FLAT 20% OFF and 3-Months ADDED Validity on All Courses Absolutely FREE! Enroll Now Use Code: INDIA20
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     08 March 2010

Player killed by broken court

In this thread i will be positng some unusual, interesting, international   news, issues etc., and I hereby welcome other learned members of this forum to join with me, to post  interesting matters in this thread


 16 Replies

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     08 March 2010

A futsal player has died during a match in Brazil after a piece of the court's wooden floor came off and struck him in the abdomen.Globo's G1 Web site says 23-year-old Robson Rocha Costa died of hemorrhagic shock Sunday, a day after the accident in a friendly match in southern Brazil. Witnesses say Costa was hurt after a sliding play near the end line. A small piece of the court apparently came off as he was sliding, initially hitting his thigh and then making it to his intestines.Costa was immediately taken to a hospital and underwent surgery, but succumbed to his injuries.Authorities said they would investigate the circumstances of the accident.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     09 March 2010

Canadan authorities have launched an investigation into Facebook after four University of Ottawa law students complained the site breaches the law by disclosing personal information to advertisers without obtaining proper consent.The students allege in a complaint lodged Friday that the popular social networking web site has committed 22 violations.
"There's definitely some significant shortcomings with Facebook's privacy settings and with their ability to protect users," said Harley Finkelstein, 24, one of the students behind the complaint. Canadian law mandates that information including address, s*xual preference, birthdate and school attended cannot be disclosed without the user's consent. On Facebook, users must specifically change their settings to keep that information private."If a 14-year-old kid in Toronto decides to join Facebook ... and he decides to join the Toronto network, does he really know that everyone on that network — by default — will have access to his personal information?"The students drew up the complaint after comparing the company's policies and practices to Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Facebook refuted the claims, saying the complaint ignores key elements of the company's policy."We've reviewed the complaint and found it has serious factual errors — most notably its neglect of the fact that almost all Facebook data is willingly shared by users," Facebook chief privacy officer Chris Kelly said Friday in an e-mail. "The complaint also misinterprets PIPEDA in a manner that would effectively forbid voluntary online sharing of information."Kelly said Facebook has worked with Ontario's information and privacy commissioner to create a brochure and video that will educate users about the site's privacy controls. A spokeswoman for Canada's federal privacy commissioner's office said the agency takes such complaints very seriously."We have no reason to believe that Facebook will not be cooperative," Anne-Marie Hayden added.
The students claim Facebook deceives users about its foray into targeted advertising. They allege the company does not get permission from the user to disclose personal information, and fails to clearly inform users about who is seeing their information. "Everyone realizes the Internet is a little bit unsecure, but because it's Facebook, it lends some credibility," said Jordan Plener, 25, another of the students involved in the complaint.Though Facebook has recently taken some steps to overhaul its privacy system, Plener said the main concern has been to improve esthetics. Under Canadian law, the privacy commissioner has up to one year to investigate the complaint and make recommendations. The office plans to launch a Web site next week to educate youth about privacy on the Internet.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     09 March 2010

L.A. County Superior Court to lay off 329 staffers; hundreds more to follow

The Los Angeles County Superior Court will lay off 329 staff members next month because of budget cuts, and officials said more jobs would be eliminated over the next two years.

In a memo to employees, the court's executive officer, John Clarke, said the layoffs would begin April 1. Notices for the layoffs will be sent out March 16.

“Given the size of the budget cuts we have already experienced, we anticipate hundreds more layoffs to follow,” Clarke wrote Friday.

Clarke said an additional 500 layoffs are planned for September, followed by 530 in fall 2011. The court currently has 5,400 employees.


L.A. Now reported that presiding Judge Charles “Tim” McCoy said he was looking at plans to eliminate as many as 1,800 jobs and close up to 180 courtrooms to make ends meet.

Here is what our readers thought about the layoffs:

Sputnik2 wrote: A truly sad thing, but if the money isn't there, it is what it is. The different government units need to live with the budgets, just like the private citizen must. Lost my job 2 years ago in the automotive industry, and gee whiz, life goes on. Time to suck it up buttercup and move on as best you can. Have as great a day as possible, and remember, there is always someone worse off than you.

Joe wrote: Have you ever dealt with these court employees? Rude attitudes! No matter how polite or courteous one could be toward them they always acted like you were causing an imposition. Finally justice is served in LA Superior Court.

markiejoe wrote: And when courts get backed up and accused criminals remain free pending trials that are delayed longer and longer, all the taxpayers in L.A. will gripe about the inept justice system letting criminals roam the streets.




I have no sympathy for the cheap and delusional taxpayers of L.A., Or the rest of California for that matter, who are not willing to pay for an adequate criminal justice system in a state with a population larger than the entire country of Canada.





George wrote: It took a Los Angeles Superior Court judge nearly 60 days to find me Not Guilty of a traffic infraction that I disputed with a Trial by Declaration. The document stated that I "should" receive a refund of my $436 bail within 60 days.



93 days from the date that the judge ordered my bail refunded, court personnel mailed the check.

If this is the sort of "service" one gets when the court is fully staffed, what can we expect after the layoffs?

elovediddydoo wrote: I have mixed feelings, my agency is an offspring of the LA Superior Courts...I feel that all public agencies have lots of jobs that they can cut, unfortunately who do the unemployed then turn too. Reading the comments below, there are obviously some jaded folks, I get it. I was on a jury recently and kept saying "I want one of those jobs". So much for future planning. I think they should fire or "lay off" the BOS staff, since the BOS thinks they have it all sewed up, talk about people who don't do anything and get paid big bucks. Shame on California for putting their citizens in such a position, what a winner for a governor that the republicans and movie nuts voted for, and remember he vetoed Gov. Gray out because of the finanical problems we have. That mayor or Los Angeles, too busy dating news women to see his city is going in the toilet. Fire him and his staff too, then we will see some savings for the city, county and state as a whole.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     09 March 2010

Termination of ad hoc fasttrack court judges:

Ahmedabad: Chief Justice S J Mukhopadhyay expressed concern over the future of Gujarat judiciary when hearing the case of termination of ad hoc fasttrack court judges. The high court and the state government discontinued services of 56 judges last November.

   Discussing charges of corruption in cases of some of judicial officers on Friday, Justice Mukhopadhaya said: ‘‘We are concerned about the future of Gujarat judiciary, where money has become the main source and where you can buy anybody with the power of money.’’

   Justice Mukhopadhyay insisted on maintaining transparency in judiciary in order to uphold its credibility among people. He asked the lawyers representing the FCT judges how else the high court could have reacted to allegations of corruption levelled against the judicial officers.

   The FCT judges were relieved from service last year with a remark in their termination letter that they were found ‘unsuitable’.

   The judge was of the opinion that issuance of a show-cause notice to the judges concerned would have served no purpose. He also made it clear that he was discussing the issue in the context of the judiciary across the nation, and not strictly pertaining to Gujarat.
Gujarat High Court criticises dismissed fast-track court judges for petition language
Express News Service Posted: Feb 11, 2010 at 0128 hrs
Ahmedabad The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday criticised some of the fast-track judges whose services have been terminated by the state government on the ground of ‘unsuitability’ for the kind of language they have used in their petitions while challenging their termination.
In their petition, the dismissed judges have stated that the authorities have targeted them. While considering the fact that the petitioners had been serving as fast-track judges, Chief Justice S J Mukhopadhyaya took objection to the kind of language used by them in the petitions.
Taking specific objection to the use of word ‘targeted’, the Chief Justice said that this is not the kind of language, which is expected from the petitioner who had been working as a fast-track judge.
The HC observations came during hearing of the petitions filed by around 20 of the 66 fast-track court judges, whose services were terminated by the state government vide its circular issued in December last year.
The Division Bench headed by Chief Justice S J Mukhopadhyaya and Justice A S Dave heard the matter on Wednesday.
Incidentally, appearing on behalf of the Gujarat High Court in the matter, the Advocate General said before the court that while recommending service termination of the judges, theHC had not used the words that their services are being terminated on the ground of unsuitability.
The Advocate General suggested that the words might have been inadvertently used by the state government while issuing notification for the termination.
Following this, the court has asked the state government to produce all the documents, which were part of the procedure for the termination of service of the fast-track judges.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     11 March 2010


Court says killer Calif. dentist should go free


SANTA ANA, Calif.—A former Southern California dentist who killed a 13-year-old girl and two other patients with overdoses of anesthesia in the 1980s must be paroled, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Tony Protopappas, who has served more than 25 years of a possible life sentence, must have a hearing and be ruled eligible for release within 30 days, unless there is new evidence he poses a threat to society, the 4th District Court of Appeal said.

"Personality traits of arrogance, greed and narcissism, without more, do not support incarceration," the court said.

The state Board of Parole Hearings declined immediate comment because the agency had not seen the order Wednesday.

"The board will review the order and determine an appropriate response," the panel said in a statement.

Protopappas was convicted of second-degree murder in 1984 and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

Prosecutors said 13-year-old Patricia Craven, 24-year-old Kim Andreassen and 31-year-old Cathryn Jones died after receiving too much anesthesia at the Protopappas' Costa Mesa office in the early 1980s.

Protopappas said at the time he was taking opiate pain pills during the day to relieve back pain, and that he used cocaine after work.

He was denied parole four times, even though he had apologized in writing to the victims' families and had a clean prison discipline record for about 20 years.

At his last hearing in 2008, Protopappas said he accepted full responsibility for the deaths and would never practice dentistry again.

"I thought I was correct in anesthetizing these patients then. ... I do not think so now," he told the panel, according to court documents.

"I didn't react properly and that means calling the paramedics immediately, which could have saved, I believe, a couple of these people's lives," he said.

The appellate court said Protopappas had been afraid to admit he was incompetent and made serious mistakes.

The parole board denied Protopappas parole for two years, saying he would pose a danger to society in part because he lacked insight into the crime.

His attorney challenged that decision.

In a brief to the appellate court, state Deputy Attorney General Amy M. Roebuck pointed out that Protopappas' drug and alcohol abuse contributed to his negligence and that he continued to partly blame the deaths on assistants who were improperly trained.

However, the three-member appellate panel ruled there was no evidence he was a danger to society.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     16 March 2010

How to Bribe a Supreme Court Justice

The Los Angeles Times performed a serious act of journalism by covering the interesting conflict of interest facing Justice Clarence Thomas.


Mr. Thomas is married to Virginia Thomas, who just launched Liberty Central. The lead endorsement comes from two prominent Tea Party activists.


Liberty Central is thoughtfully organized under tax law as a c(4). It can take unlimited corporate contributions, not disclose them, and engage in partisan activities.


Ponder that for just a moment. The wife of a Supreme Court justice has organized a political non-profit linked to Tea Party activists whose activities can be supported to an unlimited extent by corporations whose donations need not be disclosed to the public. Similarly, Mrs. Thomas is under no obligation to disclose her compensation to anybody.


None of this appears to be illegal in part due to the recent Citizens United court ruling by the Supreme Court that freed corporation contributions from certain key restrictions. That radical and controversial decision passed by a 5-4 vote, and surprise, Justice Thomas voted yes.


When the Times asked Mrs. Thomas about this interesting situation, she responded with the traditional right wing charge of the media imposing a double standard on conservatives, pointing out that the elected governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, is married to a federal judge. She conveniently left out that any political contributions to Mr. Rendell are both limited and fully disclosed under Federal law, and that Judge Rendell scrupulously avoids any political activities.


Justice Thomas has been a reliable right wing, pro-corporate vote since his first day on the court. He can hardly be described as a swing vote whose vote could be bought. But perhaps he could be rewarded for services rendered. Or, if service on the bench becomes tedious, he might be persuaded to extend his tenure if important cases are looming on the horizon.


It may even be that this inventive activity by Mrs. Thomas is nothing new in her family. Her own biography reveals that she has been employed by a series of right wing organizations -- an entity controlled by former Congressman Dick Armey, whose FreedomWorks is much of the money behind the Tea Party gatherings, Hillsdale College (well known as a favorite of hard right students), the Heritage Foundation, and the Chamber of Commerce, the preeminent purveyor of laundered corporate money. None of these organizations need reveal their corporate backers.


Mrs. Thomas and Judge Thomas can easily address the situation, of course. Liberty Central could simply voluntarily disclose all of its significant contributors in a manner much like, say, the Clinton Foundation. And Judge Thomas could simply recuse himself from any case involving a significant donor to his wife's (and thus his own) financial well being. Supreme Court Justices, short of impeachment, answer only to themselves in deciding upon recusal. They alone determine if a conflict exists and how to respond. If they say no conflict exist, they can opine away.


If Judge Thomas wished to be more supportive of his wife's endeavors, he could simply resign from the bench. It would be fascinating to see what level of support Liberty Central would then enjoy. One suspects little.


The New York Times recently revealed that a mere $31,000 in political contributions by a pay day lending mogul and his family and associates seemed to have purchased an exemption from Federal regulation.


No doubt Mrs. Thomas would never stoop so low.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     27 March 2010

Lawyer held with spy cam in HC

Saturday , Aug 29, 2009

The Delhi High Court’s security detail caught a lawyer red-handed allegedly recording the court proceedings with a camera concealed in a pen on Friday.

The lawyer, identified as Manpreet Kaur, was apprehended by the security personnel outside the courtroom of Justice J R Midha when she tried to leave, officials said.

Kaur’s actions caught the eye of a court official when he saw a red light blinking from her pen. The official, sources say, immediately notified security officials. Sources said Kaur happened to realise something was wrong and tried to leave when she was whisked away by officials.

She was taken to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Delhi High Court, and made to wait there. Shortly thereafter, Crime Branch personnel arrived at the scene and closeted themselves with an agitated Kaur.

In a statement addressed to “ACP, Crime Branch”, Kaur recounted her story. She introduced herself as a “senior lawyer” who had started her day at the Tis Hazari courts and then arrived to the High Court to meet a lawyer friend.

She remembers carrying three pens with her. “I did not know there was a pen drive or a video camera in the pen,” she said. About the incident, Kaur said she was sitting in Justice Midha’s court while waiting for her friend, but had gone out to answer a phone call.

“My daughter has been released. The pen she was carrying was that of a child. How would she know it had a camera?” said M S Mann, her father, also a lawyer, who seen standing outside the police security room where she was held.

Police sources said the pen has been confiscated by the Crime Branch, but Kaur was released. “Who would dare arrest a lawyer?” a police officer said.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     01 May 2010

UNITED STATES of America is a secular country. The Supreme Court is there to uphold the Constitution. However, in an important case just decided, the Court gave a majority judgement 5:4 approving erection of a Cross on public land.


The veterans of World War One erected a huge Cross in the desert to honour the war dead. They called it a tribute to the valour and the sacrifice of the war dead and not a symbol of the Christian faith. The material of the Cross is changed from time to time.

Some citizens, who live by secularism challanged erection of a Cross, a religious symbol, on public land. The Court of Appeal at the State level upheld their objection. An appeal against this judgement was filed in the US Supreme Court which overturned the judgement of the lower court and held erection of a Cross as valid. The waffer-thin majority of just one roused the public opinion once again and jurists called for a legal discussion.

The crux of the matter is : Is the Cross a religious symbol of the Christian faith? If so, its erection on public land violates principles of secularism. On the other hand if the Cross is viewed as a symbol of people's tribute to the valour and sacrifice of all those American soldiers who did not return from the battlefield, then it does not violate the secular principle of the US Constitution that the Supreme Court preserves, protects and defends.

The US Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement, 5:4, justifying erection of a Cross on public land as it did not represent the Christian faith but was a tribute to the valour and sacrifice of the American war dead.

It may be mentioned here that the Bible and the Cross occupy a special place in the hearts and minds of the people of the United States as most of them are Christians by faith. When the President of the United States is sworn in, he raises one hand and puts the other hand on the family Bible which his wife holds in both the hands displaying intense emotion.Thats the way it is at present until some secularist challanges it in a court of law.

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     01 May 2010

Sir, My great and  sincere thanks for this informative thread and postings.

1 Like

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     06 May 2010

President Obama has sandwiched final interviews for a new Supreme Court justice in between meetings on the emergencies in New York and the Gulf of Mexico, and is poised to announce his decision any day. Even as Washington's attention Tuesday was riveted on the capture of a Pakistani American suspect in the failed bombing in Times Square, Obama quietly interviewed Judge Diane Wood, the fourth candidate he has met with as he prepares to nominate a replacement for the outgoing justice, John Paul Stevens.Wood, who slipped in and out of the White House without drawing attention to herself, also met with Vice President Biden. She is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and was a finalist for the high court last summer, when Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor. In the few past weeks, the president has also met with Solicitor General Elena Kagan; Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Sidney Thomas, a federal appeals court judge based in Montana. On Wednesday, Obama met in the Oval Office with two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah). Presidential aides have remained coy about the timing of Obama's announcement. Press secretary Robert Gibbs almost giggled Tuesday as he noted that the president will name his choice on a day that ends in "y." "I will just simply say that when the president informs us that he's made that decision, we will notify you as to when that announcement will be," Gibbs said. "I'm not going to every day rule in or rule out when that might be." Other aides have been equally opaque about the timing but have provided general guidance that reporters should be ready for an announcement soon. Next week appears to be likelier than this week. The White House is sure to want Biden -- who was a longtime member of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee -- to be around as the drama unfolds, and the vice president left Wednesday for Spain and Belgium. He is scheduled to return early next week. Either way, the announcement will begin a six- or seven-week process, culminating in a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in late June, shortly before the Fourth of July congressional recess. While the other candidates to meet with Obama have retreated to their quiet world of the judiciary, Kagan -- the only non-judge on the "short list" of interviewees -- has been more in the public eye than usual. At this time of year, some of the circuit appeals courts hold their annual conferences, and Kagan has made scheduled appearances in Pennsylvania and Chicago. On Wednesday, she was in Columbus, Ohio. Judge Alice M. Batchelder, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, reminded the crowd of lawyers and judges that Kagan was on the short list. She noted the sensitivity of Kagan's public appearances while introducing the solicitor general before she moderated a discussion of the Supreme Court."We are going to have to be very understanding and sympathetic, should she opt in her duties as moderator of this panel to be a bit circumspect in expressing her views on the topic at hand. Or anything else," Batchelder said to laughter. At one point during the conference Wednesday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. spotted Kagan talking with Stevens and said, "Boy, the press should get that picture." He quickly disavowed any inside knowledge. "I'm not saying anything," he added. Kagan led Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine law school, and Paul D. Clement, one of her predecessors as solicitor general, through a discussion of cases the court has heard this term, but rarely offered her own views on how arguments had gone or how she expected the cases to be decided. When Chemerinsky said that Kagan had "brilliantly argued" the court's most noteworthy case of the term, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Kagan reminded him: "I lost." The 5 to 4 decision said that restrictions on spending by corporations and unions from their general treasuries for or against candidates were unconstitutional. Chemerinsky told Kagan that the case was unwinnable because of the view of the court's prevailing conservatives. Clement, who now has a robust private practice before the court, did not miss a chance to compliment Kagan on a different case: "Elena did such a wonderful job at argument." Kagan did elaborate a bit on one of the six arguments she made this year, her first as solicitor general. She said it was difficult to gauge how the court would view a congressional statute that forbids organizations to give "material support" to groups that the federal government has designated as terrorist organizations. The argument raised difficult questions, especially about the role of lawyers in advising groups about peaceful activities, such as providing food and medical supplies. Normally, Kagan said, one side of the court's ideological divide closely questions one advocate, while the other grills opposing counsel. "This is a case where the entire court asked tough questions," she said.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     07 July 2010


China executes former top judge for corruption, rape:


China on Wednesday executed a former top judge after a court found him guilty of corruption, rape and organised crimes in country's southwestern Chongqing region.
Wen Qiang, 55, the former head of the judiciary in the southwestern Chongqing region, was convicted for accepting bribes, shielding criminal gangs, indulging in rape and failing to account for his cash and assets. Chongqing municipal higher people's court on May 21 rejected the appeal of Wen, who was sentenced to death by a lower court on April 14, upholding the charges. The death sentence had been forwarded to the Supreme People's Court and was approved, according to the municipal higher people's court. Wen served as vice director of the Chongqing municipal public security bureau from 1992 to 2008, and later as director of the Chongqing municipal judicial bureau until he was arrested in September 2009, state-run Xinhua news agency reported on Wednesday. The Chongqing No. 5 intermediate people's court issued a verdict in the first stance trial, saying Wen took bribes totaling more than 12 million yuan (USD 1.76 million) personally or through his wife from 1996 to 2009. In return, Wen offered posts for officials and helped companies and business people obtain illegal profits. Wen was also convicted of shielding five major organised crime gangs in Chongqing after accepting bribes worth 756,500 yuan. In August 2007, Wen raped a university student after getting her drunk, the verdict said. Wen failed to account for the sources of more than 10 million yuan in personal assets. He also
had all his personal property seized and was deprived of his political rights for life. Wen was the highest ranking official to fall in last year's massive crackdown on organized crime in Chongqing. More than 90 local officials were prosecuted and 42 were found guilty of sheltering criminal gangs.




1 Like

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     08 July 2010

Sir, This is the reason why china is ahead of us in spite of being inferior to us in not only quality of product but in all field. Medieval form of Justice has proved deterrent.

In comparison we have only laws but no implementation is there in letter and spirit. On the other hand China has only order but no law, which is keeping them ahead of us which is pathetic.

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     13 July 2010

Supreme Court joins Twitter to widen access to its decisions

The Philippines’ Supreme Court has created its Twitter account, @KorteSuprema, a move to "broaden the public’s access to information about the highest court in the land," a spokesperson said. “It aims to bring the court closer to the people and give them real-time updates, news, programs and projects of the Supreme Court," Court spokesman and administrator Jose Midas Marquez said on Tuesday. Considered as a microblogging site, Twitter allows users to post "tweets" or alphanumeric entries that are only 140 characters long. Followers of users such as @KorteSuprema can reply and send private, direct messages to the Supreme Court’s Twitter account. Midas also said that the Court also created its Facebook account, a social networking website. The SC may be accessed on Facebook in the search engine as Supreme Court of the Philippines.The Court’s online efforts were means to distribute information about newsworthy events, including its decisions. “We would like to invite everyone to follow the Supreme Court in its Twitter account as well as join our Facebook page," Marquez said.On Monday, the Court upheld the validity of the agreement that allowed Fontana Development Corp. to operate casino inside the Clark Special Economic Zone. The decision was announced on its Twitter account, which was also posted as its status update on Facebook. On Tuesday, the Court also posted a tweet regarding its decision to uphold the election of Palawan Govenor Abraham Khalil Mitra

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     13 July 2010

Yes a very good apreciable move by the Philippines’ Supreme Court, it must move with and get the benefit of the tecnology/internet revolution.

India is pioneer in this field, we also should keep touch with latest development in this era of information tecnology, so that everyone get benefitted

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query