Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Over’

The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Union of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh on a petition challenging the legality of land acquisition for a mega-power project popularly known as the Dadri Project.

The bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice R V Raveendran and Justice J M Panchal issued the order while dealing with a public interest litigation filed by Sahayog Samiti, a non-government organization, representing the interests of farmers whose agricultural land was acquired for the project.

This has put a question mark over the implementation of the gas-based thermal power generation project which is a much advertised component of the ambitious energy and power development program of the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG).

For this purpose, nearly 903 hectares of good agricultural land was acquired from the farmers of seven villages in district Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. The land was stated to be acquired for setting up of a gas-based thermal power generation project. As per the notification, the land was urgently required for the above “public purpose” and as such Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was invoked thereby negating the right of objections by the affected persons. The petitioners alleged that while the land was said to be acquired for “public purpose”, the state government had entered into an agreement with a private company (Reliance Energy Generation Ltd) for development, construction, financing, operating and maintaining a power station of 3,500 MW capacity. “Acquisition for public purpose can only be resorted to if the compensation is to be paid by the government from its own exchequer. However in the instant case, in reality, the land has been acquired for a private limited company which is not a government company”. The petitioners further stated that such a project would come within the purview of Section 40 (1) (aa) of the Land Acquisition Act wherein the acquisition is possible only after proper inquiry. Invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act is not permissible when the acquisition is being made for a private company.

The counsels for the petitioners, Mr. K T S Tulsi,Sr.Advocate and Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Advocate, stated that under Rule 4 (1) (vi) of the Land Acquisition (Company) Rules where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural land, the government has a duty to satisfy itself that no other alternate site can be found to avoid acquisition of fertile/ cultivated land. The counsels emphasized that this condition was not fulfilled by the State as the government in obvious collusion with the private company, chose to ignore the statute and gave away the land of the petitioners on a platter to a private company.

(more)

Citing the case ” Devender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.”, the petitioners said that in the said case, while upholding Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963, the Supreme Court has held that the same is mandatory in nature and imperative in character. Since the said statute has been entirely ignored in the present case, the petitioner prayed for quashing the notification dated February 11, 2004 and the consequent acquisition proceedings initiated by the state of Uttar Pradesh.

Sahayog Samiti is a registered body with the registrar of Societies and Chits, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh and is working for the upliftment of the farmers and downtrodden strata of society.

Incoming search terms:

What is a Source Code?

In simple terms, the source code is the computerized language that operates a device.   It provides the device with a set of commands on how to analyze data and even when to turn “on” or turn “off.”  Source codes are used to operate your computer, your microwave, or your cell phone.  They are also used to operate devices used in DWI cases to determine blood alcohol content.

What is the issue?

As anyone who has used a computer knows, coding errors can occur.  Source codes are not infallible.  They are subject to human error, mechanical failures and even malicious coding. Treating them as infallible in court when it comes to testing blood alcohol in the breath, violates due process of a defendant when that defendant is unable to seek independent testing of the code used.

The Legal Issue?

In 2006, defendant’s in a DWI case in Florida sought the computerized source code for the breath testing device used in DWI offenses, a version of the Intoxilyzer 5000.  The source code, it was argued, was necessary for testing to determine if proper programming was included in the device so that it was accurately assessing blood alcohol concentrations.

The issue with the request that occurred was that the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer device, CMI, Inc., of Kentucky, considered its source code a trade secret and, as a result, refused to release it to the state to be turned over as discovery to the defendant.  Ultimately, the Florida Court refused to require the state to provide the defendant, Todd Moe, the source code.

Similar challenges began to spring up in many states.  In Minnesota, two Dakota county cases raised the issue.  In those cases, State v. Underdahl, and State v. Brunner, the lower trial courts ruled that the source code was discoverable and had to be turned over to the defense.   When the company, CMI, Inc., refused to part with its source code, the breath test results were suppressed.  The cases were appealed, finally making their way to the Minnesota Supreme Court for review.

On April 30, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its ruling on the two combined cases.

It decided that computer source code for the intoxilyzer 5000 machine is within the control of the state and that it must be turned over to defense counsel when the defense makes a showing that the under the Minnesota Criminal Rules of Procedure Rule 9.01, subd. 1, provided, however, a showing is made that the information may relate to the guilt or innocence of the defendant or negate guilt or reduce the culpability of the defendant as to the offense charged.

The end result is that the Minnesota opinion provides defense attorneys a template by which they may seek  the source code in cases where computerized analysis of breath samples occurs.  It does require, however, that the defense, provide a reasonable basis as to why the code is relevant to the guilt of innocence of the individual in more than general terms.  In most instances expert testimony related to the nature of the source code and how errors may occur would be necessary coupled with any indicia that errors have occurred historically. Ultimately, if CMI, Inc. continues in its refusal to provide the source code to the state, challenges to the admissibility of breath test results in DWI cases will continue to increase and provide defense attorney’s a much needed tool in combating the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000

Writing a personal statement for law school can be stressful and difficult.  The personal statement is such an important part of your application package, it can easily spell the difference between whether or not you are admitted into the school of your choice.  You may feel pressured to come up with an excellent essay, but you should always remember that you can always get help from the people around you.  One of the best ways to compose a great application essay is to have other people read your essay.  It can be hard to take a step back and look at your personal statement from an objective point of view.  For this reason, it may be a good idea to get the help, advise, and guidance of others, resulting in a more refined and well-edited personal statement.  Read on for some helpful tips on how to get help from others for your law school personal statements.

Writing your draft

Before you can ask someone to read through your essay, you first have to come up with a draft.  Try to set aside ample time for preparation, writing, and editing.  During the preparation stage, you should try to gain more knowledge about the law school you are applying to and how to write personal statements.  Learning about the law school will help you to tailor your essay to the specific school you are applying to.  When researching about personal statements, you should check out the school’s homepage to see if they provide any tips or suggestions on essay writing.  Also, look for some sample law school personal statements so you can get a better idea of what the personal statement looks like, how it reads, and how the themes are developed.

Here are some basic tips on writing your law school personal statement:
-  Try to be honest and natural, letting your character and personality show in your essay.
-  Be concise, specific, and accurate.
-  Make sure that there are no syntax, spelling, or grammatical errors.
-  Don’t dwell on the negative.  Instead, focus on the positive and how you are ready for law school.
-  If you don’t know how to go about your personal statement, try taking a look at some sample essays from other people.

Seeking the help of language experts

One of the best sources of help when writing personal statements or any type of essay is a language expert.  An expert in English can help in proofreading and editing your law school personal statement to ensure that there are absolutely no language mistakes.  You may want to ask for help from an English or Literature teacher in college or high school.  Another choice is to get help from a tutor or consultant who is willing to look through and edit your paper.

Seeking the help of people in the legal profession

Legal professionals and other people who may have been through the experience of writing law school personal statements also make great proofreaders and editors.  Not only have these people been through what you are going through now, but they also have experience of what the legal profession is like after schooling.

Seeking the help of family and friends

Finally, who best to ask help from than your own family and friends?  Whether you ask for help from parents, an uncle who is an attorney, or a friend who is also applying for law school, you can get great help from those around you.

Incoming search terms:

In a stunning and unexpected 6-3 ruling the right-leaning Supreme Court went against the wishes of the last president, took the wind out of the sails of health care reform of the current president, sent irresponsible Big Pharma a major wake up call, and bluntly told the arrogant FDA that they are indeed not above the rule of law.  It is a major victory for every American citizen.

Central to the issue is a power a struggle between the federal government and states, which in this situation meant the federal government authority to pre-empt your state rights to sue if you are injured by a drug.  The FDA, acting on behalf of the Bush administration and on the side of Big Pharma, has helped tie up thousands of drug injury lawsuits across the country.  The FDA, who is supposed to be protecting consumers from drug injury and ensuring a correct risk/safety picture for any person taking a drug, was instead trying to shirk their responsibility and simply claim that Americans had no right to sue.

This convoluted attempt by the FDA to undermine consumer safety was one of the main themes in my 2006 book, Fight for Your Health: Exposing the FDA’s Betrayal of America.  The Bush Administration had intentionally appointed anti-safety people in high positions within the FDA, starting with its Chief Counsel, Daniel Troy (and continued as a legal philosophy after Troy was forced out for his Big Pharma connections).  Troy set in motion the legal problem the Supreme Court just decided.

During the final years of the Bush administration cancer industry insider Andrew von Eschenbach, MD, was appointed to run the FDA, and Wall Street insider, Scott Gottlieb, MD, was second in command.  These individuals sought to fully implement the FDA label as senior to any rights of citizens.  Their intention was to make sure that new biotech drugs would be protected from lawsuits, as the FDA wanted to speed new and even more dangerous drugs onto the market so as to foster the development of the biotech industry.  In essence, the FDA management wanted to turn the American public into one large clinical experiment, with no right of recourse when injured.

This was occurring against a backdrop wherein the FDA couldn’t even name all the drugs currently on the market, had failed to demand required aftermarket follow up safety testing on drugs, and had intentionally withheld safety information on existing drugs from the public.  The current situation with drugs is that almost no drug, even blockbusters and those in use for decades, have an accurate risk/benefit profile.

Americans who use medications are already taking risks of unknown magnitude, which is a main reason over 100,000 Americans are killed every year and over 3 million are injured so seriously they need hospital care (ironically, over half those injuries occur while already in the hospital).

The FDA knows full well that when a drug is approved for the market the full extent of the side effects won’t be known for years.  History shows us time and again that Big Pharma actively hides risk data from the FDA and pays for “science” that distorts reality.  This irresponsible behavior goes along with closed-door negotiations with the FDA, and has resulted in numerous drug disasters like Vioxx.  FDA managers oftentimes go against the wishes of their own safety scientists and then move on to six figure salaries in the industry they regulate.  Doctors are not apprised of the actual risks and consumers are in the dark. 

Currently, there are 450,000 additional new cases of heart failure every year in Americans over 65, a fact that parallels the increased use of heart-weakening statins in this older group.  It is only a matter of time before the shoe drops on the 20-billion-dollar-a-year statin industry.

The FDA insistence that a drug label, based on what is known at the time of approval, should supersede citizen’s states rights to sue if they were injured, has almost nothing to do with consumer safety.  Rather, it is a federal power grab that is in the best financial interests of Big Pharma and Big Biotech, industries that do not have consumer safety as their top priority.

By the way, don’t think President Obama is on the side of the citizens.  In the health care section of the stimulus bill, there is specific pre-emption language.  If the federal government is in charge of health care it will be named in future lawsuits when patients are injured from the care it doles out or doesn’t allow. 

The current Supreme Court ruling will undermine any system of federal health care wherein the drugs being used are injuring people.  Experts believe this system is so badly broken, due to gross FDA management incompetence, that it will take 10 years of studies and many billions of dollars just to understand the actual risks of the drugs Americans are already taking.

In writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens put Big Pharma on notice.  The defendant in this case, Wyeth, had argued that it could not comply with both federal and state law.  Stevens told them they had a fundamental misunderstanding of regulation and were trying to hide behind the FDA, going on to say that it is a central premise of federal drug regulation that the manufacturer bears responsibility for the content of its label at all times.  That is not the news Big Pharma wanted to hear.

Stevens went on to write that there was no merit in the argument that the FDA’s labeling decisions could supersede state law, saying that this argument was “an untenable interpretation of congressional intent and an overbroad view of an agency’s power to pre-empt state law.” He pointed out that the FDA tried to push this on the public without any opportunity for comment from the public or from states, all done against a backdrop wherein the FDA is not able to keep up with safety issues in the first place, meaning that the FDA position lacked “thoroughness, consistency and persuasiveness.” Stevens stated that under such lacking standards the Bush position “is entitled to no weight.”

This is a major victory for all Americans and for states.  While the case itself is on the topic of Big Pharma and the FDA, the ruling is sweeping in nature and will extend far beyond prescription drugs.  States have just been handed a major legal ruling against the ever-growing incursion of federal power.