Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Court’

On June 28, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment, which gives citizens the right to bear arms, is not limited by state and local laws. This means that states do not have the power to pass laws that put a limit on the amendment and an individual’s right to carry a weapon.

The controversial topic of gun control is not new to the United States. In fact, it is an issue the country has faced since the days of the Revolutionary War, Prohibition, and even the hippie era.

The following timeline highlights some important landmarks in the history of gun control that lead up to the recent Supreme Court case.

1775: As American try to gain independence, the British limit the amount of gun powder shipped to the colonies. Paul Revere is caught by British on their way to take U.S. weapons at an arsenal.

1822: Bliss v. Commonwealth solidifies peoples’ rights to bear arms to defend themselves. The right to bear arms is seen as an individual right.

1842: State v. Buzzard changes opinion and the right to bear arms is now seen as a political right, not an individual right. The case sends the country into decades of debate over whether the right to bear arms is an individual or collective right.

1856: The well known case of Dred Scott v. Sandford gives African Americans the right to bear arms.

1868: Amid worries that the Southern states were attempting to disarm former slaves, the 14th Amendment is enacted, stating that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

1934: Soon after the repeal of Prohibition and the violent gang related Saint Valentine’s Day massacre, the National Firearms Act is passed, requiring the registration of firearms.

1968: The Gun Control Act makes it illegal for anyone except licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers to participate in interstate firearms transfers.

1974: The National Coalition to Ban Handguns is founded. It includes labor, religious, and nonprofit groups who support gun owner licensing, firearm registration, and the ban of privately-owned handguns (with a few exceptions) to fight gun-related crime.

1990: The National Coalition to Ban Handguns is renamed the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

1993: The Brady Act requires federal background checks to purchase guns in the United Sates.

1994: It becomes illegal to sell assault weapons to civilians, according to the Assault Weapons Ban.

2007: Background check requirements are added to by the NICS Improvement Amendments Act.

2008: The Supreme Court rules, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the 2nd Amendment allows individuals to cary firearms in federal enclaves. The ruling does not make it clear whether the decision also applies to states.

2010: The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment is not limited by state and local laws and that individuals have the right to bear arms.

This summary is only the beginning. The history of American government and laws is very interesting, in depth, and pertinent to today’s rulings. Both the criminal justice and legal industries are full of exciting information and opportunities.

Incoming search terms:

According to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Americans have the right to hold and bear arms for self-defense, an ability that aggressive Michigan criminal defense lawyers work hard to protect. However, in recent years handgun bans in various major cities in the United States have made that a difficult task. Fortunately, in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the rights of

American citizens to keep and bear arms were upheld, extending to state and local levels. Since 1982, the Midwest city of Chicago has had some of the strictest handgun laws in the country. Residents were not allowed to own handguns for personal use, even in their homes.

Despite these harsh firearm laws, changes were set in motion in 2008. This was when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment assertion that the rights of individuals to possess a gun for self-defense applied to the nation’s capitol. However, since Washington D.C. is a federal city and not a state, it was not specified whether or not the ruling extended to other state or municipal laws.

Fortunately, early Monday morning the Supreme Court clarified themselves. In a 5-4 ruling, the court reasserted the constitutional protection of the Second Amendment to include state and municipal laws, ultimately having both national and local implications. According to gun-rights advocates, this victory for the Second Amendment could potentially allow constitutional appeals to restrictions on handguns be heard and granted nationwide.

As evidenced by the decision handed down from the Supreme Court, the legal process is a complex and ever-changing one. If you have been accused of criminal charges, it is important to find out all your options before proceeding with any type of defense. For this, it is in your best interest to contact knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense attorneys for assistance. Doing so immediately can provide superior legal representation designed to protect your individual rights and freedoms including the right to own handguns for personal use.

Incoming search terms:

Supreme Court Case doesn’t Open the Floodgates to Discharging Student Loans in Bankruptcy.

The United States Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that discharged Francisco J. Espinosa’s student loans in bankruptcy. The ruling was initially haled as a victory for borrowers and debtors. However, a closer look at the narrow ruling by the High Court establishes that debtors must establish that a student loan constitutes an undue hardship to discharge student loans through bankruptcy.

Mr. Espinosa had taken out four student loans to attend trade school. Four years later, he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and offered a repayment plan to the court, proposing that he repay the principal over five years, without interest. The bankruptcy judge approved his proposed repayment plan. The lender received notice of the proposed plan, but failed to file an objection. The court approved the plan. The lender failed to appeal from the court’s order within the time permitted by law. Mr. Espinosa repaid the principal on the loan pursuant to the repayment plan approved by the court, and the court discharged the outstanding interest. Years later, the lender attempted to reopen the bankruptcy court case and set aside the discharge of the interest.

On appeal, the lender argued that the bankruptcy court judge did not make a finding that the student loans constituted an undue hardship for Mr. Espinosa, as required by the Bankruptcy Code. In considering the case, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Supreme Court specifically noted that the bankruptcy judge had erred in failing to make the required finding of undue hardship. However, because the lender had failed to timely object, and failed to file the proper appeal, the case had grown stale. “The bankruptcy court’s failure to find undue hardship before confirming Espinosa’s plan was a legal error,” Justice Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. “But the order remains enforceable and binding on United because United had notice of the error and failed to object or timely appeal.”

Noting that the Supreme Court specifically found that the bankruptcy judge had committed legal error probably precludes or severely limits the precedential value of the Espinosa case. In this case, the discharge came about because the lender slept on its right to object and timely appeal. If similarly situated lenders did not already have good reason to be vigilant for debtors seeking to discharge some or all of their student loan obligations in bankruptcy, they certainly will after the Espinosa decision.

Rather than being a great victory for debtors and borrowers, the Espinosa case actually reaffirmed that the Bankruptcy Code requires judges to make a determination of undue hardship. Failure to do so would constitute reversible error in other cases under different circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court’s decision does not open the floodgates to student loan discharges.

A World War I memorial will be allowed to stay in the Mojave Desert, and though covered since 2002 because it offended some people as a religious symbol is now unveiled again. It was the United States Supreme Court that allowed the Cross, on private land owned by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to stay after a protracted controversy. The Cross has stood for about 75 years in the desert. The question came to, Is the Cross religious symbol for Christians solely, or War Memorial for American dead?

In California and even San Francisco’s Bay Area the subject of a cross in a remote desert spot in the Mojave was a highly controversial matter. What about the cross on public land? Does this not violate separation of Church and State? was hotly asked.
 
A religious symbol cannot be on public land, said Frank Buono who is now retired from the Park Service. He brought the case to The Supreme Court over a ten year period with the help of The American Civil Liberties Union. According to The New York Times, “The white wooden cross, roughly 5 feet tall, stands atop Sunrise Rock in California’s San Bernardino County.” It is actually made of pipe today. The Supreme Court did not say whether this was a simple, dignified, and even popular War Memorial of little note but some popularity among the private individuals who visited it, and those who built it. The Court took on this almost humble case that to some appeared overblown.
 
A PDF of the Supreme Court decision is here.
 
The announcement of the Court’s result was made and reported in major newspapers April 28, 2010. Writing for the Supreme Court in Salazar v. Buono, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said:
“The District Court concentrated solely on the religious aspects of the cross, divorced from its background and context. But a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”
 
The Veterans of Foreign Wars agreed. One could easily surmise that’s the real issue, the real case from their vantage point. Many veterans agreed.
 
Gabriel Nelson, writing in his blog in The New York Times, said, “The Supreme Court ruled today that Congress and the Interior Department acted properly when they used a land transfer to solve a dispute over a cross on display in the federal Mojave National Preserve.”
 
There was no big hullaballoo, but a minimal statement with dissent by the Supreme Court. Gabriel Nelson put it well in his low key remark on how the Interior Department had acted properly. This writer has taken some snippets from other newspaper reports that demonstrate all are in accord in their reporting of the facts, and as the Supreme Court noted it was the facts that led them to their conclusions on the decision.
 
In its brief on behalf of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Solicitor General Elena Kagan said the cross did not imply government sponsorship. The transfer of land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that required the installation of a plaque dissociating the statue from the federal government, she wrote, satisfied the problem of Church/State religion (Christian).
 
The Christian Post said in its report, “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. “This cross,” he wrote, “evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles.”
 
As a taste of the real argument in differences on the United States Supreme Court, it appears to this writer that Justice Anthony Kennedy caught the essence of the issue separating Justices. The Wall Street Journal noted in their report, Justice Stevens’s dissent argued that Congress wasn’t taking action to memorialize veterans, but rather using their memory to justify maintenance of a religious symbol. He noted that the Mojave cross little resembles the prominent and nonsectarian markers erected for those who served in World War II, Korea or Vietnam.
 
JESS BRAVIN Wall Street Journal writer pointed out in his article, The cross—estimated at five to seven feet tall—stands on Sunrise Rock in a remote patch of desert. Veterans, some of whom had moved to the region for health reasons, first erected a cross at the site in 1934 and it was often used for Easter services. The current version was assembled from painted metal pipes in 1998 by Henry Sandoz of Yucca Valley, Calif.
 
Though The Wall Street Journal called the decision one whereby the Cross was determined more war memorial than religious symbol, the grass roots battle in California called for many statements that: Yes, it was significantly and first a war memorial, but it was a religious statement for the war dead. There the Supreme Court did not necessarily agree, but it did not make sweeping decisions. Justice Kennedy wrote, Because of the “highly fact-specific nature” of the case, it is “unsuited for announcing categorical rules.”
 
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Stevens’s dissent. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented separately.
 
Images:  (1) Mojave Desert Cross, by Associated Press; (2) Mojave Desert Cross, by unknown.

I am very happy to see the judgment of the Supreme Court on National Company Law Tribunal.  I have read the judgment of Justice Jayasimha Babu of Madras High Court regarding the constitution of National Company Law Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal in the Writ Petition preferred by Madras Bar Association many times. It was vehemently argued before the Madras High Court that the powers and jurisdiction of Court is taken away by the executive from time to time by constituting Tribunals. In my opinion, the Madras High Court could have stayed the constitution of National Company Law Tribunal as it takes away a very important jurisdiction of the High Court and the powers exercised by the High Court for years traditionally. I don’t think that giving a reason as to staying the constitution of National Company Law Tribunal is a difficult thing and especially in view of the functioning of the Company Law Board and the experience. Despite all this, laudably, the Madras High Court has upheld the power of executive in constituting National Company Law Tribunal though it stayed the certain provisions of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002. The Madras High Court has highlighted most important issues like independence, impartiality and quality of presiding officers while delivering the judgment on Constitution of National Company Law Tribunal. As everybody knows, the judgment of Madras High Court is upheld by the Supreme Court with elaborate observations in order preserve the independence and impartiality of an adjudicatory forum like National Company Law Tribunal. Though, we tend study the difference between Tribunals and Courts academically, there is no much difference between Tribunals and the Courts logically. The only difference may be that the Tribunals are constituted by a special enactment which may follow special procedure and need not follow Civil Procedure Code. As such, the basic principles like independence, impartiality and quality of presiding officers is to be preserved at any cost. In my opinion, it is part and parcel of basic structure of Constitution of India.

I am a critic of judiciary to some extent and a person to see the needed legal reforms in India aiming at effective and speedy justice. But, when it comes to exercise of powers by the High Court under Companies Act, 1956, I was of the opinion that the High Court or the Company Court is doing well despite many inevitable complications. Constitutional Courts have laid down wonderful principles regarding interpretation of provisions of Companies Act, 1956. After constitution of Company Law Board, if we see the difference between the powers exercised by the Company Law Board and the High Court, in my opinion, High Court is doing well compared to Company Law Board. High Court faces so much work pressure and had to listen and pass orders in many matters. It is not the case when it comes to Company Law Board. Many feel that the remedy before the Company Law Board was not effective and there are so many reasons as to why the litigation before Company Law Board was not effective and it is also addressed indirectly in the judgment of Madras High Court and the judgment of Supreme Court on constitution of National Company Law Tribunal.

The object behind introducing a Companies Bill is really good and I don’t think that it is a big exercise. What is important is that providing an effective reddressel to the companies or the shareholders when they approach the court or the tribunal for the protection of their corporate rights.  With the proposed Companies Bill, most of the powers of High Court are taken away with the constitution of National Company Law Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. There is a specific bar on the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in entertaining a company matter. I have read the paper statements that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is planning to approach the bench of the Supreme Court again asking for a review on the ground that the members of ICLS are not allowed to be presiding officers of the National Company Law Tribunal. As I have read, according to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the members of ICLS are most talented and suited to deal with the company related issues. It is emphasized that there is so much procedure to be followed to introduce the Companies Bill again in the Parliament subsequent to the judgment of Supreme Court on NCLT.

I am not on the issue of the intelligence of the members of ICLS at all with due respect to the members of ICLS, but, I have some doubts like:

1. Why the Companies Bill is sought to be introduced in the Parliament knowing fully of the proceeding before Supreme Court?

2. Why Company Law Board could not be effective as opined by many companies and shareholders?

3. Was there any complete assessment as to why the Company Law Board could not provide an effective remedy?

4. Is Ministry of Corporate Affairs convinced that the Company Law Board is successful in achieving its object?

5. How come the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is convinced that the National Company Law Tribunal can effectively exercise most of the powers under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 where there is no much difference in wording between the provisions dealing with the powers of Company Law Board under Companies Act, 1956 and the powers of National Company Law Tribunal under the proposed Companies Bill barring the bar on Civil Court’s jurisdiction?

6. Was there any thinking as to the implementation of the orders of the Company Law Board or the proposed National Company Law Tribunal as the orders of the Company Law Board were violated directly in many cases?

7. Was there any discussion with the Law Ministry or the concerned people regarding the powers of Contempt of National Company Law Tribunal in view of the general application of provisions of Contempt of Courts Act?

8. Will it not cause a great hardship to the companies or the corporates if only there is one Appellate Tribunal in Delhi?

9. Did the Ministry of Corporate Affairs take note of filing fictitious forms with the ROC under MCA scheme and procedure for removal of those forms?

Constitution of National Company Law Tribunal and its effective functioning is very important for the corporate world. It is not an easy thing for the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to ensure proper functioning of National Company Law Tribunal in view of our experience with Company Law Board as I believe and heard from many shareholders. The judgment of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court in the Appeal on constitution of National Company Law Tribunal is really laudable; as otherwise, there would have been an irreparable damage to the corporate world. The issue is really challenging for the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and it will be interesting to follow as to  when the Companies Bill is introduced, changes are made to the bill subsequent to the judgment of Supreme Court and the finally the functioning of the National Company Law Tribunal.

Note: The views expressed are my personal and I have no intention to insult any profession or institution.

Incoming search terms:

Imagine a six-figure income and some familiar figures may come to mind. Doctors, lawyers, and top-level executives are no strangers to incomes above $100,000, but you might not realize the pay scale possible for those who make a living transcribing court cases.

Not every court reporter earns six figures–average earnings for the career hover around half that–but the most experienced and skilled can, and in some cases do.

A Day in the Life of a Court Reporter
Court reporters capture live speech from trials and pre-trial depositions, recording it in text form for records purposes. Instead of using a traditional keyboard or computer, court reporters use a stenotype machine. Pressing multiple keys on the machine allows the reporter to record different sounds, words, or phrases. Audio reporting and voice writing are also popular methods, and court reporters often try all three before deciding on the method that works best for them.

Accuracy on a tight budget is an essential skill, and judges and lawyers value court reporters for the documents they create. Your day as a court reporter may start with a morning pre-trial deposition, a few hours off to check your transcript, and one or two trials. If you don’t have a trial scheduled, you may attend to your freelance work transcribing press conferences or television programs, sending them in real-time to viewers.

Freelancing as a Court Reporter
How can a court reporter earn six figures? By freelancing in the court system they serve. Freelance work is not required, but a skilled court reporter taking on the extra work can earn money by-the-page for as long as they need it. CNN Money reports that experienced court reporters may earn up to $88,171 in the New York State Supreme Court, with freelancing work perhaps pushing that figure over the $100,000 mark. Freelancing is one way to set your own income, in that sense, though the nature of the work means a reliable salary is not always guaranteed.

Typical Court Reporter Salaries
Check out the mean annual salaries (not including freelance work) for industries with the highest level of employment for court reporters, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):

• Business support services: $44,260
• Local government: $49,950
• Employment services: $43,680
• Federal executive branch: $50,380

Training cannot guarantee a certain salary, and you may earn more depending on your skills and education. Depending on your desire to freelance, it may be more important to learn a range of stenographic techniques and equipment.

Court Reporter Career Training Programs
Education is essential for anyone hoping to work as a court reporter. Students typically aim to capture 225 words per minute–a requirement for Federal employment–using special stenographic equipment. The BLS reports that training may include on-the-job instruction and averages at 33 months. Formal training is popular at the associate’s degree level.

Employment for court reporters is expected to grow 25 percent in the coming years, adding an estimated 4,700 new jobs through 2016. Consider a career in court reporting as a growing job that can reward your attention to detail.

Incoming search terms:

Criminal lawyers are those lawyers who actually take cases in relation to crimes such as murders, kidnapping, half murder charges etc. For the crime section many criminal law firms are being introduced for conducting the cases of crimes and carrying on the law procedures. Today committing any crime is just like an easy task for the criminals as law today is just left in law’s book, corruption is everywhere now, whether it’s a police station or any office of law. The people who commit crimes free themselves by law just by offering bribes of few bugs to every concerned authority. Many criminal lawyers and criminal law firms helps such criminals in their wrong deeds. This bribe eating in government law offices has lead to increase in crimes everywhere.

Law procedures are required to be stricter to stop crimes and while catching criminals. No softness should be shown while conducting any crime case if proofs are available against the culprit. Many a times the proofs are being destroyed to avoid the process of hearing in court. Court procedure are delayed often this too is wrong as it gives chance to the criminals to make a way out of it. Many criminal lawyers take out many such ways to save their clients, criminal law firms should follow some ethics of not supporting the real culprit or else every other person will commit crime and on the basis of some money he will be free again to commit crimes again.

Ethics are required to be followed by each and everyone conducting a case and are a part of court hearing. Court hearing process should be faster and clear to avoid any escape of the criminals. Criminals should be treated as criminals even though if they belong to any superior rankings. No softness should be shown due to their reputation or financial status. Softness is required only when a person who don’t seem to be a criminal and don’t have any past records. Sometimes innocent people come in the trap of big criminals who put their crimes on the innocent ones; criminal lawyers should save this people in spite of saving the real criminals.

Criminal law firms are required to be true on their part and help the court to carry on procedure fast and in better way. Some amendments must be made in laws to make it stricter so that before committing any crime the person gives a second thought of its result. Easier law has lead to nothing but increase in crimes and increase in number of criminals, every other wrong person is of the mentality that he can escape from any kind of law just with the help of few bugs. This should not be the case punishments should be so strict that before committing the crime he sees himself facing the punishment.

Today many people have lost faith and trust on court proceedings and law; it is required to bring back the trust and faith on law by carrying on fair proceedings and abolishing every bad and wrong act.

<p>The judicial system of India is basically made up of the supreme court of India which stands at the apex of the entire country’s hierarchy. There are a total of twenty one high courts which are at the top of the hierarchy for every state. The India high court has a jurisdiction over the particular state or over the group of union territories and states or even over union territory. Below the <a rel=”nofollow” onclick=”javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview(‘/outgoing/article_exit_link’);” href=”http://www.jotwani.com”>Indian High Court</a> there is the hierarchy of subordinate courts which are called as criminal courts, family courts, civil courts and other district courts. All the high courts of India are organized as constitutional courts through the Chapter V, Part VI and Article 214 in the Indian constitution.</p>

<p>The Indian Supreme Court is the highest court for the entire country which is established by the Indian constitution. According to the Indian constitution, the role of <a rel=”nofollow” onclick=”javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview(‘/outgoing/article_exit_link’);” href=”http://www.jotwani.com”>India Supreme Court</a> is the same as that of federal court which also acts as the guardian for the constitution of India. It is also the place for the highest appeal for any individual.</p>

<p>There is also the patent law in India where the entire patent system of India is managed or governed by superintendence of the general controller of designs patients, <a rel=”nofollow” onclick=”javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview(‘/outgoing/article_exit_link’);” href=”http://www.jotwani.com”>India Trademark</a> patent and also by the geographical indications. There are a total of four patent offices in India in which the head office if situated in Kolkata. Anyone can be granted patent for their products or services but it is important to follow the proper procedure. This can be better done through a professional lawyer in India.</p>

Incoming search terms: