SC asks pilots to fly 3 flights in 9 hrs, stays Bombay HC order

September 8th, 2008

New Delhi: Pilots will have to fly for more hours. The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Mumbai High Court order that had quashed the guidelines of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directing airline pilots to fly three flights in nine hours.
The bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan issued the interim directions on the petition of Solicitor General G.E. Vahanvati, who challenged the high court order. Vahanvati objected to the high court’s observation that the DGCA’s circular to restore the flying hours, which existed in 1992, was to please the airline operators.
The Solicitor General said, “World-wide the airline industry is in a mess. Flights are being cut down due to a rise in the fuel prices. The high court has erred in holding that the airlines are increasing the flights and the DGCA’s circular is to favour the companies. Also, this argument was never placed before the court, either by the petitioners or the respondents.”
Vahanvati further argued that the high court misread the statutory provisions and proceeded on surmises and conjectures. It overlooked the statutory rules by venturing into complex areas of policy and aviation, he said.
The Solicitor General criticised the two-judge bench of the high court who also gave a finding against the civil aviation minister for issuing the orders, increasing the number of flying hours for pilots. The high court had concluded that the minister “acted without application of mind in a most arbitrary and irrational manner”.
10/07/08 Bhadra Sinha/Hindustan Times

My Day in Court H**L

September 8th, 2008

Have you ever had to go to court to testify for a foster child?
This was my first time actually making it to the stand. The other 150 times it was always continued & continued til the child was no long in my home. Thereby causing them not to want to hear anything I had to say. Which in these cases were just fine by me. But I still wasted hours or a half a day hanging out at the court house overhearing conversations best left in private!
So last Friday @ 5:00pm I received a call from the state’s atty. asking me what day of my life would I like to waste. So I choose Tuesday. They wanted to make real SURE I made it, so they subpoenaed me.
This was the case for the 6 yr old that left a couple months back. THE most messed up case I have seen to date. And hope never to see another one like it. There is NO reason for a child that young to be in care for 3 yrs. NONE.
I had to be there at 9:00am, they did not call me till 5:00pm! All witnesses had to stay out of the court room & wait to be called in. OHH, the insanity of it all!
When I finally got up there, the first question they asked is, how would he react when told he had a birth parent visit. Typical question, I would think. OHH, but no! The other atty. actually said, if I answered that question, it was HEARSAY??? I could not say/tell anything the boy had said to me. How can I testify when I can’t tell you 95% of the interactions that went on in my house? Why did you bother calling me to testify? It lasted a whole 15 minutes, half of which was taken up with telling me to speak UP. I feel like I did absolutely nothing to help this boy. No wonder it’s been 3 yrs. Does this huge waste of time & effort really happen in our American judicial system?
May God be with the children waiting in our *foster* system for an adoptive home

Heller’s limited reach outside the home.

September 8th, 2008

 

Image from the Government Printing Office’s <a href=”http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps2821/past_issues/1998/AUG%2098/GUN.JPG” target=”blank”>website.

 

As I walked to the District of Columbia Superior Court last Thursday, I felt a huge air of glee from a fellow criminal defense lawyer walking the opposite way. "Justice is coming at 10:00 a.m.," he exulted. Later that morning, in the courthouse, another colleague who defends many clients in handgun cases happily told me that the Supreme Court that morning had affirmed the United States Court of Appeals ruling invalidating the District of Columbia’s virtual blanket ban on the possession of an operable handgun in one’s home. Longtime Underdog readers know I agree with the result in the Supreme Court. <a href=”http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf” target=”blank”>District of Columbia v. Heller, __  U.S. _ (June 26, 2008). 

 

As to Heller’s effect beyond handgun possession in one’s home, I posted my following view on a local criminal defense lawyer’s listserv: 

 

Several listserv members suggest that Heller invalidates D.C. Code § 22-4504 concerning possessing unregistered firearms and unregistered ammunition. I hope that would be the case. However, doesn’t Heller only automatically invalidate prosecutions for possessing handguns in one’s home, and give the most immediate ammunition to attack prosecutions for transporting handguns between the gun shop, the home, the repair shop, and the shooting range, when all such activities are for the purpose of having a safely and properly operated handgun in one’s home?  

 

After all, Heller’s majority opinion says ‘We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals’ after the court’s summation paragraph (three paragraphs from the end) proclaims:  

 

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." D.C. v. Heller, _  U.S. _ (June 26, 2008)  (emphasis added).  

 

Because the Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals, here is what the Court of Appeals concluded: "For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded. Since there are no material questions of fact in dispute, the district court is ordered to grant summary judgment to Heller consistent with the prayer for relief contained in appellants’ complaint." <a href=”http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf” target=”blank”>Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370, 401  (D.C. Cir. 2007), affirmed sub nom District of Columbia v. Heller, __  U.S. _ (2008).   

 

What, then, did the original summary judgment motion seek? "Appellants, six residents of the District, challenge D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns (with an exception for retired D.C. police officers); D.C. Code § 22-4504, which prohibits carrying a pistol without a license, insofar as that provision would prevent a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within his or her home; and D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, requiring that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d at 373 (emphasis added).

 

Consequently, although Heller provides language to support providing Second Amendment rights beyond the home, I think the case only automatically invalidates prosecutions for possessing handguns in one’s home, and gives the most immediate ammunition to attack prosecutions for transporting handguns between the gun shop, the home, the repair shop, and the shooting range, when all such activities are for the purpose of having a safely and properly operated handgun in one’s home. Jon Katz.

Canterbury Court Apartments 2 Bed Free Heat (Philadelphia) $1019 2bd

September 8th, 2008

You are going to love your home in this charming and comfortable 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment home. Canterbury Court’s traditionally inspired residences are designed to provide generous living and storage space. You will appreciate the garden courtyard settings, open contemporary apartment layouts and the special ambiance of Canterbury Court. Our one and two bedroom apartment homes are perfect for today’s active lifestyles, as well as quiet relaxation. Apt Features: Free heat, hot water and gas cooking, Private balcony, Intercom entry system, A/C, Self-controlled, hot water baseboard heat, wall to wall carpeting, Ceramic tile bath, Excellent closet space, Interior clothing care center. Community Features: Exterior Lighting, Convenient private parking, personal storage space (in-building), Professionally landscaped grounds, Public transportation at front door, Complete shopping choices within walking distance, Professional management on premises, 24-Hour emergency maintenance. To learn more please email Kathy with Canterbury Court Apartments or call toll free at (888) 388-1470 ext 12626.

Cottage court apartments:Spacious 1 bdr and deluxe 1 bdr (Northeast Philadelphia) $595 1bd

September 8th, 2008

Marnie | Cottage Court Apartments | 610-527-8200
5217 Cottage Street, Philadelphia, PA
Beautfiul, fully renovated apartments!
1 Bdrm Apartment
$595/month
Bedrooms 1
Bathrooms 1 full, 0 partial
Sq Footage 625
Parking 1 dedicated
Pet Policy Cats, Small dogs (< 25lbs), Dogs (any)
Deposit $595

DESCRIPTION

1st month rent free for qualified credit applicants!!! 1 Bedrooms for $595, and 1 bedroom deluxe apartments for $650, only 2 more remaining! Brand new kitchen countertops, brand new kitchen cabinets, new kitchen appliances, and brand new carpeting. 24 Hour On-Site Maintenance. Please visit our website at http://www.lpg1.net/cottage or call and ask for Cristina at 215-969-3348.
see additional photos below
RENTAL FEATURES

Air conditioning Walk-in closet Living room
Refrigerator Stove/Oven Microwave
Granite countertop


COMMUNITY FEATURES

Guest parking Laundry on-site


LEASE TERMS

6 months depending on season, 12 months, 13 months

1st month rent free for qualified credit appicants!

ADDITIONAL PHOTOS

Renter contact info:
Marnie
Cottage Court Apartments
610-527-8200

Equal Opportunity Housing
Posted: Mar 17, 2008, 7:12am PDT

Wetlands Woes

September 8th, 2008

Another day, another internal Bush administration memo suggesting that regulatory agencies aren't doing their jobs:

An official administration guidance document on wetlands policy is
undermining enforcement of the Clean Water Act, said a March 4 memo
written by the Environmental Protection Agency's chief enforcement officer.

The memo by Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA's assistant administrator for
enforcement and compliance assurance, was obtained by the advocacy
group Greenpeace
and released yesterday by two House Democratic committee chairmen. It
highlights the confusion that has afflicted federal wetlands
protections since a 2006 Supreme Court decision.


The decision in question is Rapanos v. United States, a rather technical case in which the Supreme Court ruled that four Michigan wetlands that lie adjacent to drainage ditches (as opposed to natural bodies of water) didn't necessarily fall under the purview of the Clean Water Act. This illustrates one potential pitfall of case-by-case judicial incrementalism: It can be really confusing! Justice Kennedy, whose wrote a concurring opinion and cast the deciding vote in Rapanos, didn't give much guidance as to what types of wetlands the CWA reaches. The administration, to no one's great surprise, has construed Kennedy's opinion in a manner that exempts as many wetlands as possible. This seems like the kind of area where Congress, if it disagrees with the administration's take, might want to step in and pass legislation clarifying the scope of the CWA.

Josh Patashnik 

Barack Obama Votes For Government Spying Against You

September 8th, 2008

It’s official. Barack Obama has voted for the FISA Amendments Act. It’s Senate roll call vote 168, registered by the Library of Congress.

Don’t know what the FISA Amendments Act is? Think Big Brother. Think Total Information Awareness. Think about the Soviet Union, with its network of government spies keeping people never sure whether they were being watched.

The FISA Amendments Act gives the President, through the Attorney General, the ability to establish programs to spy on the American people that are not approved by any court, even the FISA court. There’s no search warrant, and no evidence of any suspicion of criminal wrongdoing required. The Attorney General just gets to send out his spies, and the only person who can declare the Attorney General’s spy programs to be illegal is the Attorney General himself.

What kind of spying does this enable? You name it. Eavesdropping on your telephone calls. Scanning your emails. Recording your text messages. Searching your house while you’re away and planting bugs in every room. Because the FISA Amendments Act gives the Attorney General the power to unilaterally declare whether a spy operation is legal, the FISA Amendments Act gives the Attorney General the power to break any law that restricts government spying, and declare the spying to be legal anyway. No judge, not even a FISA judge, can stop it from taking place.

Kids: Maybe you’re not aware of the dark history of what the “Justice” Department can do when it’s given the power to abuse the law. Go look up one name: Google “J. Edgar Hoover”. Have fun. Explore the world of unrestrained government power - only now with the latest computer technology to ramp it up!

Barack Obama voted for the kind of government spying that was used to persecute Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr.

Obama lied. The government spied.

Here’s the kicker: You John McCain, Barack Obama’s Republican presidential rival?

John McCain did not vote for the FISA Amendments Act. John McCain decided to abstain. John McCain has a better record on the FISA Amendments Act than Barack Obama.

Change? Oh, this is change, all right.

The Right to Be Naked

September 8th, 2008

Associated Press (h/t RawStory):

SAN CLEMENTE, Calif. — Nudists have sued for the right to let it all hang out after officials said they would crack down on those going au naturel at a beach in a popular state park.

The Naturist Action Committee filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court Wednesday against the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The suit claims the agency should have sought public comment before banning nudity at the 1,000-foot beach starting after Labor Day.

Park officials say they have followed procedure and were forced to ban bare flesh after an increase in complaints from clothed beachgoers.

The big question here: is it right for the city or county to restrict their choice to frolic sans pants when their tax dollars paid for the park as well?  How exactly does nudity infringe on the rights of other park goers more so than say smokey bar-b-que’s or wearing plaid with stripes?

And imagine how popular Merlin Olsen park would be…

-Jason

Bush signs bill overhauling eavesdropping rules

September 8th, 2008

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080710/D91R4LR00.html

Jul 10, 1:42 PM (ET)

By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush signed a bill Thursday that overhauls rules about government eavesdropping and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases.

He called it “landmark legislation that is vital to the security of our people.”

Bush signed the measure in a Rose Garden ceremony a day after the Senate sent it to him, following nearly a year of debate in the Democratic-led Congress over surveillance rules and the warrantless wiretapping program Bush initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was a battle that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks and Democrats’ fears of being portrayed as weak when it comes to protecting the country.

Its passage was a major victory for Bush, an unpopular lame-duck president who nevertheless has been able to prevail over Congress on most issues of national security and intelligence disputes.

Bush said the 9/11 attack “changed our country forever” and taught the intelligence community that it must know who America’s enemies are talking to and what they are saying.

“In the aftermath of 9/11,” Bush said, “few would have imagined that we would be standing here seven years later without another attack on American soil. The fact that the terrorists have failed to strike our shores again does not mean that our enemies have given up.”

Even before Bush signed the legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union said it would challenge the new law in court.

The president said the bill gives the government anti-terror tools it needs without compromising Americans’ civil liberties.

Bush was joined at the ceremony by Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and more than a dozen members of Congress.

A triple espresso, please…

ThinkFast: July 11, 2008

September 8th, 2008

anar.jpg

In “a troubling sign of global warming,” European scientists say that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica appears to be breaking up. The European Space Agency said yesterday that satellite images show that Wilkins Ice Shelf is “hanging by its last thread,” which could “put the remainder of the ice shelf at risk.”

“The Bush administration has decided not to take any new steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions before the president leaves office, despite pressure from the Supreme Court and broad accord among senior federal officials that new regulation is appropriate now.” The EPA will announce today that it will instead “seek months of further public comment on the threat posed by global warming.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her fellow House Democratic leaders “took a hard line Thursday against opening up restricted areas to oil production.” She “said the government must first press oil companies to explore the federal land they have already leased.”

A secret report by the International Red Cross concluded last year that the CIA’s interrogation methods for high-level detainees “constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a new book by New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer. The report found that the methods used on al Qaeda figure Abu Zubaydah were “categorically” torture.

On the trail today: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will hold a women-only forum in Hudson, WI. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) will attend a town hall meeting in Dayton, OH, at Stivers High school. (more…)