#challenged transit remand | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ilovejevsjeans · 3 years

Text

WHAT MAKES ‘PECULIAR’ McLAREN SO HARD FOR RICCIARDO TO MASTER

The esoteric driving-style demands of the McLaren MCL35M have been laid bare during the 2021 Formula 1 season by Lando Norris consistently producing superb performances while new team-mate Daniel Ricciardo has faced a long, hard and often fruitless slog to adapt.

Norris and former McLaren team-mate Carlos Sainz also found the car tricky to drive, but ultimately adapted well. But over his first 11 races as a McLaren driver, Ricciardo has been frustrated by attempting to implement a counter-intuitive driving style required by what he’s described as a “peculiar” car.

“I knew straight away it was a different beast,” said Ricciardo of the McLaren-Mercedes MCL35M.

“I’d be lying if I said the Renault wasn’t a different beast to the Red Bull, so they are all different. But there’s certainly some things where this car is slightly more peculiar. That’s the puzzle that I’m still trying to solve.

“But every car will respond and react differently, and this one’s got a couple of other things, I guess.”

Usually, you would expect a driver of Ricciardo’s high calibre to get on top of a new car after half-a-dozen races. Certainly, he thought that was how long the process would take before reluctantly admitting more recently that his struggles are “a reality” rather than a temporary problem.

McLaren’s executive director of racing, Andrea Stella, suggests the problem is Ricciardo is from the “opposite end” in terms of driving style. But what exactly is it about the McLaren that is so specific and has caused so many struggles, and why can’t these characteristics be dialled out easily?

“What we kept is some characteristics of our car that make it very special to drive, which we see with the experience Daniel is going through because he came from the opposite end in terms of how you would like to drive a Formula 1 car,” said Stella of the transition from 2020 to ’21.

“Our car requires some special adaptation, while we work to improve this aspect. It’s no secret that our car is good in high-speed corners and may not be the best car when you have to roll speed in mid-corner.

“We are trying to adjust some of the characteristics to make it a little bit more manageable to drive. At the same time, the important thing to deliver is aerodynamic efficiency, even if we couldn’t necessarily improve in terms of balance and [driver] exploitation of the car.

“We are relatively happy with the rate of improvement of aerodynamic efficiency that we have been able to achieve in early races and hopefully a little bit more will be coming in the next races.”

So let’s delve a little more into the characteristics of the McLaren that have stymied Ricciardo. In keeping with what Stella says about high-speed performance, Silverstone in July was a strong qualifying performance relative to Norris, even though he struggled for race pace.

But Silverstone is a high-speed circuit without so many medium and slow speed corners that remand more rotation of the car. It’s here, with the kinds of corners that dominate at the Red Bull Ring and Hungaroring, which hosted the races either side of Silverstone, that have proved difficult.

Ricciardo’s problem is that he likes to carry speed into the corner by braking a little earlier (except when making one of his trademark overtaking moves) and rolling the speed into the corner. The McLaren has a front-end weakness that is mitigated by braking later, but then appears to still require a relatively progressive application of steering lock.

Ricciardo has struggled to do this, often braking earlier than Norris and ending up with the car under-rotated, meaning he is still traction limited for longer in the exit phase than Norris simply because he’s effectively extending the corner.

“He’s a driver who likes to roll the speed in the corner and not necessarily attack the braking as much as our car requires,” said Stella. “We understood very quickly what the issue was. We could model this aspect, which means Daniel knows what to do in terms of working on the simulator, in terms of coaching the driver. But the progress that we do see race after race is not necessarily a switch.

“Sometimes I use the example of a musician. You can tell him how to play the guitar, you can use a lot of theory but at some stage he will have to spend quite a lot of time with the guitar and make quite a lot of exercises. You don’t necessarily take a step in concerts. Most of the progress you make will be when you work in background at home and you spend hours and hours exercising.”

Just as Ricciardo has done, Stella points out the lack of testing opportunities has made this problem harder to get on top of. Ricciardo had just a day-and-a-half in the car pre-season and since then has done his learning on race weekends. At times, he’s been intensively coached by race engineer Tom Stallard as he battles to tune into a driving style he’s at odds with.

But this has to fit in with the usual work of the race weekend and can’t waste time doing needless experimentation. It’s an extra distraction, but Stella says he’s “optimistic” Ricciardo will eventually get on top of it – and has been impressed with how his racecraft has at least made it possible to put together a solid run of results, albeit only scoring 50 points compared to Norris’s 113.

The obvious question is why McLaren can’t simply change the characteristics of its car. After all, we have seen other drivers who had to adapt to the machinery be met in the middle by teams, notably Fernando Alonso who benefitted from a power steering change that gave him the sensitivity he needed to optimise his driving style.

But in the case of the McLaren, it is more about the aerodynamic characteristics than the mechanical ones. And even if the trait could be eliminated, it would likely make the car less competitive. The need to brake late and the fact the car can have a weak front end perhaps indicates the necessity to be more aggressive in shifting the aero centre of pressure forwards at corner entry in lower and mid-speed corners.

If you brake earlier and roll the car into the corner as Ricciardo wants to, the aero centre of pressure will not be as far forward as if the car is on the nose. But in attempting to make this style work, there is also a more aggressive shift in the aero centre of pressure rearward as the driver comes off the brakes, which also appears to be creating a limitation for Ricciardo in the corner entry phase.

It’s also a style that is close to Norris’s default approach, although it’s important to note that he’s put a huge amount of effort into evolving his driving style in recent years.

At the end of 2019, he spoke about experimenting with his style in the Abu Dhabi test and given he and Sainz struggled in different ways, the pair were able to learn from each other. The result of that was a tricky car but that both could make work – but creates a driving challenge that surprised Ricciardo.

Stella is uncertain how long this characteristic has been in the DNA of the McLaren, although it appears to have been for some time. After all, progressing along development paths often augments such characteristics over time.

“We have been scratching our heads on how long this characteristic goes back in time,” said Stella.

“The aerodynamics is where the forces come from and I think it goes back to some seasons before the current season. It’s a set of characteristics in terms of how the car delivers the aerodynamic forces, which is not new to this year’s car.

“This year’s car is a close sister of last year’s and there’s certainly a close relationship to the previous years’ cars. So it has to do with the methodology that can produce quick cars, but with some [specific] characteristics.”

It’s also important to remember that the aerodynamic characteristics are not independent of the mechanical ones.

What’s crucial is the interaction of the mechanical platform and the aero – as well as the all-important aero performance of the floor.

This is not just about how the car is loaded up front to rear, but also in other directions. It’s a hugely complex equation to capture these interactions through all phases of a corner and this is where understanding of the characteristics will lie. This is why McLaren is largely stuck with the characteristics for the rest of the season.

“F1 cars are entirely dominated by aerodynamic delivery,” said Stella. “Then you work with suspension and the other mechanical aspects, but those aspects are often compensation and integration, not the leading parameter which is the aerodynamic delivery of the car at the various attitudes, the attitudes being the front ride height, the rear ride height, the yaw angle, the roll angle.

“This is what causes the car to be strong in a straight line and to be less strong as soon as you generate some yaw angle or rotation of the car. At the same time, when I talk about aerodynamics, this is definitely what leads to this characteristic, but it is also quite difficult to fine tune because to generate the aerodynamic forces you need to establish floor structure.

“It takes months or years of development to consolidate these floor structures so that you can achieve the aerodynamic efficiency of the car is absolutely astonishing and never matched in the past by any Formula 1 car.

“So when you embed these characteristics so deeply, it is difficult to change them. So it’s easier to work with mechanical aspects, but even those aspects are relatively limited because of homologation in 2021.

“You find yourself relatively stuck and that’s why a lot of the requirement and a lot of the demand shifts to the driver’s side. This is the tool, it’s quick, but it needs to be driven in a certain way.

“There’s not much we can do at the moment. So while we can improve the aerodynamic efficiency, it is a lot more difficult to improve some of the characteristics with a mind to the driving style.”

You might assume that these characteristics will be eliminated next year given the comprehensive change in regulations, but Stella suggests it is possible that it could be a consequence of the methodology used by McLaren.

If it’s a product of the underlying science, then it’s possible the characteristics could carry over. This is why Ricciardo can’t simply ride out the season then start anew in 2022. What’s more, given it has produced a competitive car, it would be wrong to say that McLaren has got things wrong.

All F1 cars have what is called ‘limit behaviour’, particularly when it comes to corner entry. Some aspects will always ‘give up’ first and it’s simply that McLaren is a more extreme example of the tradeoffs present in most cars.

“I find this quite typical,” said Stella when asked if this was something he had encountered before. “Even going back to my days at Ferrari there were various seasons in which the cars were pretty much experiencing similar characteristics.

“It’s always a bit difficult to find the right blend between having the car which is strong in mid-corner and maintains good characteristics in straightline speed. Conversely, if you focus your car on straightline and high-speed, then it comes a bit difficult to maintain good aerodynamics in the middle of a corner

“It’s not McLaren specific. What is McLaren specific is that our car is clearly on one side of this typical split of characteristics that you can achieve.” (X)

#daniel ricciardo #articles #andrea stella #dan

23 notes · View notes

coochiequeens · 3 years

Text

The herself is a himself.

A convicted child rapist who is banned from owning internet devices unless approved threatened to kill herself when one was found at her home.

Alex Smith, who is transitioning from male to female and is formally known as Matthew Burren, was arrested after officers carried out an unannounced visit to her home in Beaulieu Close, Toothill, Swindon, yesterday (1 March).

On arrival, she was asked whether she had any internet-capable devices they were not aware of. She told officers she did not, however, when they logged onto the router they found an unknown Samsung mobile phone connected to it.

Smith denied any knowledge of the device, but when challenged she indicated towards a red coat in the room. The Samsung mobile phone was subsequently found beneath it.

She then picked up a pair of scissors, walked towards the officer and said “I’m going to kill myself”. She was arrested and taken to Gablecross Police Station where she was charged and remanded in custody overnight.

At Swindon Magistrates’ Court today, the 28-year-old admitted breaching the terms of a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) – which prevents her from owning internet-enabled devices without seeking permission from probation service officers prior – by failing to declare the device for inspection.

Taking into account four previous breaches of the SHPO and that the sentencing starting point for the offence is 12 months in custody, district judge Joanna Dickens adjourned the case so the defendant can talk through a report with the probation service.

Bailing the defendant without conditions, she said: “Obviously people have concerns about you, but I’m going to take a chance”.

Adding: “It’s really important that you cooperate with probation… that’s really going to help the court make the best decision on the sentence.”

Smith is next due to appear before Swindon Magistrates Court on 12 April.

Don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter so you don't miss the latest 999 news. If you spot an ongoing incident please text our 24-hour tip-off line: 07794 802 940.

Why was this pervert even out of prison? And why didn’t the cops just call the bluff and then cover for each other?

#Just another TIM sex offender #Child rapist #Swindon #alex smith is really Matthew burren #Don’t let the press get away with calling him a her

3 notes · View notes

net4news · 3 years

Text

Delhi court grants interim bail to 18-year-old in GST fraud case | Delhi News - Net4News

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has granted interim bail to an 18-year-old in an alleged GST fraud case registered in Maharashtra, noting that the accused was juvenile at the time of commission of offence in 2019. Additional Sessions Judge Rakesh Kumar admitted the accused on interim bail for seven days considering the Covid-19 pandemic situation and in the interest of justice, subject to various conditions. The accused, who was arrested on July 14 from Delhi's Rohini area, has been asked not to operate his bank accounts during the bail period, co-operate in the investigation and not leave the national capital without the court's permission. The sessions judge granted relief by July 15 order setting aside an order of a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) passed on the same day, in which three-days transit remand of the accused was granted to the Maharashtra Police to produce him before a Mumbai court. The Additional Sessions Judge noted that from the bare perusal of the order of MM, it is revealed the provisions of Section 9 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Act) were not followed despite the submission of claim of juvenility of the accused. Advocate Pradeep Rana, counsel of the accused, had challenged the order passed by the MM on the grounds that the judge failed to consider the fact that the accused was juvenile during the commission of crime and called the order "bad in the eye of law." According to the Additional Public Prosecutor Kumar Sanjay, his arrest was required for the prevention and proper investigation as he had the knowledge of crime and still continues to run it. The case pertains to alleged GST evasion of more than Rs four crore by a man in Mumbai and transfer of fraudulent money to the bank accounts linked to the mobile number of accused. During the investigation, the accused disclosed that he was transferring money from one account to another on being guided by his father Dipak Goyal and two others, the prosecutor said. On this, the judge said that since the alleged offence was committed in 2019, therefore it is "prima facie established that the accused was juvenile at the time of the commission of offence" and hence his disclosure statement is not relevant at the current stage. The case was registered on the complaint filed by Swati Laxman Shinde, Assistant Commissioner of State, Sales Tax in Mumbai at DB Marg police station. Prakash Chand Meghwal, Gagan Jindal, Anurag Gupta, Shyam Sunder, Nikku and Dipak Kumar Goyal are accused in the case. Source link Read the full article

#Delhicourt #Delhicourtgrantsinterimbailto18-year-old #Delhilatestnews #Delhinews #Delhinewslive #Delhinewstoday #GSTfraudcase #interimbail #juvenile #TodaynewsDelhi

0 notes

ultrabobsmith42word · 3 years

Text

What are the justifications for objection to Arizona and Pennsylvania votes?

This is the justification Issa posted on Facebook:

Darrell Issa January 8 at 2:11 PM ·

It is in America’s enduring national interest that we do not ignore what we know to be wrong with the 2020 elections.

The U.S. Constitution clearly states that it is the responsibility of the state legislatures — not courts — to direct the manner in which members of the Electoral College are selected. Last Wednesday, I recorded my objection to two states where this provision of the Constitution was violated by courts that changed election procedure without legislative approval.

In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court extended the ballot deadline in violation of state statute. In Arizona, the Federal District Court changed election registration deadlines in violation of the state statute, which allowed tens of thousands of voters to inappropriately cast votes.

I recognize the COVID pandemic necessitated some election changes. These election laws, however, should have been changed by state legislatures, consistent with the Constitution. In fact, this is exactly what occurred in California last year when I was forced to sue the Governor after he violated the U.S. Constitution by unilaterally changing election laws via executive order. We were successful, and the Governor and the California Legislature then appropriately codified his executive order.

My colleagues and I spoke out in support of ballot integrity and the sacred right to vote. The process is now complete and a peaceful and orderly transition of power will occur, as it should.

https://www.facebook.com/darrellissa/posts/10157931929622993

These are the justifications posted by Gosar and Hawley:

“Be ready to defend the Constitution and the White House,” Mr. Gosar wrote in an op-ed titled “Are We Witnessing a Coup d’État?” https://www.revolver.news/2020/12/congressman-paul-gosars-open-letter-to-arizona-are-we-witnessing-a-coup-detat/

@RepGosar · Jan 6 I rise to ask that the Vice President, @Mike_Pence remand the electors back to Arizona pending a full forensic audit of the Maricopa County tabulations.

Sen. Hawley Still Objects to the Election Results in Pa. After DC Chaos The Missouri senator said he did not support violence but said the Senate should go forward with a legal process that includes his objections.

Cheney has posted a 21 page memo denouncing her colleagues:

House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney of Wyoming has directly denounced the effort by several GOP lawmakers to oppose the Electoral College certification of President-elect Joe Biden's win on Wednesday.

Upholding Our Fidelity To The Constitution:

Please review the below document that I sent to my Republican colleagues about the Constitutional process involving Congress’s certification of the Electoral College:2020 Presidential Election Challenges in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and Our Constitutional Process.

https://cheney.house.gov/2021/01/07/upholding-our-fidelity-to-the-constitution/

Issa Gosar and Hawley should be removed and sanctioned.

#seditious #Insurrection #collaborators #conspiracy

0 notes

supremekalmllc · 3 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://supremekalm.com/hemp-litigation-update-legal-challenge-to-indianassmokable-hemp-ban-continues/

Hemp Litigation Update: Legal Challenge to Indiana’s Smokable Hemp Ban Continues

Is it legal to sell smokable hemp? Our cannabis and hemp CBD attorneys are asked this question frequently. Without fail, their answer is it that depends on where you want to sell smokable hemp. (We provide a CBD Risk Matrix 50-state survey of the rules and regulations governing the sale of smokable hemp and other Hemp CBD products including ingestible and &#2013266080;cosmetic products). Because state laws, rules, and regulations are changing frequently, sometimes in connection with litigation, we research and update the entries for each state on a monthly basis.

This post is about Indiana, which prohibits the sale of smokable hemp, and a lawsuit that seeks to overturn that prohibition. A bit of background will be helpful. As we wrote in July 2020:

Indiana has long been at the forefront of hemp product regulations. Two years ago in 2018, Indiana passed a comprehensive law that regulated low-THC hemp extracts. At the time, state-level regulation of CBD was mostly limited to medical marijuana programs in conservative states that only allowed CBD extracts for use by medical patients. Very few states were making the distinction for CBD derived from hemp (Hemp CBD) and fewer still were imposing manufacturing, testing, and labeling requirements .

Indianaâ€™s hemp framework, however, was similar to the packing and labeling requirements for cannabis products in west coast states where recreational marijuana is legal. One such requirement Indiana adopted was a scannable QR Code. (See prior link for more detail). Similar requirements were then adopted in Utah, Louisiana, and Texas. We may see more states adopting similar requirements, and possibly even the FDA. So should everyone do what Indiana is doing? No.

In 2019, Indiana passed Senate Enrolled Act 516 (â€œSEA 516â€) to bring Indianaâ€™s definition of hemp in line with the 2018 Farm Bill and to establish a regulatory framework for hemp production. SEA 516 criminalized the possession of â€œsmokable hemp,â€ which it defines as any industrial hemp product â€œin a form that allows THC to be introduced into the human body by inhalation of smoke.â€ Ind. Code Â§ 35-48-1- 26.6. The law provides that â€œ[a] person who knowingly or intentionally manufactures, finances the manufacture of, delivers, finances the delivery of, or possesses smokable hemp â€¦ commits dealing in smokable hemp, a Class A misdemeanor.â€ Ind. Code Â§ 35-48-4-10.1.

In short, Indiana made it a crime to manufacture, deliver, or possess smokable hemp. The law was challenged in a federal lawsuit arguing, among other things, that the ban on smokable hemp was preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill. That lawsuit was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an opinion this past summer. You can read our coverage of that opinion here.

While that appeal was pending, Indiana enacted Senate Enrolled Act 335 (â€œSEA 335â€), which limited the scope of the scope of SEA 516 in an attempt to save the law. But SEA 335 did not make smokable hemp legal. Rather, SEA 335 tried to make it clear the prohibition on the delivery and possession of smokable hemp did â€œnot apply to the shipment of smokable hemp from a licensed producer in another state in continuous transit through Indiana to a licensed handler in any state.â€ So smokable hemp passing through Indiana to another state is â€œlegalâ€, whereas smokable hemp otherwise possessed or delivered in Indiana is not. And that is not good for sellers and buyers of smokable hemp.

The Seventh Circuit remanded the case and plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add claims challenging both SEA 516 and SEA 535 and to conform their complaint to the Seventh Circuitâ€™s decision. This meant including allegations that:

SEA 516 violates the 2018 Farm Billâ€™s prohibition on restricting the interstate transport of hemp products, a problem which was not remedied by SEA 335 because SEA 335 imposes licensing requirements that are not included in the 2018 Farm Bill; thus, Plaintiffs now allege that both statutes are expressly preempted. Plaintiffs also allege that the criminalization of hemp bud and hemp flower in SEA 516 conflicts with the 2014 Farm Billâ€™s legalization of all parts of the hemp plant, including hemp bud and flower, and the 2018 Farm Billâ€™s reaffirmation of the legalization of all parts of the hemp plant and its clear prohibition against states modifying the federal definition of hemp, and is therefore conflict preempted. Y. Wholesale, Inc. v. Holcomb, No. 119CV02659SEBTAB, 2020 WL 6583069, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2020).

Although federal rules provide that courts should freely permit amendment, the standard differs when the defendant contends that amendment would be â€œfutile,â€ which the defendants argued here in opposition to the motion to amend. When a party argues that an amendment would be â€œfutile,â€ the party is saying, â€œListen judge, you should not let the other side amend because the new complaint cannot survive a motion to dismiss. Even if everything in the new complaint were true, the plaintiffs will lose as a matter of law. So granting the motion to amend is futile.â€ When a party makes this argument, the court analyzes the proposed amendment under a motion to dismiss standardâ€”nowhere near as lenient as the rule directing courts to â€œfreely permitâ€ amendments.

Luckily for sellers of smokable hemp everywhere, the trial court disagreed with the defendants and granted the motion to amend. This ruling means that plaintiffs may continue their legal challenge to Indianaâ€™s smokable hemp ban, though the trial court noted that plaintiffs face a steep uphill battle. If plaintiffs ultimately prevail, then Indianaâ€™s prohibition on smokable hemp will be struck down. Perhaps just as important, other states with smokable hemp bans may see those statutes fall, and still other states will be reluctant to enact bans on smokable hemp products. On the other hand, if Indiana prevails in keeping the ban, we may see other states enact similar measures. We will continue to watch this case closely.

The post Hemp Litigation Update: Legal Challenge to Indianaâ€™s Smokable Hemp Ban Continues appeared first on Harris Bricken.

0 notes

rightsinexile · 4 years

Text

Table of Contents

Issue 115, September 2020

ISSN 2049-2650

Editorial Team: Nejla Sammakia, Christian Jorgensen, Cristina de Nicolás Izquierdo, Taylor Brooks, Lucia Slot, Adam Severson, Nastassja White, Lena Ellen Becker, Muchengeti Hwacha, Saskia Llewellyn and Rosa da Costa.

Chief Editor: Fiona McKinnon

Web links are in blue.

In this issue:

Articles & Short Pieces

Wishful waiting: Four reasons to curb our impatience for the European Pact on Asylum and Migration

Follow the bouncing ball: Persecution and the shifting burden of proof in the US

Refugee eligibility: Challenging stereotypes and reviving the “benefit of the doubt”

How Europe outsourced the Syrian refugee crisis to Lebanon

Registration and Refugee Status Determination: A missing link

The US Supreme Court’s attack on habeas corpus in DHS v. Thuraissigiam

Diversity and inclusion: Blockchain technology and digital identity for stateless Rohingya refugees

Fourteen principles of protection for migrants and displaced people during COVID-19

Refugee-led organizations: The time is now

Five “safe and legal” asylum alternatives to cut Channel crossings to the UK

Age assessment and the protection of minor asylum seekers: Time for a harmonised approach in the EU

What is the UK’s Adults at Risk policy?

Complementary refugee pathways: Labour mobility schemes

Crossfire and criminal cases: How Bangladesh’s counter-trafficking actions changed the game for migrants and refugees in Southeast Asia

News on Countries of Origin

News on Countries of Asylum

Detention and Deportation News

Statelessness

Case Notes

Protecting the formal rule of law in the EU’s asylum policy: The CJEU’s judgment on the asylum relocation mechanism

Federal Court confirms that sending refugee claimants back to the US breaks Canadian law

US Court of Appeals remands CAT case for LGBTIQ individual

US Court of Appeals upholds injunction seeking to bar asylum-seekers at US-Mexico border

US Court of Appeals on adverse credibility finding

US Court of Appeals grants petition for review of BIA decision to remove CAT protection

French Council of State finds the Ministry of the Interior responsible for violation of the right to seek asylum at the border

Inhuman and degrading living conditions of homeless asylum-seekers in France violates ECHR Article 3

UK’s Upper Tribunal ruling on discretion to reunite refugee families under Dublin III

Landmark decision on “particular social group” in the UK

Finland: Kurdish appellant would face real risk of suffering serious harm if returned to Turkey

Switzerland: Procedural failings when processing an asylum request of an alleged unaccompanied minor

UK Court of Appeal backs order to disclose refugee asylum records

CJEU judgment on the consequences of a failure to conduct a personal interview prior to an inadmissibility decision

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Holding asylum applicants in Hungarian transit zones amounts to arbitrary detention

Italy’s Constitutional Court rules on the refusal to allow applicants of international protection to register their residence in local municipalities

Italian residence permit provided on humanitarian grounds due to COVID-19 situation in country of origin

ECHR communicated cases against Italy

Poland improperly rejected Chechen asylum claims, European court rules

Arrest and detention of asylum applicants by Ukrainian authorities amounted to violation of Article 5 ECHR

Opinion/Editorial

Are most asylum seekers really not credible?

Egyptian state security threats security-dominated judiciary will not discourage human rights defenders from protecting the rights of Egyptians

The US hired me to protect refugees. Now it tells me to abandon them.

There is a politics of death in asylum

Greece has a deadly new migration policy — and all of Europe is to blame

Hong Kong activists now face a choice: Stay silent, or flee the city. The world must give them a path to safety.

Trump's new asylum rules extinguish hope for LGBTQ asylum seekers in the US

Inventing a “migrant invasion” is part of a toxic rhetorical ploy

COVID-19 and the chance to reform US refugee policy

How to elevate Rohingya women’s voices amid a crackdown on the Coronavirus

The Rohingya genocide and the ICJ: The role of the international community

Faith groups, businesses and activists in the UK unite to demand asylum rights

Refugee resettlement is close to collapse in the US. That was Trump’s plan.

Announcements

Launch of Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies

Conferences, courses and workshops

Calls for papers

Vacancies

Requests

Resources

Publications

Newsletters

#asylum #asylum seeker #refugee #IRRI #Rights in Exile

0 notes

kerahlekung · 4 years

Text

Sapa lagi bakal melompat...

Sapa lagi bakal melompat....

youtube

Dulu, waktu kjaan PH perkenalkan e-wallet, lebai2 bangang ni tunjuk cerdik. Mereka kata e-wallet ni agenda cina DAP utk lariskan perniagaan mereka kerana kedai2 dan pasaraya cina yg byk boleh guna e-wallet. Kedai mak cik kiah yg jual goreng pisang mana ada guna e-wallet, kata lebai yg berjanggut sejemput ini. E-Tin Milo ada kot...

Nah, sekarang kjaan pintu belakang yg mendakwa kjaan Melayu Islam ini nak guna e-wallet pulak. Ertinya, kedai Mak Cik kiah goreng pisang skrg telah guna e-wallet kalaupun bukan "E-Wallaun" mungkin E-Tin Milo... Selidik2 punya selidik rupa2nya walaun ni bising sebab tak cukup RM20 jer. Ceh! 20 henggek punya pasal, berbakul DAP kena maki... - f/bk

youtube

A reminder to those dealing with authorities...

It was a reported a few days ago that an aide to the Muar MP, Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, alleged in a press conference that she was harassed by officers from the MACC. The aide, Siti Nurul Hidayah (above), claimed that MACC officers shouted vulgar words to her and threatened to physically assault her. She also claimed that the officers ordered her to stand on one leg and raise both hands for 30 minutes. The press conference garnered public attention. After the MACC’s image which went through a recovery stage during the Pakatan Harapan administration, what was said to have happened to Siti Nurul was worrying. Many raised alarm bells of a return to the "dark days" of old, when state institutions were abused for political purposes. The MACC has denied the allegations. A police report has been lodged, and it is hoped that a transparent and free investigation will be conducted by the relevant authorities. At the same time, the issues surrounding the allegations are hotly discussed. Many want to know what their rights are when arrested by the authorities, or when called upon to assist investigations.

What is important to distinguish at the outset is the difference between a suspect of a crime and a witness who may assist investigations. Both may be asked to give statements, but there is a difference between how they would be asked to do so. For a witness, the authorities will usually contact and request the person to attend a location to give a statement. A notice will be issued and the person asked to attend must comply. Failure to do will result in further action to compel attendance.

However, for suspects, they will usually be arrested for investigations. They will then be remanded and while in remand they will be interrogated and be asked to provide a statement. It must be stressed that circumstances whereby a person is prevented from moving freely, asked to go to the police station or confined to a room, would all effectively amount to an arrest. It matters not whether the arresting person denies the arrest or otherwise. As such, a person who feels that he or she is arrested should inquire as to whether he or she is arrested. An arrested person has several rights which are guaranteed. These include the right to be informed of the grounds of the arrest. The person making the arrest must inform the arrested person why he or she has been arrested.

Another important right is the right to consult a lawyer. This right is constitutionally guaranteed, and it can only be delayed and not denied. Make no mistake. We all want the authorities to deal with crimes in the country. In this regard, we must give due support to the authorities, whether they be the police, MACC or other bodies. The vast majority of officers in these bodies carry out their duties honestly and diligently. But at the same time, those who have been conferred powers must use the power given within the framework which has been allowed. The small few who transgress the boundaries of jurisdiction and power must be brought to justice. To those dealing with the authorities, always remember that as citizens of this country we have certain rights and if our rights are violated there will be avenues to seek remedy from the violators. - Syahredzan Johan,mk

youtube

Pakatan Harapan’s Succession Plans and Economic Challenges...

The fifth and final session of the Forum focused on Malaysia and featured two eminent speakers: Mr Rafizi Ramli (Vice-President, Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Malaysia) and Dr Nungsari Ahmad Radhi (Chairman of Khazanah Research Institute, Malaysia). Dr Francis E. Hutchinson (Senior Fellow and Coordinator, Malaysia Studies Programme, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute) moderated the session. Mr Rafizi Ramli began the discussion by highlighting the significant decline in Pakatan Harapan’s approval ratings in the eighteen months since the party had been in power, from around 80 per cent in June 2018 to around 30 per cent in December 2019. This has, once again, brought the coalition’s leadership transition issue to the fore. While Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has consistently spoken about his willingness to pass the premiership to Anwar Ibrahim, there is no clear timeline nor indication that the handover will begin at any time soon. According to Mr Rafizi, the succession will be decided by a small group of individuals (comprising of Members of Parliament, and members of Pakatan Harapan’s Presidential Council) and will most likely take place after the conclusion of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings in November 2020. There is also a possibility that the transition may not be very smooth, resulting in a major political fallout. The odds, however, are in Anwar Ibrahim’s favour, as he enjoys the backing of the largest bloc of parliamentarians. Dr Nungsari Ahmad Radhi highlighted that the country has now entered its third year of having less-than-five per cent in GDP growth. He however maintained that this statistic should not matter much. Instead, policymakers should instead focus on the growing economic inequality in the country. The widening disparity between the rich and poor – as reflected by, among other indices, extremely high levels of household debts (around 80 per cent of GDP in 2019) and limited social security nets – suggests that much more needs to be done to help Malaysia attain high-income status in the near future. - ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute

cheers.

Sumber asal: Sapa lagi bakal melompat... Baca selebihnya di Sapa lagi bakal melompat...

#Blogger

0 notes

marymosley · 4 years

Text

Federal Appellate Court Strikes Down Obamacare’s Individual Mandate

I have long been critical of the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare (See, e.g., here and here and here). Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a major 2-1 ruling striking down the mandate as unconstitutional. The litigation however will continue over the viability of the rest of the Act without the individual. As discussed in an earlier column, pulling out the individual mandate creates a Jenga-like dilemma for the courts.

As I previously discussed last December, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and, using the Obama Administration’s own words, so essential to the Act that the entirety of the ACA had to be struck down.

In the decision below, Judges Jennifer Elrod and Kurt Engelhardt ruled that “[t]he individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power.” However, the panel significantly did not sign off on the striking down of the entire Act. It stated “[o]n the severability question, we remand to the district court to provide additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA as they currently exist.” The panel did not offer any insights in how that severability analysis would conclude: “It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded. It may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some is not.” This leaves other important provisions in jeopardy, including sections dealing with preexisting conditions as well as subsidies and the expansion of Medicaid coverage.

The panel called the Supreme Court to account as did the district court. Chief Justice John Roberts saved the mandate by calling it a tax pursuant Congress’ taxing powers under Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Id.; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1. A majority of justices, including Roberts, agreed that the provision would otherwise be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because it would have done more than “regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Congress however later killed the tax aspect of the mandate, exposing the mandate and the Act as a whole to this challenge.

This is a middle option between agreeing to strike down the entire Act or simply upholding the Act. It will allow a period of transition before any final decision is rendered if Congress wants to act.

The panel broke along ideological lines. The liberal member, Judge Carolyn King, disagreed with her two conservative colleagues. She held:

“I would vacate the district court’s order because none of the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the coverage requirement. And although I would not reach the merits or remedial issues, if I did, I would conclude that the coverage requirement is constitutional, albeit unenforceable, and entirely severable from the remainder of the Affordable Care Act.”

The decision will rekindle calls for Congress to address the possible void in health care coverage. Republicans have long argued that Act was flawed (which it is) and that it can be replaced with a more tailored and constitutional alternative. President Donald Trump has pledged the same thing. That moment may now be here.

Nothing will happen immediately and the any decision could be delayed beyond the 2020 elections.

A coalition of states, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, is pledging to file for review by the Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit.

Here is the opinion: Texas v. United States

Federal Appellate Court Strikes Down Obamacare’s Individual Mandate published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

diegrootkrokodil · 7 years

Text

The Russell Report - UR Gifts Storm - 27th at GP Birmingham

Although it has been a bit late coming, I have finally got around to writing a report from my Top 32 12-3 finish at GP Birmingham earlier this year. I had started out 8-1 and managed to run moderately well Day 2 to cash my first event and make a good start to the Pro season for 2017/8.

Background

Prior to the event I had managed to roundly 2-3 two MTGO Competitive leagues and go 3-1 at a friendly mid-week paper event down at Dark Sphere in London. Although my results were far from stellar, I more or less understood why I was losing games and was making steady progress to knowing how the deck is supposed to play. My closest corollary thus far in Modern is UG Infect.

Infect requires you to be able to do two things; the first is a tight balance of composed and patient play, amassing a critical number of cards and forcing through the win over a long and drawn out game. The other is having a good read for the situation and knowing when to go “all in” on a turn and be stone dead if they have the right card, with the prize usually being winning the game on the spot. Storm more or less plays the same way, with the debate on playing a turn 2 cost reducer usually being matchup dependent and/or how critical the Baral/ Electromancer is to your ability to win.

Why Storm?

Having established that I wasn’t doing very well in my initial testing, you might very well be wondering what ponderous set of decisions led me to registering what most people consider to be a challenging deck to play at a GP. Well, let me reveal a little secret to you about Storm in Modern: it isn’t that hard to play.

While I don’t put it into the category of Titanshift or EldraziTron which both genuinely have very few meaningful decisions and whilst the Storm deck has a lot of sequencing optimisations to consider, it really only requires you to be able to do basic maths and and count to something like 20. Or at least, I think that is true for the in game decisions, which are typically only truly interesting with the second Gifts pile you make. The “hard” decisions I believe are mostly made in sideboarding and mulliganing, where experience in the matchups comes to play an extremely important part of the decision making process. Many decks while sideboarding are not necessarily boarding into hate for your opponents sideboard cards. You are also typically not pivoting in a totally different way or even removing what might appear to be your slam dunk namesake card, something that is quite unintuitive to some players.

Storm is fundamentally good for the following reasons:

1. It has a reliable Turn 3 goldfish kill. Speed and consistency are everything in Modern, the format where dying on T4 is usually guaranteed.

2. It can kill on Turn 2 with the perfect hand using grapeshot and pseudo kill on Turn 2 /3 with goblins a greater percentage of the time. Even the bad matchups can sometimes be won, meaning that you’re never truly cold when you sit down to play.

3. The deck is very redundant with 8 cost reducers, 12 rituals and 8 cantrips. Most hands with a Bear, Cantrip and some Rituals are a keep.

4. Two colours and many basics means you take minimal damage from lands/ the coloured requirements are quite good. This allows us to sometimes play Blood Moon and register 3 basic islands in our deck.

5. Most decks don’t have good graveyard hate game 1, meaning that they have very few axis to interact with you on.

6. The opponent tilt value from playing storm.

The Event

Started 2-0 with byes, a critical aspect to success at Grand Prix.

R3 Titanshift 2-1

R4 Elves 2-0

R5 Eldrazi Tron 1-2

R6 GB Tron 2-1

R7 GW Company 2-1

R8 4C Shadow 2-1

R9 Jeskai Control 2-0

R10 Bant Eldrazi 0-2

R11 Eldrazi Tron 2-1

R12 Abzan Coco 1-2

R13 Abzan Midrange

R14 Eldrazi Tron 2-0

R15 Burn 2-0

My List

Maindeck

4 Baral, Chief of Compliance 4 Desperate Ritual 1 Empty the Warrens 3 Misty Rainforest 4 Gifts Ungiven 4 Goblin Electromancer 3 Grapeshot 3 Island 4 Manamorphose 1 Mountain 2 Past in Flames 4 Pyretic Ritual 4 Remand 4 Scalding Tarn 4 Serum Visions 4 Sleight of Hand 4 Spirebluff Canal 3 Steam Vents

Sideboard

1 Negate 2 Dismember 2 Dispel 1 Echoing Truth 2 Empty the Warrens 3 Lightning Bolt 2 Pieces of the Puzzle 2 Shattering Spree

There are a few rules in Modern and one of the main ones is that you have to be as proactive as possible. The inherent variance of the format mostly comes in your match-ups which means that you often have lost the round when you sit down to play. A good example of this is Titanshift against most fair green midrange decks. As the fair deck you are something like sub 20% to curve out and kill them fast enough before the inevitable Primeval Titan or Scapeshift kills you all whilst you are busy durdling about.

Storm bucks this trend and has the ability to more or less win against anyone given that you have the speed and resiliency necessary to beat even your tough matchups. Landing a turn 2 Baral or Goblin Electromancer puts them to the test immediately and usually means they have to respect the possibility of dying the next turn.

My Sideboarding Guide

Storm is the kind of deck where sideboarding is very important to get right, as you aren’t bringing in your generic haymakers and the rest of the maindeck is a finely tuned engine meaning you can’t start cannibalising all the parts whilst still expecting it to function.

Without further ado:

Grind through their heavy removal and kill with Goblins matchups (Abzan, Jund, Grixis Death’s Shadow etc.)

The philosophy here is to transition to a more value orientated deck that is probably not going to go off early and instead try to slog through their removal. You can pivot your win condition from Grapeshot to Empty the Warrens and make their spot removal suffer as you offer them a paucity of good targets. Lightning Bolt and Fatal Push don’t line up very well to lots of Goblins and you can usually hold onto the mana bear until such time where it is actually useful in play. Do not run them out into certain death for no value, you must be a patient Peter.

Pieces is great against graveyard hate and lets you dig for the right pieces whilst also filling up the yard for future Past in Flames. Empty is the backup win condition and is generally quite hard to beat for these sort of spot removal heavy creature decks. I personally like Dismember against the Angler/ Tasigur/ Goyf decks as a way to stop you randomly dying to creature beats. I might cut these on the play in favour of leaving in a few Remands, especially against the Delve threats or sweepers.

Cutting gifts might not seem very intuitive but as many decks board into Leyline of the Void, Rest in Peace or Surgical Extraction you are usually incentivised to reduce your vulnerability to those cards. The third Grapeshot is less essential given the newly diversified threat base and Remand isn’t very good at stopping the cards we really care about in these matchups (it also sucks against Inquisition or Thoughtseize).

- + 2 Pieces of the Puzzle

- +2 Empty the Warrens

- +2 Dismember

- - 4 Remand

- - 1 Grapeshot

- - 1 Gifts Ungiven

Kill them as fast as possible matchups (Burn, Tron, Affinty, Titanshift, Elves, Ad Nauseum, and Infect etc.)

Other combo decks frequently feature Artifacts that we care about. Even Titanshift will usually board into a mix of Relic of Progenitus, Grafdigger’s Cage or Chalice of the Void. We are really looking to go as fast as possible and try to race them, which usually means not playing around things too much apart from stuff we cannot beat or want to try and head off. Most of these decks also don’t have a plethora of removal for our bears, which means that we can often keep hands with only one and even board down to 6 in favour of more meaningful interaction such as Shattering Spree or Echoing Truth. The plan is to be prepared for their interaction and also prepared to beat them on a slightly different axis. Having access to lightning bolts against decks like Infect, Elves and Affinity allows us to win on the draw and slow down their fastest possible starts. Often T3 with no interaction on the draw against Affinity spells doom. Burn is sometimes called an unwinnable matchup, which is usually true in the face of an Eidolon game 1, but is quite beatable in post board games. Lean on your bolts and be careful using them. That Goblin Guide might kill us in the long run, but if you can’t take an Eidolon off the table then it’s game over my friend.

- + 2 Shattering Spree

- + 3 Lightning Bolts

- +1 Echoing Truth

- - 2 Electromancer

- -1 Empty the Warrens

- - 2 Remand

- -1 Gifts Ungiven

Patience and knowledge of the stack matchups (UW, UWR Control etc.)

The name of the game here is once again becoming patient Peter and forcing them to interact on one of their main choke points, which is usually either mana or cards. What this means practically is waiting, playing out land and then finally going over the top of their counter magic using our Remands (which are great on our own spells) and making use of Past in Flames / Gifts to grind them out of cards over the course of a longer game. Spell Queller can be a pain, so be careful not to walk into that one. I typically find this matchup to be favourable if you don’t run Gifts or another crucial spell into counter magic for no gain.

N.B. This is not an exact guide but more following general themes. Please do not bring in Shattering Spree against Elves or Lightning Bolt against Titanshift.

A quick matchup rundown of the Top 10 decks on MTG Goldfish:

Storm: It’s the mirror. Don’t mess up.

Affinity: Great for you on the play, still probably favoured on the draw.

Jeskai Tempo: Moderately favoured.

Eldrazi Tron: Draw dependent for them, probably a slight dog if they draw averagely.

Titanshift: The unlosable matchup.

GDS: Not good. Can storm them out if they go low enough. The critical mix of disruption, stubborn denial and removal makes this tough.

Tron: Moderately favoured.

Eldrazi and Taxes: The bears can help overcome Thalia, otherwise a moderate dog.

Burn: You’re going to die. Can maybe win if they don’t land Eidolon T2.

CoCo Decks: Favoured. They can’t usually interact with the combo Game 1 and Game 2 they are relying on a small list of cards to interact meaningfully (Eidolon of Rhetoric, for which we have Dismember/ Echoing Truth and precious little else).

A few more closing points regarding UR Gifts Storm:

1. Try to play around graveyard hate by boarding into Pieces and away from Gifts/ PiF.

2. Try not to expose yourself to Surgical Extraction if possible, this should be done by not putting your Grapeshots in the graveyard unless absolutely necessary. Try to draw them naturally if you suspect a Surgical. You can set up Gifts piles with cantrips and more Gifts to do this.

3. The magic number for mana left over after a Gifts is 3. With 3 red mana they are dead and it doesn’t matter which two cards they put into your hand from the classic “ PiF, Desperate, Pyretic, Manamorphose” pile. You will always have enough to cast PiF and keep going off.

4. Early Goblins can often do the trick, you need the stomach to go in hard on what can appear to be quite risky. Know when it is a good idea and when they are likely to just have a Ratchet Bomb to make your day go south quickly

5. Shattering Spree is very good against Chalice. The copies can go through the trigger and blow up multiple annoying artifacts.

6. Remanding your own Grapeshots is an easy way to generate more Storm without using the graveyard.

7. Don’t forget your loots from Baral when countering spells. This is also a good reason to hold excess lands.

8. The god hand is a Turn 2 kill. “Land, land, Baral, Desperate, Desperate, Manamorphose, Gifts” can often turn into a win if you draw a second ritual off a manamorphose or a cantrip you find along the way.

That’s all for now but I’ll be playing Storm in Madrid on one of the Mana Gaming Teams we send there for the team event. I’ve also been attempting to grind out a few wins with the deck in recent PPTQs to no notable success as yet.

Until next time:

Tom

#magic the gathering #storm #modern #gpbirmingham #ur gifts #baral #MtG

2 notes · View notes

headlines-twentyfour · 5 years

Photo

Delhi HC dismisses plea of Manipur student activist booked for sedition The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Manipur student activist's plea challenging his arrest and transit remand in New Delhi in a sedition case lo Source link

#activist #arrest #Citizenship bill #Delhi Police #Manipur police #Manipur student #sedition case #Veewon Thokchom

0 notes

ericfruits · 6 years

Text

Georgia Remands Denial Of Military Spouse's Waiver Petition

The Georgia Supreme Court has vacated a ruling denying a military spouse's waiver request

Harriet O’Neal filed a waiver petition with the Board of Bar Examiners on November 30, 2017, asking that she be allowed to practice law in Georgia without sitting for the Georgia bar exam and without meeting the usual requirements for admission without examination. Specifically, O’Neal based her request for a waiver on her status as the spouse of an active member of the military who had been transferred here. The Board denied O’Neal’s request, and she now appeals this ruling. For the reasons set below, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand with direction.

...pursuant to this Court’s inherent power in matters of attorney discipline and bar admissions, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand this case to the Board to clearly apply the military waiver policy and explain why O’Neal has or has not met the waiver requirements.

AJC reported at length on her situation in June

Harriet O’Neal knew her life as the wife of a U.S. Army infantry captain could be frequently uprooted. Such was the case last year when her husband was transferred to Fort Benning from a posting in rural Louisiana.

O’Neal, a lawyer, took solace in the fact Georgia is one of 29 states in the country that gives military spouses the chance to practice law without having to take the grueling state bar exam after moving here. So O’Neal applied for the waiver, only to be rejected.

The 29-year-old lawyer is appealing that denial to the Georgia Supreme Court. Although she is representing herself, her case has picked up support from top Georgia attorneys, the American Bar Association and various legal organizations. They are asking the court to grant O’Neal the waiver, which is intended to ease the financial stresses on military families that accompany relocations.

An arm of the state Office of Bar Admissions adopted Georgia’s military spouse waiver program for attorneys in 2016. In December, O’Neal became the first person to request such a waiver, said John Sammon, the office’s director. When the office rejected her request in January, it disparaged her academic record and said the bar exam she passed in Louisiana isn’t as tough as Georgia’s.

Atlanta lawyer Linda Klein, past president of the American Bar Association, said the denial sets a terrible precedent.

“Military spouses don’t relocate from one state to another by choice,” Klein said. “They relocate under orders of the U.S. military. They are sacrificing a lot for our country, so let’s meet them halfway and support our all-volunteer military.”

Klein, former associate U.S. attorney general Joe Whitley and Sloane Perras, chief legal officer of the Krystal Co., are among a group of attorneys asking the Supreme Court to grant O’Neal her waiver. The state “should make it clear that we mean what we say when it comes to unsurpassed support for our service personnel and their families,” they wrote.

Perras wishes such waivers were available when her former husband was an Air Force pilot. Because of relocations, she worked eight different jobs between 2003 and 2009 and had to pass five different bar exams within three years after graduating from law school.

“It was impossible,” she said. “(The waiver) is critical to help keep military families together and allow for a smoother transition of life.”

According to court filings, military spouses are 10 times more likely to have moved across state lines in the past year as compared to their civilian counterparts. Also, the unemployment rate for spouses of active duty service members is four times greater than for their civilian counterparts.

“The unique challenges faced by military spouse attorneys have real and lasting consequences for both individual families and the U.S. military,” said a brief filed by a national military spouse legal network, a Norcross attorney and state and national associations for women attorneys.

Because of their nomadic lifestyle, many military spouses forego their chosen careers, or their spouses leave the military, causing the armed forces “to lose talented, extensively trained and highly skilled service members,” the brief said.

O’Neal, who grew up in Louisiana, has wanted to be a lawyer since she was in the eighth grade.

“I always wanted to do something important and make a difference,” she said in recent interview. “I knew I could do that in the legal field.”

She obtained her undergraduate and law degrees from LSU and passed the Louisiana bar exam in 2014. She met her husband-to-be, Capt. Nolan O’Neal, on the dating site Tinder a year later. They married last September, a month before he received orders to move to Fort Benning for training that began in January.

At the time, Harriet O’Neal worked as a law clerk for two judges in Louisiana. Previously, she worked as a labor lawyer and as an advocate for abused and neglected children in foster care.

With a six-figure student loan debt, O’Neal was eager to find work in Georgia. She wanted to be a prosecutor or public defender because they are the attorneys most likely to be in a courtroom.

“In real life, I’m an introvert, but not when I get in court,” she said.

O’Neal said she was shocked when the Office of Bar Admissions rejected her waiver request.

“I was also confused because they didn’t give me any explanation, until I appealed,” she said. “That hit me hard, because they pretty much tore into me.”

In a filing with the Supreme Court, state attorneys said the admissions office wants to support members of the military and their spouses. But O’Neal’s transcripts show she was consistently in the bottom quarter of her class and she has worked three different legal jobs during the three years she has practiced law, the filing said.

The Louisiana bar exam does not have as comprehensive an exam as the one used in Georgia, the state added. These concerns, among others, were enough for the board to think O’Neal needs to pass the Georgia bar exam before being permitted to practice law here, the filing said.

O’Neal said there’s a reason she struggled academically. Her father was ill when she entered law school and died while she was there.

“It was a rough time,” she said.

Klein, the former ABA president, said if the Office of Bar Admissions had followed its own stated criteria when deciding O’Neal’s request, it would have granted it. O’Neal already passed the bar exam in Louisiana and is a lawyer in good standing, Klein noted.

As for the office’s swipe at O’Neal’s grades, Klein said: “What do you call the person who graduates last in his or her class and passes the bar exam? A lawyer.”

After being denied the waiver, O’Neal said she felt desperate to bring in some income. She now does contract work for a firm specializing in copyright and trademark law.

O’Neal said her husband could have stayed in Georgia for up to three years. But because of the bar office’s rejection, Capt. Nolan O’Neal put in for a transfer, and the couple will move to a post in Germany either late this year or early next year.

Even so, O’Neal will continue to pursue her appeal.

“If this was only for me, I wouldn’t have continued to fight it,” she said. “This is now for whoever comes after me."

The American Bar Association filed an amicus brief in support of the applicant. (Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2018/09/the-georgia-supreme-court-ajc-reported-harriet-oneal-knew-her-life-as-the-wife-of-a-us-army-infantry-captain-could-be.html

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes

newshunterinfo-blog · 6 years

Text

Alleged Maoist links: Varavara Rao and two others to be produced before Pune court today

After arresting five persons from different cities of the country for their alleged Maoists links, Pune police will be producing three of them including Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in Shivajinagar court in Pune today afternoon. Pune police have not yet got the transit remand of the other two, Gautam Navlakha and Sudha Bharadwaj whose arrests have been challenged in the…

View On WordPress

#alleged #before #links #maoist #others #produced #varavara

0 notes

cringeynews · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on

New Post has been published on http://cringeynews.com/featured/if-donald-trump-wants-to-dismantle-the-epa-here-are-all-the-obstacles-hell-face/

If Donald Trump wants to dismantle the EPA, here are all the obstacles he’ll face

Right now, there’s still a fair bit of uncertainty over what, exactly, Donald Trump will do on environmental policy. He’s vowed to tear up President Obama’s climate rules, particularly the Clean Power Plan, and ease various restrictions on coal power. His transition team is filled with climate skeptics and industry-friendly advisers who take a dim view of pollution regulations.

But radically overhauling the Environmental Protection Agency, as Trump has said he’d like to do, is a difficult task that involves navigating a complex bureaucracy bound by powerful laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, both passed by Congress in the 1970s. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both came into office hoping to take apart key EPA environmental rules, yet were often stymied by the courts, by green groups skilled at litigation, by career officials, and by sheer inertia.

So what would it take for a Trump administration to come in and reshape the myriad environmental policies that Obama’s EPA has put in place?

Jody Freeman, a Harvard law school professor and former climate adviser to Obama, has been looking at this question extensively. Her view is that this won’t actually be easy for Trump — at least not without substantial help from Congress. (Republicans will control Congress next year, and they’d certainly like to dismantle Obama’s climate rules; yet Senate Democrats have also vowed to filibuster any major changes to the Clean Air Act, the source of the EPA’s authority over greenhouse-gas emissions.)

I talked with Freeman about the mechanics of a potential Trump administration: how agency rulemaking works, what it would take to revamp Obama’s EPA regulations, why some environmental rules are much more vulnerable than others, and why Trump may not be able to undo everything Obama has done on climate. It’s a little weedy, but these topics are likely to come up again and again in 2017 and beyond.

Brad Plumer

Okay, say you’re Donald Trump, and you enter the White House hoping to undo all the different environmental and climate rules that Obama has put in place since 2008 via the executive branch. What is the first thing you do on day one?

Jody Freeman

So the first thing a new White House would do is essentially issue a stop-work order to the federal agencies — they freeze any pending rules coming out of those agencies and review them. In the past, most of those rules have wound up getting finished, and only very few of them usually get rolled back or reconsidered.

Brad Plumer

That explains why we’ve seen the Obama administration rush to finalize a host of regulations this year: like the EPA’s fuel-efficiency standards for trucks, finalized in August. They want to get them done before Trump’s White House can fiddle with them.

JF: Right. Now, in Trump’s case, there’s a possibility that Republicans in the House and Senate could use a little-used law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn some of these recent Obama regulations. Basically, any rule under Obama that was finished after late May or early June — it depends how they count it — would be potentially subject to disapproval by a simple majority vote [in both the House and Senate]. [Here is a list of Obama rules that would be vulnerable to CRA disapproval, including emissions standards for landfills, rules around offshore drilling, methane standards for oil and gas drilling, and restrictions on migratory bird hunting.]

The question here is how much they want to prioritize this. The new Congress will have to decide what’s most important on their agenda and do some triage. We’ve been hearing a lot about things they want to do on health care, on infrastructure, on tax reform. So the new Congress will have to ask if they really want to spend the first 30, 60, 100 days on Congressional Review Act fights.

Brad Plumer

As I understand it, if Congress disapproves of a regulation under the CRA, not only does it kill the regulation — but the agency can’t actually propose a similar regulation anytime in the future, right?

JF: That is what the Congressional Review Act says — the agency can’t come back with anything that’s “substantially similar” in the future. But this has actually never been tested, and no court has ever ruled on it. The CRA has only ever been used once [in 2001, to strike down a Clinton labor rule on ergonomics issued in late 2000]. So there’s a real question about whether it’s legally enforceable. Because some existing environmental laws [like the Clean Air Act] may require a certain type of regulation. So what do you do if that law says you have to regulate and the Congressional Review Act says you can’t do it? This could be a really interesting legal question going forward.

Brad Plumer

Let’s go back to the Trump White House and the Trump EPA. Let’s assume they have halted any ongoing work. And now they’re looking at all these rules that Obama has already put in place and finalized — you’ve got everything from rules on mercury pollution that were finished in 2011 to the Clean Power Plan, which is currently being debated in federal courts. Which rules are the most vulnerable?

JF: It’s easiest to just not finish rules that haven’t been finished yet. It’s also straightforward to roll back things that aren’t rules — that is, policies that have not gone through the notice and comment process. An example would be the suspension of coal leasing [from federal lands] that President Obama put in place. That was done by secretarial order in the Department of Interior; you wouldn’t have to go through a long process to lift that suspension.

The rules that are harder to rescind and roll back are rules that have already gone through the time-consuming notice and comment process and are final and have gone into legal effect already. For example, the rule on mercury pollution, or the cross-state pollution rule. That takes time and effort to rescind, and in some cases industry would have already started to comply [note: many coal plants have already shut down or spent billions installing scrubbers to comply with the 2011 mercury rule.]

The other category here are rules in legal limbo that are not yet in effect and have been stayed by the courts. So that includes the Clean Power Plan and the “Waters of the United States” rule [which redefines which rivers, streams, and lakes fall under Clean Water Act protection]. What could happen there is that, if those rules get struck down in court, the new Department of Justice in the Trump administration could decide not to defend them or to appeal them any further. In that case, it would fall to the interveners — environmental groups or states, which have to be parties to the case — to take up the mantle and appeal.

Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Brad Plumer

Let’s take the Clean Power Plan, the rule to cut CO2 from power plants, since that’s the centerpiece of Obama’s climate agenda and the rule Donald Trump has focused on? If this rule is upheld by the court, then it’s final and goes into effect. What can the Trump administration actually do to stop it?

JF: The new administration could try to go to the DC Circuit Court — which has heard oral arguments on the Clean Power Plan already but not yet decided its fate — and do what’s called a “voluntary remand,” sending the rule back to agency. Assuming the courts agreed, which is not guaranteed, then the EPA could try to rescind the rule and replace it with something new.

But the EPA would have to go out for public comment on that — and that usually takes a year or two. The EPA would also have to address the fact that the agency already had decided the Clean Power Plan, so why are they changing their minds now? What is in the record to support that change? They’d have to make an argument for why they’re reconsidering it, and they would have to defend that in court, because any change would get challenged [either by states or environmental groups].

[The Trump administration] might try to argue that they don’t think they have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases from existing power plants. Or they could argue that even if they do have that authority, they think there’s a better approach to the standard [than the specific regulation Obama’s EPA set up]. They could say they have a narrower approach to setting the standard, and they might get deference from the court. But that would play itself out in years of litigation.

Brad Plumer

Let’s go deeper on this. How do you actually rescind a rule — like the Clean Power Plan or the mercury pollution rule — that’s already been finalized? What is the step-by-step process a Trump EPA has to go through?

JF: There’s a Supreme Court case called FCC v. Fox, which basically says that if an agency changes its mind, it has to come back in and defend the new rule the way it would defend the original rule. You have to be able to defend it as non-arbitrary. And in cases where industry is already relying on the first rule, or where there’s a really strong scientific record for the first rule, the burden on the agency is a little tougher for changing its mind. So there is a legal standard here.

But to change a rule, by law, the agency has to do a public comment period — that’s typically something like 60 days, though it can be up to 120 days. Then the agency has to take time to consider and respond to all the public comments on the proposed rule and develop a record that shows they thought carefully about them. If they try to shortchange this process and rush out a brand new rule, it really will not go well for them when they get into court. The procedural checks the agency has to go through are very important, and a court will invalidate a rule that wasn’t done correctly.

The courts will also invalidate a rule change that, in the substance of it, looks arbitrary to them. So as an example, let’s take the endangerment finding, the first big rule that EPA put out in 2009 that said greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare. That has a voluminous scientific foundation behind it. The Trump administration couldn’t just come in and say nope, no more endangerment! There’s almost no chance that would be upheld, because you cannot ignore this record.

Brad Plumer

So if they really wanted to overturn the EPA’s authority over greenhouse gases, they’d need Congress to amend the Clean Air Act — to say something like “okay, the Clean Air Act no longer applies to greenhouse gases.” And that all depends on whether a bill like that can get through the Senate, past Democrats who might filibuster.

JF: Right.

Brad Plumer

So if we’re just talking about what a president can do all by himself, it seems like there are real limits. We saw this during the George W. Bush era — he had a surprising amount of trouble rolling back many of Clinton’s rules.

JF: You saw this when the Bush administration tried to roll back the Roadless Rule, [a Clinton-era rule prohibiting road construction and timber harvesting on national forest land]. That went through a long, complicated litigation process, and ultimately the new administration wasn’t successful.

The Bush administration also came out and said they would reject the Clinton administration’s arsenic standard for drinking water, and that proved to be a political disaster for them — because you know, the public doesn’t like to be poisoned. And that was also litigated, and [after eight years] the Bush administration ended up sticking to the Clinton standard.

So those are cautionary tales. We have seen Republican administrations come in before and try to roll things back. And [a Trump administration] may well be successful on some of these high-profile rules, but it’s going to be trench warfare. They’ll have to pick their battles.

Letting go isn’t easy. Photo By Pool/Getty Images

Brad Plumer

So what’s the lowest-hanging fruit for a Trump administration? Where will they have the easiest time prevailing?

JF: Well, the Clean Power Plan isn’t low-hanging — it will take a lot of work to change. But because Trump has identified it on the campaign trail, and it’s in the sights of many Republicans in Congress, it’s hard to imagine they won’t take action of some type. There’s also quite a bit of congressional hostility to the Waters of the United States rule, so you’ll likely see something there.

There are easier things to do — like if the Obama administration finishes the stream protection rule [an Interior Department rule that governs mining waste disposal in waterways], you could imagine a Trump administration trying to roll that back before it becomes legally effective. And like I said, the coal leasing moratorium can be lifted with a stroke of a pen.

Brad Plumer

And of course, Trump can withdraw from the Paris climate agreement unilaterally. I’ve seen a few different ways he might do this — like withdrawing from the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the original treaty establishing international climate talks that undergirds the Paris accord. Which seems most likely?

JF: It is possible to withdraw from the Framework Convention — that’s actually faster than withdrawing from the Paris agreement, since Paris takes four years to officially withdraw, whereas withdrawing from the UNFCCC takes one year.

The problem is that the UNFCCC was a treaty unanimously ratified by Congress [in 1992], there was no real dissent, and it was negotiated by a Republican president. The UNFCCC also has no real substantive obligations in it. So it would be a very odd thing to withdraw from — it would do a lot of damage, upset our allies enormously, and you really don’t need to do it [if you’re trying to undermine the Paris deal].

What Trump could much more easily do is simply not meet the US pledge for Paris. Or he can just say, “I’m not going to be bound by that pledge, and I’m going to take apart the key programs domestically that were supposed to get us there, like the Clean Power Plan.”

Brad Plumer

Tell me about the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which is part of the Office of Management and Budget. It seems like this will really change under Trump — with potentially major implications for regulatory agencies like the EPA.

JF: OIRA is the location in the White House where they oversee agency rule-making. This office oversees the methodology that agencies use to count up costs and benefits for new rules. That can be changed with the stroke of a pen. And it sounds weedy, but it’s the kind of thing that can make it harder to issue new regulations.

So for instance, right now, the Obama administration currently uses a “global social cost of carbon” for its climate rules — that means if you have any rule that reduces greenhouse gases, the benefits counted for that rule include the [climate] benefits globally. You could imagine a Trump OIRA saying we don’t want to do that anymore. We’re not going to count the social cost of carbon as a benefit. That changes the calculus for which rules are cost-beneficial.

OIRA is also the place where, if the Trump administration were serious about their idea of trying to repeal or rescind two rules for every new one they issue, that’s where they’d do it — though it’s hard to imagine how [this idea] would possibly work.

Brad Plumer

There are also a whole bunch of executive orders that were issued from the Obama White House, not the agencies themselves. Like this 2013 order that told the agencies to help communities prepare for climate change. Those executive orders can be easily reversed, right?

JF: That’s right. That also includes guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality that governs how agencies should consider greenhouse-gas emissions when they conduct Environmental Impact Statements. Every agency has to do these Environmental Impact Statements [for instance, the State Department had to do one before approving the Keystone XL pipeline]. So [the new Trump White House] could say we don’t want you to consider GHGs anymore.

That’s stroke of a pen stuff. Every executive order can be replaced with a new executive order, or withdrawn completely. And there’s nothing that the environmental community or the states can do to challenge executive orders directly. Although there’s a twist here: when the executive orders tell agencies to do things, and then the agency do those things, that’s when they get legally challenged.

Brad Plumer

A slightly different question. Even if the Trump administration has a hard time rescinding specific Obama-era environmental rules, can’t they still weaken enforcement of these rules?

JF: There are a lot of ways to slow down implementation and to try to minimize enforcement. Everyone talks about the Reagan administration as a good example of the EPA being “dismantled from within” — by slow-walking regulations, by slow-walking enforcement.

That said, there are a lot of internal checks on this kind of dismantling from within. There’s a very dedicated career staff that knows it has to follow the law, and there are ethics rules that apply to the agencies, there are independent inspectors general that are tasked with making sure there’s not mismanagement or ethics violations. So not only will there be lawsuits from outside when agencies don’t follow the law, but there are management rules and procedures inside, that should create some obstacles to any real effort to undo them.

That said, a very determined administration that really wants to pull back on implementation and enforcement will find ways to pull back. They can give more leeway to the states, for example, when the states draft their plans for complying with their state implementation plans [for EPA pollution rules like the ground-level ozone standard]. You can imagine ways of making it easier for states that don’t want to work very hard. Or bringing fewer enforcement actions.

The president can also ask for less money. And even if he doesn’t, Congress can just cut the budget [for agencies like the EPA]. Congress can insert, in big omnibus budget bills, little riders that say agencies can’t do specific things. There can be death by a thousand cuts in this way.

So I don’t want to suggest there won’t be retrenchment. But what some people fear is that Trump is sworn into office and he eliminates the EPA. That just can’t happen, he’d need Congress to do it and I don’t think that kind of dramatic action is anything we’re going to see.

Brad Plumer

Right, it’s hard for Congress to simply abolish the EPA or rewrite the Clean Air Act — that would face a potential filibuster. But it’s far more plausible that we might see the House pass a thousand different riders that change the agency significantly. The GOP House has been trying to pass a bunch of these since 2011.

JF: I think it’s realistic to think there will be some of that. We have seen the House try to pass lots of things, though of course that was when they knew they couldn’t succeed. Then again, when you control both houses of Congress and you’ve got the presidency, you have to watch what you do. Because dismantling the nation’s environmental laws is not going to go over well with the public.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy announces new regulations for power plants at EPA headquarters June 2, 2014 in Washington, DC. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Brad Plumer

Trump hasn’t yet said who he would appoint to run any of the key environmental agencies, but what are the things to watch for here? How much leeway does the individual at the head of an agency have to change things?

JF: Well, if we see appointees to the EPA and Department of Interior and Department of Energy, all of whom have disdain for environmental protection, this would be a real potential problem, because it would mean the political appointees at the top are opposed to these agencies’ essential missions. That obviously has an impact on career staff, on the morale.

But at bottom, you have to remember that these agencies are creatures of law, they are tasked with implementing statutes, and they can’t not do it without being threatened by litigation saying they are behaving unlawfully. So even political appointees will be disciplined by legal requirements.

There’s another effect that also happens — and I’m not saying this always happens — but it’s quite standard for political appointees to come in and then be exposed to the mission of the agency, and have senior staff brief them, to learn something about the agency and enlarge their perspective. And they end up moderating some of their views.

Brad Plumer

There’s another side of this, too. The Trump administration isn’t just going to be focused on overturning Obama regulations. There are also laws that were passed by Congress like the Clean Air Act that will continue to require updates of existing regulations over time, on a set schedule. How much can appointees that are philosophically opposed to regulation really drag their heels here?

JF: There is some leeway for agencies to miss deadlines, they miss deadlines all the time. And courts don’t strictly enforce every deadline if the agency can show it’s making reasonable progress. At some point, though, courts will step in and require agencies to take some action.

But you’re asking, will there be some slippage? Certainly there will be some slippage. Agencies can miss deadlines by a year, two years, and courts will give them a lot of room, because they recognize agencies have a lot of priorities. But if an agency routinely and systematically misses deadlines and it looks like political interference, then courts may become quite skeptical.

What’s interesting is that even courts that are viewed as conservative and have a lot of conservative appointees, they respect the rule of law. And they may well wind up providing an accountability mechanism for any real effort to stymie these agencies systematically.

BP:

Okay, but what if Trump starts filling the courts with appointees more likely to rule in his favor?

JF: Yeah, you may get judges who are more skeptical of ambitious regulations — or regulations that creatively press the boundaries of a statute. But for run-of-the-mill rules and deadlines, it’s just a sort of lawyerly disposition to respect the rule of law. It’s hard to find judges that will systematically turn a blind eye to the core demands of the agency’s mission. There will be some brakes on what they can do.

I realize I sound almost cheerful — I am not! I’m not saying there’s no problem here.

BP: It does sound like the main point here is that the federal government is this vast bureaucracy that can’t just be turned around overnight.

JF: Yes, that’s exactly it.

Transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Via

1 note · View note

forensiceyes · 4 years

Text

Indiana Smokable Hemp Ban is Upheld (For Now)

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (“2018 Farm Bill”) legalized hemp by removing hemp and its derivatives from the definition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The 2018 Farm Bill also provided a detailed framework for the production of hemp and directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to promulgate regulations and permitted states to maintain primary regulatory authority over hemp cultivated with their border by submitting a plan to the USDA.

In 2019, Indiana passed Senate Enrolled Act 516 (“Act 516”) to bring Indiana’s definition of hemp in line with the 2018 Farm Bill and to establish a regulatory framework for hemp production. Act 516 criminalized the possession of “smokable hemp,” which it defines as which it defines as any industrial hemp product “in a form that allows THC to be introduced into the human body by inhalation of smoke.” Ind. Code § 35-48-1- 26.6. The law provides that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally manufactures, finances the manufacture of, delivers, finances the delivery of, or possesses smokable hemp … commits dealing in smokable hemp, a Class A misdemeanor.” Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10.1.

In short, Act 516 made it a crime to manufacture, deliver, or possess smokable hemp.

Days before Act 516 was to go into effect, a group of hemp sellers and wholesalers (collectively referred to here as “CY Wholesale”) filed a federal lawsuit challenging Indiana’s prohibition on smokable hemp (we first covered that here). In its filing, CY Wholesale sought a temporary injunction to stop Indiana from enforcing the smokable hemp ban.

CY Wholesale argued that the ban was preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill’s mandate that provides that states must allow all forms of industrial hemp to be transported through their territories. CY Wholesale also argued that the ban violated the commerce clause of the constitution. The district court found CY Wholesale was likely to succeed on its preemption argument and issued an injunction blocking portions of the smokable hemp ban. The State of Indiana appealed.

Last week, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the district court’s injunction swept to broadly and it remanded the case for further proceedings. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling is important because courts and legislatures may follow its interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill with respect to smokable hemp.

So what did the Seventh Circuit have to say about the 2018 Farm Bill and smokable hemp bans? I’ll try to simplify the arguments and try to avoid legalese for non-lawyer readers.

The part of Act 516 that prohibits the manufacture of smokable hemp does not fall within the 2018 Farm Bill.

This means that Indiana (and other states) are free to prohibit the manufacture of smokable hemp. According to the Seventh Circuit, the 2018 Farm Bill authorizes states to regulate the production of hemp and its preemption clause places no limitations on a state’s right to prohibit the cultivation or production of industrial hemp. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that Indiana’s smokable hemp ban did not conflict with the 2018 Farm Bill because the federal law expressly permits states to enact regulations that are “more stringent” than the federal rules. The upshot of this holding is that other states considering smokable hemp bans may rely on this ruling for support.

The part of Act 516 that prohibits the possession of smokable hemp is likely preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill’s provision concerning interstate transportation.

This means that Indiana (and other states) cannot enact laws that criminalize the interstate transportation of smokable hemp. The State of Indiana argued that one could transport smokable hemp through the state (e.g. from Ohio to Illinois) without violating the ban on possession of smokable hemp. Indiana tried to draw a distinction between possession of hemp and just “moving it around.” The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument – noting that a defense that “I was not in possession heroin, I was just moving heroin around” would be laughed out of court.

The Seventh Circuit ruled that any injunction must be narrowly tailored to address “transit through state, along with ancillary restrictions on the possession and delivery of smokable hemp to the extent that those provisions interfere with that transit.” This, said the Court, “is the most that would have been warranted on express preemption grounds.” What the Seventh Circuit is saying is that states cannot enact laws that have the purpose or effect of criminalizing the transportation of hemp through the state’s territory.

The argument that Act 516 violates the Commerce Clause does not show a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant a temporary restraining order.

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from enacting laws that clearly discriminate against interstate commerce, unless the discrimination is justified by a valid reason unrelated to economic protectionism. In layperson’s terms, the Commerce Clause works to prevent states from enacting laws that operate to protect businesses within a state by burdening out-of-state operators. For example, in Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways, the Supreme Court held an Iowa law imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce by prohibiting double trailers on its highways. In Oregon Waste Systems v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, the Supreme Court found invalid under the Commerce Clause an Oregon law placed a higher charge on waste coming into Oregon’s landfills from out-of-state.

One question courts examine when deciding whether to issue a temporary restraining order is whether the argument is likely to succeed on the merits – once the facts are more developed. The Seventh Circuit hold only that CY Wholesalers commerce clause argument was not a sufficient ground to issue a temporary restraining order. This does not mean the Commerce Clause claim is dismissed, only that CY Wholesale had not shown a likelihood of success sufficient to warrant an preliminary injunction.

Final thoughts

The Seventh Circuit was careful to say that it should not be misunderstood as saying that a properly tailored injunction is not warranted. The Court specifically referenced whether Indiana, in proscribing the possession of industrial hemp, has illegally prohibited the transportation of interstate shipments of hemp.

The Seventh Circuit further noted that Indiana has enacted a new law (“Act 335”) that attempted to fix the issues with Act 516 by clarifying that the prohibition on the delivery and possession of smokable hemp does not apply to interstate hemp shipments passing through Indiana. Nonetheless, the court questioned whether Act 335’s language permitting interstate shipments “from a licensed producer in another state . . . to a licensed handler in any state” still violates the Farm Bill’s express preemption clause. It left that question to the district court.

For more on Indiana hemp law, see here and search the Canna Law Blog for any other state as part of our 50-state series. And for even more detail, check out our Hemp CBD Risk Matrix.

The post Indiana Smokable Hemp Ban is Upheld (For Now) appeared first on Harris Bricken.

Indiana Smokable Hemp Ban is Upheld (For Now) posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

0 notes