominated by FDR in 1936 and served till his death at age 95 in 1989, JFK's last nominee, William Joseph Nealon Jr., passed away still hearing cases at the age of 95 in 2018 (the second to last passed away the year before in 2017) LBJ's last judge, Jack B. Weinstein, only passed away in 2021, there are at least 7 Nixon judges still hearing cases, 50 years after Nixon Resigned from office in 1974. We will be dealing with Trump's Judges for 40-50 maybe more years. So keep that in mind when you vote.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 30, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 01, 2024

This morning, Time magazine published a cover story by Eric Cortellessa about what Trump is planning for a second term. Based on two interviews with Trump and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisors, the story lays out Trump’s conviction that he was “too nice” in his first term and that he would not make such a mistake again. 

Cortellessa writes that Trump intends to establish “an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.” 

He plans to use the military to round up, put in camps, and deport more than 11 million people. He is willing to permit Republican-dominated states to monitor pregnancies and prosecute people who violate abortion bans. He will shape the laws by refusing to release funds appropriated by Congress (as he did in 2019 to try to get Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to smear Hunter Biden). He would like to bring the Department of Justice under his own control, pardoning those convicted of attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and ending the U.S. system of an independent judiciary. In a second Trump presidency, the U.S. might not come to the aid of a European or Asian ally that Trump thinks isn’t paying enough for its own defense. Trump would, Cortelessa wrote, “gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

To that list, former political director of the AFL-CIO Michael Podhorzer added on social media that if Trump wins, “he could replace [Supreme Court justices Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, and 40+ federal judges over 75 with young zealots.” 

“I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles?” Cortellessa wrote. No, Trump said. “‘I think a lot of people like it.” 

Time included the full transcripts and a piece fact-checking Trump’s assertions. The transcripts reflect the former president’s scattershot language that makes little logical sense but conveys impressions by repeating key phrases and advancing a narrative of grievance. The fact-checking reveals that narrative is based largely on fantasy. 

Trump’s own words prove the truth of what careful observers have been saying about his plans based on their examination of MAGA Republicans’ speeches, interviews, Project 2025, and so on, often to find themselves accused of a liberal bias that makes them exaggerate the dangers of a second Trump presidency. 

The idea that truthful reporting based on verifiable evidence is a plot by “liberal media” to undermine conservative values had its start in 1951, when William F. Buckley Jr., fresh out of Yale, published God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of “Academic Freedom.” Fervently opposed to the bipartisan liberal consensus that the federal government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, protect civil rights, and promote infrastructure, Buckley was incensed that voters continued to support such a system. He rejected the “superstition” that fact-based public debate would enable people to choose the best option from a wide range of ideas—a tradition based in the Enlightenment—because such debate had encouraged voters to choose the liberal consensus, which he considered socialism. Instead, he called for universities to exclude “bad” ideas like the Keynesian economics on which the liberal consensus was based, and instead promote Christianity and free enterprise.

Buckley soon began to publish his own magazine, the National Review, in which he promised to tell the “violated businessman’s side of the story,” but it was a confidential memorandum written in 1971 by lawyer Lewis M. Powell Jr. for a friend who chaired the education committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that insisted the media had a liberal bias that must be balanced with a business perspective. 

Warning that “the American economic system is under broad attack,” Powell worried not about “the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system.” They were, he wrote, a small minority. What he worried about were those coming from “perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.” 

Businessmen must “confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management,” he wrote, launching a unified effort to defend American enterprise. Among the many plans Powell suggested for defending corporate America was keeping the media “under constant surveillance” to complain about “criticism of the enterprise system” and demand equal time. 

President Richard Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court, and when Nixon was forced to resign for his participation in the scheme to cover up the attempt to bug the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel before the 1972 election, he claimed he had to leave not because he had committed a crime, but because the “liberal” media had made it impossible for him to do his job. Six years later, Ronald Reagan, who was an early supporter of Buckley’s National Review, claimed the “liberal media” was biased against him when reporters accurately called out his exaggerations and misinformation during his 1980 campaign. 

In 1987, Reagan’s appointees to the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine that required media with a public license to present information honestly and fairly. Within a year, talk radio had gone national, with hosts like Rush Limbaugh electrifying listeners with his attacks on “liberals” and his warning that they were forcing “socialism” on the United States. 

By 1996, when Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch started the Fox News Channel (FNC), followers had come to believe that the news that came from a mainstream reporter was likely left-wing propaganda. FNC promised to restore fairness and balance to American political news. At the same time, the complaints of increasingly radicalized Republicans about the “liberal media” pushed mainstream media to wander from fact-based reality to give more and more time to the right-wing narrative. By 2018, “bothsidesing” had entered our vocabulary to mean “the media or public figures giving credence to the other side of a cause, action, or idea to seem fair or only for the sake of argument when the credibility of that side may be unmerited.”

In 2023, FNC had to pay almost $800 million to settle defamation claims made by Dominion Voting Systems after FNC hosts pushed the lie that Dominion machines had changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, and it has since tried to retreat from the more egregious parts of its false narrative. 

News broke yesterday that Hunter Biden’s lawyer had threatened to sue FNC for “conspiracy and subsequent actions to defame Mr. Biden and paint him in a false light, the unlicensed commercial exploitation of his image, name, and likeness, and the unlawful publication of hacked intimate images of him.” Today, FNC quietly took down from its streaming service its six-part “mock trial” of Hunter Biden, as well as a video promoting the series. 

Also today, Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over Trump’s criminal trial for election fraud, found Trump in contempt of court for attacking witnesses and jurors. Merchan also fined Trump $1,000 per offense, required him to take down the nine social media posts at the heart of the decision, and warned him that future violations could bring jail time. This afternoon, Trump’s team deleted the social media posts. 

For the first time in history, a former U.S. president has been found in contempt of court. We know who he is, and today, Trump himself validated the truth of what observers who deal in facts have been saying about what a second Trump term would mean for the United States.

Reacting to the Time magazine piece, James Singer, the spokesperson for the Biden-Harris campaign, released a statement saying: “Not since the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today—because of Donald Trump. Trump is willing to throw away the very idea of America to put himself in power…. Trump is a danger to the Constitution and a threat to democracy.” 

Tomorrow, May 1, is “Law Day,” established in 1958 by Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower as a national recognition of the importance of the rule of law. In proclaiming the holiday today, Biden said: “America can and should be a Nation that defends democracy, protects our rights and freedoms, and pioneers a future of possibilities for all Americans. History and common sense show us that this can only come to pass in a democracy, and we must be its keepers.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[brian-in-finance]

Lawsuit Accuses Former Associate of Harvey Weinstein of Rape

A former model has filed a suit against Fabrizio Lombardo and Disney.

Fabrizio Lombardo, the former head of Miramax in Italy and a close associate of Harvey Weinstein, has been accused of rape in a lawsuit filed on April 6 in New York State Supreme Court. The suit was brought by Sara Ziff, a former model and the founder of the Model Alliance, an advocacy group for models and fashion creatives.

The suit alleges that Mr. Lombardo, assaulted Ms. Ziff in a New York City hotel in 2001 when she was 19.

Ms. Ziff is suing Mr. Lombardo, as well as Mr. Weinstein, Disney and its subsidiaries Buena Vista and Miramax, for abuse and negligence under the Adult Survivors Act. The A.S.A., which was passed in May 2022, extended, until November 2023, the rights of sex crime victims to bring civil claims that would otherwise have expired under the statute of limitations.

Mr. Lombardo — whom Mr. Weinstein once credited with saving his life and whose 2003 wedding involved Mr. Weinstein as his best man — often figured on the sidelines of the many stories about Mr. Weinstein’s predations on young women. He was named in the sexual harassment class action suit brought against the Weinstein Company and numerous related entities in October 2018. But this is the first time he himself has been accused of sexual assault in a court of law.

It is also the first time Ms. Ziff has spoken publicly about her own experience, despite being instrumental in helping others tell their stories of sexual abuse, specifically creating a help line for survivors at the Model Alliance.

“It’s taken over 20 years to process this,” she said in an interview in advance of filing the suit. “I couldn’t even talk to anyone about it for the first few years, let alone imagine taking legal action.” When the A.S.A. was passed, however, she said she began to reconsider.

Efforts to reach Mr. Lombardo were unsuccessful. Disney did not respond to emails and phone calls requesting comment.

Imran H. Ansari, a lawyer for Harvey Weinstein, wrote in an email: “Certainly Mr. Weinstein had no control over any alleged conduct by Mr. Lombardo, nor would he have any reason to know what Mr. Lombardo was doing nor where Mr. Lombardo was at the time that Ms. Ziff alleges she was raped. As such, Mr. Weinstein firmly denies that he has any liability for the alleged conduct of another.” (Mr. Weinstein was sentenced to a combined 39 years in prison for sex crimes in New York and Los Angeles.)

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Ziff met Mr. Lombardo in 2001 when she was considering becoming an actress; her agents brokered the meeting. Mr. Lombardo later invited her to a screening of a Miramax movie and said it would be a chance to meet Mr. Weinstein, then at the height of his power in Hollywood.

After the screening, the lawsuit says, Mr. Lombardo invited Ms. Ziff for a drink at the Mercer and said both Mr. Weinstein and his brother, Bob, would be there. When Ms. Ziff arrived, Mr. Lombardo brought her to a penthouse suite, with no one else present.

The lawsuit says that after making advances and being told by Ms. Ziff she had a boyfriend, Mr. Lombardo “pivoted her around onto the bed on her back,” lay on top of her and raped her.

“Ms. Ziff was in shock and lay in the bed, frozen. Mr. Lombardo fell asleep. Ms. Ziff woke up early the next morning, confused and alone in the hotel room. She walked home to her apartment, took a long shower, and cried,” the suit reads. The suit also says Ms. Ziff did not speak about the rape to anyone at the time. A few years later she told a fellow model, Caitriona Balfe (now an actress), about the assault.

Ms. Balfe confirmed that Ms. Ziff had told her about the rape during a fashion show season in Milan around 2005.

Ms. Balfe said she and Ms. Ziff never thought about making it public. “We were so young, and the crazy thing is as models we were being put in these really compromising situations all the time, and you just kind of accepted them,” Ms. Balfe said.

Now 40, and the mother of a young daughter, Ms. Ziff acknowledged that while her experience may have shaped her decision to go into advocacy and become the public face of models’ rights, she herself had been reluctant to do what she helped other models do.

“I feel more comfortable focusing on the discussions around policy,” she said. She and the Model Alliance are currently working on a new bill, the Fashion Workers Act, which focuses on regulating management agencies in order to prevent these abuses from happening. Co-sponsored by State Senator Brad Hoylman, the bill was introduced in the New York state legislature last year and will be reconsidered during the upcoming legislative session, after it was not passed the first time.

However, Ms. Ziff said, she had spent the last decade talking to other survivors, and in helping other people, she began to feel it was “the responsible thing” to come forward.

“I’ve been very anxious about it and at times wondered if I even want to go through this process,” she said. “I’ve spoken to other people who’ve gone through it and every single one of them says it’s a nightmare. But no matter how much I’ve tried to ignore it or minimize it, this is not my burden to hold.”

In 2017 Ms. Ziff filed a report with the New York City Police Department, though it did not lead to any charges. That was the year Mr. Lombardo was accused by four women, including the actress Asia Argento and the model Zoe Brock, of being Mr. Weinstein’s enabler — and employed by Miramax in part for that purpose. Mr. Lombardo emphatically denied the allegations in an interview with The New York Times.

Mr. Lombardo never appeared in court during the class action suit, and it was later settled as part of the Weinstein Company bankruptcy filing.

“I’ve always been frustrated by the fact that those people seem to escape any kind of accountability,” Ms. Ziff said. She said that when the A.S.A. was passed, she remembered going to the bill signing with the governor and with other women she had come to know over the years who had spoken out about their abuse and trauma.

“It felt like here was a real sense of possibility that perhaps we could do something about what happened,” she said, “even if it happened a very long time ago.”

Vanessa Friedman has been the fashion director and chief fashion critic for The Times since 2014. In this role she covers global fashion for both The New York Times and International New York Times. @VVFriedman

New York Times 7 April 2023

Remember… I’ve spoken to other people who’ve gone through it and every single one of them says it’s a nightmare. But no matter how much I’ve tried to ignore it or minimize it, this is not my burden to hold. — Sara Ziff

[alphaman99]

HISTORY THAT SHOULDN'T BE FORGOTTEN.

Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason. He was imprisoned for 2 years without a trial, however...

The post-war Jefferson Davis: The famous trial that never was.

By Bill Ward

When the War Between the States ended, the victorious Northerners viewed Jefferson Davis, as the former President of the Confederate States of America, much differently than others who had served the Confederacy.

For example, when Robert E. Lee surrendered to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, the meeting between the two generals was amicable. Lee was received and treated with courtesy as a senior officer. The terms were so apparently lenient, with Grant conceding to Lee’s requests on behalf of his soldiers, the surrender was referred to as “a gentleman’s agreement.”

However, even after signing a loyalty oath, Lee and other former Confederate Army officers and members of the CSA government were later disenfranchised and treated as second-class citizens. But in the eyes of the northern public, Jefferson Davis was set apart for still a different kind of treatment.

On May 10, 1865, about a mile from the town of Irwinville, Georgia, Federal troops captured Davis. With his arrest on that spring morning, his government ceased to exist. His wife, Varina, and their children were sent to Savannah, where she was kept under virtual house arrest and forbidden to leave the city. Because the soldiers, carpetbaggers and Union supporters treated the Davis children so badly, Varina arranged for them to go to Canada along with her mother.

Davis had been taken back to Virginia and imprisoned in Fort Monroe, where he would stay for the next two years. At first, he was bound in leg irons. Guards watched him around the clock but were not permitted to speak to him. He was allowed no visitors; a light burned in his cell day and night; and his only reading material was a Bible. His treatment was a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.

Many Northern Congressmen and newspapers were nothing short of vicious in their public attacks of Davis. They wanted to see him tried for treason and hanged. In one article, and in one very long sentence, the New York Times referred to Davis by every insulting comment and offensive name that was fit to print. Rhetoric far outran legal reasoning.

But if Davis was in an unusual legal predicament, so was the United States government. The dilemma faced by Washington was how to handle the Davis case. The government under Lincoln had created its own major obstacles by spending four years proclaiming that secessionists were “traitors and conspirators.” The U.S. military had silenced opposition to the administration by closing down newspapers that dared challenge the party line or to make the slightest suggestion that secession might be legal. Thousands of Northerners had been jailed for exercising their First Amendment rights, and those thousands had friends with long memories in the Northern bar.

Northern lawyers were angry for having their clients locked in prison with no civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution; having civilians tried by military courts for non-existent crimes; having a government that ignored the Supreme Court, setting itself above the constitutional plan of checks and balances. They didn’t like having to beg the president for justice for clients convicted by phony courts-martial or locked up for long periods without any trial. Under Lincoln, the U.S. government had become tyrannical, and certainly anything but a free and constitutional society.

The best lawyers of the day were willing to volunteer to defend Jefferson Davis, because they were angry at the way Lincoln’s government had trampled the Bill of Rights and the Constitution for four years. Even those who didn’t believe in secession were repulsed by the conduct of the Republican administration and the U.S. military.

Charles O’Connor of New York, one of the most famous trial lawyers of the era and a man of great stature in the legal profession, volunteered to be Davis’s counsel. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, would be the trial judge.

But interesting things began to happen, and the government’s dilemma became even worse. University of Virginia Law Professor, Albert Bledsoe, published a book, “Is Davis a Traitor?” Bledsoe methodically took apart the case against secession, delivering a solid blow to the prosecutors and dampening their zeal to try Davis. Prosecutors actually began to look for a way to avoid trying him without vindicating the South.

Then another method was decided on for prosecution. The attorney general would bring in outside, independent counsel, as we have seen in modern times, such as in Watergate or the Clinton scandals. The government needed someone of great standing in the legal community to be the lead prosecutor. It chose John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew citing “grave doubts” about the validity of the case. The government could “end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury,” where Davis’s “crime” was alleged to have been committed.

President Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, thought the easiest way out would be to pardon Davis, as he had pardoned many other Confederates. But Davis refused, saying, “To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt.” He wanted a trial to have the issue of secession decided by a court of law — where it should have been decided to begin with — instead of on battlefields. Most Southerners wanted the same.

Northerners either forgot or were unaware of a great secessionist tradition in America. Southerners were not alone in their view that each state had the right to determine its own destiny in the Union. The procedure for joining the Union also applied to withdrawing from the Union.

That thought harkens back to an editorial by the Cincinnati (Ohio) Daily Inquirer, in the summer of 1861, after the “traitor” label was let loose by the North: “The Republican papers are great on treason. . . . It is treason to circulate petitions for a compromise or peaceful readjustment of our national troubles . . . to question the constitutional powers of the President to increase the standing army without authority of law . . . to object to squads of military visiting private houses, and to make search and seizures. . . to question the infallibility of the President, and treason not to concur with him. . . It is treason to talk of hard times; to say that the war might have been avoided. It is treason to be truthful and faithful to the Constitution.”

A year after John Clifford withdrew, the government appointed another special counsel, Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the novel, “Two Years Before the Mast.” But after reviewing the evidence, he agreed with Clifford; the case was a loser. Dana argued that “a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled…as a rule of law by war.” Dana observed that the right to secede from the Union had not been settled by civilized means but by military power and the destruction of much life and property in the South. The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law.

Now, over two years after Davis’s imprisonment and grand jury indictments for treason, the stage was set for the great public trial of the century. Davis had been released from prison on a $100,000 bond, supported by none other than Horace Greeley, the leading abolitionist writer in the North and a former Lincoln supporter. Greeley and a host of others were outraged at the treatment Davis had received, being locked up in a dungeon for more than two years with no speedy trial.

Since two famous special counsels had told the government its case was a loser, finally, none other than the Chief Justice, in a quirk of Constitutional manipulation, devised an idea to avoid a trial without vindicating the South. His amazing solution was little short of genius.

The Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted, which provided that anyone who had engaged in insurrection against the United States and had at one time taken an oath of allegiance (which Davis had done as a U.S. Senator) could not hold public office. The Bill of Rights prevents double jeopardy, so Davis, who had already been punished once by the Fourteenth Amendment in not being permitted to hold public office, couldn't be tried and punished again for treason.

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase secretly passed along his clever argument to Davis’s counsel, Charles O’Connor, who then made the motion to dismiss. The Court took the motion under consideration, passing the matter on to the Supreme Court for determination.

In late December 1867 while the motion was pending, President Johnson granted amnesty to everyone in the South, including Davis. But the Davis case was still on the docket. In February 1868, at a dinner party attended by the Chief Justice and a government attorney, they agreed that on the following day a motion for non-prosecution would be made that would dismiss the case. A guest overheard the conversation and reported what was on the minds of most Southerners: “I did not consider that he [Davis] was any more guilty of treason than I was, and that a trial should be insisted upon, which could properly only result in a complete vindication of our cause, and of the action of the many thousands who had fought and of the many thousands who had died for what they felt to be right.”

And so, the case of United States versus Jefferson Davis came to its end — a case that was to be the trial of the century, a great state trial, perhaps the most significant trial in the history of the nation — that never was.

[evilelitest2]

So, where do you fall on Leftism spectrum? I sure hope not believing in left armament or successful uprising disqualifies me from being futher left than a liberal.

oh this is a complicated question, but in short not wanting a violent revolution doesn't make you not a leftist, it just makes you not an idiot. My view of leftism is that it is about protecting human rights, which is my first priority. I think my leftism boils down to the following points

Liberalism: Negative Freedoms, aka Civil Liberties, protections against government tyranny

Examples: Right to free speech, Freedom of religion, equality before the law, right to a fair trial, habitus Corpus, innocence until proven guilty, warrant any sort of limit on state power

Socialism: Positive freedoms, aka things the government needs to provide to all citizens

Examples: Free education, Free housing, Free Healthcare, free food, land redistribution, free clothing, free lawyers, free support ect

Progressivism, aka Civil Rights, things to protect citizens from other Citizens, mostly in terms of opposing bigotry. So policies that fight back against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, xenophobia, nativism, religious intolerance, anti Semitism and antiquated cultural norms.

Democratic Republican (not the political party like pro Democracy) Pro Democracy: Democracy is the best government system that we have and the more proportional a democracy the better, we need to remove most authoritarian power structures. democracy should be designed to resist corruption and graft form the ground up

Examples: Ranked Choice voting, abolish the Senate, lower the voting age, popular election of Presidents, term limits, abolish gerrymandering, limit the Supreme Court

Green: Oh dear god, please make the environment less horrible we are going to die

Examples: AHHHHHHHHHHH

I generally think that leftists must balance all 5 of those, if not, its not leftism i want, intersectionality is the name of the game

now within Leftism I am a huge statist, I think the State is the most effective tool for implementing these policies, and the most powerful tool for the left (i also have a low opinion on human nature) I am anti utopian, I am pro intellectual and anti conspiracy theory

So I think that makes me a Progressive Social Democrat, since "humanist" isn't a political party (except in disco Elysium)

[steeringlaw]

How Qualified Immunity Interferes with Getting Justice Against Police Brutality

As police brutality lawyers California, we’ve seen guilty agents shielded from facing the full wrath of the law because of qualified immunity. 

This has led countless culprits to walk away Scott-free leaving victims angry and frustrated in the wake of sentencing. 

But just what is qualified immunity and how has it been historically used to obstruct justice?

What is Qualified Immunity?

Qualified immunity is a court-created legal dogma that protects law enforcement agents from prosecution even when a serious civil rights violation has occurred. This doctrine essentially bars victims from suing agents in court.

Put another way, it puts the police above the law and exempts them from liability for their actions. As can be imagined, this creates all sorts of power imbalances in society. So, is there anything you can do? Yes, but it involves something called precedent.

Precedence and Clearly Established Cases

To bring a case against an officer of the law, there is a need to prove that they violated rights that are considered “clearly established”.

For a right to be deemed as “clearly established” your police brutality lawyers California must prove that there has been a similar incident in the past, a case similar in nature to your own. Precedent is a difficult and complex issue because it implies that so long as precedence is not there, the police officer will be immune.

The Destructive Nature of Qualified Immunity

Without precedent, qualified immunity places the police above the law, successfully preventing the execution of justice.

Qualified immunity creates an environment in which one section of society is rendered immune and faces no repercussions for its actions.

This is troubling as some have rightly argued that it emboldens some law enforcement agents to act with impunity, prejudice, wrongful intent, and malice.  

What’s the Solution?

There are calls to amend or abolish qualified immunity completely. However, until there is a change in the law by the Supreme Court, your best recourse is to speak to police brutality lawyers California to see if you can file a civil rights violation claim.

If you’re a victim of civil rights violations in California, there is help. Contact Steering Law Firm for a free case evaluation today. 

Disclaimer: This blog post does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with an attorney for case-specific questions.

[brownstonelaw0]

Why Choose Brownstone Law for Your Supreme Court Appeals? ⚖️📜 

At Brownstone Law, we understand that navigating the complexities of U.S. Supreme Court appeals requires not just legal expertise, but also a strategic approach and dedication to achieving favorable results. Whether you're involved in a criminal case or a civil dispute, our US Supreme Court lawyers are here to help guide you through the appellate process with precision and determination. Let us take a closer look at what makes us a top choice for Supreme Court appeals and how we can support your case. 

About Brownstone Law: Legal Excellence You Can Trust 🌟 

Founded on a foundation of dedication, integrity, and expertise, Brownstone Law is a premier law firm specializing in appellate litigation. Our team of US Supreme Court lawyers brings vast experience and an impressive track record in both civil and criminal appeals. From initial case review to the final oral argument, we focus on providing comprehensive and tailored legal strategies for each of our clients. With years of experience handling appeals at the highest levels of the legal system, including the U.S. Supreme Court, we ensure your case is in capable hands. 

Our Services: Tailored Appellate Strategies 💼📑 

At Brownstone Law, we don’t just specialize in appellate work; we excel in it. Our services are designed to meet the unique needs of each case: 

Criminal Appeals 🏛️: Whether challenging a conviction, sentence, or a procedural issue, our US Supreme Court lawyers provide in-depth legal research, prepare persuasive briefs, and argue on your behalf in the highest courts. 

Civil Appeals ⚖️: From business disputes to complex personal injury cases, we offer creative solutions to ensure your appeal is handled with the utmost care and expertise. 

Legal Research & Briefs 📚: We focus on the finer details, conducting exhaustive legal research to build robust arguments and presenting them through meticulously crafted briefs. 

Oral Argument Preparation 🎤: Our attorneys are expert communicators, skilled in delivering impactful oral arguments designed to persuade judges and secure favorable outcomes. 

No matter the nature of your appeal, we are committed to delivering results-oriented strategies with your best interests in mind. 

Our Mission: Delivering Results, One Appeal at a Time 🎯 

Our mission at Brownstone Law is simple – to provide exceptional legal representation and to secure the best possible outcome for our clients. We are committed to upholding high ethical standards and maintaining a reputation for integrity in all of our dealings. When you choose Brownstone Law, you are not just hiring a law firm; you are gaining a dedicated partner who will go above and beyond to fight for your rights and defend your case. 

What sets us apart is our focus on appellate litigation. Unlike trial lawyers who primarily handle trials, our team specializes in the complex, multi-faceted nature of appeals. This means we dedicate ourselves to in-depth case preparation, strategic legal writing, and persuasive courtroom arguments to give you the best chance of success. 

Why Choose Brownstone Law for Your Supreme Court Case? 💡 

Choosing the right attorney for your Supreme Court appeal is crucial to ensuring the best outcome. Here’s why Brownstone Law should be your first choice: 

Experience and Expertise 🌐: Our US Supreme Court lawyers have handled numerous federal and state appeals, bringing unmatched knowledge and experience to every case. 

Aggressive Strategy ⚔️: We don’t just settle for basic strategies. We fight aggressively to ensure your appeal is prepared meticulously, backed by solid legal research and innovative solutions. 

Commitment to Clients 🤝: At Brownstone Law, every client is treated with the utmost respect, and we take the time to understand their needs, goals, and unique circumstances. 

Track Record of Success 🏆: We have a proven history of securing favorable rulings for our clients, even in the most challenging Supreme Court cases. 

When you hire us, you’re not just hiring a law firm – you're hiring a team of committed professionals who will put in the hard work needed to help you succeed. 

Conclusion: Take the First Step Toward Victory 🚀 

At Brownstone Law, we are passionate about defending your rights and helping you navigate the intricate process of U.S. Supreme Court appeals. With our extensive experience, aggressive litigation strategies, and unwavering commitment to achieving favorable results, we are the ideal choice for your appellate needs. 

Don’t face the challenges of your case alone. Visit us today at https://www.brownstonelaw.com/supreme-court-appeals-attorneys/  to our experienced US Supreme Court lawyers today and take the first step toward securing a positive resolution. Together, we’ll craft a path forward that’s built on expertise, dedication, and the pursuit of justice. 💼⚖️ 

[bobchakar]

Evolution in Education After Law Outlaws Segregated Schools

In January 2016, the Topeka Public School’s Board of Education appointed Tiffany Anderson, PhD, as its superintendent, becoming the first African American woman to lead the district. In a May 2024 interview with CBS Evening News, Dr. Anderson stated that she aims to build on the legacy of the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Kansas Board of Education (1954), which ended segregation across the American educational system.

Seventy years later, impacts from this ruling set precedence for other court decisions, created instances of resegregated schools, and established pathways for post-affirmative action graduates.

In 2024, nationwide celebrations commemorated the ruling that determined that separate but equal did not serve as a just way to educate the nation’s children. Organizations and individuals marked the event by hosting panel discussions and art exhibits to honor the legislation that sought to reduce educational disparities.

Brown v. Kansas Board of Education became a critical Supreme Court case in the American narrative because it removed the social barriers that kept minorities, namely African Americans, from accessing resources connected to the political and economic spaces that influenced life in the US.

At the time, other states also had cases waiting for Supreme Court ruling best the Brown, including Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, and the District of Columbia. When the Court combined the cases into the Brown v. Board of Education, roughly 200 plaintiffs sued the board of education in these states for the right to integrate. In Topeka, 13 parents sued the state board of education for 20 children.

Before Brown v Board of Education, the US educational system established segregated education to educate black and white students in 1896 with the Supreme Court ruling Plessy v Ferguson. The ruling stated that the law permitted segregated schools if the resources and institutions provided equally for both sets of students. Before Brown v. Board of Education, other municipalities unsuccessfully sought to end segregation in the public school system.

In Brown v Board of Education, the Topeka public school system had adequately ensured it adhered to the separate but equal mandate. However, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that this segregated system caused detriment to children. In 1954, the Supreme Court agreed that, even with separate but equal measures, black children became deprived of educational opportunities.

The ruling had immediate and long-term impacts on education and ending practices that marginalized this community. A year later, in 1955, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and other civil rights activists led the way that removed Jim Crow laws, and that led to the Civil Rights Act (1965), Voting Rights Act (1965), and the Fair Housing Act (1968). The Brown v. Board of Education ruling also set precedence for removing segregation from private schools. Runyon v. McCrary (1976) stated denying a student admission based on race violated federal civil rights laws.

Some public school systems countrywide still experience the impacts of segregation within their districts, sometimes unintentionally. For instance, corporation-wide redistricting and segregation-influenced racial disparities have impacted educational inequities in elementary schools in Topeka. Figures reveal the marked difference in student performance between whites and minorities (Black).

According to a January 2024 article, only 12.2 percent of Black students had proficiency in math and English compared with 44 percent of White students. In the case of the new city of St. George, residents fought and petitioned the Louisiana Supreme Court to incorporate as a city, creating a predominantly white (70 percent) majority. Residents petitioned the court because they felt Baton Rouge schools had not adequately educated its students. By choice or legal mandate, schools nationwide have started resegregating.

It also touches on affirmative action practices. When instituted as a part of the Civil Rights Act legislation, affirmative sought to level the playing field by providing women and minorities access to educational and employment opportunities. However, after multiple cases over the years have challenged this part of the Civil Rights Act, the Supreme Court struck it down in 2023 regarding race-based decisions in universities nationwide.

Some places report that the decision has little impact on minorities' access to higher education, with schools such as Indiana University seeing increases in Asian, Hispanic, and Black students in its Fall 2024 class.

This ruling and challenges to teaching critical race theory are present obstacles to openly discussing race and racial inequities in the educational landscape. Ultimately, Brown v. Education provided not only access to minorities of all races but also built a foundation where race, racial inequality, and their impacts have a platform, one protected under civil rights legislation.

[probonolegalconsultant]

Probono legal Consultant Law Firm is a Leading Law firm in Ameerpet, Miyapur, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. Our Law firm specialize in Top Civil, Criminal, Divorce, Corporate, disputes, corporate cases, Income tax cases, property, Cyber-Crime, Cheque Bounce, Family cases, Consumer Laws, Real Estate, and Property matters Lawyers/Advocates in Hyderabad. Our Top/Best Lawyers in Ameerpet, Hyderabad are licensed to practice in courts all over India, including the High Court Lawyers/Advocates in Hyderabad and the Supreme Court. We have a proven track record of success in helping our clients achieve their legal goals. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you with our professional & experienced team of Best/Top Lawyers/Advocates in Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 15, 2023 (Friday)

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

At 10:22 this morning, a Jewish temple in Birmingham, Alabama, blew the shofar, and churches rang their bells four times. It was at that moment, sixty years ago, that a bomb ripped through the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. It was Youth Day in the historic brick church on Sunday, September 15, 1963, and five young girls dressed in their Sunday best were in the ladies’ lounge getting ready for their part in the Sunday service that was about to start. As Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Addie Mae Collins were chatting and adjusting their dresses, a charge of dynamite stashed under the steps that led to the church sanctuary blasted into the ladies lounge, killing the four girls instantly. Standing at the sink in the back of the room, Addie’s sister Sarah survived with serious injuries. Just five days before, Black children had entered formerly all-white schools after an August court order required an end to segregation in Birmingham’s public schools. This decision capped a fight over integration that had begun just after the May 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision in which the Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional. In that same year, in the wake of the successful 381-day Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott to protest that city’s segregated bus system, Birmingham’s Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, along with the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, and strategist and civil rights activist Bayard Rustin, started the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) to challenge segregation through nonviolent protest, rather than trusting the work to the courts alone. [.....] The death of innocent children—on a Sunday morning, in a house of God—at the hands of white supremacists drew national attention. It woke up white people who had previously been leery of civil rights protests, making them confront the horror of racial violence in the South. Support for civil rights legislation grew, and in 1964 that support helped legislators to pass the Civil Rights Act. Still, it seemed as if the individual bombers would get away with their crimes. In 1968, the FBI investigation ended without indictments. But it turned out the story wasn’t over. Bill Baxley, a young law student at the University of Alabama in 1963, was so profoundly outraged by the bombing that he vowed someday he would do something about it. In 1970, voters elected Baxley to be Alabama’s attorney general. He reopened the case, famously responding to a Ku Klux Klan threat by responding on official state letterhead: “kiss my *ss.” The reluctance of the FBI to share its evidence meant that Baxley charged and convicted only Robert Chambliss—whose nickname in 1963 was “Dynamite Bob”—for the murder of Denise McNair. But still the story wasn’t over. Another young lawyer named Doug Jones was in the courtroom during that trial, and in 1997, President Bill Clinton appointed Jones as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Jones pursued the case, uncovering old evidence and finding new witnesses. Herman Cash had died, but in 2001 and 2002, representing the state of Alabama, Jones successfully prosecuted Thomas Edwin Blanton and Bobby Frank Cherry for first-degree murder. Chambliss, Cherry, and Blanton all died in prison: Chambliss in 1985, Cherry in 2004. Blanton died in 2020.

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[daphenominchief]

G.R. No. 181881, Briccio “Ricky” A. Pollo vs. Chairperson Karina Constantino-David, et al.

Facts:

Briccio “Ricky” A. Pollo was a Supervising Personnel Specialist and Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) at the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office No. IV.

An anonymous letter-complaint was sent to CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David, alleging that a CSC employee in Region IV was "lawyering" for individuals with pending cases in the CSC.

Chairperson David formed an investigation team and ordered the team to back up all files in the computers of the PALD and Legal Services Division (LSD).

The team went to the CSC-ROIV office and copied the computer files from the hard drives of the computers in the PALD and LSD, including the computer assigned to Pollo, which contained his personal files.

Pollo was not present during the copying of the files, but he was notified via text message.

The backed-up files, specifically from Pollo’s computer, contained draft pleadings and letters related to administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals.

Chairperson David issued a Show-Cause Order requiring Pollo to explain the documents found on his computer.

Pollo responded, arguing that the search was illegal, violated his right to privacy, and that the files were personal. He claimed that he allowed his friends to use his computer for their own purposes.

The CSC found Pollo guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, and ordered his dismissal.

The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Pollo's petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the CSC.

Pollo appealed the CA's decision, raising issues on the legality of the search, his right to privacy, and the admissibility of the evidence found in his computer.

Issues:

Did Pollo have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer files?

Was the search authorized by the CSC Chair and the copying of the contents of Pollo’s computer hard drive reasonable in its inception and scope?

Was the CSC correct in finding Pollo guilty of the charges and dismissing him from the service?

Is an anonymous complaint actionable under the rules of the Civil Service Commission?

Was CSC Office Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002 a valid policy?

Ruling:

Answer: The Supreme Court denied Pollo’s petition and affirmed the CA's decision. The Court held that the search of Pollo's computer was legal, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The Court upheld the CSC's finding that Pollo was guilty of the charges and his dismissal from service.

Legal Basis:

Right to Privacy: The right to privacy is a facet of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: An individual must have an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).

Workplace Searches: A search by a government employer of an employee’s office is justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.

Reasonableness Test for Workplace Searches: The search must be justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it in the first place.

Substantial Evidence: Findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies like the CSC are accorded respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence.

Office Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002: The CSC’s “Computer Use Policy (CUP)” explicitly provides that users have "no expectation of privacy" in anything they create, store, send, or receive in the computer system.

Anonymous complaints: An anonymous complaint can be acted upon if there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations or supported by documentary or direct evidence.

Initiation of a Complaint by the Disciplining Authority: A complaint may be initiated by the disciplining authority without being subscribed and sworn to.

Application:

The Court ruled that Pollo did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office or on his computer.

He did not have a private office, and he admitted that he allowed other people to use his computer.

The CSC's Computer Use Policy (CUP) explicitly stated that users have "no expectation of privacy".

The Court found that the search was justified at its inception because it was prompted by an anonymous complaint about possible work-related misconduct. The search was also reasonable in scope because it was limited to backing up computer files in the relevant divisions.

The Court held that the CSC’s factual findings regarding Pollo's authorship of the subject pleadings and misuse of the office computer were well-supported by evidence on record.

The Court noted that the administrative complaint was deemed initiated by the CSC after a spot inspection and search of the files was conducted, and the CSC had the power to investigate even without a verified complaint.

The Court determined that CSC Office Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002 was a valid policy because it was discussed by the CSC and was for internal use of the Commission.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court denied Pollo's petition, affirming the CA's decision and the CSC's ruling. The Court upheld the legality of the search, the admissibility of the evidence, and Pollo’s dismissal from service.

Doctrine:

Government employees have a reduced expectation of privacy in the workplace, particularly concerning government-issued equipment like computers.

A workplace search by a government employer is valid if it is justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances.

Workplace privacy policies can diminish an employee's expectation of privacy.

An anonymous complaint can be acted upon if it has merit and is supported by evidence.

The findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC are accorded great respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence.

The right to privacy is not absolute and can be limited by legitimate government interests.

Ratio:

The Court's decision emphasizes that government agencies have the right to investigate work-related misconduct and ensure the integrity of their operations.

The ruling underscores the need to balance employee privacy rights with the employer’s need to maintain an efficient and honest workplace. It also highlights that the employer has a right to monitor its resources.

The decision acknowledges that while employees have privacy rights, they can be reduced in the workplace and are subject to the employer's policies and regulations.

The Court's application of the "reasonableness" test from US jurisprudence highlights the importance of context and circumstances when evaluating privacy claims in the workplace.

The decision serves as a reminder that public office is a public trust, and government employees must conduct themselves with integrity and professionalism.

The decision recognizes the increasing use of technology in the workplace and the need for clear policies on computer use and privacy.

[lawandlegal]

Advocate Narender Singh — Advocate for Supreme Court of India

The Advocate for Supreme Court of India is the apex judicial body of the country, entrusted with safeguarding the Constitution, delivering justice, and resolving complex legal issues. Among the distinguished advocates practicing at the Supreme Court, Advocate Narender Singh stands out as a reputed legal professional known for his expertise, dedication, and successful track record.

Background and Qualifications

Educational Excellence: Advocate Narender Singh has a robust academic foundation in law, having graduated from one of India’s prestigious law universities.

Bar Council Accreditation: He is enrolled with the Bar Council of India, allowing him to practice law at the highest judicial levels.

Specialized Expertise: Narender Singh specializes in constitutional law, criminal litigation, civil disputes, and corporate legal matters.

Role of a Supreme Court Advocate

Interpretation of Law: Advocates like Narender Singh assist the court in interpreting laws and resolving disputes in accordance with the Constitution.

Representation in Appeals: They represent clients in appellate matters, where cases from lower courts are reviewed.

Drafting Petitions: Supreme Court advocates draft and file Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), Public Interest Litigations (PILs), and other legal documents.

Oral Arguments: They present oral arguments before judges, ensuring a thorough defense of their client’s rights.

Key Areas of Practice

Constitutional Law

Advocate Narender Singh handles cases involving fundamental rights, writ petitions, and issues of constitutional validity.

Expertise in Articles 32 and 226 enables him to file writs directly in the Civil Lawyer for Supreme Court of India.

Criminal Law

He defends clients in high-profile criminal cases, offering representation in matters such as bail, appeals, and revisions.

Specializes in white-collar crimes, cybercrimes, and economic offenses.

Civil Disputes

Represents individuals and entities in disputes related to property, contracts, and inheritance.

Excels in mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes outside the courtroom.

Corporate and Commercial Law

Provides legal counsel to businesses on mergers, acquisitions, and regulatory compliance.

Handles cases involving corporate fraud, insolvency, and intellectual property rights.

Professional Achievements

Landmark Cases: Advocate Narender Singh has been involved in several high-profile cases that have shaped Indian jurisprudence.

Client Trust: Known for his ethical approach, he has garnered trust from individuals, corporations, and institutions.

Recognition: Acknowledged for his legal acumen, he has received awards and accolades from various legal forums.

Public Interest Litigation (PILs)

Advocate Singh actively participates in filing and arguing PILs that address societal issues like environmental conservation, women’s rights, and corruption.

His efforts have contributed to policy changes and enhanced public welfare.

Challenges of Practicing in the Supreme Court

Complex Legal Issues: Supreme Court cases often involve intricate points of law that require in-depth research and preparation.

High Expectations: Advocates must meet the high standards expected by the judiciary and clients

Time Sensitivity: Managing multiple cases and adhering to strict deadlines is a critical aspect of Best Criminal Lawyer for Supreme Court of India practice.

Ethics and Advocacy

Advocate Narender Singh adheres to the highest ethical standards, ensuring honesty and integrity in all legal proceedings.

He emphasizes client confidentiality and transparent communication.

Client Services and Approach

Personalized Attention: Advocate Singh believes in understanding each client’s unique needs and crafting tailored legal strategies.

End-to-End Support: From initial consultations to case resolution, he provides comprehensive legal assistance.

Accessibility: Maintains clear communication with clients, making complex legal processes understandable.

How to Engage Advocate Narender Singh

Consultation: Prospective clients can schedule an initial consultation to discuss their legal concerns.

Case Assessment: Advocate Singh evaluates the merits of the case and provides clear guidance on the legal course of action.

Representation: He ensures dedicated representation throughout the litigation or arbitration process.

Importance of Supreme Court Advocacy

Justice at the Apex Level: Advocates in the Supreme Court uphold the rule of law and ensure justice for all citizens.

Precedent Setting: Their arguments often result in landmark judgments that set legal precedents for lower courts.

Constitutional Safeguarding: Supreme Court advocates play a pivotal role in protecting constitutional principles.

Contributions Beyond the Courtroom

Legal Awareness: Advocate Narender Singh participates in seminars and workshops to educate the public and young lawyers about legal rights and practices.

Mentorship: He mentors aspiring lawyers, sharing his knowledge and experience to shape the next generation of legal professionals.

Contact Details and Office

Office Location: Advocate Singh’s office is strategically located in New Delhi, close to the Supreme Court premises.

Contact Information: He can be reached through official email and phone for consultations and appointments.

Testimonials from Clients

“Advocate Narender Singh’s expertise and professionalism helped us secure a favorable judgment in a complex case. Highly recommended!” — Rajiv M.

“His dedication to justice and ethical approach make him one of the finest lawyers I have worked with.” — Sunita K.

“Narender Singh’s clear guidance and thorough preparation were instrumental in resolving our dispute efficiently.” — Anil P.

Conclusion

Advocate Narender Singh’s dedication, expertise, and ethical practice have earned him a prominent place among Criminal Lawyer for Supreme Court of India. Whether handling complex constitutional matters, criminal cases, or corporate disputes, his approach is marked by professionalism and a deep commitment to justice. For individuals and organizations seeking reliable legal representation, Advocate Narender Singh offers unmatched services, making him a trusted name in the legal fraternity.

[indiancourtjudgmentsandupdates]

The Best Online Resources for Indian Court Judgments and Updates

Verdictum is considered one of the best online portals for Indian court judgments and legal updates i.e latest supreme court news updates and latest high Court news update because of its comprehensive, reliable, and real-time coverage of legal news and developments. Here are the key reasons for its popularity.

1. Real-Time Updates

• Verdictum provides instant reporting of Supreme Court, High Courts, and other tribunal proceedings.

• Users can access live updates on important cases and decisions as they unfold, making it a preferred choice for staying current.

2. Coverage of All Legal Domains

• Covers a broad spectrum of legal topics:

o Constitutional law

o Criminal and civil law

o Corporate and commercial law

o Environmental and human rights issues

Includes latest supreme court judgments and court orders, updates on legislation, policy changes, and global legal trends.

3. Summaries of Judgments

• Offers concise and well-written summaries of judgments, making it easy for lawyers, students, and laypeople to understand complex legal rulings.

• Includes highlights and key takeaways from landmark decisions.

4. Expert Opinions and Analysis

• Publishes insightful articles, columns, and opinion pieces by legal experts, practitioners, and academicians.

• Provides context and analysis of judgments and legal developments, adding depth to its news coverage.

5. Accessibility and User-Friendly Features

• Free and subscription-based models ensure accessibility for all.

• Offers a clean, easy-to-navigate interface on both its website and mobile app.

• Mobile app notifications allow users to stay updated on the go.

6. Focus on Transparency

• Verdictum promotes judicial transparency by reporting on courtroom arguments, judicial reasoning, and procedural developments.

• Regularly covers public interest litigation and constitutional cases that impact society.

7. Live Streaming and Video Content

• Offers live streaming of important court proceedings when allowed, enhancing accessibility.

• Produces engaging video content, including interviews with judges, lawyers, and legal scholars, making the portal more interactive.

8. Dedicated Coverage of Legal Education and Careers

• Updates on legal education trends, job opportunities, and exam notifications (e.g., CLAT, AIBE).

• A valuable resource for law students and young professionals seeking career guidance.

9. Comprehensive Database

• Archives of court judgments, orders, and updates allow users to research past cases and legal developments.

• Users can search judgments and reports by topic, court, or keywords.

10. Independence and Credibility

• Verdictum is known for offering Indian Legal News as its unbiased and accurate reporting, earning the trust of the legal community.

• It maintains high journalistic standards and avoids sensationalism, focusing on facts and legal reasoning.

11. Multilingual Support

• Offers legal news and updates in multiple languages, broadening its reach to regional audiences across India.

12. Affordable Subscription Plans

• Provides a premium subscription for users seeking deeper insights, including access to detailed reports, archives, and expert analysis.

• Affordable pricing ensures accessibility for law students and junior advocates.

13. Community Engagement

• Interactive features like webinars, Q&A sessions, and social media presence foster engagement with its audience.

• Actively promotes awareness about legal rights and the judicial process.

14. Recognition in the Legal Community

• Widely regarded as a go-to resource for legal professionals, academicians, journalists, and the general public.

• Frequently cited in research papers, articles, and discussions on Indian law.

Verdictum’s real-time reporting, expert analysis, and user-friendly approach have made it one of the best portals for Indian court judgments and legal updates. Its dedication to transparency, accessibility, and credibility sets it apart as a valuable resource for anyone involved in the legal system.

Verdictum has gained significant popularity  in recent years for offering latest legal news India with its unique approach to legal reporting, emphasis on delivering high-quality content, and its ability to fill critical gaps in the Indian legal media landscape.

Verdictum’s rising popularity can be attributed to its timely updates, detailed analyses, and focus on transparency and accessibility. By catering to diverse audiences—from legal professionals to the general public—it has solidified its place as a trusted and dynamic legal news portal in India.

These resources collectively provide a robust platform for staying updated on Indian court judgments and legal news. Depending on your requirements (e.g., free access vs. in-depth analysis), you can choose the ones that suit your needs.

original Post Content Sources: https://medium.com/@verdictum/the-best-online-resources-for-indian-court-judgments-and-updates-8d83e449ed13

[vmathurassociates]

Best Civil Lawyer in India | Expert Civil Advocate in India

In Civil Law we cover nearly every Civil aspect of litigation from drafting of agreements and contracts to drafting of Plaints, Civil Applications, Counters, Rejoinders, Notices, Civil Writ Petitions to be filed in various appropriate High Courts, Civil Appeals before the Appellate Courts, Civil Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court of India. Our Firm also assist Private Corporations in drafting of their contracts and agreements and all other transaction based documents required by the Private Corporations for their business transactions. Best Civil Lawyer in India