Month: March 2017
Bail Bonds In Orlando – State Supreme Court denies rehearing on judge ordered to repay $10K in health benefits
Source : Nola News
By : Ken Daley
Category : Orlando Fl Bail Bonds , Bail Bonds In Orlando
The Louisiana Supreme Court this week rejected a re-hearing request involving a New Orleans judge ordered in January to repay more than $10,000 in improper health care expense benefits. Records show the state’s high court, without comment, on Monday (March 13) denied the request by the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, which had asked for a re-hearing regarding Criminal District Court Judge Darryl Derbigny, who on Jan. 20 was ordered to repay $10,002.58 to the district court’s judicial expense fund. The sum represented the total out-of-pocket reimbursements Derbigny received under Exec-U-Care, a supplemental insurance program he improperly held at court expense from Jan. 5, 2006-April 4, 2012.
The Judiciary Commission, which launched an investigation into the publicly paid insurance coverage of New Orleans’ criminal court judges in January 2012, filed a charge in March 2015 alleging that Derbigny committed ethical misconduct by choosing and accepting insurance coverage and program benefits beyond those authorized by state law or available to other court employees. The premiums and other associated costs of the coverage were paid for with money from the judicial expense fund, which is mostly filled by the fines and fees assessed to criminal defendants. The commission’s charge said Derbigny’s acceptance and receipt of such benefits constituted supplement income beyond that permitted by state law, marked a failure by the judge to discharge his administrative responsibilities, and was a misuse of public funds.
In rendering its repayment order in January, the state Supreme Court stopped short of charging Derbigny with an ethics violation. Chief Justice Bernette J. Johnson wrote that the Supreme Court found the Office of Special Counsel failed to prove Derbigny committed “sanctionable misconduct” under either the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct or the Louisiana Constitution. The justices this week let stand the repayment order, and in a 5-2 decision denied the re-hearing request. Justices James T. Genovese and John L. Weimer said they would have granted the re-hearing. Derbigny declined comment on the high court’s ruling.
Read More : nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/03/state_supreme_court_denies_re-.html
Orlando Fl Bail Bonds – Shocking Law : Legal for Teenagers to Get Married but Not Divorced in America
Source : Cosmopolitan News
By : Kate Storey
Category : Orlando Bail Bondsman , Orlando Fl Bail Bonds
For years, there’s been a little-known law in New York that allows children as young as 14 to marry with parental and judicial consent. And, disturbingly, a person can’t legally divorce in New York state until the age 18.“I don’t think people even knew this,” New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo told The New York Times. “I think they are going to be shocked when they hear about the status of the law.”
Between 2000 and 2010, nearly 3,900 minors were wed in New York, according to The Times, which reports that most of the marriages were arranged by parents according to religious or cultural traditions. According to the nonprofit Unchained at Last, an overwhelming majority of children married in the United States are girls married to adult men. New York isn’t the only state to allow minors to wed — in fact, most states allow 16- and 17-year-olds to marry, according to Pew.
But that could finally be changing. Last month, Cuomo introduced legislation that would outlaw child marriage in New York. He proposes increasing the minimum age to wed from 14 to 17. Children under 18 would require a judge’s approval. Sonia Ossorio, president of the National Organization for Women New York, an organization which lobbied for the change in law, told the Times this change is a long time coming. “There have been cases where a girl is pregnant and the pregnancy happened as a result of sexual assault,” Ossorio said. “But her parents are forcing her to marry because being an out-of-wedlock teen mother is a worse social standing than suffering a sexual assault in silence.” Other states, like New Jersey and Missouri, are working to change their laws, as well.
Read More : cosmopolitan.com/politics/a9131534/child-marriage-laws-new-york/
Orlando Bail Bondsman – Tasmanian bail law reform set to ‘increase community safety’
Source : Examiner News
By : Melissa Mobbs
Category : Orlando Bail Bondsman , Orlando Fl Bail Bonds
Tasmania’s bail laws will come under the microscope this year with the state government planning to overhaul the system. Under Tasmania’s existing laws, a volunteer Justice of the Peace has the power to grant bail to alleged offenders when they appear in an out-of-hours court session.
Attorney-General Vanessa Goodwin said reform was needed to increase community safety and create greater confidence in the state’s justice system. “The community and police are tired of hearing stories of offenders being granted bail only to re-offend,” Dr Goodwin said. “The safety of the community should always be a primary consideration when a defendant is considered for bail, and the government intends to provide a clear statutory basis to ensure this happens.”
The announcement comes less than two months after Victoria revealed plans to change its own system in the wake of the Bourke Street Mall tragedy, where a man allegedly drove his car into the shopping precinct and killed five people, including a three-month-old baby. The accused killer, 26-year-old Dimitrious Gargasoulashad, was facing an assault charge a few days before the attack. Despite opposition from police, he was released from custody by a bail justice.
The Victorian government is now expected to introduce a “night court” system to ensure magistrates will hear bail applications, rather than volunteer bail justices. “Other Australian jurisdictions have moved to provide clear statutory frameworks for what a court should consider when granting bail – the government will move to do the same for Tasmanian courts,” Dr Goodwin said.“These reforms will ensure the bail system is in line with community expectations and will allow increased confidence in our justice system.”
While still in its early stages, the overhaul could see defendants forced to justify their release, particularly when facing serious charges. The government will now seek input from community and legal stakeholders before any changes to the system go ahead.
Read More : examiner.com.au/story/4511443/safety-a-focus-of-bail-law-overhaul/
Orlando Bail Bonds – Supreme Court Considers Whether N.C. Law Violates First Amendment
Source : NPR News
By : Nina Totenberg
Category : Orlando Bail Bond , Orlando Bail Bonds
The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to strike down a North Carolina law that punishes registered sex offenders who use social media. Most of the justices voiced doubts about the law during oral arguments today. Here’s NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: It was, to be blunt, sex day at the Supreme Court. The justices heard two cases both involving men who’d been punished for having consensual sex with a minor. In one case, a 21-year-old legal resident of the U.S. was ordered deported after he pleaded no contest to having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend. That would not be a crime in 43 states or under federal law, but it was enough to get him deported as having committed an aggravated felony in California. In the second case, a North Carolina man was convicted first for having sex with a minor and arrested again seven years later because he signed up for Facebook and posted a message on it.
Lester Packingham was a graphics design student at the Art Institute of Raleigh-Durham when he was arrested in 2010 for having sex with an underage girl. He received a suspended jail sentence and kept a clean record for seven years, until he was arrested again, this time for violating the state’s ban on social media. He’d posted a message on his Facebook account thanking God for not getting a traffic ticket.
LESTER PACKINGHAM: I said, praise God I didn’t receive a ticket. Praise Jesus, thank God.
TOTENBERG: In the Supreme Court today, Packingham’s lawyer, David Goldberg, argued that the social media ban punishes vast swaths of core First Amendment speech that is totally unrelated to the government’s interest in preventing child abuse. Questioned by various justices, Goldberg conceded that a registered sex offender might be barred from communicating with a minor on social media or barred from some sites as a condition of parole, but this law, he contended, is a far broader denial of a fundamental right to free speech.
Justice Ginsburg – some states take away other fundamental rights. They prohibit ex-felons from voting or having guns. Justice Sotomayor – is this law too broad, or is it not precisely targeted enough or all of these things? Justice Kennedy puckishly quoted Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s line, let me count the ways.
Next up to the lectern was North Carolina Deputy Attorney General Robert Montgomery, who faced an immediate question from Justice Kagan. The president now uses Twitter, she observed. All 50 governors and all 100 senators, every member of the House has a Twitter account. This has become a crucially important channel of political communication. And a person couldn’t go into those sites and find out what these members of our government are thinking or saying or doing. Indeed, some 50 million Americans use these sites for religious community purposes, she said.
Montgomery replied – there are alternatives to social media sites. Justice Kennedy – assuming we had a public square a hundred years ago, could you say this person couldn’t go into the public square? Montgomery replied that registered sex offenders have alternatives like blogging, but that didn’t seem to be a good enough answer for much of the court.
Justice Breyer – do you have a statute that bars convicted swindlers from discussing money? Answer – swindlers are not sex offenders. These are some of the worst criminals who have abused children, and there’s a high recidivism rate. Justice Kagan – except that you exempt any website that provides a chat room or photo sharing, like Snapchat, where the most dangerous activity can take place.
Lawyer Montgomery – there are plenty of people who get information fine without social networking. Justice Ginsburg – the point is that by cutting off these people from Twitter and Facebook and many other sites, you’re cutting them off from a very substantial part of the marketplace of ideas.
In the deportation case, the justices were almost as skeptical, noting for instance that the state law makes it a crime to have sex with a minor who is three years younger.
Read More : npr.org/2017/02/27/517563229/supreme-court-considers-whether-n-c-law-violates-first-amendment
Orlando Bail Bond – Supreme Court: Weapons allowed on Madison buses
Source : Wis Law Journal News
By : Associated Press
Category : Orlando Bail Bond , Orlando Bail Bonds
The state Supreme Court has overturned an appeals court ruling and sided with a gun-rights group, concluding that the city of Madison must allow bus passengers to carry concealed weapons.
Wisconsin Carry, a gun-rights advocacy group, challenged the administrator of Madison’s Metro Transit in 2014 after it had prohibited a passenger with a concealed-carry license from bringing a gun on the bus. The group argued Metro Transit’s policy prohibiting weapons cannot supersede the state’s concealed-carry law signed by Gov. Scott Walker in 2011.
The court ruled 5-2 in the group’s favor. Justices Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley dissented. Justice Daniel Kelly wrote the majority opinion. Wisconsin Carry President Nik Clark says the ruling will have implications across the state. Metro Transit spokesman Mick Rusch did not immediately respond to a message.
Read More : wislawjournal.com/2017/03/07/supreme-court-weapons-allowed-on-madison-buses/
Orlando Bail – Supreme Court lets Affco appeal ruling on unlawful lockouts
Source : ABS-CBN News
By : Sophie Boot
Category : Orange County Fl Bailbonds , Orlando Bail
The Supreme Court has given Affco New Zealand leave to appeal a ruling that it unlawfully locked out meat workers when collective bargaining was taking place. In October 2016, the Court of Appeal turned down the meat processor’s application to overturn an Employment Court ruling, saying it was “obvious that Affco’s objective was to undermine or compromise the parallel process of negotiating a collective agreement which was underway with the union” in what amounted to an unlawful lockout.
The Supreme Court today said Affco could appeal on the question of whether the appeal court was correct in finding a breach of the Employment Relations Act (ERA) had occurred when Affco required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season. The court case is part of a series of legal clashes between Affco and the Meatworkers Union, which has achieved a measure of success in the Employment Court.
Affco was the first under the government’s new employment law to apply for an end to bargaining, under amendments to the ERA which lets firms opt out of multi-employer agreements and removed the duty under good faith bargaining for both sides to reach an agreement. The original case covered workers at Affco’s Rangiuru, Imlay, and Manawatu plants but the company had accepted any finding would cover all eight of its North Island plants.
Read More : news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/08/17/give-women-a-choice-supreme-court-urged-anew-to-lift-hold-order-on-rh-law
Orange County Fl Bailbonds – Supreme Court: Weapons allowed on Madison buses
Source : Wisn News
By : Associated Press
Category : Orange County Fl Bailbonds , Orlando Bail
The state Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling and sided with a gun rights group Tuesday, ruling that the city of Madison must allow bus passengers to carry concealed weapons. The ruling, which could be used to challenge other transit systems across the state, concluded that local governments cannot enforce rules that contradict Wisconsin’s concealed-carry law. The court ruled 5-2, with Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Shirley Abrahamson dissenting. Justice Daniel Kelly wrote the majority opinion.
Wisconsin Carry, a gun rights advocacy group, challenged the administrator of Madison’s Metro Transit in 2014 after it prohibited a passenger with a concealed-carry license from bringing a gun on a bus. The group argued Metro Transit’s policy prohibiting weapons of any kind on buses cannot supersede the state’s concealed-carry law signed by Gov. Scott Walker in 2011. The law allows people to get licenses that allow them to carry a concealed gun. Metro Transit adopted its rule in 2005. An appeals court sided with the city in 2015, saying that Metro Transit’s rule did not amount to an “ordinance” or “resolution” banning concealed weapons, which the concealed-carry law prohibits. In overturning that ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that passengers can bring firearms or other type weapons on buses, as long as they follow other applicable laws. Justice Kelly argued that the concealed-carry law’s purpose is to allow the carrying of concealed weapons as broadly and uniformly as possible. He further said that the court must consider the “plain meaning” of the concealed-carry law rather than debate word choice. Following that reasoning, Metro Transit’s rule functions similarly to an ordinance or resolution passed by a municipality banning concealed weapons and therefore is superseded by the concealed-carry law.
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Wisconsin Carry. In her dissent joined by Abrahamson, Bradley argued that the majority opinion expanded the law’s intent to fit its purpose. She argued Metro Transit’s policy does not amount to an ordinance or resolution.
Wisconsin Carry President Nik Clark said he people who rely on public transit should be able to carry concealed weapons just as people who drive their own cars. He expects the ruling to have implications in other Wisconsin cities, both in public transit systems and some public outdoor areas. “There are other mass transit entities around the state that have prohibitive policies,” he said. “Once we review the decision, we’ll have a better understanding of how far-reaching it is.” He noted Oshkosh’s GO Transit rider policy currently prohibits firearms and weapons on buses. A GO Transit spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
City of Madison attorney John Strange said the court ignored basic legal principles for a desired result. “From a public safety perspective, the decision creates greater risk to passengers by allowing guns on moving and crowded buses,” he said. Metro Transit’s spokesman Mick Rusch said that Metro Transit is concerned about the ruling’s impact on passenger safety but will comply with the law. Rusch said city attorneys were still determining when the ruling will take effect.
Read More : wisn.com/article/couple-s-wedding-memories-carried-across-state-line-by-tornado/9105189
Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman – Family of late Justice Scalia donating papers to Harvard Law School
Source : Boston Globe News
By : Maddie Kilgannon
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
The family of late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia announced Monday that it is donating his extensive collection of papers to the Harvard Law School library. The collection includes judicial papers from the nearly three decades he served on the nation’s top court and includes drafts of speeches and articles as well as papers from his early career.
“Justice Scalia was, indisputably, the most influential and interesting justice of his generation, and a brilliant academic as well,’’ law school professor Adrian Vermeule, a former Scalia clerk, said in a statement. “His papers will be of surpassing value to future scholars, and it is fitting that they should find a home at Harvard Law School,” Scalia, who died in February of 2016 at age 79, was known for his unyielding conservatism, outsize personality, and sharply worded legal opinions. His seat on the nation’s top court remains unfilled.
At Harvard, he served on the Law Review and graduated in 1960. It was in Cambridge that he met his future wife of 55 years, Maureen, who was studying at Radcliffe.“Our visits back to Harvard together always felt like a homecoming, particularly in recent years,’’ Maureen Scalia said in a statement. “I am pleased to make this gift, and that his papers will now be at the law school.”
The school honors Scalia with an annual lecture aimed at promoting the understanding of the founding principles and core doctrines of the Constitution. After graduation, Scalia served in the Department of Justice, the Administrative Conference of the United States, and the Office of Telecommunications Policy. He was also a law professor at the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago. Scalia, nominated by President Reagan in 1986, was the first Italian-American to serve on the court.
In perhaps his most famous opinion, in 2008, he wrote the 5-to-4 ruling that held that the Second Amendment afforded a right to gun ownership unrelated to military service. His papers will provide Harvard Law School students the opportunity to closely look at the full scope of Scalia’s career. Some of the material will begin to be made available for research starting in 2020.
Read More : bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/family-late-justice-scalia-donating-papers-harvard-law-school-library/sSSuXYcxbO5qSAZlRKGfSO/story.html
Orange County Fl Bail Bond – Prosecutors Win Back Broad Authority To Charge Supreme Court Protesters
Source : Buzz Feed News
By : Zoe Tillman
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
Federal prosecutors scored another win on Friday in their longstanding fight against protests at the US Supreme Court. A federal appeals court ruled that prosecutors can charge people who disrupt Supreme Court arguments with making a “harangue” or “oration” — reversing a lower court judge who found that those words were too vague to pass constitutional muster. The US attorneys’ office in Washington, DC, fought to maintain the full range of options available to prosecutors in charging high court demonstrators. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit agreed with prosecutors that the meaning of “harangue” and “oration” were clear in the context of the law.
“This core meaning is delivering speeches of various kinds to persons within the Supreme Court’s building and grounds, in a manner that threatens to disturb the operations and decorum of the Court,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the court. The ruling doesn’t change much in practice for the five men and women arrested at the court on April 1, 2015, who challenged the “harangue” and “oration” language — the lower court judge had kept intact another part of the law they were charged under that criminalized “loud” language. But it’s the latest win for the government against efforts to chip away at laws that restrict and criminalize certain types of speaking and demonstrating in and around the Supreme Court. The DC Circuit in 2015 rejected a challenge to the prohibition on demonstrations on the court’s marble plaza. Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer, who argued for the defendants, declined to comment, as did a spokesperson for the US attorney’s office.
The five defendants were accused of standing up one-by-one at the start of arguments before the justices and speaking or singing to protest the influence of money in elections — there was at least one reference to the court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which loosened campaign finance laws. They faced two charges: first, violating a broad prohibition on demonstrations in around around the Supreme Court, and second, making a “harangue,” “oration”, or “loud” language at the court. US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled in December 2015 that prosecutions under the “harangue” and “oration” section of the law would violate a person’s constitutional right to due process because they suffered from “definitional ambiguity.”
Brown wrote in Friday’s decision that just because an ordinary person might not know off-hand the definition of a word such as “harangue,” that didn’t mean it couldn’t be in the law. In the context of a law that was concerned about decorum in the Supreme Court, it was clear that “harangue” and “oration” referred to public speeches that would disrupt the court, she explained. “That ‘harangue’ and ‘oration’ may not roll off the average person’s tongue today does not alter their possession of a settled meaning around public speeches,” Brown wrote. Judges Sri Srinivasan, who wrote the court’s 2015 opinion upholding the ban on plaza protests, and Stephen Williams, who was on the panel that heard the plaza protest case, also heard the case and joined Brown’s opinion.
Read More : buzzfeed.com/zoetillman/prosecutors-win-back-broad-authority-to-charge-supreme-court?utm_term=.hbLpBdo8x#.mwMOxD8dZ
Bail In Orlando Fl – Supreme Court hears arguments on the interplay between federal and state subrogation law
Source : Jurist News
By : Steven Wildberger
Category : Bail In Orlando , Bail In Orlando Fl
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc. v. Nevils , a case that required the court to decide whether an insurer, guaranteed a right of subrogation through a Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA) policy, actually has such a right when it is in contravention of the law of the state in which it seeks recovery. Jodie Nevils, a federal employee covered by an FEHBA policy that included a right of subrogation, or repayment, filed a lawsuit against Coventry, her insurer, after it enforced its subrogation lien against part of the settlement of a related personal injury claim. The law of Missouri, which governed the dispute, proscribes insurer subrogation rights as being against public policy. The FEHBA, however, expressly preempts state law with the following language:
The terms of any contract under this chapter which relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including with respect to benefits) shall supersede and preempt any State or local law, or any regulation issued thereunder, which relates to health insurance or plans.
The case came up for Supreme Court review in mid-2015, at which time it was remanded to the Missouri state court for re-argument due to a then-new Office of Personnel Management (OPM) statutory interpretation stating that the subrogation provisions should apply notwithstanding contrary state law. The Missouri court ruled again in Nevils’ favor, despite the OPM interpretation. The case now returns to the Supreme Court for full review.
Read More : jurist.org/paperchase/2017/03/supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-the-interplay-between-federal-and-state-subrogation-law.php
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next →
Skilled Bail Bonds Process | Orange County Fl Bail Bond 