#curtis legal solicitors | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

opedguy · 4 years ago

Text

Jan. 6 All About the Historical Record

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Jan. 3, 2020.--So as every liberal media print and broadcast outlet lambastes Republicans for challenging the Nov. 3 presidential election when a joint session of Congress meets Jan. 6, Republicans want to state for posterity their objections to the 2020 election. Democrats and their friends in the press like to point out that 74-year-old President Donald Trump and his mighty legal tam couldn’t prove their election fraud case in federal court, the fact remains that the 2020 election was highly unusual. Whether you can blame that on the Covid-19 crisis or not, never before in U.S. history has the country employed universal mail-in ballots. No one in the federal courts wanted to get into the murky swamp of finding out what really happened. Saying there’s no “evidence” or “proof” of massive election fraud doesn’t mean that something irregular didn’t occur before-and-after Nov. 3 when ballots were collected-and-counted.

It’s easy for a Democrat biased press to say that Trump has no right to challenge the election results, or, like 50-year-old former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that it’s “anti-democratic” or “anti-conservative” to challenge the results. Ryan doesn’t know anymore than anyone else about what really happened in the 2020 election. What’s known for sure is what Chapman Constitutional law professor John Eastman said in his brief for the State of Texas to the Supreme Court about the 2020 election. Eastman said because of universal mail-in ballots it was impossible to prove the validity of ballot collection-and-counting, making in impossible to prove fraud. Whether it’s difficult to prove fraud of not, it doesn’t mean that something nefarious didn’t happen. Democrats, the media, and anti-Trump Republicans, like Ryan and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Ut.), think it’s disgraceful to challenge the results.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said today he didn’t think that Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and other GOP senators supporting Trump will do anything on Jan. 6 other than make a political statement. But if Lindsey thinks about it, stating for the record that they object to universal mail-in ballots because, as Prof. John Eastman said, it makes it impossible to prove voter fraud. Stating in the Congressional record Jan. 6 that Republicans object to universal mail-in ballots because it’s impossible to collect-and-count the ballots accurately states for the record that they don’t trust the results. It’s fine for Democrats and the anti-Trump press to celebrate their victory. But Graham said Nov. 8 that universal mail-in ballots could make it impossible to elect another Republican. Lindsey said, while doubting the outcome, that he looked forward to hearing on Jan. 6 from his GOP colleagues.

Vice President Mike Pence, who presides over the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 said he wanted to “use his authority they have under the law to raise objections and bring forward evidence” supporting claims of “voter fraud and irregularities.” Everyone knows that because of Covid-19 election laws and rules were stretched to the breaking point to accommodate universal mail-in ballots. Many of the ballots lacked the proper signatures and time-stamps yet election officials in several battleground states bent the rules so the ballots would count. Republicans tried but failed to get a Trump-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Kermodle, led by Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Tezas), give Vice President the authority to invalidate the national vote and call the election for Trump. Kermodle tossed out Gohmert’s suit Jan. 2. Running out legal options, the GOP only has only the Jan. 6 joint hearing to object to the vote.

Federal courts around the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, refused to take up Trump’s claims of voter fraud, largely because they open up an endless can of worms. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.), a former solicitor general to the U.S. Supreme Court, plans to make the case for election fraud before the joint session of Congress Jan. 6. Whether or not Cruz persuades anyone to change their vote to confirm the Electoral College results in anyone’s guess. But what Cruz and other Republicans plan to do is let the American public know on national TV what they think of the election results. Unable to prove fraud in court doesn’t mean that something irregular didn’t happen. Cruz’s burden of proof is far lower to give his opinion about what happened in the 2020 vote. Cruz asked Congress to approve a 10-day emergency audit of the election results, then convene Congress to approve the Electoral College results.

Democrats and the press have made their best case to the public that the Nov. 3 election results were valid, without showing proof. Republicans want their due process to state for the historical record, whether or not it changes any minds, that universal mail-in ballots made it impossible to verify the validity of the Nov. 3 vote. Republicans don’t have enough votes to stop the procedural task of tallying up the Electoral College votes, handing the presidency to Biden. Trump’s going down creating a historic record that he objected to the 2020 election, regardless of whether or not he could prove election fraud. Universal mail-in ballots forced state election officials in battleground states and elsewhere to bend the rules to accommodate the irregular vote collection-and-counting. Stating for the record the GOP’s objections cannot possibly be “anti-democratic” or “anti-conservative.”

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. Reply Reply All Forward

0 notes

dailynewswebsite · 4 years ago

Text

Indiana asks US Supreme Court to deny parental rights to same-sex couples

Indiana is interesting a choice to the US Supreme Court docket that acknowledged lesbian moms as dad and mom to their youngsters

The state of Indiana is asking the newly conservative Supreme Court docket to strip same-sex {couples} of their parental rights.

Indiana Lawyer Basic Curtis Hill requested the Excessive Court docket to rule that states have the authority to disclaim married same-sex {couples} the fitting to be legally acknowledged as dad and mom to their very own youngsters.

Learn Extra: Martin Jenkins confirmed as California’s first brazenly homosexual Supreme Court docket justice

The case is centered on eight married lesbian {couples} who used synthetic insemination to begin households. They need Indiana to acknowledge each moms on the delivery certificates however the state has refused to take action.

A view of the Supreme Court docket in Washington, Monday, Nov. 11, 2019. (AP Picture/Susan Walsh)

Ashlee and Ruby Henderson, who filed go well with in 2015, had been one of many {couples} denied their request by the Tippecanoe County Well being Division. When their son was born the couple was not allowed to place each their names on his delivery certificates. The well being division, which points them, cited Indiana state pointers. A federal courtroom dominated within the Henderson’s favor a 12 months later, figuring out that same-sex married {couples} ought to have the identical rights as heterosexual dad and mom.

Nonetheless, Indiana insists that biology is the determinative consider paternity, arguing that two girls can’t conceive a baby and has taken the matter to the US Supreme Court docket. Within the state’s legal guidelines, in accordance with the Journal & Courier, it’s presumed {that a} baby’s organic dad and mom are a person and a girl. If that isn’t the case, as with same-sex dad and mom, one mother or father must formally undertake the kid to be thought of the kid’s authorized mother or father.

“Doing so, nonetheless, is in pressure with the normal, constitutionally protected understanding that, at delivery, solely a child’s organic dad and mom have authorized rights and obligations towards the kid,” Tom Fisher, Indiana’s solicitor-general stated about issuing the delivery certificates to a same-sex couple. “To guard these rights, Indiana lists a baby’s organic dad and mom, and nobody else, on the kid’s delivery certificates until the kid is legally adopted.”

Story continues

A request was filed by Indiana on June 15 for the case to be reviewed after a U.S. Appeals Court docket dominated that same-sex {couples} had been entitled to the identical parental rights that heterosexual {couples} have.

“We’re disenchanted the state of Indiana continues to struggle in opposition to households headed by same-sex spouses,” Karen Celestino-Horseman, the Hendersons’ Indianapolis-based legal professional, stated in June. “The Supreme Court docket has already spoken on this subject, and but Indiana continues to expend sources combating in opposition to same-sex marriage.”

Learn Extra: Supreme Court docket guidelines in favor of BLM activist DeRay McKesson

(Picture by Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Photographs)

In September, the Supreme Court docket rescheduled a non-public convention on the case and requested for a response from the plaintiffs. The moms requested the Court docket to reject the enchantment by Indiana.

The justices will now hear the case in a non-public convention on Dec. 11, in a courtroom now formed by a 6-Three conservative majority who’ve brazenly criticized the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges resolution that made homosexual marriage authorized. Final month, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito urged the regulation wanted to be overturned to take care of spiritual liberty.

“[Kim] Davis might have been one of many first victims of this Court docket’s cavalier therapy of faith in its Obergefell resolution,” Thomas stated, “however she is not going to be the final.”

Davis is the Kentucky clerk who in 2015 refused to subject marriage licenses to homosexual {couples} citing her spiritual beliefs.

As theGrio reported, Supreme Court docket Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18. The liberal jurist was changed by Justice Amy Coney Barrett who ie anticipated to rule with the Court docket’s conservative majority.

Have you ever subscribed to theGrio’s podcast “Expensive Tradition”? Obtain our latest episodes now!

TheGrio is now on Apple TV, Amazon Hearth, and Roku. Obtain theGrio immediately!

The put up Indiana asks US Supreme Court docket to disclaim parental rights to same-sex {couples} appeared first on TheGrio.

from Growth News https://growthnews.in/indiana-asks-us-supreme-court-to-deny-parental-rights-to-same-sex-couples/ via https://growthnews.in

#Growth News

0 notes

claimforpressure-blog · 5 years ago

Link

Curtis Legal has Specialist medical Solicitors who are experts in pressure sore compensation claims. We offer a FREE, no-obligation initial consultation. There is No Financial Risk to you with our No Win No Fee promise.

#Medical Negligence UK

0 notes

impactng · 5 years ago

Text

FG directs solicitor to appeal N9bn UK Judgement

The Federal Government has directed its Solicitor-General to appeal the ruling by Justice Butcher of the UK Commercial Court that an Irish company P&ID can seize Nigeria’s assets worth $9 billion. Nigeria and the Irish company had been at legal battle over a failed gas supply agreement with the Nigerian government. In a statement issued on Friday by the nation’s Solicitor-General Mr Dayo Apata (SAN), the nations is going to appeal this most recent judgement and would seek a stay on execution. According to Apata, the Federal Government of Nigeria is making vigorous efforts to defend its interest in the matter and would not relent in exploring every viable option in doing so. “As regards the recent Judgment of the English Court of 16 August 2019, the Federal Government’s Counsel have been instructed to pursue an appeal on the judgment of the English Court dated 16 August, 2019 and at the same time seek for a Stay of Execution of the said judgment.” He said that the proceedings are currently on-going in the United States and the federal government will ensure that its interest and that of the people of Nigeria are vigorously defended. According to the statement, “the dispute that led to Arbitration between Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and Process and Industrial Development Ltd which arose from a 20 year Gas Supply and Processing Agreement (GSPA) entered in 2010 between FGN (through the Ministry of Petroleum Resources) and P & ID in respect of an accelerated gas development project in Nigeria’s OMLs 67 and 123. P&ID never began the construction of the project facility although it alleges it incurred about $40 Million in preliminary expenses.

Nigeria President, Muhammadu Buhari “P & ID’s claim in the arbitration proceedings was mainly for loss of profit for the entire twenty-year term of the GSPA, initially claiming the sum of US$1.9 Billion and later increasing its claim to US$5.9 Billion. “The Arbitral Tribunal on 31st January 2017 rendered its Final Award against the Ministry of Petroleum Resources in the sum of US$6.597 Billion together with pre-award interest at the rate of 7% per annum effective from 20th March 2013 and post award interest at the same rate till date of payment. “In granting the huge arbitration award against Nigeria the tribunal decided the following: i. that the project would operate at 93% uptime during the twenty year of the GSPA despite the well-known risks of operating such a project in the Niger-Delta. “ii. that the average price of Natural Gas Liquids (the main revenue earner for P&ID assuming the GSPA had been implemented), should be based on an average oil price in excess of $100 per barrel over the twenty-year life of the project; “iii. to apply a discount rate to P&ID’s supposed lost profits of 2.65 %, the same interest rate paid on United States treasury notes thereby adjudging P&ID, a start-up company that never commenced any physical work on the project but planned to operate in the midst of the Niger-Delta crisis, using a novel and unproven technology, a virtually “risk free” investment. “The Award, P & ID commenced recognition and enforcement proceedings of the arbitration award against FGN in March 2018 in both the United Kingdom (“UK”) and the United States of America (the “United States”). “The FGN is duly represented in the proceedings in the United States by the Law Firm of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP which also represented it in the UK proceedings of which judgement was given on 16th August, 2019 in favour of the P&ID to commence enforcement proceeding against the FGN assets in the UK. “Recall further that this matter was inherited from the previous Administration by the present one. Upon inheriting this matter, this Government engaged the renowned US Law Firm of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP to defend the interest of the FGN. “The Law Firm has taken step to defend the proceedings in the United Stated by urging the District Court to dismiss the P&ID application for enforcement of the award on the ground that Nigeria as a sovereign state has an absolute right to obtain an authoritative determination of its sovereign immunity. “The FGN therefore demanded that the jurisdictional issue must be conclusively resolved before Nigeria may be required to litigate the merits of P&ID’s petition. “P&ID has variously challenged Nigeria’s position urging the District Court to direct Nigeria to file both its jurisdiction and merit defenses as a consolidated defense so that the proceedings may be disposed of by the District Court summarily. "The FGN has however pursued the validity of its jurisdictional defense as a preliminary matter which must be conclusively resolved prior to any consideration of the merit argument up to the Court of Appeal. "In a ruling on 9th October 2018, the District Court granted a stay of proceedings pending a determination of the appeal. "P&ID has also subsequently filed motions to have Nigeria’s appeal certified as frivolous and to have proceedings in the District Court continue pending determination of the appeal at the Court of Appeal. "On 1st November 2018, the US District Court issued a decision in favour of FGN denying P & ID’s further attempt to certify Nigeria’s appeal as frivolous and denied P&ID’s attempt to lift the stay of proceedings. "On 15 February 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision in favour of FGN by dismissing P&ID’s motion requesting the court to dismiss Nigeria’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction or to summarily affirm the scheduling order of the District Court. "The proceedings therefore are currently on-going in the United States and the FGN will ensure that its interest and that of the people of Nigeria are vigorously defended." Read the full article

#DayoApata #MuhammaduBuhari #P&ID #UKCommercialCourt

0 notes

luckylq63-blog · 4 years ago

Text

Hopefully they will be utilised fully in addition to Dhawan

His essay The Irish Slave Trade The Forgotten White Slaves is about the 100,000 Irish people and probably far more, sent as slave labour to the new British colonies in the 1650s to 1660s. It began in 1625 when James 11 issued a proclamation that 30,000 Irish political prisoners be sent to the Caribbean. It escalated 25 years later under Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

wholesale nfl jerseys Their natural voice tone shifts, and they sound like a totally different person from the one who called and talked so naturally with me about their sales issues.You see, sometimes just the idea of making a cold call causes you to talk more loudly, cheap jerseys and with a lot of "forward energy momentum."But most cold calls break down the moment the other person feels all that enthusiasm. Why? Because with high enthusiasm, prospects feel sort of boxed in. They feel the pressure of your expectations. wholesale nfl jerseys

Cheap Jerseys free shipping And countless college football stars have gone against tradition in their jersey assignments. Michigan wide receiver Anthony Carter wore No. 1, while Florida State defensive back Deion Sanders wore No. Entering their 50th year without a title makes the Blues' drought the fourth longest in North American pro sports, ahead of only baseball's Texas Rangers (who date to 1961 as the Washington Senators) and Houston Astros (1962), and the NFL's Atlanta Falcons (1967).Among the original West teams.

Minnesota and Oakland are defunct while Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles have all won multiple Stanley Cups. Oddly enough, the Blues were swept in the Stanley Cup final in their first three years of existence (1968 70) and have never gone back. The early season of comebacks has the Jets making big history, https://www.wholesalejerseyslan.com/ as the first team in NHL history to wipe out a deficit of three goals or more to win twice in the first four home games of the season. Cheap Jerseys free shipping

wholesale nfl jerseys from china There are four screws holding the plate to the plastic body of the stick. When I unscrewed them, using a very well fitting screwdriver, I sheared one of the screws. I've read online of MANY other people doing this as well. Like green and red grapes, the majority of the calories in black grapes come from carbohydrates. You can eat black grapes raw or use them to make jams or wine. Values listed are for 1.5 cups California black seedless grapes. wholesale nfl jerseys from china

wholesale jerseys from china But raw milk proponents like Dalrymple are quick to argue that pasteurization isn a panacea for pathogens, either and that plenty of outbreaks have recently been traced to pasteurized milk and pasteurized cheese. In most cases, as in the 2000 case of multidrug resistant Salmonella typhimurium in Pennsylvania, cheap nfl jerseys Delaware and New Jersey, pathogens contaminate the milk after pasteurization when containers, surfaces or hands are not properly washed or the milk or cheese isn sufficiently pasteurized. Herds that has been controversially linked to Crohn disease in humans). wholesale jerseys from china

cheap nfl jerseys Nowadays the Souk consists of over 3. It winds its way from the trading port on the Gulf to the Ras al Khor bird sanctuary on the desert edge of Dubai. In the past it was the centre of the fishing and pearling industry, which formed the main sectors of the city's economy. cheap nfl jerseys

cheap jerseys Playing fields in the city have disappeared. Existing grounds are difficult to avail of. Rents are high and the grounds are often used for non sporting events, says Bhatia. "Although 12this a respectable overall ranking, one would have thought that former President Obama's favorable rating when he left office would have translated into a higher ranking in this presidential survey. Edna Greene Medford, a history professor at Howard University and survey adviser. "But, of course, http://www.okcheapjerseys.com/ historians prefer to view the past from a distance, and only time will reveal his legacy.". cheap jerseys

cheap nfl jerseys Hubby says re. Nicknames at school. His own was ham'n'eggs, Maurice Magee's was "ciggie", Terry Crossey was "bunny", Tom Rooney was "hopper", Jimmy Greenaway was "curley", Jimmy McMillan was "rimmel". This allows air to flow into the second stage from the first stage, and into your lungs through the mouthpiece. When you exhale, the pressure in the second stage exceeds the ambient water pressure and pushes out on the membrane. The membrane moves away, allowing the lever to return to its normal position and thereby closing the inlet valve. cheap nfl jerseys

Cheap Jerseys from china Karan Mishra have bowled well on Hyderabad pitch. Hopefully they will be utilised fully in addition to Dhawan, as spinners. Seamers Steyn, Perera Sammy need their best spells. Posted Wed, Feb 8 2017JanuaryHigh School Top 25 basketball rankingsNews Published on 1/1/2017 8:00 PMThanks to a stunning victory over then No. 1 Sierra Canyon at the Les Schwab Invitational, Cheap Jerseys from china Seattle's Nathan Hale a 3 18 team a year ago vaults to top spot. Read Article Get Notified. Cheap Jerseys from china

wholesale jerseys from china Sportlemon TV is the best site for FREE video sports. Website No:1 for live sports online on first row. Watch live sports streams. 16 and then beat one of the host Philadelphia teams that afternoon. On Wednesday, Aug. 17, they defeated San Diego. Mr Sharp will also continue as a crown prosecutor for criminal cases. Last year, he successfully prosecuted drugs baron Curtis Warren.

Addressing Mr Sharp during the swearing in ceremony, Bailiff Michael Birt said: "Since qualifying as an advocate you have prosecuted a number of important trials with considerable ability."I have no doubt that, as a result of your experience both at the English Bar and here in Jersey and your considerable legal skills, https://www.cheapjerseys18.com/ you are well qualified to fulfil the post of solicitor general."He also urged the solicitor general to keep his advice to strictly legal matters in the States, and "not stray into the political arena". The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites wholesale jerseys from china.

0 notes

keywestlou · 5 years ago

Text

WORD ON THE STREET.....JIMMY BUFFETT TONIGHT AT MARGARITAVILLE

I was out last night. The talk was Jimmy Buffett was in town and would be performing tonight at Margaritaville on Duval. Purportedly he was in Key West to do some recordings today.

Not sure. People hyped, however. Again, I may not be correct. Go at your own risk. The worse that can happen is you will enjoy a good burger.

My night began at the Chart Room. John bartending. My farmer friend Devon from northwest Illinois at the bar.He had just returned from Illinois. Checked things out, bought some seed, visited his bankers.

Devon still not a happy camper as far as Trump is concerned. May never be. As he tells it, Trump has screwed everything up in the farming industry. People in his area are going out of business or hanging in there suffering big time.

He and his brother run a large farm. Big time farmers! Soybeans their primary product. The soybeans are filling barns and lying under carps on the ground.

Devon is happy the Canada/Mexican deal is a go. He won’t make more money. He will make the same, however. Nothing will ever make up for the loss his operation has suffered.

The China deal does not impress him. He has experienced China shenanigans before. He will believe a somewhat China resolution when that which he grows moves and sells.

In the meantime, Devon enjoys Key West. He is a snowbird. Owns a huge condominium complex at the corner of Fleming and William Streets. Purchased when things were good.

Stopped at the VFW on the way home for a bite to eat. A grilled cheese sandwich.

Met Abigail. Cute bartender.

The VFW has dancing music friday nights. I was unaware. Many couples. Happily dancing the night away.

I did bad last night. Had 2 drinks. Beefeater on the rocks. I said screw it! It was time to cheat a bit.

One at the Chart Room, the other at VFW.

This day in different years Key West movie time.

On this day in 1956, The Rose Tattoo premiered at the Strand and San Carlos Theaters in Key West.

A movie filmed in Key West. Most of the filming done at a house on Duncan. Two doors from Tennessee Williams’ home. Williams had written the play The Rose Tattoo.

My Lisa lives 1 1/2 blocks from The Rose Tattoo house and Willams’ home.

Burt Lancaster and Anna Mangani starred in the movie. Mangani won the Academy Award for Best Performance by a Woman.

Come 1959 and Operation Petticoat was being filmed in Key West. A humorous World War II submarine movie starring Cary Grant and Tony Curtis.

Trump’s attorneys for the Senate impeachment trial have been announced. Two are Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz.

My thoughts concerning each.

Ken Starr is now 73. He “prosecuted” the Clinton impeachment. I considered him a slime then and still do. His pursuit of a case of oral copulation and a lie would have been comparable to Hitler or Stalin having been out on trial for their wrongdoings. I did not like the manner in which he pursued “victory.”

I was especially disappointed when he obtained court orders forcing Secret Service agents who were protecting Clinton to testify to whatever they knew of his transgressions. A first for the Secret Service “telling” on the man they were sworn to protect.

Starr had a distinguished legal career before becoming Special Counsel. He had been a federal appellate judge and Solicitor General of the U.S.

I suspect he took on the “heavy responsibility” of proving a blow job because he thought it might lead to a U.S. Supreme Court seat.

He was fooled. He ended up a Professor of Law at Pepperdine University and then Chancellor/President at Baylor University.

Interestingly, sex initially made him popular and some time later sex led to his downfall. There was an accusation of sexual violence having occurred at Baylor and the Administration not doing anything about it.

Baylor “punished” Starr by removing him for the President’s job. He was permitted to stay on as Chancellor. The only class thing I give Starr credit for involved what happened thereafter. He resigned the Chancellorship and left Baylor saying, “The Captain goes down with the ship.”

Monica Lewinsky was made aware of Starr’s appointment to the President’s team yesterday. She tweeted, “Are you f–king” kidding me?”

I would expect nothing less from her. Starr maltreated Lewinsky badly during the investigation. Like secreting her in a hotel room away from counsel while grilling her as to what had occurred. Starr and staff beating up in effect on a young lady hidden away from an attorney and her family.

Alan Dershowitz. Now 81. An outstanding attorney most of his life. I am not sure as to his ability at this stage of his life. Time may have passed him by.

Dershowitz spent most of his career as a Harvard Law Professor. During those years, he was permitted to practice outside of his teaching duties. His 2 most famous cases involved Claus von Bulow and O. J. Simpson.

His efforts have been all over the place in recent years.

He campaigned against Trump in 2016. He has already endorsed Joe Biden in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Dershowitz has been critical of many of Trump’s decisions. Like the travel ban, rescission of protections for Dreamers, and failure to single out white national provocations in Charlottesville.

On the other hand, he does not believe Trump’s firing of Comey constituted an obstruction of justice, believes the Michael Flynn conviction strange, and Russia’s collusion in the 2016 election not a crime.

Regarding impeachment itself and perhaps the reason Trump selected him, Dershowitz published in 2018: The Case Against Impeaching Trump.

Enjoy your day!

WORD ON THE STREET…..JIMMY BUFFETT TONIGHT AT MARGARITAVILLE was originally published on Key West Lou

0 notes

curtislegal11-blog · 5 years ago

Photo

Pressure sores as a result of the negligence of doctors, if your loved ones affected by this, then you could have a claim for compensation. Feel free to consult with Curtis Legal Ltd. They have experienced Pressure sore negligence solicitors who can help you make a claim and get compensation for your suffering for your bed sores. For more details, click here- https://claimforpressuresores.co.uk

#Pressure sore negligence solicitors #curtis legal solicitors

0 notes

maxwellyjordan · 5 years ago

Text

Monday round-up

On Friday the justices released four more opinions, leaving 12 to be decided before the Supreme Court’s summer recess. In Flowers v. Mississippi, the case of Curtis Flowers, who was tried six times for the same murders, the justices held 7-2 that a prosecutor’s repeated use of peremptory challenges to remove black people from the jury pool violated the Constitution. Amy Howe has this blog’s opinion analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie writes that “the majority opinion in Flowers, penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, stretched to 31 pages but, as it said, broke ‘no new legal ground.’” Nina Totenberg reports for NPR that “the Supreme Court made clear that in making its decision it could not ignore the history of this case and its prosecutor.” For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that Justice “Clarence Thomas, the court’s only African American, filed a furious dissent, dismissing the ruling as a feel-good exercise that pandered to media interest in the case and exhibited its own bias—against state courts in the South.” Commentary comes from Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog.

In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, the justices, by a 5-4 vote, overruled a 34-year-old precedent that required property owners to follow state compensation procedures before bringing federal takings claim under the Constitution. Miriam Seifter analyzes the opinion for this blog. Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin report for The Wall Street Journal that the ruling “made it easier for property owners to challenge land-use regulations and seek compensation from the government, [and it] revealed deep divisions between the court’s conservative and liberal camps.” At The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “[t]he decision was notable for an exchange about the court’s attitude toward precedent.” Nina Totenberg reports at NPR that “[t]he decision, with all five of the court’s conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.” Additional coverage comes from Ellen Gilmer at E&E News and Tony Mauro at Law.com. Commentary comes from Nick Sibilla in an op-ed for Forbes and from Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog.

In Rehaif v. United States, the court held 7-2 that to convict a defendant in U.S. illegally for violating a federal gun-possession law, prosecutors must show that defendant knew he was in the country illegally. Evan Lee has this blog’s opinion analysis. Trialdex observes that “it is pretty clear that Rehaif will apply to the much more common ex-con in possession cases.”

And in North Carolina Dept of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, the justices ruled unanimously that a trust beneficiary’s residence is not sufficient under the due process clause for a state to assert tax jurisdiction over undistributed trust income. This blog’s opinion analysis comes from Erin Scharff. At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson writes that “[t]he Court’s conclusion clearly rests on the fact that there was no actual income or entitlement to distribution of any income from the trust managed by an out-of-state trustee.” Mark Walsh has an first-hand look at Friday’s opinion announcements for this blog.

At The Federalist, Ilya Shapiro asserts that The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, in which the court held that a 40-foot cross honoring World War I veterans on public land in Maryland does not the violate Constitution’s bar on establishing religion, reached “the correct result …, but the mish-mash of opinions—it took a paragraph to explain which justice was joining which aspect of the decision—leaves Establishment Clause jurisprudence in the muddled state it’s been for decades.” At the Duke Center for Firearms Law’s Second Thoughts blog, Darrell Miller wonders about the implications of the ruling for “firearm regulations that are about as old, or much, much older” than the 90-year-old cross. At The Interdependent Third Branch, Lawrence Friedman pushes back against Justice Neil Gorsuch’s suggestion in a concurrence that the plaintiffs did not have had standing to challenge the cross, arguing that “abandoning ‘offended observer’ standing in the Establishment Clause context would … mean that public displays that obviously violate the constitution would become more common.” Additional commentary comes from Jay Wexler in an op-ed for Newsweek and from Lisa Soronen for the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]

Also at Notice & Comment, Adrian Vermeule throws cold water on predictions of an impending revival of the nondelegation doctrine after Gundy v. United States, noting that “[i]n many ways, Gundy represented the easiest possible case for constitutional invalidation, … yet, even here, the Court’s uniform practice of rejecting nondelegation challenges held.” At Take Care, Gillian Metzger remarks that in Gundy, “Chief Justice Roberts joined an extreme [dissenting] opinion that threatens to disrupt a basic and longstanding feature of modern government, unnecessarily undercuts a co-equal branch’s ability to function, and clearly advances a strongly partisan anti-regulatory agenda”; she warns that “if Gundy is any sign of things to come, John Roberts the institutionalist has left the building.” In an op-ed for Forbes, Nick Sibilla argues that “[b]y upholding [the] broad delegation of power [in the federal sex-offender registration act], the Supreme Court has set a precedent for even greater federal criminalization, which is already—quite literally—incalculable.” Additional commentary on Gundy comes from Ilya Somin at Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog and Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg.

At his eponymous blog, Sheldon Nahmood explains that after McDonough v. Smith, in which the court held that the clock on the time to file a federal civil rights claim based on fabrication of evidence in criminal proceedings does not start to run until the criminal proceedings end in the claimant’s favor, “[i]t is … crucial that a section 1983 plaintiff identify with some specificity just what is challenged as unconstitutional and under what constitutional provision.” At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Jonathan Adler writes that “McDonough is potentially important because it makes it easier for criminal defendants to sue police or prosecutors who engage in misconduct against them.” Another look at the decision comes from Lisa Soronen at the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog.

Opening Arguments (podcast) “break[s] down the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in U.S. v. Gamble, affirming the “dual sovereignty” doctrine.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost looks at Thomas’ concurring opinion in Gamble, in which Thomas asserted that “the Supreme Court is constitutionally bound to give a precedent no weight whatsoever if the prior decision is, in his 20-20 hindsight, ‘demonstrably erroneous.’” Dan Cotter looks at last week’s decisions in a post at LinkedIn.

At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that “[m]embers of Congress on Friday explored ways to increase transparency and accountability of the federal judiciary, though some voiced concern that reforms could jeopardize the security of judges and the unique status of Supreme Court justices.” At Bloomberg Law, Patrick Gregory reports that “[s]cholars raised concern … about a #MeToo-inspired congressional proposal for a code of ethics for U.S. Supreme Court justices.”

Briefly:

At Howe on the Court, Amy Howe highlights the 12 remaining cases the justices will dispose of before the end of the term.

Christopher Walker has this blog’s analysis of Monday’s opinion in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc.; the court sent the case, which asks whether the Hobbs Act, a jurisdictional-channeling statute, requires courts to accept the FCC’s interpretation of a statute allowing recipients of “junk faxes” to sue the senders for damages, back for the lower court to resolve two preliminary questions.

At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that “[f]ormer U.S. solicitors general Theodore Olson and Donald Verrilli Jr. are set to square off before the U.S Supreme Court in October to resolve a complex dispute over the status of an oversight board established by Congress in 2016 to help Puerto Rico recover from a devastating financial crisis.”

At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, Bernard Bell discusses last week’s decision in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, in which the court held that a private nonprofit that runs a public-access TV channel can’t be sued for violating the First Amendment, suggesting that “[w]hether or not private entities sometimes or even often serve [a] ‘traffic cop’ role in government-created fora, serving in that role shouldbe a function exclusively exercised by entities, be they public or private, having governmental responsibilities,” notably, “the duty to act in conformance with the U.S. Constitution.”

At Irish Liquor Lawyer, Sean O’Leary wonders whether, in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing, the decision [will] be narrow and limited to the facts of the case,” or will “shake[] the liquor world to its core.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/monday-round-up-444/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

rolandfontana · 6 years ago

Text

Another Defendant Challenges Whitaker Appointment

A convicted drug trafficker from the Dominican Republic has joined the ranks of those challenging President Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general, reports Politico. Tomas Castillo was re-sentenced Nov. 8 to a term of more than 10 years in prison for smuggling more than five kilograms of cocaine by boat into the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2016. That re-sentencing took place the morning after Trump forced the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and installed Whitaker, who had been Sessions’ chief of staff, to serve as attorney general on an acting basis. Castillo’s court-appointed lawyer — Joseph DiRuzzo of Fort Lauderdale — asked to set aside Castillo’s new sentence on the grounds that Trump’s appointment of Whitaker was unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Curtis Gomez took no action on the motion, so Castillo appealed to the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeal joins a series of other legal challenges to Trump’s decision to name Whitaker as acting attorney general rather than following the Justice Department succession order laid out in a federal law. The highest profile legal attack on Whitaker so far is a motion at the Supreme Court to have his name struck from the caption of pending petition over the gun rights of felons convicted of non-violent crimes. Solicitor General Noel Francisco says the best way to flesh out the legal arguments about Whitaker’s authority is to allow them to play out in lower courts. However, Francisco has asked the Supreme Court to bypass the normal appellate process in cases involving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Trump’s ban on transgender troops. Three Democratic senators have filed a free-standing suit in Washington, D.C., asking that Whitaker’s appointment be declared unconstitutional.

Another Defendant Challenges Whitaker Appointment syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/

0 notes

opedguy · 4 years ago

Text

Court Skeptical of Repealing Obamacare

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Nov. 10, 2020.--Making a big deal during the campaign about 74-year-old President Donald Trump’s attempt to repeal Obamacare in the Supreme Court, 77-year-old President-elect Joe Biden and his 56-year-old VP Kamala Harris used the issue to win the Nov. 3 election. Unlucky for Trump, he was on the wrong side of another issue contributing to his loss of the 2020 election. Whether Trump blames his loss on fraud or not, Biden and Harris used the attempt by the GOP to repeal Obamacare as an effective campaign issue. Like working to end Roe v. Wade, working actively to end the March 23, 2010 Affordable Care Act [ACA] was suicidal for Trump. Two years after former President Barack Obama signed the law into effect, Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. On June 28, 2012, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ruled Obamacare was constitutional.

Yet repealing Obmacare became a cause célèbre for overly zealous Obama-haters, for no reason other that Democrats railroaded Republicans on a technicality in the Senate to pass the ACA in 2010. But instead of looking at the benefits of having some national health legislation, Republicans wasted too much time trying to get the law overturned. Trump was a victim of his own anti-Obama zealotry, winning him plaudits in conservative circles. Now a collection of GOP state Attorney General try one last time for repeal in the U.S. Supreme Court. Why the Supreme Court wasted its time with this case is anyone’s guess. Making their arguments on Zoom Conferencing to the Supreme Court, it was like déjà vu all over again for Roberts, who ruled in 2012 that the penalty provision of the individual mandate fell into the category of a legal tax, something within Congress’ Article 1 authority.

When the U.S. Court of Appeals Eastern District of Louisiana ruled Dec. 18, 2019 that Obamacare’s individual mandate was unconstitutional, you knew it headed to the Supreme Court. So justices are tasked with deciding the “severability” question of the individual mandate, with GOP state Attorneys Generals arguing that the entire law must be struck down. Democrat Attorneys General argue that the individual mandate is in fact severable, leaving Obamacare intact while, letting the rest of the ACA continue. “It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Associate Justice Brett Kamanaugh said to Texas solicitor general Kyle Hawkins. Roberts already is on record with his June 28, 2012 ruling on the individual mandate penalty a tax. Now its looks like Roberts joins Kavanaugh in backing severability of the mandate.

When you think of how Trump and his fellow Obmaacare-hating Republicans wasted so much time on repealing the ACA, he would have won a lot more crossover voters and independents leaving Obamacare alone. But no, the GOP put its eggs in the Obamacare basket and got burned. Trump was confronted with Biden in the Oct. 22 debate about seeking to take health coverage away from 22 million citizens on Obamacare during a global pandemic. Trump gave Democrats great talking points in the campaign, not realizing that even conservative-leaning justices see no problem with keeping Obamacare intact, especially for the millions of American currently enrolled in the program. Trump offered only platitudes about what he’d do in the future to deal with an end to the ACA. Voters simply didn’t find the idea of ending government-subsidized health insurance appealing.

When you think about what Obamacare’s original intent, it was supposed to provide comprehensive government-subsidized medial insurance to the uninsured population with preexisting conditions. Obamacare changed age-old insurance laws discriminating against individuals seeking insurance with preexisting conditions. Employer-sponsored health care provides insurance to everyone with preexisting medical conditions as long as they were part of a group. Insurance industry opposed Obamacare because they didn’t think they could make enough profit insuring subscribers with preexisting medical problems. But insurance companies made adequate profits insuring groups where everyone got insured without questioning prior medial conditions. When Obama promised subscribers they could keep their own doctors, he didn’t understand how health insurance worked.

Many companies that originally offered Obamacare polices gave up on the program because they couldn’t find a way to make it profitable. Companies that survived went to a tightly controlled managed care model, with extreme gate keeping, to keep costs under control, forcing many subscribers to give up their old doctors, clinics, labs and hospitals. Obamacare today is a tightly controlled managed care system, similar to how medical groups handle Medicaid. “I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down,” Roberts said. “Congress left the rest of the law intact . . . That seems to be compelling evidence on the question,” said Roberts, hinting on how he’d rule. Trump and the GOP can only kick themselves for turning Obamacare into an Election Year issue, letting Democrat run wild frightening off GOP-leaning voters.

About the Author

0 notes

claimforpressure-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Medical Solicitors

0 notes

robertmcangusgroup · 7 years ago

Text

The Daily Thistle

The Daily Thistle – News From Scotland

Thursday 27th July 2017

"Madainn Mhath” .…Fellow Scot, I hope the day brings joy to you…. where ever you are on this little blue planet we call Earth… as we spin endlessly around the small star we call the Sun… and as I walked this morning with Bella under the clear night sky’s .. with stars and planets alike twinkling, I watched as the International Space Station passed slowly overhead… We are such small particles in the grand scheme of things.. some of the light emitting from stars has taken millions of light years to reach us… and in some cases light from some stars has not arrived to be seen yet as they are so far, far away… for millions, read billions… I walked back down the hill, the thought of coffee and rice cookies and The Daily Thistle on my mind … so walk done, philosophical moment over let’s take a look at what the world had in store for us….

LATEST SCOTS SCHOOL ATTAINMENT GAP FUNDING SET OUT…. The Scottish government has set out where £45m of funding to tackle the attainment gap in schools will be allocated over the coming year. The latest round of funding will go to the nine councils with the highest concentrations of deprivation, along with 72 schools in other poorer areas. Education Secretary John Swinney said boosting schools was the Scottish government's "defining mission". Opposition parties said the funding did not go far enough to tackle problems. The Scottish Attainment Challenge fund will distribute £750m to primary and secondary schools over the course of the current parliament, aimed at cutting the poverty-related divide in attainment. Funding packages ranging from £1.5m to £7.7m will go to local authorities in Clackmannanshire, Dundee, East Ayrshire, Glasgow, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and West Dunbartonshire. Funding is also being sent directly to 72 schools in other local authority areas, with more than £2m being distributed in South Lanarkshire and almost £1m in the Highland council area.

REGIONAL AIRPORT OPERATOR HIAL REPORTS PASSENGER INCREASE…. Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (Hial) has reported a 13.3% overall rise in passenger numbers compared to the same quarter in 2016. The regional airports operator said it handled 477,612 customers between April and June 2017 - an increase of 55,934 passengers. The strongest performing of its 11 airports included Inverness, Barra and Islay. However, Dundee handled 2,690 fewer passengers. Hial said this was a result of the withdrawal of the Flybe Amsterdam service by the operator in December 2016. Numbers also declined at Wick John O'Groats. This was due in part to reduced demand from energy sector services to and from Aberdeen. Hial operates airports in the Highlands, Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland, Argyll and Dundee Airport.

NEW GLENTRESS FOREST DEVELOPMENT 'WORTH £1M' ANNUALLY…. The backers of a new plan for luxury eco-cabins have claimed they will boost the Borders tourism economy by £1m each year. The 56 cabins are to be built at Glentress Forest near Peebles. They will be part of a £11.3m investment as part of a partnership between Forest Enterprise Scotland and Forest Holidays. The plan also includes new biking trails and a walking route through the area. Scottish Borders Council backed a masterplan for the area in 2015. Glentress Forest attracts more than 300,000 visitors a year.

TRIO JAILED AFTER £100,000 DUNDEE DRUGS RAID…. Three men caught during a police raid that recovered £100,000 of heroin and cocaine in Dundee have been jailed. Scott Curtis, William Malkin and Rogan Millar were held following the Operation Sylvan probe in the city last October. Malkin, 25, was jailed for five-and-a-half years at the High Court in Glasgow. Curtis, 26, and Millar, 28, were jailed for four-and-a-half years and four years respectively. Malkin, of Dundee, was convicted of being concerned in the supply of the class A drugs between April and October last year. Curtis, of Dundee, and Millar, of Tayport, Fife, admitted the same charge committed between September and October last year. A previous court hearing was told Curtis and Malkin were seen entering a tenement close carrying a cardboard box and bags. Drugs were discovered inside the box and bags during a raid at a flat in the building The court was told Curtis had a knife, a baseball bat and a knuckle duster in his car. The court heard Millar's home was also searched and what appeared to be the remains of a drugs "tick list" were discovered. Lady Scott told the men: "This was a significant operation in respect of class A drugs."

'GIANT OF SCOTS LAW' LORD MCCLUSKEY DIES AGED 88…. Former High Court judge Lord McCluskey has been remembered as a "giant" of Scots law following his death at the age of 88. John Herbert McCluskey, who lived in Edinburgh, held roles as a defence counsel, a former Solicitor General and a Labour and crossbench peer. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon expressed her sadness at the news. She describing him as "one of the outstanding Scots lawyers of his generation". The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Gordon Jackson QC, said: "Lord McCluskey was a giant of Scots law. He had an outstanding career as counsel, law officer and judge. "Although often outspoken, his views were always challenging and merited the most careful consideration." Born on 12 June, 1929, McCluskey went to Edinburgh University and was Solicitor General for Scotland from 1974 to 1979. During that time, he worked on the then Labour government's proposals for devolution. He became a member of the judiciary in 1984 and presided for 16 years as a High Court judge over some of the country's most high-profile criminal cases. He became a Labour peer in the mid-1970s and was later a crossbench peer. He retired from the House of Lords earlier this year due to declining health. In 2011, he chaired a panel of legal experts tasked with investigating the functions of the UK Supreme Court following a number of high-profile and controversial rulings affecting Scotland. He later chaired a Scottish government-appointed group to review the Leveson Report. It concluded that the Scottish press should be subject to mandatory regulation underpinned by law, but the Scottish government rejected the proposal. Lord McCluskey was given a lifetime achievement award at the Scottish Legal Awards earlier this year. The death was announced by his nephew, Niall McCluskey, also an advocate, who said on Twitter: "He was a great man and a fantastic lawyer. He will be missed."

On that note I will say that I hope you have enjoyed the news from Scotland today,

Our look at Scotland today is of a Flybe Dash 8 Q400 number G-JECY plane setting up to land at John O'Groats...

A Sincere Thank You for your company and Thank You for your likes and comments I love them and always try to reply, so please keep them coming, it's always good fun, As is my custom, I will go and get myself another mug of "Colombian" Coffee and wish you a safe Thursday 27th July 2017 from my home on the southern coast of Spain, where the blue waters of the Alboran Sea washes the coast of Africa and Europe and the smell of the night blooming Jasmine and Honeysuckle fills the air…and a crazy old guy and his dog Bella go out for a walk at 4:00 am…on the streets of Estepona…

All good stuff....But remember it’s a dangerous world we live in

Be safe out there…

Robert McAngus

0 notes