Jurisdiction – NYPD Holy Name http://nypdholyname.com/ Fri, 17 Jun 2022 02:55:10 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://nypdholyname.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/icon-47-120x120.png Jurisdiction – NYPD Holy Name http://nypdholyname.com/ 32 32 NAB Has No Jurisdiction Over Calibri Indenture, IHC Owns – Journal https://nypdholyname.com/nab-has-no-jurisdiction-over-calibri-indenture-ihc-owns-journal/ Fri, 17 Jun 2022 02:55:10 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/nab-has-no-jurisdiction-over-calibri-indenture-ihc-owns-journal/ ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday observed that the issue related to the allegedly forged trust deed of Pakistani Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Maryam Nawaz is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau National Accountability (NAB). A divisional bench, consisting of Judge Aamer Farooq and Judge Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, resumed hearing into appeals filed […]]]>

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday observed that the issue related to the allegedly forged trust deed of Pakistani Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Maryam Nawaz is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau National Accountability (NAB).

A divisional bench, consisting of Judge Aamer Farooq and Judge Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, resumed hearing into appeals filed by Ms Nawaz and her wife, retired captain Mohammad Safdar, against their conviction in the Avenfield dismissal Apartments.

Defense barrister Amjad Pervaiz told the court that NAB initially described Ms Nawaz as a beneficial owner of the Avenfield Apartments.

However, in the additional reference, the office claimed that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was the real owner of the property.

According to him, NAB had reached the conclusion that Ms Nawaz was the beneficial owner of the property which the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) said was purchased around 1993-1996 due to the trust deed signed in February 2006.

In response to Judge Kayani’s query regarding the preparation of the Trust Deed, Attorney Pervaiz explained that the deed was executed since Hussain Nawaz had two wives and being the eldest sister Mrs. Nawaz would take care of of the property in case of contingency.

The lawyer said NAB accused Ms Nawaz of falsifying a trust deed to mislead the investigation.

He argued, however, that the NAB failed to probe key witnesses Jeremy Freeman of Freeman Box, an attorney who signed the trust deed, and Waqar Ahmed, who was also a signatory to the document.

Attorney Pervaiz said JIT chief Wajid Zia hired a company from his cousin – M/s Quest – to collect evidence and record testimony from overseas witnesses.

The company recorded the statement of a so-called expert, Robert Radely, to prove the document was fake, but did not contact Freeman who had confirmed the authenticity of the trust deed.

He argued that Mr Radely recorded a statement in the Court of Auditors while reading the notes provided to him by the prosecution.

According to the lawyer, during cross-examination, Mr Radely had confirmed that he was not a computer geek and also admitted that the Calibri police existed long before the preparation of the trust deed.

It may be mentioned that the JIT had declared the deed of trust false since forensic expert Radely in his report pointed out that the Calibri policy in which the deed of trust was prepared was not commercially available in February 2006.

The defense lawyer while quoting Mr Radely’s statement argued that the expert had admitted that the police were available in early 2005.

The bench questioned why the JIT hired the UK-based expert since such experts were available in Pakistan.

The lawyer replied that JIT feared that the local prosecutor would be prosecuted if the report was found to be false.

Attorney Pervaiz said the tort court dropped the charge of presenting a false trust deed against Ms Nawaz and stayed the case pending a decision on her appeal.

Judge Kayani observed that “this matter therefore cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the NAB”.

Lawyer Pervaiz claimed that the liability court made confusing charges against Ms Nawaz and that resulted in the judgment.

Judge Farooq asked the lawyer “how did Maryam Nawaz mislead the investigation?”

The lawyer replied that when the prosecution, in a further dismissal, accused Nawaz Sharif of being the true owner, she could not be convicted of being the beneficial owner.

Judge Kayani noted that in such a scenario “prima facie, she is not the accused”.

The new hearing was adjourned to June 23.

The media discourse of Maryam Nawaz

After the court proceedings, Ms. Nawaz, while speaking to the media, blamed Imran Khan for soaring inflation and subsequent increases in the prices of petroleum products.

She said the massive rise in oil prices was the result of the deal between the International Monitoring Fund (IMF) and the former PTI regime.

She said Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was bound to abide by the deal that caused the inflation storm.

The PML-N leader claimed that the PTI government had agreed with the global lender to remove subsidies on petroleum products and impose a sales tax and an oil development tax.

She said that due to the landmines laid by the PTI government, fuel prices in Pakistan are expected to be around Rs 300 per litre, adding that the incumbent government must honor the pact with the global lender otherwise the country would be lacking.

She said Imran Khan subsidized petrol and diesel when he realized he was about to lose his seat.

She also defended the statement of the general manager of Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) on the so-called American conspiracy and said that the relevant point should not be whether it was a conspiracy or an interference, but of the denial of the head of the ISPR.

Responding to Imran Khan’s statement that DG ISPR does not need to talk about political issues, the PML-N leader said it was Imran Khan who took the matter to the National Security Council (NSC), adding that the military could not lie to “please”. Imran Khan.

She also defended a tweet by Nawaz Sharif regarding the return of former military leader Pervez Musharraf and said Mr Sharif did so for humanitarian reasons.

Posted in Dawn, June 17, 2022

]]>
Be Careful What You Post: Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Suits https://nypdholyname.com/be-careful-what-you-post-personal-jurisdiction-in-internet-defamation-suits/ Thu, 16 Jun 2022 10:55:22 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/be-careful-what-you-post-personal-jurisdiction-in-internet-defamation-suits/ June 16, 2022 Freeman Mathis and Gary To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. In today’s world, we have countless options for communicating and social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have become, for many, a big part of our lives. While our […]]]>

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

In today’s world, we have countless options for communicating and social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have become, for many, a big part of our lives. While our modern digital life has increased social connections and removed barriers to communication, it has also led to an increase in defamation claims that challenge traditional notions of personal competence.

In a recent case, Helali c. The guard, the United States District Court for the District of Vermont considered the specific personal competence test and whether alleged defamatory statements about a Vermont resident by a Massachusetts resident in online postings, calls and emails exposed the Massachusetts resident to a lawsuit from Vermont. 2022 US Dist. LEXIS 6008, Case No. 2:21-cv-00141 (January 11, 2022). Since Vermont was the focal point of both the alleged tortious conduct and the harm suffered, the Court held that the plaintiff had established that Ms. Legarde had sufficient minimal contact with Vermont for a specific jurisdiction. The Court recognized that “merely posting on the Internet may not be sufficient to show that conduct was expressly directed at Vermont,” but went on to find that the Calder The “effects test” was indeed met here because the defendant expressly directed its tortious conduct against residents of Vermont, because the reputational effects were felt by the plaintiff in Vermont.

In Helali c. The guard, plaintiff Christopher Helali, a resident of Vermont, brought a defamation action against defendant Zipporah Legarde, a resident of Massachusetts. The two men had previously dated and after the relationship ended, the applicant moved to Vermont. The plaintiff alleged that beginning in late 2018, the defendant “began to engage in threatening and abusive behavior towards [plaintiff] which escalated considerably over time” and “engaged in a deliberate, malicious, relentless and vicious smear campaign against him. a thief, an anti-Semite, and that he had been dishonorably discharged from the army. The defendant also contacted at least six Vermonters with whom the plaintiff had business dealings and made similar statements, while urging the recipients to cut all ties with the plaintiff and not do business with him.

The plaintiff sued for defamation in federal court. The defendant moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, arguing that “[m]there are publications on the Internet” and “statements. . . made outside of Vermont by e-mail and telephone to Vermont residents” cannot form the basis of personal jurisdiction and that plaintiff has not alleged that Ms. Legarde’s conduct was “expressly” directed at the Vermont. The District Court denied the Defendant’s motion. The Court found that the Defendant had sufficient minimal contact with Vermont to exercise specific jurisdiction pursuant to the Due Process Clause. As part of its minimal contact analysis , the Court used the Calderthe “effects test” theory of personal jurisdiction, a framework often used in defamation cases that focuses on the in-state effects of an accused’s out-of-state activity.
Calder vs. Jones465 US 783. The Court also relied on
Walden v. Fiore571 US 277 (2014), which discussed the
Calder “test of effects” and noted that “mere injury to a resident of the forum” is not sufficient contact where the defendant has not “expressly directed his conduct to the forum”.

The Court noted that “[b]By directly contacting and circulating his online postings and other communications to Vermont residents, the alleged tort of defamation occurred in Vermont. Further, the effects caused by Ms. Legarde’s alleged conduct (v. Ms. Legarde’s conduct vis-à-vis the State of Vermont, not just the Vermont-based plaintiff.

Although the Vermont District Court provided additional guidance on sufficient contacts to exercise specific communications jurisdiction in the modern age, there is no clear rule and personal jurisdiction based on minimal contacts will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. case by case.

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

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Media, Telecoms, Computers, U.S. Entertainment

#AD: FTC Advice on Business Use of Influencers

Fox Rothschild LLP

Social media has taken over, with social media users nearly doubling from 2.3 billion in 2016 to 4.2 billion in 2021.[1] Social media platforms provide direct access to consumers, with the ability…

FTC Approval Guides: Proposed Changes

Klein Moynihan Turco LLP

On May 24, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) unanimously approved a notice of proposed changes to its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising” (the “Endorsement Guides”).

]]>
Rwanda theft farce: Boris told by ministers to give up jurisdiction of foreign courts | Politics | New https://nypdholyname.com/rwanda-theft-farce-boris-told-by-ministers-to-give-up-jurisdiction-of-foreign-courts-politics-new/ Wed, 15 Jun 2022 10:52:00 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/rwanda-theft-farce-boris-told-by-ministers-to-give-up-jurisdiction-of-foreign-courts-politics-new/ Express.co.uk has received a briefing from a senior minister which shows there is now pressure within the Cabinet to end the rule of the European Court of Human Rights once and for all ( ECHR) after a series of “blatant” decisions on illegal cases. immigrants, gypsy travelers, prisoners and other regions. The Prime Minister has […]]]>

Express.co.uk has received a briefing from a senior minister which shows there is now pressure within the Cabinet to end the rule of the European Court of Human Rights once and for all ( ECHR) after a series of “blatant” decisions on illegal cases. immigrants, gypsy travelers, prisoners and other regions. The Prime Minister has been warned that the only way to stop ECHR decisions is to cut ties with it completely.

The row erupted after the first flight to Rwanda was grounded in an ECHR ruling in which the judge did not even hear oral evidence.

The Strasbourg-based overseas court overturned UK courts, including the Supreme Court, which had rejected attempts by left-wing activist lawyers to frustrate Home Secretary Priti Patel’s new policy to end the flow of illegal migrants brought by human traffickers in small boats across the English Channel. .

Today ministers and Tory backbenchers are telling the Prime Minister he must ‘complete Brexit’ and get Britain out of the ECHR.

A very senior minister told Express.co.uk: “The only way to remove us from the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court is to withdraw.

“Large swathes of our lives are ruled by ECHR law – and in the wrong way: asylum and migration are the most important, but also gypsies/travellers, parole board decisions and sentencing. life, NI legacy issues, military protections, protest rights, Colston statue case – they used the ECHR to get themselves off the hook I could go on.

” It’s horrible. It is an undemocratic political, interventionist and Euro-trash institution. All the bad things about the EU more, more more!”

The minister added: “Boris has to go. Politics is on his side in my opinion.

“We couldn’t have hoped for a more egregious example of a horrific court. This is the best withdrawal ad ever. Better than any argument any politician can make.

Meanwhile, the mighty no-nonsense group of Tory MPs are pushing to end the jurisdiction of the ECHR and for an overhaul of human rights law.

Friends of Sir, the group’s chairman, Sir John Hayes, pointed out that had the government accepted his ‘notwithstanding’ technical amendment to the Borders Bill, the ECHR would not have been able to rule on the Rwanda case .

But at the time it is understood Ms Patel did not think she could get it through Parliament because ‘she was fighting on too many fronts with the Lords and her own department’. [the Home Office].”

READ MORE: Macron’s delusional attempt to bring the UK back into the EU via a backdoor has been lambasted

Meanwhile, Sir John said Mr Johnson was ‘seizing the moment’.

He said: “Boris needs to understand that this is Brexit 2. He has a tremendous chance to unite the Red Wall and mainstream Tories by ending the jurisdiction of the ECHR and properly reforming the law on human rights.

“It will put Partygate behind it and it will be a real Conservative move that will be hugely popular and even more important in regaining control of our own laws.”

It is understood the group hopes to meet the Prime Minister to advocate for swift action.

The ECHR is not part of the European Union and derives its authority from the European Convention on Human Rights which was originally drafted by British lawyers.

But the government is already divided on what to do.

It is understood Justice Secretary Dominic Raab, who is tasked with reforming the Human Rights Act, is seeking a lighter reform that would simply prioritize the UK courts.

But Attorney General Suella Braverman and Ms Patel would like a more sweeping overhaul, backed by many Conservative backbenchers, including removing the ECHR altogether.

DO NOT MISS

Brexit in peril at the hands of Starmer – FOUR reasons to fear an EU plot [INSIGHT]

Macron’s delusional attempt to bring the UK back into the EU via a backdoor has been lambasted [REVEAL]

Have your say: Does Boris care about Brexit? ‘Lame duck’ [REACT]

A minister, Guy Opperman, who is currently in charge of pensions but who as a lawyer once defended former Labor education secretary Ed Balls against an ECHR case, has spoken out against the exit of the ECHR today.

He told Times Radio: “I don’t believe that’s our policy, nor would it be something I would advocate for withdrawing from the ECHR.

“I think the situation is that, as I understand it, the UK courts have primacy on this issue, but if I understand the ECHR ruling last night correctly, a decision was made that everything had not been taken into account by the British courts under these conditions.”

He added: “It is not necessarily a final prevention that took place last night. It is a temporary delay while the issues are considered in more detail by the UK courts.

“And I think that’s the bottom line, that the ECHR basically said that more time was needed to consider the claims at issue and that the UK courts should do that.

]]>
China asserts jurisdiction over Taiwan Strait, avoids US ‘international waters’ position https://nypdholyname.com/china-asserts-jurisdiction-over-taiwan-strait-avoids-us-international-waters-position/ Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:38:45 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/china-asserts-jurisdiction-over-taiwan-strait-avoids-us-international-waters-position/ Sailor Xi Chan watches the destroyer USS Barry as it transits the Taiwan Strait on April 23, 2020. (Samuel Hardgrove/US Navy) China claims exclusive rights over the Taiwan Strait, a spokesperson for the country’s Foreign Ministry said Monday, a statement that could spark a confrontation with US warships that regularly transit the region. “China has […]]]>

Sailor Xi Chan watches the destroyer USS Barry as it transits the Taiwan Strait on April 23, 2020. (Samuel Hardgrove/US Navy)

China claims exclusive rights over the Taiwan Strait, a spokesperson for the country’s Foreign Ministry said Monday, a statement that could spark a confrontation with US warships that regularly transit the region.

“China has sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the Taiwan Strait. At the same time, it respects the legitimate rights of other countries in the relevant waters,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wenbin Wang said at a press conference on Monday.

For months, China has privately told the US government that it considers the waters separating Taiwan from the mainland to be part of China’s exclusive economic zone, Bloomberg News reported Monday, citing an unnamed source. The United States and other countries view the strait as international waters where its warships are free to pass.

An exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, lies beyond the 12 nautical mile maritime territorial limit of a country and gives that country certain rights, including the right to the natural resources therein, in accordance with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Referring to the Taiwan Strait as “international waters” is an attempt to manipulate China’s claim to the island of Taiwan, Wang said Monday.

“There is no legal basis for ‘international waters’ in the international law of the sea,” he said. He said Taiwan was an “inalienable part of Chinese territory”.

The United States has sent a Navy warship to the area once a month so far this year.

“US Navy ships have been using the Taiwan Strait to transit between the South China Sea and the East China Sea in accordance with international law for many years,” the Navy spokesman said Tuesday. Lt. Mark Langford, at Stars and Stripes.

By claiming the Taiwan Strait as its own, China could lay the groundwork for denying foreign military vessels access to these waters, according to James Brown, an international affairs expert at Temple University’s Japan Campus.

The United States is not a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty, but generally abides by its provisions, according to the Stockton Center for International Law. The treaty guarantees freedom of navigation through economic exclusion zones, but its exact implications for foreign warships are debated.

“Many Western countries interpret UNCLOS as allowing outside states to conduct military exercises in another country’s EEZ under the principle of ‘freedom of navigation,'” Brown said in an email Monday to Stars. and Stripes. “However, this interpretation is not shared by Beijing. China considers military exercises to be detrimental to national security and should therefore not be allowed in its EEZ.

This position is consistent with Beijing’s use of “lawfare” to promote national interests and resembles China’s position toward the South China Sea, according to Brown.

“Here too, Beijing ignored international law and sought to assert national primacy over international waters,” he said.

In September, China changed its law to require foreign vessels to give advance notice before entering the South China Sea, of which Beijing also claims an exclusive economic zone.

Pentagon spokesman John Supple said at the time that the United States opposed claims by coastal states to “violate the rights of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all nations under international law.” .

The Pentagon has consistently responded to China’s claims of control in the Straits and the South China Sea by saying it will operate where international law permits.

Chinese planes and ships have made “an alarming increase” in dangerous aerial interceptions and clashes at sea, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at the Shangri-La Dialogue defense summit in Singapore on Saturday.

“We have witnessed a steady increase in provocative and destabilizing military activity near Taiwan,” Austin said.

]]>
What the failure of the legal jurisdiction bill could mean for Israelis in Judea and Samaria https://nypdholyname.com/what-the-failure-of-the-legal-jurisdiction-bill-could-mean-for-israelis-in-judea-and-samaria/ Wed, 08 Jun 2022 08:12:47 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/what-the-failure-of-the-legal-jurisdiction-bill-could-mean-for-israelis-in-judea-and-samaria/ (June 8, 2022 / JNS) A vote in the Knesset to renew a law, which was due to expire on June 30, that applies the Israeli legal system to citizens of Judea and Samaria, and which has been in effect as “emergency regulations” since the Six-Day War of 1967, ended in defeat on Monday night. […]]]>

A vote in the Knesset to renew a law, which was due to expire on June 30, that applies the Israeli legal system to citizens of Judea and Samaria, and which has been in effect as “emergency regulations” since the Six-Day War of 1967, ended in defeat on Monday night. Although these regulations were extended without fanfare every five years, this time the government failed to muster the required votes and the bill did not pass, 58 to 52.

The law failed despite the opposition party led by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supporting it in principle. Netanyahu’s Likud party voted against it in order to embarrass its political opponents. The ruling coalition also faced internal problems, with two members, one from the Arab Ra’am party and the other from the leftist Meretz party, voting against the bill. Other Ra’am members, as well as former coalition whip Idit Silman, absented themselves from the vote.

Israeli and international media focused on the political fallout, describing the government’s failure to pass the bill as a blow to the coalition and perhaps the final nail in its coffin. (Justice Minister Gideon Saar, who supports the settlements, said before the vote that if the bill did not pass, the government would not have the right to proceed.) The government will have the opportunity to introduce the bill for another vote, although it is doubtful whether he can muster the necessary votes.

Party politics aside, the question is: what are the ramifications for Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria if the law were to expire?

During the heated week-long debate leading up to the vote, the media was filled with dire scenarios in which an estimated half a million Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria would find themselves under Jordanian law, tried by military courts, disenfranchised, unable to be drafted into the Israeli army, and cut off from their health insurance.

A May 31 legal opinion by Deputy Attorney General Avital Sompolinsky, made public by Saar, stoked those fears, warning that the law’s expiration “will make life for Israelis in Judea and Samaria difficult, if not impossible.”

Additionally, as the law provides the legal basis for Israel to detain Palestinian criminals from Judea and Samaria, including suspected terrorists, in Israeli prisons, Sompolinsky warned that more than 3,500 Palestinian security prisoners could no longer be held. detained in Israeli prisons. An alternative solution for them would have to be found, “which is also likely to have serious security consequences and dramatic logistical effects,” she said.

Speaking to JNS, Maurice Hirsch, director of legal strategies for Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli research institute specializing in Palestinian society, said that because Israel has not applied sovereignty to Judea and Samaria , the two are considered separate legal entities, “almost as much if they were two different states.

“The purpose of the regulations is to put in place a legal framework that synchronizes Israel with Judea and Samaria. They provide an easy path for otherwise potentially complicated issues,” he said.

However, Hirsch, who served for 19 years in the IDF’s military attorney general’s corps and served as director of the military prosecutor’s office in Judea and Samaria, dismissed most of the dire scenarios as “scare tactics.”

Israelis in Judea and Samaria will continue to be able to vote in elections, he said, and the idea that they will be subject to Jordanian law (Jordan occupied the area from 1948 to 1967 and Israel let the Jordanian laws in place) is “simply wrong.”

However, the issue of Palestinian security prisoners is serious, he added.

“The biggest potential danger of the law not being passed is this: how do you hold these Palestinian terrorists in the prisons in Israel? This is something that really needs to be addressed, and addressed very quickly, because there are not enough prisons in Judea and Samaria,” he said.

“Between 3,000 and 3,500 Palestinian terrorists are being held in prisons in Israel at any one time. These include maximum security prisons,” Hirsch said. “There is only one Israeli prison in Judea and Samaria, which is far too small to contain all the terrorists. When the regulations expire at the end of the month, it will be questionable what exactly is the legal basis for holding these prisoners in Israeli jails,” he added.

The long-term solution, according to Hirsch, is to institute Israeli law permanently in the territories, as was suggested under the Trump plan two years ago.

“It would be enough for the moment to apply Israeli law to all of Area C and then move on to see what happens with Areas A and B,” he said. Area A of Judea and Samaria is under Palestinian administrative and security control, in accordance with the terms of the Oslo Accords. Area B is under Palestinian administrative control, but under shared security control. Area C is under Israeli control.

Efraim Inbar, president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, said trying to enforce Israeli law in the territory will be much more difficult than renewing the current law, which he said is a “personal law “in the sense that it applies to Israeli civilians. “It’s not unlike the laws of the Middle Ages, which applied to subjects,” he told JNS.

Inbar agreed that the warnings about the consequences for Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria if the law is not passed are likely overstated.

“It seems to me that since there is a military governor in the area, he can issue an order, which is not exactly like the law, but I think it can replace the law, at least temporarily,” said he declared.

Inbar said the consequence of the law’s failure will be widely felt by politicians.

“It makes life for the right-wing segments of this coalition much more difficult,” he said.

]]>
What the failure of the legal jurisdiction bill could mean for Israelis in Judea and Samaria | JNS https://nypdholyname.com/what-the-failure-of-the-legal-jurisdiction-bill-could-mean-for-israelis-in-judea-and-samaria-jns/ Wed, 08 Jun 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/what-the-failure-of-the-legal-jurisdiction-bill-could-mean-for-israelis-in-judea-and-samaria-jns/ A vote in the Knesset to renew a law, which was due to expire on June 30, which applies the Israeli legal system to citizens of Judea and Samaria, and which has been in effect as “emergency regulations” since the Six Day War of 1967, ended in defeat Monday evening. Although these regulations were extended […]]]>

A vote in the Knesset to renew a law, which was due to expire on June 30, which applies the Israeli legal system to citizens of Judea and Samaria, and which has been in effect as “emergency regulations” since the Six Day War of 1967, ended in defeat Monday evening. Although these regulations were extended without fanfare every five years, this time the government failed to muster the required votes and the bill did not pass, 58 to 52.

The law failed despite the opposition party led by Benjamin Netanyahu supporting it in principle. Netanyahu’s Likud party voted against it in order to embarrass its political opponents. The ruling coalition also faced internal problems, with two members, one from the Arab Ra’am party and the other from the leftist Meretz party, voting against the bill. Other Ra’am members, as well as former coalition whip Idit Silman, absented themselves from the vote.

Israeli and international media focused on the political fallout, describing the government’s failure to pass the bill as a blow to the coalition and perhaps the final nail in its coffin. (Justice Minister Gideon Saar, who supports the settlements, said before the vote that if the bill did not pass, the government would not have the right to proceed.) The government will have the opportunity to introduce the bill for another vote, although it is doubtful whether he can muster the necessary votes.

Party politics aside, the question is: what are the ramifications for Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria if the law were to expire?

During the heated week-long debate leading up to the vote, the media was filled with dire scenarios in which an estimated half a million Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria would find themselves subject to Jordanian law, tried by military tribunals , disenfranchised, unable to be drafted into the Israeli army and cut off from his health insurance.

A May 31 legal opinion by Deputy Attorney General Avital Sompolinsky, made public by Saar, stoked those fears, warning that the law’s expiration “will make life for Israelis in Judea and Samaria difficult, if not impossible.”

Additionally, as the law provides the legal basis for Israel to detain Palestinian criminals from Judea and Samaria, including suspected terrorists, in Israeli prisons, Sompolinsky warned that more than 3,500 Palestinian security prisoners could no longer be held. detained in Israeli prisons. An alternative solution for them would have to be found, “which is also likely to have serious security consequences and dramatic logistical effects,” she said.

Speaking to JNS, Maurice Hirsch, director of legal strategies for Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli research institute specializing in Palestinian society, said that because Israel has not applied sovereignty to Judea and Samaria , the two are considered separate legal entities, “almost as much if they were two different states.

“The purpose of the regulations is to put in place a legal framework that synchronizes Israel with Judea and Samaria. They provide an easy path for otherwise potentially complicated issues,” he said.

However, Hirsch, who served for 19 years in the IDF’s military attorney general’s corps and served as director of the military prosecutor’s office in Judea and Samaria, dismissed most of the dire scenarios as “scare tactics.”

Israelis in Judea and Samaria will continue to be able to vote in elections, he said, and the idea that they will be subject to Jordanian law (Jordan occupied the area from 1948 to 1967 and Israel let the Jordanian laws in place) is “simply wrong.”

However, the issue of Palestinian security prisoners is serious, he added.

“The biggest potential danger of the law not being passed is this: how do you hold these Palestinian terrorists in the prisons in Israel? This is something that really needs to be addressed, and addressed very quickly, because there are not enough prisons in Judea and Samaria,” he said.

“Between 3,000 and 3,500 Palestinian terrorists are being held in prisons in Israel at any one time. These include maximum security prisons,” Hirsch said. “There is only one Israeli prison in Judea and Samaria, which is far too small to contain all the terrorists. When the regulations expire at the end of the month, it will be questionable what exactly is the legal basis for holding these prisoners in Israeli jails,” he added.

The long-term solution, according to Hirsch, is to institute Israeli law permanently in the territories, as was suggested under the Trump plan two years ago.

“It would be enough for now to apply Israeli law to all of Area C and then move on to see what happens with Areas A and B,” he said. Area A of Judea and Samaria is under Palestinian administrative and security control, in accordance with the terms of the Oslo Accords. Area B is under Palestinian administrative control, but under shared security control. Area C is under Israeli control.

Efraim Inbar, president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, said trying to enforce Israeli law in the territory will be much more difficult than renewing the current law, which he said is a “personal law “in the sense that it applies to Israeli civilians. “It’s not unlike the laws of the Middle Ages, which applied to subjects,” he told JNS.

Inbar agreed that the warnings about the consequences for Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria if the law is not passed are likely overstated.

“It seems to me that since there is a military governor in the area, he can issue an order, which is not exactly like the law, but I think it can replace the law, at least temporarily,” said he declared.

Inbar said the consequence of the law’s failure will be widely felt by politicians.

“It makes life for the right-wing segments of this coalition much more difficult,” he said.

The post office What the failure of the legal jurisdiction bill could mean for Israelis in Judea and Samaria appeared first on JNS.org.

]]>
Russian patriot receives request for change of jurisdiction from Lithuanian church https://nypdholyname.com/russian-patriot-receives-request-for-change-of-jurisdiction-from-lithuanian-church/ Sat, 28 May 2022 02:58:55 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/russian-patriot-receives-request-for-change-of-jurisdiction-from-lithuanian-church/ In a statement posted on its website, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church announced that the nine-member commission would be headed by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. The request for change was submitted by elements of the Lithuanian church who were unhappy with Cyril’s support for the Russian-led invasion on February 24. “We decided to […]]]>

In a statement posted on its website, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church announced that the nine-member commission would be headed by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.

The request for change was submitted by elements of the Lithuanian church who were unhappy with Cyril’s support for the Russian-led invasion on February 24.

“We decided to form a commission to consider the issue of amending the law of the Diocese of Vilnius-Lithuania,” the report said, adding that its findings would be submitted to the “Bishops’ Conference.”

The Russian organization TASS reports that the Lithuanian diocese belongs to the Moscow Patriots and unites churches and monasteries on the territory of Lithuania.

Vladislav Sipin, a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, one of the members of the commission, said the transfer of the diocese to the jurisdiction of Constantinople was not in question.

Sibin acknowledged that the Lithuanian Church of the Russian Orthodox Church could be granted autonomous status, as in Estonia and Latvia.

In these two Baltic countries, he told TASS, 20 to 30 percent of the national population is Orthodox, but in Lithuania there are Orthodox Belarusians and Russians.

“There is no particular logic for the diocese to have autonomous church status,” Sibin said.

Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonide, in a letter to patriot Bartholomew of Constantinople, supported the request for a change of appointment.

“The general support of the Moscow patriot Cyril for Russia’s war against Ukraine is unacceptable to some Lithuanian Orthodox Christians, therefore, according to the Prime Minister, it is natural and human. […] They have the right to practice their faith without compromising their conscience,” Simonite spokeswoman BNS said, citing The Baltic Times.

In the letter, Simonit said he was ready to meet with Bartholomew to discuss the government’s possible role in restoring “Thai Church” activities in Lithuania, according to a spokesperson.

Simonite said in the letter that the Eastern tradition is the second largest traditional religion in Lithuania and that her community has grown with the arrival of more than 50,000 Ukrainian refugees.

“Only the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople can decide whether to restore the church or parishes of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to Lithuania,” the spokesperson said.

“The Lithuanian government will engage in this process to the extent necessary to guarantee the freedom of faith, conscience and religion enshrined in Article 26 of the Constitution for all Lithuanian citizens,” he added.

According to the newspaper, the letter from the Lithuanian Prime Minister was delivered to Barthélemy on May 18 by the Lithuanian Ambassador to Turkey, Ricardos Decudis.

This decision was not supported by the head of the Lithuanian Orthodox diocese, Innocencio, who criticized the government for unknowingly funding the request.

According to Innocent, the majority of Lithuanian Orthodox Christians do not think about changing jurisdictions.

The head of the Lithuanian Orthodox Church has already sacked five priests who criticized the Russian Orthodox Church’s support for the invasion of Ukraine and the Kremlin.

Innocent accused the Orthodox clergy of calling for the transfer of power to Constantinople, a threat to the stability of Lithuanian society.

The Lithuanian Orthodox Church, one of the nine traditional religious communities in Lithuania, has 2.7 million followers in the Baltic, 5% of whom are mostly Catholics.

Cyril, who has close ties to the Kremlin, in his speeches called on Russians to strengthen their ties with the Kremlin and the Russian military in the holy war against the “Antichrist”, who represents the Ukrainian government and Western partisans .

The Russian patriot promoted the idea of ​​a “Russian world” which would include places where the Russian language was spoken and practiced the Orthodox faith and should become Moscow’s sphere of influence, regardless of international borders, in a messianic mission protection from the Russians. . Russians their traditional values.

Just today, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UPTS) announces its separation from the Moscow Patriarchate because of its open support for Russian “special military action” in Ukraine.

“We express our disagreement with the position of the Moscow patriot Cyril on the war in Ukraine,” the UPTS statement read on its website.

That is why the UPTS Council decided today to declare “full autonomy and independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church”.

“The Council urges the Ukrainian and Russian authorities to continue the negotiation process and find a strong and sensible word to stop the bloodshed,” he added.

]]>
Texas Supreme Court gives state district courts jurisdiction over water rights disputes https://nypdholyname.com/texas-supreme-court-gives-state-district-courts-jurisdiction-over-water-rights-disputes/ Fri, 27 May 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/texas-supreme-court-gives-state-district-courts-jurisdiction-over-water-rights-disputes/ WACO, Texas (KWTX) – In a landmark decision governing water rights issues, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in a McLennan County case that state district courts – not the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality – have jurisdiction over water rights ownership disputes in Texas. The notice reverses a split decision by the Waco 10th Court […]]]>

WACO, Texas (KWTX) – In a landmark decision governing water rights issues, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in a McLennan County case that state district courts – not the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality – have jurisdiction over water rights ownership disputes in Texas.

The notice reverses a split decision by the Waco 10th Court of Appeals and returns the case to the Waco 74th District Court for retrial pursuant to the Supreme Court’s notice.

The only issue on appeal in the case involving Pape Partners, Glenn R. Pape and Kenneth W. Pape v. DRR Family Properties was whether the TCEQ had jurisdiction to adjudicate the conflicting ownership claims of surface water rights.

The court ruled that these claims should be decided in court, which reverses the decisions of State 74th District Judge Gary Coley Jr., who dismissed the case, and the Waco Intermediate Court of Appeals, who upheld Coley’s order. Chief Justice Tom Gray of the 10th Court of Appeal disagreed with the opinion signed by former Justices Rex Davis and Al Scoggins.

While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, a number of groups, including the TCEQ, the Texas Farm Bureau, the Texas Water Conservation Association and the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, filed amicus briefs supporting the Pope’s argument that the matter should be decided in court, not by the TCEQ.

The opinion, submitted by Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht, even quotes the TCEQ amicus brief, saying that “the commission explains that the referenced term ‘water rights arbitration’…is a technical term under of the Texas Water Code and relates to the commission’s issuance of award certificates” which imply that the commission “determines the amount of use, location of use, purpose of use, point of diversion, the diversion rate and, where applicable, the area to be irrigated”.

“It is, in TCEQ’s own words, an ‘administrative record keeping function’. Only legal proceedings can determine ownership of property,” the notice states.

In a statement released Friday, the Texas Farm Bureau said it was satisfied with the decision.

“Texas Farm Bureau was pleased that the Texas Supreme Court overturned the Waco Court of Appeals and determined – as we argued in our amicus brief – that the district courts, not the TCEQ, have jurisdiction over water title disputes.”

In a summary of the case, the Supreme Court opinion notes that in 2014 the Popes purchased a 1,086-acre farm in McLennan County, including the right to use water diverted from the Brazos River for irrigation under a permit issued by the TCEQ.

TCEQ issued a surface water use permit called a certificate of adjudication to a person whose ownership of the “water rights of a stream” was ultimately determined by a district court after both an initial administrative process, then a final judicial process,” according to the notice.

The Popes have registered their purchase of water rights with the TCEQ, and the agency has contacted other potentially interested landowners they may hold an interest in water rights, including an adjacent landowner. , DRR. DRR filed a change of ownership form and the TCEQ determined that DRR owned a portion of the water use rights.

The popes appealed the decision, which was rejected, leading to their lawsuit seeking a declaration that they own all water rights to the property they purchased.

DRR filed a motion for summary judgment, saying the Popes had not exhausted their administrative remedies. Coley granted the motion to dismiss, which the Popes appealed.

In a judicial amicus brief filed with the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Water Conservation Association asserted that the Texas Water Code does not give the TCEQ exclusive jurisdiction to resolve conflicting ownership claims of surface water rights. and that the separation of powers doctrine prohibits the TCEQ from adjudicating such disputes.

Copyright 2022 KWTX. All rights reserved.

]]>
Northern Cyprus has exclusive jurisdiction over Varosha: Ministry https://nypdholyname.com/northern-cyprus-has-exclusive-jurisdiction-over-varosha-ministry/ Sun, 22 May 2022 10:55:00 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/northern-cyprus-has-exclusive-jurisdiction-over-varosha-ministry/ The partially reopened, once ghost town of Maraş (Varosha) is solely under the jurisdiction of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), the Foreign Ministry said on Saturday. “The Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus continues to make statements to mislead international public opinion regarding the fenced area of ​​Maraş,” the TRNC Foreign Ministry said […]]]>

The partially reopened, once ghost town of Maraş (Varosha) is solely under the jurisdiction of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), the Foreign Ministry said on Saturday.

“The Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus continues to make statements to mislead international public opinion regarding the fenced area of ​​Maraş,” the TRNC Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

He denied allegations by the Greek Cypriot administration that the TRNC authorities had decided to open a new beach.

“In fact, the TRNC government has started to rehabilitate a beach, which was already in use, for the benefit of its visitors, mainly for their safety,” the ministry said.

The statement stressed that the TRNC will not seek permission from any other authority, especially the Greek Cypriot side, regarding the measures that will be taken in the fenced area of ​​Varosha.

“While there are many other important issues on the global agenda, the disinformation of the Greek Cypriot administration of southern Cyprus occupying the UN as well as other international and regional organizations shows the irresponsibility of the Greek Cypriot administration in southern Cyprus,” he added.

Varosha is a suburb of Famagusta (Gazimağosa), a city which was the tourist center of the island before 1974 thanks to its pristine beaches and modern hotels. Varosha was a famous resort on the island which boasted of a capacity of 10,000 beds in over 100 hotels. Turkish military forces intervened on the island following a Greek-backed coup, ending years of persecution and violence against Turkish Cypriots by ultra-nationalist Greek Cypriots. After Varosha’s 15,000 Greek Cypriot residents fled in the face of advancing Turkish troops, the area was fenced to prevent access until October 2019, when Turkish and Turkish Cypriot authorities announced it would reopen.

Varosha was abandoned after a 1984 United Nations Security Council resolution declaring that only its original inhabitants could resettle in the town. Entry into the city was prohibited, except for Turkish army personnel stationed in the TRNC. Had the Greek Cypriots accepted the 2004 UN Cyprus reunification plan, known as the Annan Plan, Varosha would now be back under Greek Cypriot control and its people back to their homes. Despite this, the majority of Greek Cypriots voted against the plan, while Turkish Cypriots voted for it.

Varosha had practically become a ghost town as it remained cut off from the world for some 47 years. Part of the area – around 3.5% of the total area – was reopened in October 2020, with visitors invited to visit between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. daily. Since the reopening, Varosha has attracted both TRNC residents and foreign tourists, with the environment and landscape around the town also enhancing its appeal.

Sabah’s daily newsletter

Keep up to date with what is happening in Turkey, in its region and in the world.


You can unsubscribe anytime. By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

]]>
Lawmakers introduce bipartisan bill to expand US jurisdiction over war crimes https://nypdholyname.com/lawmakers-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-expand-us-jurisdiction-over-war-crimes/ Wed, 18 May 2022 21:31:00 +0000 https://nypdholyname.com/lawmakers-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-expand-us-jurisdiction-over-war-crimes/ A bipartisan group of senators on Wednesday introduced a bill that would expand the power of the United States to investigate war crimes. the New legislation, introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), would allow the United States to prosecute suspected war criminals, […]]]>

A bipartisan group of senators on Wednesday introduced a bill that would expand the power of the United States to investigate war crimes.

the New legislation, introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), would allow the United States to prosecute suspected war criminals, regardless of the location and targets of their alleged actions.

Current law only allows the prosecution of those accused of committing war crimes in the United States or against Americans abroad. If an accused war criminal subsequently traveled to the United States, they would still not be prosecuted under current law.

PENTAGON WATCHDOG FINDS PROBLEMS WITH “OVER THE HORIZON” STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN

The bill’s introduction comes as Ukraine and other countries investigate alleged war crimes committed by Russian soldiers during their nearly three-month military operation.

“The United States should not be a haven for war criminals seeking to escape justice in their home countries,” Grassley said. “While current laws hold war criminals accountable for acts against Americans, war criminals entering the United States should not be granted a free pass simply because they did not target Americans. Americans This bill sends a strong message that people who commit war crimes are not welcome here and should be punished, no matter where their offense was committed or who they were victimized.

A 21-year-old Russian soldier accused of killing an unarmed civilian in Ukraine pleaded guilty on Wednesday in the first war crimes trial of a Russian soldier since the invasion in late February.

Vadim Shishimarin appeared before a full courthouse in kyiv, telling the judge he was “fully” guilty and refusing to speak further.

The soldier is accused of killing a 62-year-old unarmed Ukrainian by shooting him in late February while riding a bicycle in a village in the Sumy region of northeastern Ukraine.

“We still have no information on this case. And the ability to provide assistance is also very limited due to the absence of our diplomatic mission [in Ukraine]. But, once again, I repeat: I have no information on this case,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

A day earlier, the State Department announced the creation of the Conflict Observatory, which will work to “capture, analyze, and widely disseminate evidence of Russian war crimes and other atrocities in Ukraine,” according to a report. statement from the department.

Ukrainian Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova said her office had opened more than 10,000 investigations into individual acts of alleged war crimes. Criminal charges have been filed against at least 10 Russian soldiers for human rights abuses linked to reports that soldiers “took unarmed civilians hostage, killed them from hunger and thirst, held them to their knees , hands tied and eyes closed, mocked and beaten”.

]]>