|
|
|
Drug court graduates get second chance at life
Legal Line News |
2018/06/21 16:59
|
Kevin Hunter's day job doesn't typically lend itself to feel-good moments, but he got to share in 34 of them Monday afternoon.
Hunter, a Fort Wayne police captain, was among the first to congratulate nearly three dozen graduates of the 45th Allen Superior Court Drug Court. He runs the police department's Vice and Narcotics Division, which often sees decidedly fewer happy outcomes for people it investigates.
"I usually talk about very depressing things," Hunter said. "Today, I get to see hope and action."
The court was established as one of the state's first in 1996 by the late Judge Ken Scheibenberger, and it allows drug dealers and users a chance at life without those substances. Hundreds have taken part in drug court, and many have had charges against them dismissed because they completed counseling and treatment programs.
Hunter, who joined the department in 1989, said the court is valuable, particularly as the opioid crisis rages in northeast Indiana. A vice and narcotics sergeant attends drug court meetings, he said.
The program offers positive options to people who once might have been arrested by officers, sent to court and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, said Hunter, a member of the county's Opioid Task Force.
"Many times it's (that) they made a bad choice," he said, referring to people who have sold or used drugs. "But they're still human beings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
USCIS Helps Get Conviction in Asylum Fraud
Legal Line News |
2018/06/16 10:50
|
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) played an integral part in yesterday’s sentencing of Ali Vahdani Pour.
Pour, a 28 –year- old national of Iran, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes to 137 days in prison. He had pled guilty to lying under oath in an immigration matter.
In the plea agreement, Pour admitted having lied on his asylum application. Specifically, Pour admitted he falsely denied having served in the Iranian military and falsely denied having received refugee status in Italy, before seeking asylum in the United States.
“Making false staments to support your claim for asylum in the U.S. will not be tolerated,” said USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Director David Radel.
The investigation in this case was conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, USCIS, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds Phoenix law over same-sex wedding invitations
Legal Line News |
2018/06/07 16:44
|
An Arizona appeals court on Thursday upheld a Phoenix anti-discrimination law that makes it illegal for businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples because of religion.
The ruling comes days after the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The high court found Monday that a Colorado civil rights commission showed anti-religious bias when it ruled against Jack Phillips for refusing to make the cake at his Masterpiece Cakeshop.
The decision, however, did not address the larger issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.
In the Arizona case, the state Court of Appeals sided with the city in a lawsuit first brought in 2016 by a wedding invitation business, saying the ordinance is constitutional and does not violate freedom of religion or speech.
"We have previously found that eliminating discrimination constitutes a compelling interest," Judge Lawrence Winthrop wrote, adding that "antidiscrimination ordinances are not aimed at the suppression of speech, but at the elimination of discriminatory conduct."
The court said if Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio, "want to operate their for-profit business as a public accommodation, they cannot discriminate against potential patrons based on sexual orientation."
Attorney Jonathan Scruggs of Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented the women, said they intend to appeal the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UK Supreme Court criticizes Northern Ireland abortion laws
Legal Line News |
2018/06/05 16:44
|
Britain's Supreme Court on Thursday criticized Northern Ireland's strict anti-abortion laws but dismissed a legal challenge.
A majority of the court decided that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which initiated the case, did not have the standing to bring the challenge to the abortion law. The court dismissed the case without taking action.
The justices went on to say, however, that a majority finds Northern Ireland's abortion prohibitions "disproportionate" and that they violate European human rights laws.
That part of the ruling gave hope to abortion rights activists seeking to liberalize Northern Ireland's laws. Strict Northern Ireland laws that prohibit abortions in cases of pregnancy as a result of incest or rape, and in cases when the fetus has a likely fatal abnormality, have drawn scrutiny since the Republic of Ireland voted overwhelmingly in May to repeal its own strict laws.
When Ireland replaces the constitutional ban with more liberal legislation after a debate in parliament, Northern Ireland will be the only remaining region in Britain and Ireland to outlaw the procedure.
Rosa Curling, from the law firm Leigh Day that helped bring the legal challenge, called the court's ruling "a momentous day for women in Northern Ireland" and said it is now up to British Prime Minister Theresa May to take action to ease the laws.
She said May has an obligation to make sure the U.K. government is "now longer acting unlawfully by breaching the human rights of women across Northern Ireland."
However, the fact that the Supreme Court dismissed the case because of doubts about the Human Rights Commission's right to bring it means the judges' views on the anti-abortion laws do not have legal force, which is reassuring for abortion foes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
