Monthly Archives: September 2023

Sept. 11, 2023

BY DAVE PRICE Daily Post Editor

Its always a good idea to turn off your phone at church. Not just for the obvious reason you dont want it to ring during the sermon but the Santa Clara County government might be using your phone to spy on you at church.

You might laugh at that and doubt that the county would do such a thing. After all it would be a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects your right of privacy and requires the government to get a warrant, and the First Amendment, that allows people to exercise their right to religious freedom.

You might be thinking that the county board of supervisors would put a halt to it and promise the public it would never happen again.

But that hasnt happened.

This spying was brought out into the open in a federal lawsuit filed Aug. 22 by Calvary Chapel in San Jose.

That church has been fighting the county over its pandemic restrictions and the county has fined them more than $1 million. That case is still pending.

Calvary argues that religious services were essential during the pandemic.

Pastor Mike McClure said at a 2021 court hearing that he heard from people suffering from anxiety, depression and even thoughts of suicide.

A church might be the only refuge for a small business owner who lost everything because of Health Director Dr. Sara Codys latest edict.

Calvary alleges that county employees hired a data company called SafeGraph to geofence church members using data emitted from their phones.

The suit said the year-long surveillance operation had no boundaries. They tracked church members in the prayer room and the bathroom.

If this were happening at a Muslim mosque, activist groups would be screaming. The supervisors would have fired the employees who authorized this and denounced their actions. But in this case, nothing has happened.

By doing nothing, the supervisors are telling their employees that this kind of Orwellian surveillance is OK. Who will be their next target?

Anyway, my tip for the day is: remember to turn off your cellphone before you go into church.

Editor Dave Prices column appears on Mondays. His email address is [emailprotected].

Excerpt from:
Opinion: Why you shouldn't turn on your phone in church Palo Alto ... - The Daily Post

Bill Neri presents Hon. Dineen Riviezzo with a certificate of appreciation on behalf of the Court Attorneys of Kings Supreme Criminal Term. The gesture recognized Justice Riviezzo's contribution to legal education, during the Continuing Legal Education seminar held at the Kings County Supreme Court, Criminal Term. Photos courtesy of Bill Neri

On Monday, Sept. 18, the court attorneys of Kings Supreme Criminal Term convened for a timely Continuing Legal Education seminar. The stately chambers of the Kings County Supreme Court, Criminal Term, played host to the event that witnessed a fusion of legal acumen and collegial exchanges.

Formed by Bill and Maria Neri, both court attorneys working within the system, the group was established as a forum to deliberate on issues prominent within the courts ambit. However, the groups trajectory has since expanded. Beyond being a discussion platform, it has grown to host quarterly CLEs, promoting the continual professional development of its members.

This past event marked the groups second quarterly CLE. The highlight was an insightful lecture by Hon. Dineen Riviezzo, a distinguished judge of the Court of Claims. The discourse, aptly titled Guidelines for Assessing Expert Testimony, sought to shed light on the nuances and considerations pivotal to evaluating expert evidence in court settings.

Justice Riviezzo explained the criteria and standards by which courts evaluate the admissibility and credibility of testimony provided by expert witnesses. This encompasses ensuring the experts qualifications, determining the scientific or technical validity of the methodology used by the expert, and assessing the relevance and reliability of the testimony to the particular case at hand.

The goal is to ensure that juries receive sound and unbiased expert opinions, helping them make informed decisions. These guidelines are influenced by, and sometimes based on, legal precedents and foundational decisions, such as the Daubert standard at the federal level, which set criteria for the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

Bill Neri, one of the groups founders, shared his enthusiasm ahead of the event, saying, Exceptionally excited that the court attorneys of Kings Supreme Criminal Term will be hosting Judge Dineen Riviezzo and her presentation, `Assessing Expert Testimony, for our second quarterly CLE.

Justice Riviezzos credentials were clearly evident. Her robust legal career, spanning diverse roles, provided the backdrop for the days content. She began her journey in the legal world after earning an undergraduate degree from Boston College and subsequently, a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

From being an attorney at the State Inspector Generals Office and chair of the NYS Commission of Investigation to serving at the Law Firm of Clifford Chance and undertaking duties as an assistant district attorney with the New York County District Attorneys Office, her multifaceted experiences lent an enriched perspective to the lecture.

This CLE session follows a highly successful inaugural seminar held on May 17 with Hon. Barry Kamins, the former administrative judge of the same courthouse. Justice Kamins lecture, which focused on the Fourth Amendment and the latest changes to the law, was met with an overwhelming response, underscoring the eagerness among court attorneys to learn from luminaries of their profession.

The steadily growing influence and organization of the Court Attorneys group hint at many more such enlightening sessions to come, continuing their mission of enhancing the legal fraternitys expertise and addressing the pressing issues of the day.

The group is currently in the planning stages of its next CLE meeting this coming January.

September 25 | Rob Abruzzese

September 25 | Rob Abruzzese

September 25 | Rob Abruzzese

September 25 | Rob Abruzzese

See the original post:
Court attorneys group hosts CLE seminar with esteemed Justice ... - Brooklyn Daily Eagle

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. Alexander M.M. Uballez, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, and Raul Bujanda, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigations Albuquerque Field Office, announced today that Michael Andrew Martinez has been arrested on a criminal complaint charging him with deprivation of rights under color of law and obstruction of justice. Martinez, 33, of Las Cruces, New Mexico, will appear in federal court for an initial appearance today.

According to the criminal complaint, on or about April 30, 2023, Michael Andrew Martinez, while working in his official capacity as an officer with the Doa Ana Sheriffs Office (DASO), allegedly kidnapped and sexually assaulted the victim, Jane Doe, thereby depriving Jane Doe of her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Martinez allegedly then obstructed justice by attempting to destroy evidence related to his kidnapping and sexual assault of the victim.

A complaint is only an allegation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. If convicted on the current charges, Martinez faces up to life imprisonment.

The Las Cruces Resident Agency of the FBI Albuquerque Field Office investigated this case with assistance from the Doa Ana Sheriffs Office and the New Mexico State Police. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Marisa Ong and Matilda McCarthy Villalobos are prosecuting the case.

In addition to the Doa Ana Sheriffs Office, Martinez was previously employed by the New Mexico State Police and Hatch Police Department. If you have reason to believe you or someone you know may be a victim of Martinez, or if you have information about this ongoing investigation, please call the FBI at (505) 889-1300 or submit their tips online at tips.fbi.gov.

# # #

23-234

Read the original here:
Former Dona Ana County Deputy Sheriff Charged with Federal Civil ... - Department of Justice

Is your home your castle? Even as a renter, what right to privacy do you have?

We believe renters deserve the legal right to maintain a secure and safe home, even from a nosy government. Sioux County District Judge Jeffrey Neary made that clear by rejecting an Orange City rental property inspection ordinance.

Orange City thought it had the power to search rental residences for health and safety violations, and snoop for possible criminal violations as well, even without any probable cause. This flies in the tradition of a person being secure in their home.

The court finds here that there needs to be more safeguards or protective measures put in place as there are currently none in place in Iowa for the district court to use when considering a request or an application for an administrative search warrant, Neary said in his Aug. 31 ruling.

He said the city needs evidence there is a health or safety violation before intruding upon a rental property. It also is required to have the consent of the people living there.

The government cant just force its way into a home; we established that during the Revolutionary War, when Americans objected to being required to house British soldiers.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution safeguards Americans from unreasonable search and seizure, and Article I, Section 8 of the Iowa Constitution ensures that precious protection exists in our state as well. Somehow, Orange City didnt grasp that.

We understand the desire to keep all homes safe and to protect the people living in them. But this was intrusive, not protective. The fact that home inspectors also were acting as agents and informants for the police department also is troubling. Thats not a proper role for these city employees.

The judge said the residents deserve advance notice and should have the right to reject such an inspection, or limit the areas being searched. They maintain the right to ask the city to inspect the property, in part to avoid landlords who are not providing proper living conditions.

This legal battle was started in May 2021. It took more than two years to establish that in Orange City, renters have rights.

Erika and Bryan Singer, their landlord, Joshua Dykstra, and another landowner, Bev Van Dam, brought the legal challenge. A third renter, Amanda Wink, originally was in the group but moved out of Orange City before a decision was reached.

John Wrench was their lawyer, and he rightfully noted the importance of this ruling.

It is a serious victory, really, for all Iowans right to be secure against nonconsensual, suspicionless searches of their homes, including renters, Wrench said.

Bryan Singer said its a simple matter of right and wrong. Why did the city think it could enter a rental property without permission? It boggles the mind, frankly.

I didnt ask for it. I didnt mandate it. So, I dont want them here, he said. At what point do you lose your rights? What rights do I even have? It shouldnt be just because Im renting that Im a second-class citizen.

Exactly. We applaud these residents for taking a legal stand, and Judge Nearly for correctly supporting it.

See the article here:
Editorial: Renters rights ruling | Opinion - nwestiowa.com

WASHINGTON U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves released the following statement on the package of bills and initiativesknown as the Secure DC Planproposed by D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto. The plan includes the Addressing Crime through Targeted Interventions and Violence Enforcement (ACTIVE) Amendment Act of 2023.

I am glad Councilmember Pinto introduced these bills, and I support her plan to improve public safety in the District. These provisions will better enable our office to prosecute cases that are harming our communities and fill legal gaps that will make our residents safer.

U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves provides the following additional statement:

This legislation includes a number of common-sense fixes, such as making clear that being shot is a severe assault that should be treated as the serious bodily injury that it is, and making clear that whether an armed gunman takes your car from you, or forcefully takes your keys from you to steal your car, it is all carjacking.

As the community begins to consider this important package, I have noted that the provisions addressing how we better protect our community from gun offenders and those charged with gun offenses who remain in the community have already garnered much attention. Before discussing those provisions, I want to explain how our system currently operates. In the District, people charged with illegally possessing a firearm are typically released pending trialeven when they have previously been convicted of a felony. While there is a presumption in the D.C. Code that these individuals will be detained pending trial due to the inherent dangerousness of firearms offenses, most are released.

Moreover, a majority of the people convicted of carrying a pistol without a license in the District are sentenced to a period of probation, which is permitted under the D.C. Sentencing Guidelines. Put simply, the typical result of a prosecution for illegally carrying a firearm is that the person charged will be in the community pending the resolution of his or her case and, if convicted of carrying a pistol without a license, will be sentenced to a period of probation. Our criminal justice system needs to reflect the reality that many individuals found with guns are being released back into our community after having served little to no time in jail.

This legislation, if enacted, will be narrowly tailored to work to stop people who are given the opportunity to remain in the community despite having been convicted of gun offenses, or people given the opportunity to be released pending trialnotwithstanding a presumption of pretrial detentionfrom re-arming themselves while they are under supervision.

This will allow law enforcement to search a limited category of people foramong other thingsguns that they are carrying in public places in violation of their conditions of release. This provision recognizes that swift and certain apprehension is an effective deterrent to criminal activity, and draws from research from the U.S. Sentencing Commission showing that people convicted of gun offenses have higher rates of recidivism.

We have reviewed similar legislation from California and other states, and the court decisions affirming their constitutionality, including decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on judicial precedent, we are confident that the legislation complies with the Fourth Amendment, and if this legislation is enacted, we are prepared to defend the statutes constitutionality in court.

The rest is here:
U.S. Attorney's Statement Regarding Proposed Changes to Crime ... - Department of Justice

When the Supreme Court struck down the use of race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina last term, the conservative justices behind the decision robustly claimed to seek the end of racial discrimination, espousing a view that eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted a major irony: Despite claiming that consideration of race violates the guarantee of the 14th Amendments equal protection clause, the court has repeatedly condoned racial profiling as a law enforcement tool that does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court tolerates pretextual traffic stops and has sanctioned police reliance on an individuals apparent Mexican ancestry at the border and its functional equivalents to be a relevant factor justifying a traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion.

The federal landscape for addressing racialized policing is thus deeply baffling. Although racial profiling is permitted, the mechanism for challenging racially discriminatory policingselective enforcement in violation of the 14th Amendmentrequires showing an officers discriminatory intent. Finding evidence of an officers racist intent is increasingly improbable, given that police are unlikely to state (or write) their racial biases. Like most of us, they possess implicit racial biases that are inaccessible even to themselves.

Within this incredibly difficult legal context, one New Jersey appellate court earlier this year boldly addressed implicit racial bias in the decisions of ordinary policing. The facts of State v. Scott presented a unique instance in which racial bias could be proved, and this New Jersey court provides a road map for other state courts to offer similar protections.

On Dec. 9, 2019, a woman was robbed in Jersey City. She quickly reported it to a 911 dispatcher and provided a description. When the dispatcher asked whether the suspect was Black, white or Hispanic, she responded that she did not know. But when relaying the description to police officers, the dispatcher improperly added to the womans account that the suspect was a Black male. It appears this error was inadvertent, a mistake reflecting a pernicious implicit bias linking Blackness with criminality.

William L. Scott subsequently challenged the constitutionality of the police stop leading to his arrest, maintaining that the improper injection of race into the be-on-the-lookout description violated the states constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. The appellate court agreed. Emphasizing the importance of deterring discriminatory policing in all of its permutations, the court suppressed all evidence obtained from the subsequent unlawful stop. Scott is the first example of a state appellate court holding that evidence ofimplicit racial biasin policing establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination justifying the exclusion of evidence. Other state courts across the nation should take note and adopt similar determinations.

Scott makes a few significant doctrinal moves. First, the court decided that the dispatchers actions were attributable to police for the purposes of Scotts constitutional claim. Second, analyzing the problematic assumption that the suspect was a Black male, the court reasoned that the dispatcher either intentionally injected race based on a belief about Black men and criminality or accidentally included race because she unconsciously associates Black men with criminality. In either case, the panel held that Scott did not need to show that the state had acted with conscious racial animus to prove the violation of his right to equal protection.

Claims of selective police enforcement based on racial discrimination normally require proof of an officers intent. Remarkably, Scott held that evidence of implicit, unconscious racial bias influencing the dispatchers erroneous injection of race into the be-on-the-lookout description sufficed. The long history of racialized oppression in the United States, and especially in the criminal legal system, has resulted in widespread racist stereotypes associating Blackness with criminality. Here, implicit racial bias led to a documented error in the BOLO description and to race becoming an explicit factor in the police search. Recognizing that federal cases on racial discrimination, such as in jury selection, involve intentional discrimination, Scott relied on the New Jersey Supreme Courts recent statement that implicit bias is no less real and no less problematic than intentional bias.

Finally, after finding that police violated the state constitution, Scott considered whether two well-known exceptions to the exclusionary rule, independent source and inevitable discovery, should apply to save the evidence recovered against Scott. Each of these exceptions to the exclusionary rule contains a flagrancy factor, in which the reviewing court measures the gravity and culpability of the police constitutional violation against the practical consequence of excluding evidence in a criminal case. Here, Scott boldly concluded, discriminatory policing does not just taint specific bits of information; rather, it infects an entire police-citizen encounter in a way that cannot be cured with surgical redaction. In other words, once a court has found that police violated New Jerseys guarantee of equal protection under the law, this finding cannot be set aside to permit evidence obtained as a result of that violation into criminal proceedings.

Expressly motivated by a desire to deter racialized policing in all of its permutations, Scott suppressed all evidence obtained from the illegal stop. The state downgraded its charge to second-degree robbery, to which Scott pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to three years in state prison, which he had already served, and therefore this resolution resulted in his immediate release.

This unique case surfaces an underexamined question of how intent figures into the context of racialized policing. Scott highlights the glaring doctrinal contradiction: the Fourth Amendment permits race to be considered in policing, while the equal protection clause prevents proving racial discrimination without evidence of intent. In fact, the unique way that implicit racial bias was proved in the BOLO description here shows why its difficult to legally challenge racially motivated police actions. However, it presents an alternative avenue for state courts depending on the language in state constitutions.

To truly address implicit racial bias in policing, we must challenge a Fourth Amendment that empowers police with wide discretion to employ a racialized selection process. Because present constitutional doctrine permits discretionary police decisions yielding systemically racist outcomes, courts should review these police interventions without requiring evidence of an officers conscious intent to discriminate.

More:
New Jersey provides a road map for fighting racially biased traffic ... - Slate

HOUSTON, Sept. 21, 2023 The City of Houston cant pick and choose who can speak freely in its public parks.

Today, the Law & Religion Clinic at the University of Texas and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston, several Houston police officers, and Discovery Green Conservancy after police officers arrested an animal rights advocate for refusing to give up his First Amendment right to free speech in Discovery Green, a public park described as the crown jewel of public spaces in downtown Houston.

The management of Houstons public Discovery Green Park was concerned that passers-by might be offended by the advocates message. The officers actions were a clear violation of the advocates First Amendment right to speak freely in a public park a park where peaceful protests happen regularly.

Its highly hypocritical and discriminatory to allow certain groups to exercise free speech but not us, said Daraius Dubash, the animal rights advocate who was arrested. Were seeking a ruling affirming that no one whether the police or park management can ban people from peaceful expression in a public park like Discovery Green.

Dubash and his fellow advocate Dr. Faraz Harsini are both immigrants who are passionate about animal rights. Harsini escaped to the United States from Iran after protesting against the Iranian government and was granted a green card for his research on cancer and infectious diseases. Dubash, who is from India, is a former marketing manager who now devotes most of his time to animal rights advocacy.

Daraius and Faraz each fled countries where they couldnt speak like they do here, said Law & Religion Clinic attorney John Greil. They cherish their rights, and were proud to fight for them.

COURTESY PHOTOS FOR MEDIA

Several times during summer 2022, Dubash and Harsini went to Discovery Green to host a series of educational events. They held a television screen playing excerpts from a documentary about the mistreatment of animals, and they only spoke to people who engaged with them.

However, almost every time they demonstrated, park management and security asked them to leave, claiming that passers-by could be offended by their message. And so they complied. But the last time, Daraius stood his ground, calmly explaining to park management and security, You still have to abide by the First Amendment because [the park] is publicly owned.

The park managements response? Right. But we also choose, [and] we dont feel the content is appropriate.

When two Houston police officers arrived, Daraius again calmly explained his First Amendment rights. Yet the officers still arrested Daraius and handcuffed him in a chair in the park security office for more than two hours until he was taken to the county jail and charged with criminal trespass. The district attorney dismissed the charge.

No one should be handcuffed and detained for exercising his First Amendment rights, said FIRE attorney JT Morris. Were suing because public parks belong to all Americans and their expressive rights, not the personal views of a few.

The lawsuit seeks to vindicate Harsini and Dubashs constitutional right to share their beliefs freely in a public space. It asks the court to prohibit the city and Discovery Green Conservancy from interfering with Harsini and Dubashs peaceful advocacy at the park, and it seeks damages for First Amendment and Fourth Amendment violations.

Nothing is more powerful than being honest and open with people, and were standing up for our First Amendment rights that give us that voice, said Harsini.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

Part of The Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, the Law & Religion Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law advocates for clients who face challenges to their religious liberty and who are otherwise unlikely to find representation. Its clients include individuals and organizations across the nation and ideological spectrum. Religious liberty seeks to ensure that people of diverse religious beliefs and nonbeliefs can thrive alongside one another peacefully. In that spirit, students and faculty in the Law and Religion Clinic work to protect their clients from discrimination on the basis of their religious commitments, from unlawful burdens on religious exercise, and from unlawful coercion of religious exercise.

CONTACT Katie Kortepeter, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

PRONUNCIATION GUIDE:

Daraius Dubash (Dah-RYE-us DU-bash)

Faraz Harsini (Far-AHZ Har-SEE-ni)

Originally posted here:
Animal rights advocates sue after facing ongoing censorship and ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

GERALD WAYNE JAKO

WHEELING Gerald Jako pleaded guilty to two counts of murder Monday ahead of his trial, which had been set to begin today.

The Wheeling man initially was charged with three counts of murder and two counts of concealing a deceased human body in the 2018 murder of Trevor Vossen and his pregnant girlfriend, Lauren Lulu Cree-Jenkins.

Jako reportedly lured Vossen and Cree-Jenkins to a Wheeling house, killing and dismembering them before burying their remains in Raleigh County, W.Va., with help from his girlfriend, Dana Marie Bowman. Cree-Jenkinss death resulted in the involuntary termination of her pregnancy.

Circuit Judge David Sims ruled in July that Jakos defense was not able to provide any legal authority supporting that the defendants rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States had been violated, denying a motion the defense had made to suppress evidence from Jakos phone calls made while in custody.

At the pre-trial hearing on July 15, Jakos lawyers argued that Jako had not been given sufficient warning that his phone calls were being monitored while at the Southern Regional Jail, where Jako stayed from August to September 2018. However, Sims found that Jako was provided a written notice that he signed, verbal warning at the beginning of his calls and written notices posted at the locations of phones used by inmates.

Because of these three different warnings provided, Sims found the defendants argument that Jako was not provided with proper notice that phone calls may be monitored, intercepted, recorded, and disclosed and correspondence read without merit.

Denial of the motion to suppress was expected to bear significant weight in the trial, as Assistant Ohio County Prosecutor Shawn Turak used calls Jako made to his girlfriend from jail to convict him of a 2018 robbery.

In the calls, Jako intimidated his girlfriend into refusing to plead guilty.

Prosecutors have scheduled a press conference for Thursday to provide more informationregarding Jakos guilty plea.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post:
Gerald Jako Pleads Guilty to Two Counts of Murder in Ohio County - Wheeling Intelligencer

This sign welcomed attendees to Court on Campus.

Providing students with a firsthand glimpse of the judicial process, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia came to campus last week to hear oral argument sessions in several cases.

Education has been a central theme to the current court. In 2020, Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker helped initiate a podcast called Women of the Court in collaboration with other female members of a state supreme court. You can listen to this podcast on their website, http://www.ladyjusticepod.com.

Three court cases were presented on Wednesday, Sept. 13: Jayson Nicewarner, et al. v. City of Morgantown; Roland F. Chalifoux, Jr. D.O., v. West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine, et al., and State ex rel. West Virginia Attorney-General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and Nathan R. Lyle v. Hisel Bailey.

The first case revolved around a dispute between Morgantown-area firefighters (the petitioners) and the city of Morgantown (the respondent) regarding the calculation of holiday benefits for firefighters.

Story continues below advertisement

The firefighters contended that since their workdays span a 24-hour period, including sick leave, the entire shift should be considered a legal holiday, entitling them to holiday benefits for the full 24-hours.

However, the circuit court disagreed, asserting that the city hadnt failed to pay wages or fringe benefits to the firefighters and that the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act wasnt applicable to the case.

The subsequent case on the oral argument docket concerned an individual doctor seeking damages resulting from the suspension of his medical license. The West Virginia Bureau for Public Health conducted an investigation following a patients hospitalization with bacterial meningitis after a medical procedure.

The investigation attributed fault to the clinic, citing unsafe injection practices, including the physicians failure to observe hand hygiene before or after the procedure.

Following non-cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Resources, the doctors medical license was suspended.

Dr. Roland Chalifoux filed a complaint, alleging that the suspension of his medical license without a hearing breached his duty and resulted in monetary damages.

The circuit court dismissed the petitioners claims, citing the doctrine of res judicata, as these claims were not raised in the initial action.

The final case addressed in the oral argument involved registered nurse Hisel Bailey, who sued after being terminated for alleged patient abuse at Mildred Mitchell-Bateman Hospital.

Bailey swiftly filed a grievance with the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board, contending that the report contained factual errors and false opinions. Consequently, she was

reinstated as a registered nurse.

Later, Bailey sued the Department of Health and

Human Resources, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Lyle, Legal Aid of West Virginia and two of their employees, alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and malicious prosecution.

The petitioners sought dismissal, asserting qualified and prosecutorial immunity, shielding specific government entities from lawsuits. In August 2022, the circuit court denied the petitioners motion.

Decisions for these three cases are anticipated to be reached this November.

Read the original here:
Supreme Court of Appeals Visits Campus The Parthenon - MU The Parthenon

..... be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023. 2. They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 3. In the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 , after regulation 62 , the following shall be inserted, namely, Listing of subsequent issuances of non-convertible debt securities 62A . (1) A listed entity, whose non-convertible debt securities are listed shall list all non-convertible debt securities, proposed to be issued on or after January 1, 2024, on the stock exchange(s). (2) A listed entity, whose subsequent issues of unlisted non-convertibl .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

..... es on which its non-convertible debt securities are listed, all the key terms of such securities, including embedded options, security offered, interest rates, charges, commissions, premium (by any name called), period of maturity and such other details as may be required to be disclosed by the Board from time to time. BABITHA RAYUDU, Executive Director [ADVT.-III/4/Exty./428/2023-24] Footnotes: 1. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 were published in the Gazette of India on 2nd September 2015 vide No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2015-16/013. 2. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, were subsequently amend .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

..... tion no. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2018/10. h) May 30, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2018 vide notification no. SEBI/LADNRO/GN/2018/13. i) June 1, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018 vide notification No. SEBI/LADNRO/GN/2018/21. j) June 8, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2018 vide notification no. SEBI/LADNRO/GN/2018/24. k) September 6, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fifth Amendmen .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

..... of India (Regulatory Sandbox) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020 vide no. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2020/10. t) August 5, 2020 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2020, vide notification no. SEBI/ LADNRO/GN/2020/25. u) October 8, 2020 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2020, vide notification no. SEBI/ LADNRO/GN/2020/33. v) January 8, 2021 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, vide notification no. SEBI/ LAD-NRO/GN/2021/02. w) May 5, 2021 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Li .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

..... April 11, 2022 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2022, vide notification No. SEBI/LADNRO/GN/2022/79. ff) April 25, 2022 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 vide notification No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2022/80. gg) July 25, 2022 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 vide notification No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2022/88. hh) November 14, 2022 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 vide .....

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2023 - SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2023/151 - SEBI

x x x x x Extracts x x x x x

Original post:
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and ... - Tax Management India. Com