Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman – Supreme Court drug case prompts appeal for tolerance of judicial delays
Source : The Globeandmail News
By : Sean Fine – JUSTICE WRITER
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
Less than a year after it set new time limits for criminal trials, the Supreme Court of Canada is being asked by federal prosecutors and several provinces to soften a ruling that has resulted in four charges of murder being thrown out for unreasonable delays. At a hearing Tuesday in the case of James Cody, an accused drug trafficker from Newfoundland and Labrador, the court will hear a plea from the federal prosecution service for tolerance of slow-moving cases that entered the system before the ruling last July – in a case known as R v. Jordan – created the new limits. Five provinces are intervening in the case in support of a more permissive view of delay. Three of them – Ontario, Alberta and Quebec – have seen judges throw out murder charges over delay, including a first-degree murder charge against a Montreal man dismissed on Friday, and a second-degree murder charge against another Montreal man whose wife died when her throat was slit. Manitoba and British Columbia are the other two provinces intervening.
The Cody case was scheduled, after multiple delays, to take five years to come to trial. The Supreme Court’s new time limit is exactly half that – 30 months, from charge to completion, for trials in Superior Court. But the court also said it would be unfair to apply the new rules to cases that were already well under way; it provided for a blend of new and old rules. Two months before Mr. Cody’s trial was to begin, he applied to the judge for a stay, saying his right to a timely trial had been violated. The trial judge agreed and dismissed the charges. But the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, said the delay was reasonable and ordered a new trial. Mr. Cody appealed to the Supreme Court to restore the trial judge’s ruling.
The federal prosecution service argues that five years was reasonable in Mr. Cody’s case, under the old rules. “If the Crown had known that the law was going to be changed, it might have acted differently; it cannot now go back and change behaviour that was reasonable under the former law,” federal prosecutors, who handle drug cases, said in a legal filing to the Supreme Court. The hearing in the Cody case comes as the federal and provincial justice ministers prepare for an emergency meeting on Friday to look for solutions to clogged courts and dismissed cases. It is unlikely that a ruling will be made in time to influence discussions in that meeting, though the court occasionally rules on the same day as the hearing.
For the court, the Cody case is a test of its resolve to transform the justice system. In Jordan, the court’s majority in the 5-4 ruling was scathing about a “culture of complacency and delay” in the justice system, and said judges, defence lawyers, prosecutors and government all bore responsibility. “Unless you admit a case has been in the system too long, you will never get past the ‘culture of complacency,’” said Ottawa lawyer Michael Crystal, who is representing Mr. Cody before the Supreme Court. “It’s only when you say too long is too long – five years is too long – that you will be uncomfortable. It’s only when you have a target of 30 months that you become uncomfortable and you have to become more efficient.” Mr. Cody was charged in January, 2010, one of 13 people accused of being part of an alleged drug-trafficking ring between British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Complications arose during proceedings. His initial lawyer was named to the bench. An agreed statement of facts contained errors, and so did a judge’s pretrial ruling. Based on those errors, Mr. Cody’s defence counsel fought an extended battle to have the charges thrown out.
The case shows the difficulty judges are having in interpreting the Supreme Court’s rules for cases in the system before Jordan. Two appeal court judges said the actual delay had been just 16 months, after subtracting for delay that was permitted under the old rules, and delay caused by the defence. By contrast, a dissenting judge found there were 39 months of delay. The Jordan ruling sparked an uproar. In Alberta, prosecutors dropped 200 cases – including drunk driving and assaulting-police charges – saying that they did not have enough prosecutors to handle them all, and had to save their resources for serious cases. In Quebec, where the government is spending an extra $175-million over four years to hire more judges, prosecutors and court workers, Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée told The Globe and Mail that by the time prosecutors can set trial dates in superior court, the cases are already beyond the 30-month time limits. Ontario and Manitoba are trying to persuade Ottawa to drop most or all preliminary inquiries. The situation in the Cody case echoes that of the Supreme Court’s last major attempt to crack down on court delay. In 1990, it set time guidelines in R v. Askov, resulting in nearly 50,000 criminal charges being thrown out in Ontario alone; then in R v. Morin, 18 months later, the court eased off, allowing for more flexibility. And the court was clear in Jordan that it did not wish to see a repeat of the chaos caused by Askov, which is why it allowed for the old rules still to be in force to some extent.
Read more here: theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-drug-case-prompts-appeal-for-tolerance-of-judicial-delays/article34793611/
Orange County Fl Bail Bond – Corporations and rivers now have rights. Animals are next
Source : Philly News
By : Stu Bykofsky
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
In a stunning move, India last month granted “living person” status to the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, making polluting the rivers akin to assaulting a human. A week earlier, New Zealand made the Whanganui River a “living entity” with legal rights. Sound crazy? Maybe less so when you remember that in the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby cases, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled companies are like people and have certain rights.
If rivers and businesses have rights, why not animals, ask animal advocates excited by the river rulings.“Legal personhood is not determined by biology, but by public policy,” argues Steven Wise, founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project. For decades he has been a lawyer for what he calls “nonhuman clients.” Existing animal welfare statutes, he says, “don’t provide recourse against the inherent cruelty of depriving self-aware, autonomous beings of their freedom, the company of others of their kind and their natural habitats.” His goal is to pry open the law.
One success last year was the Oregon Supreme Court, contrary to the usual legal view, ruling that dogs are more than “property.” Nonjudicial successes included getting elephants out of the Ringling Bros. circus and killer whales out of Sea World, reflecting Americans’ changing attitudes toward captive animals. Achieving “rights” for animals is poised to be the next great social revolution, but no one is suggesting that animals get the right to vote or to drive. The “rights” would be limited, like those enjoyed by children. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is considered extremist by some, yet founder Ingrid Newkirk’s definition of “rights” is moderate: “The decent, commonsense idea that if a living being can suffer, whether child or Chihuahua, man or mouse, it is wrong to impose that suffering on them needlessly,” she tells me.
Some animals do enjoy limited “rights,” says Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, “including not to be tortured or harmed in a malicious way. Others have the ‘right’ not to be confined in small cages and crates.” Achieving those protections was painful and slow.
If “rights” were conferred, it would raise ethical considerations. Could we raise animals as food?
Yes, we could, says Tara Zuardo, a lawyer for the Animal Welfare Institute. “There are countries like Germany that have animals written into the constitution, but they still raise animals for food,” using humane methods. “We predict that courts will increasingly issue decisions declaring that animals are not merely property and deserve certain legal rights,” she says. A 1992 amendment to the Swiss Constitution recognized animals as “beings” instead of “things,” and in 2008 a committee of the Spanish Parliament conferred legal rights on great apes.
If a river has rights, how can they be denied to animals, which are sentient, and capable of feeling emotions such as joy, fear, loneliness?
“There is a trend toward recognizing that humans aren’t the be-all and end-all for those who deserve protection,” says Matthew Liebman, director of litigation for the Animal Legal Defense Fund. He cites cases around the world, from Spain to Argentina — where great apes have been accorded special protections and some formal “rights.” For decades, the Nonhuman Rights Project has been going to court to secure rights for chimpanzees, but it hasn’t yet achieved a breakthrough. It came close when it sued to have set free Leo and Hercules, two chimpanzees being held for research at Stony Brook University. The case stalled in 2015 when Stony Brook returned the chimps to the University of Louisiana, out of the court’s jurisdiction. PETA is in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that a chimp named Naruto holds the rights to pictures he took of himself using a camera set up and left in a forest.
Sound crazy? As crazy as Ringling giving up elephants?
Humans and chimpanzees share about 98 percent of the same DNA, and some humans have been freaked out ever since Charles Darwin wrote that humans are descended from apes.
Read more here: philly.com/philly/columnists/stu_bykofsky/If-corporations-and-rivers-have-human-rights-why-not-animals-.html
Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman – U.S. Supreme Court ruling could affect Connecticut credit card law
Source : Yankee Institute News
By : Marc E. Fitch
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned Wednesday a New York law that prevented businesses from charging an extra fee for credit card purchases. The ruling could affect a nearly identical law in Connecticut. Merchants in Connecticut and nine other states can only offer customers a “discount” for using cash but can not charge a “surcharge” for using a credit card. Whether or not the practice is legal depends on how the merchant describes the difference in price, which turned the case into a freedom of speech case.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman determined that New York’s law “does regulate speech” and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether or not the law is unconstitutional. The ruling could have ramifications for Connecticut’s law regulating surcharges and discounts. According to Connecticut state statute, “no seller may impose a surcharge on a buyer who elects to use any method of payment, including, but not limited to, cash, check, credit card or electronic means, in any sales transaction.” However, the statute also said that a discount is fine; “Nothing in this section shall prohibit any seller from offering a discount to a buyer to induce such buyer to pay by cash, debit card, check or similar means rather than by credit card.”
The practice is most commonly seen at gas stations which list one price for credit card purchases and a second for cash purchases. Businesses pay a 2 to 4 percent processing fee to credit card companies for every purchase a customer makes using a credit card. Credit card companies contractually prohibit merchants from applying a surcharge to customers but this practice has been repeatedly challenged in court on antitrust grounds. In the court’s decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that state laws which mimicked and extended these contract provisions invited scrutiny because the antitrust suits have “created uncertainty about the legal validity of such contractual surcharge bans.”
The implication is that these state laws were designed to protect credit card companies in case their contractual prohibitions are ever ruled illegal. The case originated out of New York when a lawyer noticed a sign at Expressions Hair Design that informed customers they would be charged an additional fee for payment by credit card.
Read more here: yankeeinstitute.org/2017/03/u-s-supreme-court-ruling-could-affect-connecticut-credit-card-law/
Orange County Fl Bail Bond – Supreme Court Considers Why Patent Trolls Love Texas
Source : NewYork Times News
By : ADAM LIPTAK
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
More than 40 percent of patent lawsuits are filed in a federal court in East Texas with a reputation for friendliness to plaintiffs. That curious fact was the backdrop for a Supreme Court argument on Monday over whether the court should halt what many big technology companies say is pernicious forum shopping in patent cases. In recent years, a single judge based in Marshall, Tex., oversaw about a quarter of all patent cases nationwide, more than the number handled by all federal judges in California, Florida and New York combined. The Texas court is a favorite venue of patent trolls, or companies that buy patents not to use them but to demand royalties and sue for damages. Many tech companies filed supporting briefs in Monday’s case, TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, No. 16-341, urging the Supreme Court to limit the places where defendants in patent cases may be sued. But a few companies urged the justices to retain the current rules, saying there was a value in letting cases be considered by courts that have developed expertise in patent matters. And some pharmaceutical companies said they should be able to sue the makers of generic drugs all at once in a single court.
The case heard Monday concerns low-calorie sweeteners made by TC Heartland, which is based in Indiana. Kraft sued it for patent infringement in Delaware, which also has a high concentration of patent suits. TC Heartland sought to move the case to Indiana, but lower courts refused, relying on a 1990 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court that handles patent appeals. That decision said defendants in patent cases, as in other cases, may be sued essentially anywhere they do business. On Monday, Justice Elena Kagan noted a curiosity about the 1990 decision: It was at odds with a 1957 Supreme Court precedent. She sounded surprisingly sanguine about this state of affairs. “For 30 years the Federal Circuit has been ignoring our decision, and the law has effectively been otherwise,” she said.
Justice Kagan also reflected on what the case had in common with one argued earlier on Monday about pension plans. “Sometimes we have accidental theme days at the Supreme Court,” she said. “So today’s accidental theme is: When 30 years of practice goes against you, what happens?” The 1957 decision interpreted a federal law about where patent suits may be filed. The law said that “any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides.” The court said that meant where the defendant was incorporated. The patent law has not changed, but a more general one on where suits may be brought has gone through amendments. Kraft argued that those changes effectively revised the law on patent cases.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court’s 1957 decision was exceptionally narrow. Corporations are often incorporated in one place and have headquarters in another, she said, with both states counting for many purposes. But the 1957 decision focused only on the state of incorporation. The argument was almost over before the justices discussed the question of forum shopping at length. William M. Jay, a lawyer for Kraft, said any complaints about the court in East Texas should be addressed directly and not through a decision on where suits may be filed. “They tend to be complaints about how the cases are managed, how discovery takes place, how motions practice is handled, and so on,” he said. “And those complaints, if they are valid, would be valid even when venue is indisputably proper over a Texas defendant. They are problems that should be dealt with on their own terms.” That did not seem to satisfy Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Do “generous jury verdicts enter into this, or is that something we shouldn’t think about?” he asked.
Mr. Jay said the data on verdicts and other matters was inconclusive. In any event, he added, Congress — not the Supreme Court — should address the issues. A court ruling, he said, would be precipitous. “If you adopt the rule that my friends on the other side are proposing,” he said, “you will shift more than half of all cases from the district where they now are into other districts.” That could lead to overcrowding in the federal court in Delaware, he said, given the large numbers of corporations incorporated in the state. Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he was inclined to ignore the controversy over forum shopping, focusing instead on what Congress had meant to achieve in the statutes before the court. The supporting briefs, he said, were “filled with this thing about a Texas district which they think has too many cases.”“As far as I can see,” he told James W. Dabney, a lawyer for TC Heartland, “if we’re supposed to decide what’s good or bad, maybe you’d lose. But I don’t know whether that’s good, bad or indifferent.”
Read more here: nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/supreme-court-patent-trolls-tc-heartland-kraft.html
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
Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman – Superior Court rules the government is not immune from legal challenges
Source : London Free Press News
By : Randy Richmond
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
For the second time in two months, a court decision has chipped away at government’s immunity from legal action launched by former inmates. A Superior Court ruling released last week has cleared the way for a London woman to sue the federal government, rejecting in part the immunity argument, following an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling with similar conclusions last month. “It’s another brick in the wall,” London lawyer Kevin Egan said.“Continually, we see the government come to court and say, ‘All our decisions are immune from scrutiny,’ almost making the Charter of Rights meaningless,” he said. “Here the court said there will be some deference to government decision making . . . but the blanket immunity doesn’t apply.”
The latest ruling should have an impact on the legal claims of inmates across Canada seeking compensation for conditions endured behind bars, Egan said. “It really instructs the government to turn their minds to whether their decisions are impacting on Charter rights.” Government decisions, including those based on allocations and financial resources, are generally immune from legal action as long as they are made in good faith. The protection allows politicians and civil servants to make decisions without being handcuffed by the fear of future legal action. The recent court ruling involves the federal government, and Souphin Inkakhana. She was convicted Sept. 27, 2011, of trafficking and sentenced to six years, four months and 27 days in prison.
The offences took place between August 2010 and March 2011, meaning she would have been eligible for accelerated parole review for non-violent offenders, with day parole after serving six months. But as part of the Conservative government’s tough-on-crime agenda, the Abolition of Early Parole Act came in to force in March 2011, before the London woman was sentenced. Souphin was imprisoned for 26 months longer as a result, and argued in following court hearings that the parole act infringed her Charter rights and the government knew or ought to have known applying it retroactively was unconstitutional.
A lower court and the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled Souphin’s Charter rights had been violated and she was eligible for accelerated early parole. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the federal government’s leave to appeal the earlier decisions. Souphin then sued the Attorney General of Canada, claiming $250,000 in damages. Egan is representing her in the lawsuit. The attorney general of Canada sought to have the lawsuit struck down, claiming there was no “bad faith or wrongful conduct,” and the decision to enact the new parole law was immune from prosecution.
In a decision released last week, Superior Court Justice Jonathan George rejected the attorney general’s argument, saying immunity applies only when governments act in good faith and without abusing their powers, and only if their laws aren’t found unconstitutional later. George doesn’t rule if Souphin’s case has merit, only that it should proceed. Last month, an Ontario court of appeal ruling involving an inmate in the Don Jail rejected the provincial government’s arguments its core policies were immune from prosecution.
Read More : lfpress.com/2017/02/13/superior-court-rules-the-government-is-not-immune-from-legal-challenges
Orange County Fl Bail Bond – Fans have fantasy sports, Supreme Court nerds have FantasySCOTUS
Source : USA Today News
By : Richard Wolf
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
Before the last time a Supreme Court seat was filled, court watchers and legal beavers who ventured on to the “FantasySCOTUS” website correctly predicted it would be Elena Kagan. If the survey proves prescient again, Colorado’s Neil Gorsuch could be President Trump’s guy.
Gorsuch, 49, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, has led a field of 22 potential nominees listed on the site since shortly after Trump’s election. At last count, he had 649 votes to 512 for Alabama’s more controversial William Pryor, the early favorite among both conservatives and cognoscenti. The Supreme Court nerds who frequent FantasySCOTUS aren’t as impressed with the other two judges said to be among Trump’s finalists. Michigan’s Raymond Kethledge is in 8th place with 160 votes; Pennsylvania’s Thomas Hardiman is 10th with 91. “I was shocked that Judge Gorsuch shot up so quickly at the outset,” says Josh Blackman, a South Texas College of Law professor who founded the online prediction market in 2009. “I think this is one case where the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ actually identified the leading candidate long before everyone else.”
FantasySCOTUS allows attorneys, law students and others to predict how justices will vote on cases pending before the high court, with winners and prizes announced at the end of each term. The chance to guess who will fill a vacancy has only come around once since the site was created. That was in 2010, when President Obama chose Kagan, then the U.S. solicitor general and a former Harvard Law School dean, to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Voters on the site were way ahead of Obama, predicting early that Kagan would outpace other potential nominees — including federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, who got the nod after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last year but was blocked by Senate Republicans.
“These are not random people on the street,” Blackman, 32, says of the thousands who participate on FantasySCOTUS. “They’re people who follow this closely.” That doesn’t mean the voting is completely reliable. Some participants tried to game the system by voting multiple times, until a filter was used to prevent more than one vote per IP address. “They have an interest in their guy winning,” Blackman says. Trump’s favorites are thought to be federal appeals court judges — including, at least until recently, Wisconsin’s Diane Sykes, who is fifth in FantasySCOTUS voting. But ahead of her is Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras, a 42-year-old long shot, with more than 400 votes. And Sen. Ted Cruz is a credible seventh with 170 votes — despite not being on Trump’s list at all.
Read More : usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/26/supreme-court-trump-gorsuch-pryor-kagan-fantasyscotus/97037536/
Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman – Several states legally require hand sanitation stations at animal contact exhibits
Source : Healio News
By : Associate Press
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
Seven states have implemented statutes or regulations that require animal contact exhibits such as petting zoos and agricultural fairs to provide hand sanitation stations as a preventive measure against zoonotic infections, according to CDC researchers. “Proper handwashing is an effective way to prevent transmission of disease to persons at animal exhibits; however, outbreaks at animal contact exhibits continue to occur, in part because of a lack of handwashing stations,” Aila Hoss, JD, of CDC’s Public Health Law Program, and colleagues wrote in a recent MMWR.
Pathogens associated with infections linked to animal contact exhibits have included Escherichia coli, Salmonella and Cryptosporidium, the researchers reported. The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians recommends that handwashing is performed after interaction with animals to prevent illness. Hoss and colleagues from CDC’s Public Health Law Program and National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases published a report describing laws in the United States that require hand sanitation stations at animal contact exhibits as a resource for jurisdictions seeking to develop their own legal interventions promoting hand hygiene practices in these settings.
The list of statutes and regulations was compiled from March 17 to April 1, 2016. Seven states, including New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin, legally require animal contact exhibits to provide hand sanitation stations. These laws, however, vary. For example, while laws in North Carolina apply to all animal contact exhibits, including petting zoos, pony ride and poultry handling exhibits, statues and regulations in Wisconsin only apply to petting zoos located at campgrounds. In addition, only four states specify where handwashing stations should be located in the exhibit. All seven states require that animal contact exhibits have signs that either recommend hand sanitation or indicate the health risk for interacting with animals. These states authorize a range of penalties against operators that do not comply with hand sanitation station laws. In Pennsylvania, for example, noncompliant operators are subject to a $500-civil penalty. In Wisconsin, violators may have their permits suspended or revoked. Although the researchers did not further investigate the implementation or enforcement of these laws, they noted that their data can add to the body of evidence-based research on the efficacy of legal interventions.
Read More : healio.com/infectious-disease/zoonotic-infections/news/online/%7B4d472ba9-9773-465f-96a9-c6e77200fd02%7D/several-states-legally-require-hand-sanitation-stations-at-animal-contact-exhibits
Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman – Supreme Court’s National Anthem order: Is it law, asks legal expert
Source : First Post News
By : FP Staff
Category : Orange County Fl Bail Bond , Orange County Fl Bail Bondsman
The Supreme Court’s Wednesday order that all cinema theatres should play the National Anthem before a movie is screened has come under immense criticism. Gautam Bhatia, who practices law in Delhi and teaches visiting courses at the National University of Juridical Sciences, in his blog post — The Illegality of the Supreme Court’s National Anthem Order — came down heavily on Supreme Court’s order and said that the observation made by the apex court is an example of “judicial censorship”. Bhatia writes: Judicial censorship is suo motu judicial action restricting the freedom of speech, in the absence of an existing law. In my view, judicial censorship is not contemplated by the Constitution, and judicial orders that engage in this form of censorship are illegal and void.
Arguing that the freedom of speech and expression can only be restricted (cites Article Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2)) with an existing law and in the absence of which one cannot impede it, Bhatia questions the legality or the illegality of Supreme Court’s order. (If) Supreme Court judgments and orders were to constitute “law” under Article 13, then every such judgment or order would be subject to a further fundamental rights challenge. Dipak Misra J’s order, for instance, could be challenged in a separate writ petition by either the cinema owners or cinema-goers as a violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Perhaps this might not be such a bad thing, but in Naresh Mirajkar vs State of Maharashtra, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court categorically held that this could not be done.
In the end, Bhatia argues that the Supreme Court argument is only justified under Article 142 which authorises the Court to pass any decree or order “necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.” However, Article 142 also specifies that this must be done in “the exercise of its jurisdiction.” If my argument is correct, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to restrict speech in the absence of a law, simply by passing orders. And Article 142 cannot be a carte blanche to do anything that takes judicial fancy on any given day.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that the National Anthem must be played in public theaters across the country before a movie, minus any dramatisation. It also ordered that the national flag be shown on screen when the anthem is played. The apex court directed the Centre that the order should be given effect in a week’s time and be circulated to all the states and Union Territories. A bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Amitava Roy said that this would instill a feeling of constitutional patriotism and nationalism. “It is the duty of every citizen to abide by the ideals ingrained in the Constitution and as such show respect to the National Anthem and the national flag,” the bench said. “People must feel this is my country and this is my motherland,” the bench said. “At the root of protocol for national anthem, is respect for national identity, integrity and constitutional patriotism,” the bench said.
Read more : firstpost.com/india/supreme-courts-national-anthem-order-is-it-law-asks-legal-expert-in-blog-post-3133960.html
Skilled Bail Bonds Process | Orange County Fl Bail Bond 