Common law – Prosecute Bush Cheney http://prosecutebushcheney.org/ Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:00:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cropped-icon-32x32.png Common law – Prosecute Bush Cheney http://prosecutebushcheney.org/ 32 32 Man to be charged after common-law wife was killed in front of children at Clear Lake Hotel, police say https://prosecutebushcheney.org/man-to-be-charged-after-common-law-wife-was-killed-in-front-of-children-at-clear-lake-hotel-police-say/ Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/man-to-be-charged-after-common-law-wife-was-killed-in-front-of-children-at-clear-lake-hotel-police-say/ By Charly Edsitty Click here for updates on this story Houston, Texas (KTRK) – A mother died in front of her two children at a Clear Lake area hotel after being strangled by her common-law partner. Now her husband will be charged with murder, according to Houston police. HPD said officers were called to a […]]]>

By Charly Edsitty

Click here for updates on this story

Houston, Texas (KTRK) – A mother died in front of her two children at a Clear Lake area hotel after being strangled by her common-law partner.

Now her husband will be charged with murder, according to Houston police.

HPD said officers were called to a hotel on Bay Area Boulevard near Highway 3 for a custody dispute.

The children involved are a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old, police said.

Officers responded to Sonesta Extended Stay Suites twice overnight – the first time at 8:30 p.m.

Police said there was a dispute between a husband and common-law wife, both in their twenties.

They reportedly argued over child custody issues.

Investigators said the woman was staying with the children at the motel.

The problem was reportedly fixed and officers left, but about two hours later, around 10:30 p.m., a second call was made to 911.

When Harris County District 8 Deputy Constables arrived, they found the woman on the ground with trauma to her neck.

CPR was performed, but officials said the woman had already died.

Investigators spoke to the husband, who allegedly claimed the woman was disciplining one of the children, smothering the child, prompting him to become involved.

“He got behind her and put her in a chokehold, he said, to stop her, and he said she was unconscious, and that’s when ‘He called us,’ said Lt. R. Willkens with HPD.

The husband was taken into custody and further interviews were conducted. In an HPD update, officials said the husband will be charged with murder.

Note: This content is subject to a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you cannot use it on any platform.


]]>
Ontario Court of Appeal Rules Ricochet Judgments Not Available at Common Law – Trial, Appeals and Compensation https://prosecutebushcheney.org/ontario-court-of-appeal-rules-ricochet-judgments-not-available-at-common-law-trial-appeals-and-compensation/ Wed, 12 Oct 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/ontario-court-of-appeal-rules-ricochet-judgments-not-available-at-common-law-trial-appeals-and-compensation/ Insight The Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered the circumstances in which an Ontario court will recognize and enforce a judgment from another Canadian province that has itself recognized and enforced a foreign judgment.1 HMB is the first Canadian decision to consider the availability of “ricochet judgments” at common law, and emphasizes the care plaintiffs […]]]>

Insight

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered the circumstances in which an Ontario court will recognize and enforce a judgment from another Canadian province that has itself recognized and enforced a foreign judgment.1
HMB is the first Canadian decision to consider the availability of “ricochet judgments” at common law, and emphasizes the care plaintiffs must take in choosing the appropriate province(s) to commence recognition and of execution.

Background

The appellant, HMB Holdings Limited (“HMB”), owned a hotel in Antigua and Barbuda that was severely damaged by Hurricane Luis in September 1995. The Antiguan government expropriated the property in 2007, resulting in disputes lasting several years before several levels of justice. concerning the valuation of the property. In May 2014, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled that the defendant, the Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda (“Antigua”), should pay HMB approximately US$26.6 million, plus interest (the “judgment of the Privy Council”).2 Only a portion of the judgment debt has been paid.

In October 2016, HMB filed an action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to recognize and enforce the Privy Council judgment under the Court Jurisdiction and Transfer of Proceedings Act.3 Antigua did not defend the action and HMB obtained a default judgment for approximately C$30 million (the “BC Judgment”) to settle the outstanding judgment debt.

In May 2018, HMB filed for registration of the British Columbia judgment in Ontario under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act.4 She failed at first instance and on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.4and the Supreme Court of Canada.6

In May 2019, HMB filed a new action seeking recognition and enforcement of the British Columbia judgment at common law.

The decision of the motions judge

Antigua sought summary judgment to dismiss the action,seven arguing that there was no real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the Privy Council judgment for the purposes of HMB’s recognition and enforcement proceedings.

Antigua also argued that it was an abuse of process for HMB to bring an action for recognition and enforcement of the BC judgment in Ontario, rather than directly seeking enforcement of the Privy Council judgment. Noting that this action was commenced five years after the Privy Council judgment was issued, Antigua argued that a ricochet judgment would allow HMB to avoid the two-year limitation period imposed by Ontario.

The Motions Judge granted Antigua’s motion on the first ground, finding that there was no evidence of a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the subject matter of the litigation and that , therefore, the British Columbia judgment was not enforceable in Ontario.

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal

The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in focusing on the existence of a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the original litigation, concluding that the test common law relating to the recognition and enforcement of original foreign judgments does not apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments by ricochet.8

Writing for the Court, Justice Favreau confirmed that as a general rule, Ontario courts will recognize and enforce judgments from another jurisdiction as long as the originating jurisdiction had a real and substantial connection to the claim or defendant. and that none of the obstacles to recognition and enforcement are present – ​​for example, if the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud, if the foreign court violated the rules of natural justice or if the recognition and enforcement of the judgment foreigner would be contrary to public order.9

However, Justice Favreau noted that different considerations come into play in an action for recognition and enforcement of a judgment by ricochet:

  1. Courtesy is not in question. While recognition and enforcement actions require the local court to show deference and respect for judgments rendered by a foreign court, such concerns do not arise when reviewing judgments by ricochet. Recognition and enforcement procedures are local in scope, determined by the legislative and procedural choices made by each province with regard to the enforcement of judgments in its jurisdiction.

  2. Recognition and enforcement actions require review of local laws. The purpose of a recognition and enforcement action is to assist the plaintiff to enforce the foreign judgment – for example, by giving him access to assets seizable in the jurisdiction. The role of the local court is to facilitate enforcement in accordance with its own law, by requiring a review of local law (including the applicable statute of limitations) to determine whether assets in the jurisdiction should be made available to satisfy the judicial debt.

The Court noted that recognition of the British Columbia judgment in Ontario would allow HMB to circumvent Ontario’s own recognition and enforcement rules and would deprive Antigua of valid defenses that would have been available in an action in recognition and execution of the initial judgment. In this case, Favreau J. appeared to favor Antigua’s argument that an action by the HMB to enforce the Privy Council judgment would have been statute-barred under Ontario law, and a judgment by ricochet would thereby deprive Antigua of the defense it would otherwise have had if HMB sought recognition and enforcement of the Privy Council judgment in Ontario.

Carry

Ricochet judgments are not available at common law in Ontario. Without a statutory registration mechanism, Ontario courts will not recognize or enforce a recognition and enforcement judgment made in another province. Although the original recognition and enforcement judgment may be relevant,ten the plaintiff must still seek recognition and enforcement of the original judgment in Ontario in accordance with the usual test by showing that the foreign court has duly assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and that no defense to recognition and enforcement arises applied.

Footnotes

1. HMB Holdings Limited v. Antigua and Barbuda2022 ONCA 630[H.M.B.].

2. The Attorney General v. HMB Holdings Ltd,
[2014] United KingdomPC 5
.

3. SBC 2003, c. 28.

4. HMB Holdings Ltd. vs. Antigua and Barbuda (Attorney General)2019 ONSC 1445; see also RSO 1990, c. R.5 [REJA] (the
REJA allows a judgment creditor to apply in Ontario to have a judgment rendered by the court of a reciprocating jurisdiction registered with the Superior Court of Justice).

5. HMB Holdings Limited v. Antigua and Barbuda2020 ONCA 12.

6. HMB Holdings Ltd. vs. Antigua and Barbuda2021 SCC 44.

seven. HMB Holdings Ltd. vs. Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda2021 ONSC 2307.

8. HMB, above note 1 at paragraphs 36, 48.

9. HMB, above note 1 at paragraph 31.

10. For example, the doctrines of res judicataissue estoppel or abuse of process may simplify the second recognition and enforcement proceeding by preventing the defendant from arguing that the real and substantial connection test is not met.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

]]>
chambers merge to create a common law giant | New https://prosecutebushcheney.org/chambers-merge-to-create-a-common-law-giant-new/ Wed, 05 Oct 2022 10:56:13 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/chambers-merge-to-create-a-common-law-giant-new/ Two London chambers have merged to create what they say is one of the largest common law chambers in the country whose name breaks with convention. Together, 9 Gough Chambers and 1 Chancery Lane this week became ‘Deka Chambers’. In its first announcement, the merged set said, “‘Deka’ is Greek for number 10 (9+1) and […]]]>

Two London chambers have merged to create what they say is one of the largest common law chambers in the country whose name breaks with convention. Together, 9 Gough Chambers and 1 Chancery Lane this week became ‘Deka Chambers’.

In its first announcement, the merged set said, “‘Deka’ is Greek for number 10 (9+1) and reflects bringing together a wealth of expertise from both legacy sets,” Deka Chambers said in his first announcement. “The decision to break with convention, with most sets named after their location, demonstrates Deka Chambers’ ambition as a forward-thinking, inclusive and modern organization, created to meet the changing needs of the legal marketplace. “

Jacob Levy KC, co-head of chambers, said the two chambers seized a “rare opportunity” to create something new, increase the choice of services for customers and become more efficient, inclusive and collaborative.

Simon Readhead KC, Co-Head of Chambers, said: “We believe Deka Chambers has an exciting future, focused on understanding and meeting the needs of all our clients in a rapidly changing legal services market.

Members and staff of 1 Chancery Lane moved into premises at 9 Gough Chambers at 5 Norwich Street. The merged set has over 110 avocados, including 14 bristles. The Gazette was informed that all staff from both chambers had joined Deka and that there had been no redundancies.

Deka’s specialties range from clinical negligence and healthcare to police law, public sector and human rights, to travel and cross-border claims.

This article is now closed for comments.

]]>
Supreme Court of Delaware: No “Common Law Insolvency Exception” Allowing Delaware Corporation to Transfer Assets to Creditors Instead of Foreclosure Without Shareholder Consent | Jones Day https://prosecutebushcheney.org/supreme-court-of-delaware-no-common-law-insolvency-exception-allowing-delaware-corporation-to-transfer-assets-to-creditors-instead-of-foreclosure-without-shareholder-consent-jone/ Mon, 03 Oct 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/supreme-court-of-delaware-no-common-law-insolvency-exception-allowing-delaware-corporation-to-transfer-assets-to-creditors-instead-of-foreclosure-without-shareholder-consent-jone/ In Stream TV Networks, Inc. v SeeCubic, Inc.2022 WL 2149437 (Del. June 15, 2022), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed and reversed a 2020 Delaware Court of Chancery decision that held the assets of Stream TV Networks, Inc. (“Stream”), a insolvent Delaware 3D television technology company, could be transferred to an affiliate of two of Stream’s […]]]>

In Stream TV Networks, Inc. v SeeCubic, Inc.2022 WL 2149437 (Del. June 15, 2022), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed and reversed a 2020 Delaware Court of Chancery decision that held the assets of Stream TV Networks, Inc. (“Stream”), a insolvent Delaware 3D television technology company, could be transferred to an affiliate of two of Stream’s secured creditors in lieu of foreclosure without seeking Stream’s stockholder approval under Section 271 of the Act General Delaware Corporations (“DGCL”) or Stream’s Certificate of Incorporation. See Stream TV Networks, Inc. v. SeeCubic, Inc.250 A.3d 1016 (Del. Ch. 2020).

In February 2020, Stream defaulted on over $50 million in debt secured by all of its assets. At that time, it also owed $16 million to trade creditors, could not pay bills or operating expenses, including payroll, and was insolvent.

In March 2020, Stream’s majority shareholders and directors, Mathus and Raja Rajan (the “Rajans”), at the request of secured creditors, expanded the board of directors with the aim of creating a committee to negotiate a resolution with secured creditors and Stream’s investors. In May 2020, Stream, its two secured creditors and 52 Stream investors entered into an agreement (the “Omnibus Agreement”) pursuant to which, in lieu of foreclosure by the secured creditors, Stream would transfer all of its assets to SeeCubic, Inc. (“SeeCubic”), a newly formed entity controlled by its secured creditors. The secured creditors have agreed to release their claims against Stream upon completion of the transfer of its assets to SeeCubic.

If Stream’s secured creditors had seized Stream’s assets, Stream and its shareholders would not have received any recovery. However, the omnibus deal granted minority shareholders of Stream the right to exchange their shares of Stream for shares of SeeCubic. The omnibus deal also provided for the issuance of one million shares of SeeCubic to Stream.

Stream and the Rajans then sought an injunction preventing the effectiveness of the Omnibus Agreement. They argued that the agreement was invalid because: (i) the outside directors who approved it were never validly appointed; and (ii) the deal was ineffective because it required shareholder approval under Section 271 of the DGCL and the “class voting provision” in Stream’s certificate of incorporation.

The Delaware Chancery Court ruled that the outside directors were validly appointed and that, even if they were not, they acted as de facto directors with authority to bind Stream under the Omnibus Agreement.

Writing for the court, Vice Chancellor (“VC”) J. Travis Laster explained that Section 271 of the DGCL requires majority shareholder approval to “sell, lease or exchange all or substantially all of totality of [the company’s] property and assets” — a relative scarcity outside of bankruptcy compared to the “current predominance of the merger as a transactional vehicle for the sale of a company”. This requirement is a modification of the general common law rule “that directors [had] not have the power or authority to sell all of a company’s assets and terminate its activities”, but had to obtain unanimous shareholder approval for such a transaction. However, VC Lasker wrote, “A widely recognized exception to the rule applied to insolvent or failing companies.” This “failing firm” exception to the common law rule remains in effect today.

Further, VC Lasker noted, the legislative history of Section 271 and its “position within the larger statutory context” indicate that the transaction contemplated by the omnibus agreement was not considered a “sale, lease or exchange” of all or substantially all of Stream’s assets. Instead, he wrote: “[t]These sources demonstrate that Section 271 does not apply to a transaction such as that contemplated by the omnibus agreement, in which an insolvent and failing company transfers its assets to its secured creditors instead of formal foreclosure proceedings. “

Because the class voting provision in Stream’s charter largely followed the wording of Section 271, VC Lasker concluded that it “justified[ed] the same interpretation. The Chancery Court thus ruled that the Omnibus Agreement did not require the approval of Steam shareholders. It therefore denied Stream’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the effectiveness of the agreement and granted the motion. of SeeCubic in injunction implementing the agreement.

The Chancery Court later: (i) granted SeeCubic’s motion in part for summary judgment and a permanent injunction (Stream TV Networks, Inc. v SeeCubic, Inc., 2021 WL 4352732 (Del. Ch. 2021 Sep 23)); (ii) granted Stream’s motion to have the summary judgment order entered as partial final judgment (Stream TV Networks, Inc. v SeeCubic, Inc., 2021 WL 5240591 (Del. Ch. Nov. 10, 2021)); and (iii) denied Stream’s motion to vary or stay the permanent injunction pending appeal (Stream TV Networks, Inc. v SeeCubic, Inc.2021 WL 5816820 (Del. Ch. 8 Dec. 2021)).

Stream appealed the summary judgment and injunctive relief decisions to the Delaware Supreme Court.

The Delaware Supreme Court decision

The Delaware Supreme Court reversed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case below.

Write for the bench Supreme Court, Delaware Supreme Court Justice Karen L. Valihura held “that a common law insolvency exception, if it existed in Delaware, did not survive the enactment of Section 271 and its predecessor”. Streaming TV, 2022 WL 2149437, at *11. Therefore, she wrote, “there is no Delaware common law ‘board-only’ insolvency exception under Section 271.” Identifier.

Judge Valihura noted that in finding otherwise on the basis of corporate law in the states of the United States, the Court of Chancery relied on treaties and case law published between 1926 and 1948, “without no case cited after 1948 confirms such an exception”. Moreover, she explained, although 15 states recognized the insolvency exception reserved for counsel “from the late 1800s to the early 1900s…no Delaware case expressly addresses or adopts the insolvency exception reserved for advisers”. Identifier. at **20-21.

According to Judge Valihura, his reasoning was supported by “the plain language of Article 271, which contains no exceptions and is unambiguous”. Further, she noted, this finding is “consistent with our policy to promote stability and predictability in our corporate laws, and to recognize that Delaware is a contract state.” Identifier. to *25.

The Delaware Supreme Court therefore quashed the injunction, reversed the declaratory judgment, and returned the case to the Chancery Court for retrial.

Outlook

The Delaware Supreme Court decision in Streaming TV clarifies that a “failing” Delaware corporation may not give deed in lieu of foreclosure to a secured creditor of all or substantially all of the corporation’s assets without shareholder approval, nor sell, lease, or trade substantially all of its assets in an assignment for the benefit of creditors without obtaining such approval. As such, under this precedent, a bankruptcy filing and sale of assets under Section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code or under a Chapter 11 plan may be required where the majority shareholder approval cannot be obtained.

]]>
Common-Law Marriage: A Postscript for the LGBTQ+ Community | Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby LLP https://prosecutebushcheney.org/common-law-marriage-a-postscript-for-the-lgbtq-community-weber-gallagher-simpson-stapleton-fires-newby-llp/ Mon, 03 Oct 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/common-law-marriage-a-postscript-for-the-lgbtq-community-weber-gallagher-simpson-stapleton-fires-newby-llp/ Not so long ago, I wrote a blog and recorded a podcast about common-law marriage. I recently came across a Pennsylvania Superior Court decision that has significance for the LGBTQIA+ community. One of the factors in divorce is the date of the parties’ marriage. Economic claims related to a divorce, such as who gets what […]]]>

Not so long ago, I wrote a blog and recorded a podcast about common-law marriage. I recently came across a Pennsylvania Superior Court decision that has significance for the LGBTQIA+ community.

One of the factors in divorce is the date of the parties’ marriage. Economic claims related to a divorce, such as who gets what from the divorce, called equitable distribution, and alimony are based largely on the length of the marriage. The duration of the marriage depends on when the parties were married. So what is your wedding date if you weren’t legally allowed to get married before June 26, 2015, the date of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Oberfell v. Hodges? This case declares unconstitutional all state laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples only.

With one major exception, until January 1, 2005, Pennsylvania recognized common law marriages. A common law marriage is a marriage where there is no official marriage ceremony or license filed with the local orphans court. To be common law spouses, the parties must have exchanged words, in the present tense, for the specific purpose of establishing the relationship of a married couple. To learn more, I refer you to my previous blog post of May 28, 2020, specifically on common law marriage, what must be proven and what the courts look for to find or deny the existence of a claim for common law marriage.

The exception is that a common-law marriage entered into before the new law came into effect, January 1, 2005, continues to be recognized. A valid common law marriage that existed before January 1, 2005 continues to be recognized. So what if the same-sex couple enters into a common-law marriage before Oberefell in 2015 and before January 1, 2005? This question is answered in In re: Estate of Carter159 A.3d 970 (Pa. Superior 2017)

Although not a divorce case, in this case on Christmas Day 1996, Michael proposed to Stephen to ask if Stephen would marry him. Michael gave Stephen an engagement ring after Stephen said yes. Two months later, on February 18, 1997, Stephen gave Michael a wedding ring, engraved with the date. Every February 18, the parties celebrated their wedding anniversary. In 1999, they bought a house with a joint mortgage. They had mutual wills prepared to name the other as executor. They had mutual financial and health proxies. They supported each other financially during periods when only one of them was working. They held joint bank and investment accounts. Their respective families considered them married and Stephen’s nieces called Michael “Uncle Mike”. Stephen and Michael considered themselves married in all respects.

Sadly, in 2013, Stephen passed away in a motorcycle accident. Michael asked the Orphans’ Court in Beaver County, Pennsylvania to issue a declaration that he and Stephen were married and therefore certain inheritance taxes were not applicable. Despite no objection from a member of Stephen’s family, or any government agency or taxing authority, the Beaver County court denied the motion.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, finding that the parties entered into a common-law marriage on February 18, 1997. The reasoning was that the state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples had been declared unconstitutional in the Oberefell decision. The right that Michael was seeking to pursue was therefore not a new right created in 2015, but a right that had always existed and had always been guaranteed to Michael and Stephen by the United States Constitution.

While the Carter the case is not a divorce case, it has huge implications in the world of divorce. Marriage equality also means divorce equality, so the date of marriage is of major importance in a divorce case. An earlier marriage date means a larger marital estate to be distributed fairly and, in appropriate cases, a longer maintenance period.

]]>
Man charged with assaulting his common-law wife with a machete https://prosecutebushcheney.org/man-charged-with-assaulting-his-common-law-wife-with-a-machete/ Tue, 27 Sep 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/man-charged-with-assaulting-his-common-law-wife-with-a-machete/ Views : 1,281 Posted: Tuesday, September 27, 2022. 12:28 p.m. CST. By Breaking Belize News Staff: A 47-year-old man from the village of La Democracia in Belize District is out on bail after facing multiple charges following an altercation with his ex-partner. Henry Tucker Sr., appeared unrepresented in Belize City Magistrates Court on […]]]>



Views :
1,281

Posted: Tuesday, September 27, 2022. 12:28 p.m. CST.

By Breaking Belize News Staff: A 47-year-old man from the village of La Democracia in Belize District is out on bail after facing multiple charges following an altercation with his ex-partner.

Henry Tucker Sr., appeared unrepresented in Belize City Magistrates Court on Monday, answering charges of aggravated assault with a machete, death threat and insulting the plaintiff.

In court, Tucker pleaded not guilty to all three counts and was offered $1,000 bond plus bond in the same amount.

The two live in the same house, with one living in the upper apartment and the other in the lower one.

The allegations against Tucker are that on September 22, the plaintiff raised a question about his electricity bill and an argument ensued, where it is alleged that he pulled the machete and uttered the words for which he was accused.

Advertise with Belize’s Most Visited News Site ~ We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages. Your content is delivered instantly to thousands of users in Belgium and abroad! contact us at [email protected] or call us at 501-601-0315.

© 2022, BreakingBelizeNews.com. This article is the copyrighted property of Breaking Belize News. Written permission must be obtained before reprinting in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

]]>
DC court shuts down access to common law, says Congress doesn’t need to release full CIA torture report https://prosecutebushcheney.org/dc-court-shuts-down-access-to-common-law-says-congress-doesnt-need-to-release-full-cia-torture-report/ Wed, 21 Sep 2022 16:29:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/dc-court-shuts-down-access-to-common-law-says-congress-doesnt-need-to-release-full-cia-torture-report/ from opacity-to-multiple-judicial-blessings department Legal battles have been fought for the better part of a decade now over access to the full CIA torture report. A limited release at the end of 2014 – the 525-page, heavily redacted “executive summary” – is all the general public has had access to. What was in the summary was […]]]>

from opacity-to-multiple-judicial-blessings department

Legal battles have been fought for the better part of a decade now over access to the full CIA torture report. A limited release at the end of 2014 – the 525-page, heavily redacted “executive summary” – is all the general public has had access to.

What was in the summary was pretty awful. But the CIA managed to keep the full report out of the public eye, using rulings that declared it a “congressional record.” Congress is FOIA-exempt, which means that as long as this report is deemed to belong to Congress, FOIA requesters have no legal means to force its release.

Not that they haven’t tried. Judicial Watch sued Rep. Adam Schiff, hoping an opportunistic lawsuit targeting House Intelligence Committee subpoenas would drive a wedge that would make Congress reactive to requests for documents. FOIA was out of the question, so Judicial Watch got to work with a “common law access” theory to evade Congress’s ubiquitous FOIA exemption.

This case ended up going nowhere, eventually being dismissed by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2021. However, this decision said some interesting things about common law access and how it could theoretically be used to force Congress to hand over certain documents.

The ruling said the speech and debate clause had no automatically create a presumptive right of access to the archives of Congress. However, as the agreement pointed out, this does not mean that the right of access does not exist. Common law access under this legal theory should be subject to a balancing test that weighs the concerns of the public against the concerns of Congress and decides whether a document can be accessed via a claim at common law.

This decision prompted journalist Shawn Musgrave to make one’s own request for the CIA torture report, using the common law access theory discussed in the Court of Appeals decision. Unfortunately, this attempt met its first roadblock at the district level, as Sarah Wire reports for the LA Times.

District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, ruled that the report “is not considered a public document subject to the common law right of public access” because, although it was part of committee’s investigation, it did not make recommendations or propose legislation.

The government’s interest in keeping the information secret outweighs the public interest, Howell wrote.

“The report contains highly classified information about CIA detention and interrogation policies and procedures that would jeopardize national security if released, far exceeding the public interest in disclosure,” Howell said in his statement. opinion dismissing the case.

The decision [PDF] (which the LA Times inexplicably failed to publish with its report) ends with Judge Howell deciding on behalf of the public that the public has already seen a lot and has no desire to access the full report.

As the Applicant acknowledges, see Pl.’s Mem. at 20, the report contains highly classified information about CIA detention and interrogation policies and procedures that would jeopardize national security if released, far outweighing the public interest in disclosure. The plaintiff also argues unconvincingly that the already leaked 500 pages of the report are insufficient to bolster public interest in examining more.

The DC court says there is no longer a torture report for you. You have all the torture report you need and/or deserve.

This will of course be subject to appeal. The DC Court of Appeals was the court that first recognized this common law right of access. And there’s always a chance that his application of the balance test will be on the public side, represented here by Shawn Musgrave. But, for now, another quest for the full report is no way out.

Filed Under: cia, cia torture report, common law access, freedom of information, shawn musgrave, torture report

]]>
Right to contest an election neither a fundamental right nor a common law right: SC https://prosecutebushcheney.org/right-to-contest-an-election-neither-a-fundamental-right-nor-a-common-law-right-sc/ Tue, 13 Sep 2022 13:07:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/right-to-contest-an-election-neither-a-fundamental-right-nor-a-common-law-right-sc/ PTI, September 13, 2022, 6:37 PM IST The right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, the Supreme Court has said while dismissing with a cost of Rs one lakh a petition which raised the issue of submitting a candidacy for the elections of Rajya Sabha. Observing that […]]]>

PTI, September 13, 2022, 6:37 PM IST

The right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, the Supreme Court has said while dismissing with a cost of Rs one lakh a petition which raised the issue of submitting a candidacy for the elections of Rajya Sabha.

Observing that an individual cannot claim to have the right to contest an election, the Supreme Court noted that the Representation of the People Act 1950, read with the Rules of Conduct for Elections 1961, provided that the name of a candidate had to be proposed while filling in the application form.

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia passed the order while hearing a plea challenging the Delhi High Court‘s June 10 order which dismissed a motion regarding the decision of the petitioner’s candidacy for lodge his candidacy for the Rajya Sabha elections, 2022.

The petitioner had stated that an election notification to Rajya Sabha was issued on May 12, 2022, to fill seats for members retiring from June 21, 2022 to August 1, 2022, and that the deadline for submission of candidacy was May 31.

He said he collected the application form but was not allowed to submit his application without a suitable nominator offering his name.

The petitioner claimed that since his candidacy without the nominator had not been accepted, his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and his right to personal liberty had been violated.

“We find that the petition for writ in the High Court was entirely wrong, as is the present petition for special leave. The right to challenge an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a right conferred by statute,” the Supreme Court said in its order passed last week.

The bench, which referred to an earlier judgment by the highest court, noted that the petitioner had no right to contest the election to the Rajya Sabha under the law passed by Parliament.

“The Representation of the People Act 1950, read with the Rules of Conduct for Elections 1961, considered the name of a candidate to be put forward when filling in the nomination form,” he said.

“Therefore, an individual cannot claim that he has the right to contest an election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his candidacy without any nominator as required by law,” observed the bench.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs one lakh and said the cost would be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee within four weeks.

]]>
Oklahoma recognizes common-law marriages, but only with proof https://prosecutebushcheney.org/oklahoma-recognizes-common-law-marriages-but-only-with-proof/ Sun, 11 Sep 2022 14:00:31 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/oklahoma-recognizes-common-law-marriages-but-only-with-proof/ Molly E. Tipton | Guest columnist One of the most popular Google searches in Oklahoma regarding marital law is: “Does Oklahoma recognize common law marriage?” The short answer is that Oklahoma recognizes two forms of marriage: ceremonial marriage and common law marriage. As recently as 2019, the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to […]]]>

One of the most popular Google searches in Oklahoma regarding marital law is: “Does Oklahoma recognize common law marriage?” The short answer is that Oklahoma recognizes two forms of marriage: ceremonial marriage and common law marriage. As recently as 2019, the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to an Oklahoma district court judge who issued a summary order refusing to recognize a common-law marriage.

The doctrine of common law marriage dates back to the common law of England and has since been modified by the laws of that country and, in turn, Oklahoma. The ceremonial marriage is established by a license, witnesses and a marriage certificate. On the other hand, several elements tend to prove the existence of a de facto marriage:

1. A real and mutual agreement between the spouses to be husband and wife.

2. A permanent relationship.

3. An exclusive relationship.

4. Proven by living together as husband and wife.

5. The parties to the marriage must present themselves publicly as husband and wife. Although Oklahoma law §43-7 “Solemnization of Marriages” implies that marriage can only exist through a formal ceremony, in the presence of a judge or religious authority and must be filed with the court clerk, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the validity of the common law. marriage when he ruled in 2001, in Standefer v. Standefer, that a common-law marriage is formed when “the minds of the parties meet at the same time to consent”, and that factors 2 through 5 are only evidence to be weighed in considering whether a real or mutual agreement d to be husband and wife has been established. If a de facto marriage is challenged, the onus is on the party seeking to establish the existence of a de facto marriage to prove it with clear and convincing evidence.

For legal practitioners, some things that can strengthen settlement would be joint filing of taxes, keeping joint checking and savings accounts, and showing up as husband and wife, for example, by showing up and /or presenting to others in the community, such as friends, family, church, peers, etc., as being married to each other. Again, these are not conclusive, but they help to establish element 1 above, which is a real and mutual agreement between the spouses to be husband and wife.

For those concerned with establishing a common-law marriage, the Court of Civil Appeals clarified some things when it ruled that infidelity or non-exclusivity does not nullify a marriage or prevent the existence of a de facto marriage, and that the failure of a spouse to assert himself as husband or wife on several occasions does not prevent that spouse from claiming the existence of a de facto marriage.

Molly E. Tipton is a family law attorney with the law firm of Phillips Murrah.

]]>
Osoyos man found not guilty of murdering his common-law wife https://prosecutebushcheney.org/osoyos-man-found-not-guilty-of-murdering-his-common-law-wife/ Mon, 05 Sep 2022 23:18:09 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/osoyos-man-found-not-guilty-of-murdering-his-common-law-wife/ The Osoyus man charged with the 2020 murder of his joint wife has been found not guilty. Roderick Ashley Flawell, 64, was on trial in July for the murder of his 18-year-old girlfriend, Tina Symposium. In a ruling posted online last week, B.C. Supreme Court Justice David Krasin said he also found the evidence against […]]]>

The Osoyus man charged with the 2020 murder of his joint wife has been found not guilty.

Roderick Ashley Flawell, 64, was on trial in July for the murder of his 18-year-old girlfriend, Tina Symposium.

In a ruling posted online last week, B.C. Supreme Court Justice David Krasin said he also found the evidence against Flavel to be “vague and inconclusive.”

“In my view, probabilities, based on probabilities, based on suspicions, do not translate into a solid evidence base on which the investigation of a crime is based,” he said.

“It is possible that something that happened between the defendant and (TINA) the seminary for which the defendant feels responsible, and is probably responsible, cannot form the basis of the case. The lack of evidence in the present case greatly undermines that conclusion that the accused’s guilt on the basis of the evidence is the only logical conclusion.

Read more: RCMP Major Crimes Unit investigating after Osouse, B.C. woman dies after alleged assault

Symposium died in hospital on April 17, 2020, after being taken off life support. According to court documents, she was seriously injured and passed out at her home in Osoyus on April 8, 2022, while breathing.

The trial judge heard that Flawell told the 911 operator he needed help and that there was a “big fight” between him and the seminary.

“The dispatcher asked him if they were fighting. He replied, “Yeah, I don’t speak…and much more,” according to court documents.

He then surrendered to the police, parking his car in the RCMP troop. When the two mountains went to meet him, he got out of the vehicle.

An RCMP officer noticed that his shirt was stained with alcohol and blood and he was taken into custody. According to his testimony, he looked “depressed” and his wrists appeared to be self-inflicted.

Tina was a renowned yoga and zumba instructor at the Osoyoos Symposium.


Courtesy of Okanagan Health & Wellness Magazine, Fall 2013


At home, Seminara was lying on the living room floor.

“She was dressed,” Crocin wrote.

“(RCMP officer) saw broken glass on the floor near his body and a broken bottle and wine glass chest on one side of the living room. He also saw a table upside down.

Read more:

Osoyus youth charged with domestic murder released on bail

His pulse was light and the RCMP officer noted that he looked “very badly beaten”.

He said his face was purple with bumps, his lips were swollen, and his right cheek, nose and forehead were also swollen. There were no cuts on his shin save one.

This evidence, however, contrasted with other testimony, where the wounds were only on the left side of his nose and temple.

Additionally, Krassin said there was more disparity when the autopsy was reviewed by the court.

Dr Jason Doyle, a medical examiner who performed the autopsy, found that blunt force trauma was likely the cause of the severe brain injury that ultimately claimed the woman’s life, but no further information on what was available at the autopsy, he couldn’t know anything. After. Could go ahead

Additionally, Doyle could not rule out the possibility of a seizure as a possible cause of injury.

Crocin also referenced evidence from the aftermath of the crime, when Flawell told a friend that he threw a glass object at her, however, “he threw it to remember”.

He further said it would be dangerous to base the discovery of the crime on the “vague and inconclusive” evidence presented, adding that they were “left in reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt”.

Symposium was a longtime yoga and Zumba instructor in the small South Okanagan community. The community expressed their grief soon after the incident.

Ron Doucett, president of the Osoyos Curling Club, said the two were dedicated volunteers and Flawell served as an ice technician for three years.

“Disastrous, just devastating,” Doucette told Global News. “They were so loved.”

© 2022 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

,.

]]>