Standing in the way of control!

From News24: A Durban card cloning kingpin found guilty of 157 counts of fraud as well as 28 counts of card cloning was sentenced to 2 000 hours of periodical imprisonment by the Durban Commercial Crime Court on Wednesday….

….With his sentence, the court said Mcanyana would also pay compensation of R175 000 to the financial institutions - R80 000 by August 29 this year and R5 000 per month thereafter.

This is totally absurd….This person acted with the knowledge of the crime and full well knew that was making card holders’ life one big misery. That’s Justice in SA. Steal now and pay back later…get it on credit if you need some more…ridiculous…this shit never gets old!

Popularity: 42% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

When Angelina Jolie headed to Nice, France, to unload her two kids, it wasn’t because the doctors there were any better than the U.S. It’s because the privacy laws there forbid photographers from taking publishing her picture, or that of her newborns, without her permission. Knowing those photos would fetch a hefty sum — $14 million, it turns out — she set up camp among the French until she blew.

In the United Kingdom, there’s a similar phenomenon going on: “libel tourism,” where lawsuits get filed in British courts over news reports that celebrities and other plaintiffs couldn’t even get on a court docket in their own countries.

That’s because the U.K. has some of the strictest libel laws in the world, if you discount North Korea’s tendency to make anybody who says something questionable disappear.

Plenty of publishers around the world aren’t happy with the British way of doing things, especially because the Internet and global distribution of many publications put their works inside U.K. jurisdiction, opening them up to lawsuits.

But now there’s a tiny organization who’s on their side. Perhaps you heard of it?

The United Nations.

Concerned with a little thing called “human rights,” the U.N.’s committee dedicated to the matter has gone on the record slamming the U.K.’s strict interpretation of libel:

The committee warns that the British libel laws have “served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as libel tourism”.

The case that has provoked the most concern is that of an American researcher, Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, who was sued in London by a Saudi businessman and his two sons over a book that sold 23 copies over the internet into the UK, where it was never officially published. One chapter of the book was available online.

The action led to the New York state legislature passing legislation to protect writers and publishers working there from defamation judgements in any country that does not give the same same freedom of speech rights as New York and US federal law.

The committee’s report highlights the grey area created by the internet whereby alleged libel can be read in different countries. There is a risk, warns the committee, that restrictive libel laws could affect legitimate international discussion, contrary to article 19 of the covenant on civil and political rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech “regardless of borders”.

The UK government has been urged to consider “a so-called ‘public figure’ exception” that would require a would-be claimant to prove actual malice by a publisher or author.

This would apply in cases involving public officials and prominent public figures, as currently exists in the US, where a public figure can only sue for libel if he or she can demonstrate malice, recklessness or indifference to the truth and that the statement is false.

A move like this could quash lawsuits like the one Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson filed against The Daily Mail, or Lisa Marie Pressley suing that same newspaper for calling her fat.

Not that it would do anything for News of the World: Though Formula 1 chief Max Mosley is certainly a public figure, it’d still be illegaly to t say somebody enjoys Nazi-themed S&M sex when he actually just enjoys just regular-themed S&M sex.

Bringing this story full circle, then, is this interesting aside: Ms. Jolie, a celebrity who benefits from Britain’s restrictive libel laws and would likely enjoy keeping them on the books, is an official U.N. ambassador.

[Guardian]

Via Jossip

Popularity: 33% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

Gay and lesbian refugee claimants struggling to shed old-world views of their sexuality are turning to new-age technology to make their case.

Facebook, the online social network, is being used as a tool by some claimants to help prove their sexual orientation to immigration officials in Canada.

“Sexuality has always been very complicated and when you have to prove it as a matter of life and death you will use any resource you have available to you,” Diego Macias of Among Friends, a Toronto-based gay and lesbian refugee support group, told The Canadian Press.

Those seeking refuge after 1992 were permitted to claim status based on their sexual orientation and required to prove their claim to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

Wearing their sexuality on their sleeve was never an option for many back in their home countries and finding suitable evidence to support their claims can be difficult.

Macias tells his members to use technology to their advantage and feels facebook can help demonstrate involvement in the gay and lesbian community.

“During Pride we took hundreds of pictures and we have a facebook group and when people sign up to that group we encourage them to show their membership to the IRB member.”

In more than 75 countries people face jail, or worse, for having gay sex.

Acts of homosexuality are punishable by death in several countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan.

In many other Muslim countries homosexuality carries prison sentences, fines, or corporal punishment.

Last week in Winnipeg a federal court judge upheld a decision to ship a Nigerian man back to his native country because the IRB ruled his claim of being gay was a hoax.

He says his life is in danger if he goes home.

Experts say it can take different components to paint a convincing picture of one’s sexual orientation for the Immigration and Refugee Board.

“I have used facebook (because) people put stuff on there about themselves and who they are, and in a relationship with,” immigration lawyer El-Farouk Khaki, who specialises in representing gay and lesbian refugee claimants, told The Canadian Press.

Khaki explains how many in this situation have spent years - even decades - trying to hide their sexuality back in their country of origin, so any glimpse into a claimant’s new life can help.

“Basically it’s like a jigsaw puzzle and you just try and take the little pieces here and there and you try and construct a larger picture of a person’s life,” he explained.

Khaki says he often provides his clients with a list of items that can help prove their sexual orientation to the immigration board - and there is very little off-limits.

Claimants can use letters from family and friends, pictures at Pride festivities and memberships on gay chat rooms.

Incorporating one of the most-used web-based networks in the world (facebook has 90 million members) is just the next logical step says Khaki.

“Before there was facebook, I was using other profiles,” says Khaki, giving examples of Gaydar.com and adam4adam.

Evidence can come in many forms, agrees Charles Hawkins, spokesman for the Immigration and Refugee Board.

“A refugee claimant may not have (typical) documentation to support their claim and individuals may have to be more resourceful in their submissions.

“A member of the board can accept any relevant evidence and then assign an appropriate value to that evidence.” Hawkins told The Canadian Press.

With Macias’ support group at more than 45 members and more coming through the doors every week, he says he will continue to use facebook to support refugee claims.

“I do foresee the IRB saying this is not an acceptable form of evidence,” says Macias.

“But until then I am going to keep on using it.”

(Pink News)

Popularity: 25% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

Though the following article is based on the USA system, I can say that, from working in Criminal Courts, it contains some good pointers which are universally applicable…

Are you one of the approximately 35 million people who receive a traffic ticket each year?

Of the 5% that are actually contested, one half are dismissed. The remaining half usually enjoyed reduced fines or other plea bargain arrangements that were less than the original mail in fine amount. Since you are reading this you may be one of the small and silent minority who successfully fights a ticket each year.

Unless you get a contempt of court charge for some outrageous behavior, your fine will be exactly what you would have mailed in originally. You will only be out your time invested. Remember, it’s not just the fine but also the increased insurance premiums you’re trying to save with your time investment.

A recent study by an attorney specializing in traffic tickets showed that 60% of his contested cases were won. Of that amount, over 40% were won by lack of prosecution - No Officer = Not Guilty. An additional 25% were won through the inability to prove the charges.

As you can see, just by going to court and contesting your ticket, the odds are swinging in your favor.

It is important to remember that traffic laws and codes differ from state to state and are constantly changing. You must do your homework to insure that you are current in all matters relevant to your particular situation. In addition, the information in this Guide is intended as basic strategies and tactics. Consider this Guide as your game plan, but you still need to get in there and pitch. This Guide is NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

When the officer approaches your vehicle he will likely ask you one of two standard questions:

1. Do you know why I stopped you?
   Your response is, “No officer, I don’t.”
2. Do you know how fast you were going?
   You have three levels of response:
   “I’m not really sure.”
   “The speed limit, I think.”
   “I wasn’t speeding and I checked my speedometer right before you stopped me.”

The key element here is not to admit anything. You have a right to remain silent but the officer isn’t required to advise you of this right (Mirandize). Do not respond by saying, “Well I think I was doing about 62 when you know you are in a 55 mph speed limit. This is called admitting your quilt!

When the officer asks for your license, registration and proof of insurance tell him where they are located and ask to get them before reaching for anything. If you are in a state which allows concealed weapons, by all means notify him of the weapons location. If your documents are in the glove box or console, get them and close the compartment. This way the officer isn’t worried about you reaching in for an illegal weapon while he is writing your citation.

This brings us to the request for a vehicle search. If the officer asks permission to search the vehicle he doesn’t have any probable cause. Under no circumstances agree to this search. If he threatens to get a search warrant, politely tell him to go ahead and get one. The crucial element here is probable cause. The officer must have probable cause prior to the search. If your vehicle has smoke pouring out and smells like a Cheech and Chong reunion, he will search without asking. The same is true if you have alcohol on your breath. In either of these cases you have some other serious issues that you are about to come face to face with other than your speeding ticket.

It is also important to remember that this is not the time to plead your case or argue the issue. You are trying to stay low profile and arguing or giving some lame excuse that the officer has heard 200 times is not getting you anywhere. You should realize that as soon as his pen hits the ticket book he is committed to issuing the citation. He can’t void out the ticket and say he made a mistake. Once he starts to write, the citation is yours to keep.

While the officer is writing your citation (usually back at his vehicle) it is time to start your defense process. Begin to assimilate as much data as possible. Small details are essential. These are the kind of things that the officer will not remember when it comes time to appear in court. Some of the basic information you should be trying to gather is as follows:

1. Make, model, license plate number and unit number of the officer’s car.
2. Note your exact location and try to determine the distance between where you stopped and where the violation occurred.
3. Even though your citation will list the basic weather conditions, make note of all the weather conditions such as temperature, wind, cloud cover, etc.
4. Note any passenger names and be sure that your passengers remain totally silent during the entire stop unless they are asked a specific question.
5. Make note of your shirt or coat color.
6. Make note of any distinctive characteristics about your vehicle such as any noticeable dents, two tone paint, mag wheels, etc. Again, you are after as many small details as possible.
7. You also need to remember and note everything the officer said during the stop. If he talks on his personal radio during the stop, try to note these items as well. A lot of times the officer who stops you will not be the officer who was running the radar unit. It is crucial to your case that you establish this point.
8. Note the current traffic conditions and remember the surrounding traffic at the time you were pulled over. If you were surrounded by a sea of traffic try to remember anything and everything about that sea of traffic.

When the officer returns with your citation he will generally ask you to look it over and sign it. This signature, as the officer will explain to you, is not an admission of guilt but an acknowledgement of actually receiving the citation. Before you sign the citation, ask to have your court appearance moved to the county seat. This option is not always available but should be pursued. If the officer refuses, politely ask him to note your request and his refusal on the citation. If he again refuses, sign the citation and keep quiet. You can make your own notes later.

After you sign the citation, ask the officer if you can see the radar read out. The officer isn’t required to do this due to your own safety. The police department doesn’t want you run down by a passing motorist while you were heading back to the squad car to look at the radar. If the officer allows you to view the radar, make no comments whatsoever. Do try to make a note of the manufacturer or model number. Under absolutely no circumstances should you ask to see the calibration fork. That is a major red flag that you know the ins and outs of radar and you are going to fight the citation. You have now moved into the memorable category and that’s counterproductive to your case. After the officer returns to his car, stay at the scene making notes for no more than two minutes if he remains at the scene. He will usually be making notes on the back of his copy of the citation. Again, do not make yourself memorable by staying at the scene until the officer leaves. Your fight has just begun and there will be plenty of time to prepare your case without waiting at the scene. It is accessible 24 hours a day for you to study.

As you pull away from the scene, do so calmly and safely. Spinning tires and slinging gravel across the officer’s hood are not a good ideas. Head out with the confidence that you will likely never see the officer again since the odds favor him not showing up at your final court date. Then again, there is also the satisfaction of knowing that the next time you face the officer it will be in a courtroom with him under oath answering your questions. If you adhered to the information discussed above, you will be no more than another of a string of citations he wrote in the past month. Smart money bets he darn sure won’t know what color shirt you had on or how windy it was.

Fight, Plea or Pay
Now that you have your citation in hand it is time to decide if you are going to Fight, Plea or Pay. Remember, even if you fight and loose, your fine is no higher than you would have paid initially. You also need to weigh the fact that you will be paying the fine plus the added insurance premiums. If you’re still in doubt, here a the most common reasons why people choose to fight their citation and have their day in court:

• I can’t afford or don’t want to pay the fine.
• I don’t want the ticket on my record.
• I can’t afford the points on my license.
• I didn’t do anything.
• OK, I did do it but everyone else was doing it too.
• The officer was a major jerk and I want pay back in court.

If you fit into one of these scenarios, it’s time to move forward and start your long trip down the halls of justice.

Continue here…

Popularity: 22% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

From Timesonline:

For most brides, their wedding day is of unparalleled importance and their wedding dress hallowed. However, the case of one unfortunate bride in Italy was recently recounted in court. She suffered a disaster when the stitching on her expensive dress came apart as she stood at the altar and the dress slipped open, revealing her bottom to 100 shocked guests. The couple were not able to take any proper photographs of the ceremony, their lawyer said, because of the bride’s semi-naked state. She is now suing the dress shop in Rapallo for €23,000 compensation for financial loss and moral injury.

Wedding dresses have featured in various cases in different jurisdictions. In 2002, Jennifer Lucier Mora sued the Hyatt Tamaya Resort at Santa Ana Pueblo in New Mexico alleging that it was negligent in failing to take proper steps to avoid disaster. A gust of wind had swept up her dress during the outdoor ceremony; it was then run over by a golf cart that was a part of the proceedings. Her claim was eventually settled out of court.

In 2001, a woman in Scotland spent months searching for the perfect wedding gown, eventually choosing one for £2,000. The dress stayed in tact for her the ceremony but started to split immediately after the vows had been exchanged, so that her husband had to use various desperate manual techniques to prevent the dress disintegrating during the photo sessions. The shop owner defended the woman’s claim for compensation by arguing that she must have treated the dress inappropriately. “You treat a wedding dress as a costume,” the shop owner said, “not like jeans and a sweater.” The sheriff awarded £500 damages, ruling that a wedding dress must “last the course of one day’s wedding activities”.

Wearing a wedding dress, though, is no protection against the law. In September 2006, in Sedgwick County, Kansas, a woman arrived at a courthouse to get married. But when the court clerk entered her name into a computer for her marriage license, two warrants for her arrest came up on the screen. The day ended not with her wearing a gold band on her finger but two bands of silver on her wrists — she was handcuffed and hitched over to the county jail in her wedding dress on a $200,000 bond for probation violations.

Professor Slapper is Director of the Centre for Law at The Open University. His recent book How the Law Works is published by HarperCollins

Popularity: 18% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

In Britain, the Lord Chief Justice noted that Sharia law should be acceptable in UK society if it doesn’t clash with the law of the land. So few people outside the Muslim faith understand Sharia law and I think it is worth investigating if only to understand a different legal system or rules.TheDaily Mail has an interesting article regarding this and the statement by the Judge.

Popularity: 19% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

Two US judges convicted of racketeering are the latest chapter in a long history of justice being bought

Gary Slapper

“Finally we are at a point where I think that justice is back on an even keel in Caddo Parish,” declared US Attorney Donald Washington recently after a couple of convicts had been jailed.

His sigh of relief came at the end of a racketeering case in Louisiana. Prior to sentencing two convicted men, District Judge Maurice Hicks had remanded them in custody because they were seen as otherwise likely to abscond. Unusually, however, for men facing sentences of up to 20 years for racketeering, both convicts were judges.

District Judge Michael Walker of the state court and Judge Vernon Claville of the Caddo Parish juvenile court were convicted on one count each of racketeering after taking bribes in return for setting low bail bonds or removing court restrictions on defendants. In just three sample months in 2007, 24 instances of pay-as-you-go justice were exposed.

Judges have been removed from office for corruption in Britain but not in modern times. In the 13th-century, six judges were sacked for taking bribes. In 1350, Sir William De Thorpe, the Chief Justice, was thrown off the bench for taking bribes.

In the 16th-century, Bishop Hugh Latimer, referring to the judiciary, said: “They all love bribes. Bribery is a princely kind of thieving.” Then, in 1620, Francis Bacon, the Lord Chancellor, pleaded guilty to 21 charges of bribery and corruption. He had accepted large bribes from litigants to get him to rule in their favour. He was fined £40,000 and sent to the Tower.

The known and reviled practice of bribing a judge can, though, be used to the advantage of a clever lawyer. This is an account I once heard some years ago from a Chief Justice of an African country. A client, whom I’ll Mr Crook, was a notorious character in that murky social territory between legitimate business and crime. The authorities eventually caught him in flagrante delicto. His lawyer was faced with a pretty much impossible task.

At the end of the trial but before the verdict, the defence lawyer confided to his crooked client: “This doesn’t look good I’m afraid, I think we’ll have to just accept the verdict and appeal.”

“Don’t be a defeatist,” said the client. “We’ll just have to see what price we can get the judge for.”

“No,” the lawyer said. “There is no way that this judge can be bought.”

“You think so?”

“Don’t do anything stupid.”

The next day, the judge came into court and said he was throwing out the case against Mr Crook.

The prosecution lawyers sat wide-eyed and slack-jawed in disbelief.

The defendant beamed, winked at his lawyer, said “I told you I’d fix it”, and got up to go.

“I cannot believe it,” the lawyer said. “How did you do it?”

“Well,” the client said, “last night I had delivered to the judge’s front door six crates of the world’s finest whisky.”

“But this guy’s completely incorruptible, I don’t get it,” the lawyer said.

“Yes, that’s right, he is incorruptible,” said the client, “but I had it delivered to the judge in the name of the prosecutor.”

Professor Slapper is Director of the Centre for Law at The Open University. His recent book How the Law Works is published by HarperCollins

Source: TIMESONLINE

Popularity: 21% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)

Ok, now that it seems as though this blog is working I’ll take some time out to put my cv outhere.

I am a man in my early thirties. I studied law in South Africa and worked for 8 years in this field. Now, well, now I am tired of it and I have eventually decided to move on…The justice system is just not cutting it anymore. I believe that maybe another field would open my eyes to the love  I once had for the law though that is but a hope. Must say to take such a drastic step is scary but I belive I will find my way out of a world that I perceive to be dark and disjointed….

Popularity: 27% [?]

ShareThis

(Sponsor Link: assetant.co.za)