Supreme Court: The Term in Review (2011-2012) – 844-292-1318 legal aid Florence Alabama

The Federal Judicial Center is presenting its annual Supreme Court: The Term in Review (2011-2012) video program, a discussion of the high court’s decisions most likely to affect the work of federal judges. Our faculty of legal experts includes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky (University of California, Irvine — School of Law), Professor Evan Lee (University of California – Hastings College of Law), Professor Laurie Levenson (Loyola Law School), and Professor Suzanna Sherry (Vanderbilt University Law School). This year’s program will examine the Court’s decisions in areas including the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, Sentencing, Federalism and the Federal Courts, Civil Rights and the constitutionality of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (August 2012)
Video Rating: / 5

Roe v. Wade: U.S. Supreme Court – Lawyers Present Oral Arguments (1971) – 844-292-1318 Connecticut legal aid

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. More on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&tag=mg03-20&linkCode=ur2&linkId=7e1f3f3b49a4eebefe522570108d2cf9&camp=1789&creative=9325&index=books&keywords=roe%20wade

Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women’s health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe’s trimester framework, while affirming Roe’s central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability. The Roe decision defined “viable” as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”, adding that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States, Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today, about issues including whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.

According to the Court, “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage.” In 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[5] In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime,[6] though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have “roots in the English common-law tradition.”[7]

Prior history of the case

In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[8] (McCorvey would give birth before the case was decided.)

In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.[9][10] “Rape” is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in this case.[11]

The district court ruled in McCorvey’s favor on the legal merits of her case, and declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion.[11] The district court’s decision was based upon the 9th Amendment, and the court relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut,[12] finding in the decision for a right to privacy.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_wade
Video Rating: / 5

Governor Christie on New Jersey Supreme Court’s Abbott Ruling – 844-292-1318 New Jersey legal aid

May 24, 2011: Governor Christie issued this statement regarding today’s Supreme Court’s Abbott District Ruling.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Today’s ruling by the State Supreme Court is disappointing, but not unexpected.

There are several reasons why I believe this decision represents everything that’s wrong with how Trenton has historically operated and everything that I am here fighting to change.

First, as a fundamental principle, I do not believe that it is the role of the State Supreme Court to determine what programs the State should and should not be funding, and to what amount.

The Court should not be dictating how taxpayer dollars are spent and prioritizing certain programs over others. The Supreme Court is not the Legislature; it should not dictate policy, it should not be in the business of discussing specific taxes to be raised and it should not have any business deciding how tax dollars are spent. A number of the members of the current Supreme Court agreed with that very position in today’s decision.

Those responsible for making decisions regarding how money is raised through taxes and how it is spent by government are those elected by the people and ultimately held accountable by the people.

Secondly, I believe the Court’s decision is based on a failed legal and educational theory that incorrectly reasons the key to establishing a thorough and efficient system of education is to throw more money at failing schools.

Let me be clear, I do believe funding education is critically important to New Jersey’s future. Even before today’s Court decision, we increased education aid by 0 million to every school district in this year’s proposed budget.

But, we must also acknowledge that money does not equal quality results. And there is now nearly 30 years of evidence that just throwing money at the problem is not the answer.

We should be getting better results with the taxpayer money we already spend and we aren’t which means changing the educational system goes beyond dollars and cents.

However, as Governor of New Jersey, I realize that regardless of my personal beliefs, I must comply with the New Jersey Constitution as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court. In February, I submitted my budget to the Legislature for review and consideration. That is my constitutional obligation. Now the legislature has until June 30th to fulfill its constitutional obligation to pass a final budget.

In the light of the court’s ruling, it is now up to the Legislature to determine how the State is best able to fund the additional 0 million in aid to the Abbott districts specifically ordered in footnote 23 by the Court’s majority while also meeting the State’s other funding priorities as I proposed them. I have complete confidence that the Legislature understands its unique constitutional obligation to send a balance budget to me by June 30th. I am also confident that the Legislature understands its independent constitutional obligation to comply with the Supreme Court’s order in whatever budget they send to me for my consideration by the June 30th deadline.

I fully expect the Legislature will send me in a timely manner for my review and consideration a constitutionally balanced budget that includes how the Court’s order will be met.

My principles remain the same. New Jersey has some of the highest taxes in America. New Jerseyans are already incredibly overtaxed. Therefore, as I have repeatedly stated, I do not believe raising taxes is the answer. That has not changed.

I stand ready to execute my constitutional duties and consider what the Legislature submits as its final budget to me by June 30th.
Video Rating: / 5

Supreme Court Denies Teamsters Appeal, LIUNA Forced to Comply – 844-292-1318 West Virginia legal aid

Welcome to the National Right To Work’s Weekly Wrap-up for the Fourth Week of February. The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation averages about 200 active cases at any given time. Our goal is to help keep you informed about these cases as they move through the legal system.
This week’s update covers action involving the Teamsters union and the Laborers International union.
Teamsters union lawyers may have run their course on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme denied the Teamsters Bosses’ Hail Mary appeal of another Foundation legal victory.
Despite multiple rulings against the union, union lawyers continued to try to find a court that would validate its discrimination against a worker from Oklahoma.
The Supreme Court denied an appeal filed by a Teamsters union challenging a ruling that struck down its policy of discriminating against nonmember workers employed by Interstate Bakeries in Oklahoma.
Kirk Rammage was a non-Teamsters member sales representative with Dolly Madison before his division was merged with Wonder Bread-Hostess.
Although the company wanted to protect Rammage’s seniority, Teamsters union officials insisted that Rammage lose all of his seniority despite his long workplace tenure.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work staff attorneys, Rammage filed charges against the union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The Board ruled against the Teamsters-imposed policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the NLRB’s decision after Teamsters’ lawyers appealed the Board’s ruling.
Meanwhile, a Supreme Court ruling nullified hundreds of Board decisions including this one because of a technical issue and a new NLRB decision needed to be made.
The Tenth Circuit then sent the case back to the newly filled NLRB. The NLRB revisited the facts of the case, and again concluded that Teamster officials broke the law by discriminating against employees. The Tenth Circuit upheld the agency’s ruling again and slapped Teamsters with monetary sanctions for the frivolous nature of the union’s lawyers’ second appeal.
“Teamster bosses pulled out all the stops — including going to the U.S. Supreme Court — to try to enshrine their discrimination against a worker who has the boldness not to associate with the Teamsters union,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Teamsters union bosses will now pay for discriminating against workers who exercise their unconditional right to refrain from union membership.”
In West Virginia, persistence finally forced Laborers’ union bosses to abide by a federally sanctioned settlement.
With aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Kimberly Wright filed a series of federal charges against a local union for refusing to honor her resignation from the union.
Laborers union officials kept forcing her to pay full union dues against her will and failed to provide her the legally-required disclosure of how its forced dues are spent.
Wright exercised her rights under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Communications Workers v. Beck, which allows workers to refrain from full dues paying union membership.
Because West Virginia does not have a Right to Work law on the books, workers can still be compelled to pay a part of union dues despite opting out of union membership.
After Wright filed a charge, the National Labor Relations Board reached a settlement with union officials. However, LIUNA union officials continued to collect full union dues from Wright’s paychecks ignoring the settlement, and forcing her to file another charge.
Finally, after Wright requested that they issue a complaint due to the union bosses’ non-compliance, union officials relented eventually refunding 26 months of overcharges to Wright and providing audit union records.
“LIUNA union officials ignored Kimberly Wright’s rights for months on end, but they still had the power to compel her to pay union dues or fees as a condition of her employment,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “This case shows that workers need Right to Work protections making union membership and dues payments completely voluntary.”
Thank you for watching and we hope you will tune –in for next week’s update of the National Right To Work’s ongoing legal battle against forced unionism.
Please visit NRTW.org for information about these and other cases; or to inquire about the Foundation’s free legal services.

Ethics Hearing @ CT Supreme Court- Raw Footage 1 – 844-292-1318 Connecticut legal aid

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/

Ethics Hearing @ CT Supreme Court- Raw Footage 1

Connecticut Judicial Branch Public Service and Trust Committee Members:
* Honorable Alexandra DiPentima, Chair
* Sandra Sosnoff Baird, Family Support Magistrate
* Honorable Robert E. Beach Jr., Appellate Court Judge
* Honorable John D. Boland, Superior Court Judge
* Joseph F. Camilleri, Information Technology Division
* William H. Carbone, Court Support Services Division
* Honorable Patrick L. Carroll, III, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable Thomas J. Corradino, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Joseph D. D’Alesio, Superior Court Operations Division
* Honorable Nina F. Elgo, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Melissa A. Farley, Division of External Affairs
* Honorable Roland D. Fasano, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable James T. Graham, Superior Court Judge
* Ms. Lisa Holden, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence
* Attorney Norman K. Janes, Statewide Legal Services of CT, Inc.
* Honorable Clarance J. Jones, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Kevin T. Kane, Chief State’s Attorney
* Justice Joette Katz, Supreme Court Justice
* Ms. Caren Kittredge, Public Member
* Honorable Sandra Vilardi Leheny, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable Douglas C. Mintz, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Joseph Mirrione, Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association
* Attorney William H. Prout Jr., Connecticut Bar Association
* Honorable Barbara M. Quinn, Deputy Chief Court Administrator
* Honorable Kevin A. Randolph, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable Antonio C. Robaina, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Kenneth B. Rubin, Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
* Honorable William B. Rush, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Michael T. Ryan, Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association
* Attorney Mary Sommer Sandak, Attorney at Law
* Honorable Dan Shaban, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable Joseph Shortall, Superior Court Judge
* Thomas A. Siconolfi, Administrative Services Division
* Carolyn Signorelli, Chief Child Protection Attorney
* Attorney Toni M. Smith-Rosario, Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association
* Attorney Robert Stillman, Representative of the Connecticut Business and Industry Council
* Attorney Susan O. Storey, Chief Public Defender
* Honorable Hillary B. Strackbein, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Frederic S. Ury, Attorney at Law
* Attorney Dawne G. Westbrook, NAACP
* Alex Wood, Journal Inquirer
* Attorney Jennifer Zito, Criminal Defense Association

12-3-07 CT Supreme Court Hearing on Ethics- Raw Footage 2 – 844-292-1318 Connecticut legal aid

12-3-07 CT Supreme Court Hearing on Ethics- Raw Footage 2

12-3-07 CT Supreme Court Hearing on Ethics- Raw Footage 2

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/

Connecticut Judicial Branch Public Service and Trust Committee Members:
* Honorable Alexandra DiPentima, Chair
* Sandra Sosnoff Baird, Family Support Magistrate
* Honorable Robert E. Beach Jr., Appellate Court Judge
* Honorable John D. Boland, Superior Court Judge
* Joseph F. Camilleri, Information Technology Division
* William H. Carbone, Court Support Services Division
* Honorable Patrick L. Carroll, III, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable Thomas J. Corradino, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Joseph D. D’Alesio, Superior Court Operations Division
* Honorable Nina F. Elgo, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Melissa A. Farley, Division of External Affairs
* Honorable Roland D. Fasano, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable James T. Graham, Superior Court Judge
* Ms. Lisa Holden, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence
* Attorney Norman K. Janes, Statewide Legal Services of CT, Inc.
* Honorable Clarance J. Jones, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Kevin T. Kane, Chief State’s Attorney
* Justice Joette Katz, Supreme Court Justice
* Ms. Caren Kittredge, Public Member
* Honorable Sandra Vilardi Leheny, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable Douglas C. Mintz, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Joseph Mirrione, Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association
* Attorney William H. Prout Jr., Connecticut Bar Association
* Honorable Barbara M. Quinn, Deputy Chief Court Administrator
* Honorable Kevin A. Randolph, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable Antonio C. Robaina, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Kenneth B. Rubin, Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
* Honorable William B. Rush, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Michael T. Ryan, Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association
* Attorney Mary Sommer Sandak, Attorney at Law
* Honorable Dan Shaban, Superior Court Judge
* Honorable Joseph Shortall, Superior Court Judge
* Thomas A. Siconolfi, Administrative Services Division
* Carolyn Signorelli, Chief Child Protection Attorney
* Attorney Toni M. Smith-Rosario, Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association
* Attorney Robert Stillman, Representative of the Connecticut Business and Industry Council
* Attorney Susan O. Storey, Chief Public Defender
* Honorable Hillary B. Strackbein, Superior Court Judge
* Attorney Frederic S. Ury, Attorney at Law
* Attorney Dawne G. Westbrook, NAACP
* Alex Wood, Journal Inquirer
* Attorney Jennifer Zito, Criminal Defense Association

This video explains what you can expect when going to court and how you can prepare.

It will review what to wear, preparing documents, child care, who to bring with you, getting to court and going through security, mediation, and how to behave during the hearing.

Original video created by the Connecticut Network for Legal Aid.
Video Rating: / 5

Call to Colorado Supreme Court – 844-292-1318 Colorado legal aid

Call to Colorado Supreme Court about corrupt DHS & Kroger. How they are stopping me from legal aid. They refer me back to local law enforcement who is waiting to extradite me when they had the opportunity to do it in Albuquerque. They hadn’t planted the evidence yet and wasn’t prepared. Plus the statue of limitations had not run out on the original EEOC case. They found a way to force me back here. This tells me they have been informed also and the entire justice system is corrupt. Rights are being taken away.
Video Rating: / 5

Florida Supreme Court Testimony Miami Legal Aid Atty on DCF – 844-292-1318 Florida legal aid

Florida Supreme Court Testimony Miami Legal Aid Atty on DCF

Miami Dade Legal Attorney testifies before FLSCT Task force on lack of due process when children are taken.
Video Rating: / 5

This is a 30 second commercial done by Emmy Award winning Gary Yordon of GBY Productions in Tallahasee for the Legal Aid Society of the Orange County Bar Association (Orlando, Florida)
Video Rating: / 5