2011 August - Finding the Best 24 Hr Legal Advice

Comments

Posts

Archive for August, 2011

AgForce welcomes legal aid for CQ farmers

FARM industry group AgForce says it welcomes the extra legal support from the Queensland government to help Central Queensland landholders negotiate with resource companies.

Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining Stirling Hinchcliffe today announced $300,000 to fund a travelling legal officer in CQ to advise property owners about access and compensation issues.

AgForce was instrumental in securing Queensland’s first specialist rural Legal Aid officer in Toowoomba, and since then has been lobbying for similar assistance in other areas of the state.

AgForce CEO Robert Walker said the position is an acknowledgement of the serious need for landholders to be empowered in their dealings with CSG and coal mining companies.

“We are seeing exponential growth in mineral exploration and production across much of Queensland’s most valuable farming and grazing country, but still an unacceptable power imbalance exists between landholders and multi-national resources companies,” Mr Walker said.

“The State governments funding of a Legal Aid officer in CQ goes some way towards levelling the playing field, and we congratulate the Mines Minister Stirling Hinchcliffe for heeding our calls.”

AgForce urges all landholders entering into negotiations with resources companies to seek professional legal advice, with Legal Aid just one of their options to provide that help.

Negotiating a conduct and compensation agreement (CCA) with a mining or CSG company can be a complex and costly exercise, but there is now a legislative requirement for resource operators to cover a property owners ‘reasonable’ legal costs.

“We will continue to lobby the state government for similar assistance for landholders in other parts of Queensland to keep pace with resource developments in areas that have never before faced these pressures,” Mr Walker said.

Article source: http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/finance/agforce-welcomes-legal-aid-for-cq-farmers/2276802.aspx?src=rss

Legal News

Duane Morris Boca Raton Office Adds Wealth Planning Partner Michael H. Leeds
Leeds' arrival further bolsters Duane Morris' wealth planning practice in South Florida. […]
Task Force to Tackle Volume, Delays in Commercial Division
A task force on commercial litigation in state courts convened by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman will look for solutions to delays and overcrowded dockets that plague the Commercial Division in an effort to keep business cases from fleeing to other venues. […]
As Profits Dip, a Spate of Practice Leadera Defect
A few years ago, Crowell & Moring was flying high, with double-digit revenue growth and record profits per partner of just about $1 million. […]
Akin Gump to Open Hong Kong Office
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is opening a Hong Kong office with partners recruited from Shearman & Sterling and Norton Rose. […]
Menu Labeling: Get It Right, or Get Sued? | Applebee's | Weight Watchers | Morrison & Foerster
You probably shuddered when your local government insisted you post the nutritional content of your menu items, but you dutifully complied. […]
Christine Quinn Hails 'Tremendous Victory' In Homeless Shelter Suit
Today, City Council Speaker and likely 2013 mayoral candidate Christine Quinn won her lawsuit against the Bloomberg administration's policy of asking single adults seeking space in homeless shelters to prove they have no alternative housing. […]
Is Lateral Hiring Frenzy by BigLaw Creating a Bubble?
Lateral hiring at large law firms is expected to continue at a frenetic pace this year, a phenomenon that has created ever larger income gaps between equity partners at the top and bottom. […]
Teradata taps Hortonworks to improve Hadoop story
Data warehouse veteran Teradata has tightened its embrace of the Hadoop big data platform via a partnership with Hortonworks. […]
Youth offender move on hold
A potential legal issue could halt a plan for Rankin County to house youth offenders from Lauderdale County, leaving officials scrambling to resolve the issue before a March 1 deadline. […]
PTO No
Foley & Lardner attorney Andrew S. Baluch has his knickers in a twist over a USPTO power grab to pummel inventors by denying them their legal rights. […]

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - August 31, 2011 at 8:50 pm

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Gibson to Pay Ex $750K to Settle Nasty Legal Fight

Mel Gibson will pay $750,000 to his ex-girlfriend and continue to provide housing and financial support for their young daughter to resolve a bitter legal fight that followed sexist, racist rants attributed to the actor.

The settlement disclosed Wednesday is intended to end the bickering and accusations that have permeated the case handled in mostly secret proceedings for more than a year, Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman said.

Gibson’s payments to Russian musician Oksana Grigorieva are dependent on a lasting truce.

As part of the agreement, their daughter will receive support equal to what the actor-director provides for his other seven children. The former couple will split custody of the girl, who turns 2 in late October.

In addition, Gibson will keep paying for a multimillion house he purchased for Grigorieva and their daughter. The house will be sold when the girl turns 18 and she will receive the proceeds.

As a result of the settlement, Grigorieva cannot pursue a civil case against the Oscar winner, and both sides were ordered not to speak or write about their relationship or allegations of domestic abuse.

Lichtman specifically said neither side could release any audio recordings, an apparent reference to the series of rants that were leaked to the celebrity website RadarOnline.com.

FILE – In this March 11, 2011, file photo, Mel Gibson appears at a Los Angeles Airport Courthouse, regarding a misdemeanor spousal battery charge, in Los Angeles. Los Angeles Superior Court officials said in a statement late Friday, Aug. 26, 2011, that Gibson and his ex-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, have reached a settlement of their bitterly fought separation. (AP Photo/Mark Boster, Pool, File) Close

“You look like a (expletive) bitch in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of (N-word), it will be your fault,” the voice is heard telling Grigorieva in one tape. “You provoked it. You are provocatively dressed.”

In another snippet released by the website, Grigorieva is heard describing how Gibson hit her in the face, and she questions his manhood. The response: “You know what, you … (expletive) deserved it!”

Gibson has never publicly discussed the recordings and his attorneys did not refute they were the actor during a May court hearing in which Grigorieva agreed not to introduce them as evidence in the custody case.

Grigorieva’s payments were divided into thirds, with the final payment occurring in 2016 if the agreement is not breached.

Gibson spoke a handful of times during the hearing, mainly to acknowledge he understood terms of the settlement.

“I’d like to say thanks your honor for bringing this matter to a reasonable conclusion,” the “Braveheart” star said.

Grigorieva also thanked the judge and said she hoped the resolution meant Gibson’s career could resume.

She previously accused Gibson of striking her during a fight in January 2010, and the actor-director pleaded no contest to one count of misdemeanor domestic battery earlier this year.

Sheriff’s detectives also investigated Gibson’s claims that Grigorieva attempted to extort him, but prosecutors declined to file charges.

Gibson’s attorneys are still working to finalize his divorce from his wife of nearly 28 years.

Laura Wasser, who represents Gibson’s wife Robyn, told a judge Tuesday that they were putting the finishing touches on the divorce judgment and it should be completed in a few weeks.

———

Anthony McCartney can be reached at http://twitter.com/celebritydocket

Article source: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=14419947

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - at 8:50 pm

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Legal Notices: September 1, 2011

LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of formation of Laconic Productions, LLC, a limited liability company. Articles of Organization filed with the Secretary of State of the State of New York (SSNY) on 6/24/2011. Office located in Suffolk. SSNY has been designated for service of process. SSNY shall mail a copy of any process served against the LLC to Laconic Productions, 24 Sandy Court, Lake Grove, NY, 11755. Purpose: any Lawful purpose.
8503-6T 8/18, 25; 9/1, 8, 15, 22
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF FORMATION, Watson Property Development, LLC. Articles of Org. filed with Sec of State of NY (SSNY) on June 8, 2011. Office location: Suffolk. SSNY designated for service of process. SSNY shall mail copies of any process served against the LLC c/o Douglas Watson, 3 Oxford Ct., Manorville, NY 11949. Purpose: any lawful purpose or activity.
8505-6T 8/18, 25; 9/1, 8, 15, 22
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that a license, #TBA, has been applied for by DGG Corp d/b/a The Caboose to sell beer, wine, and liquor at retail in a restaurant. For on premises consumption under the ABC law at 131-133 Railroad Ave., Riverhead, NY 11901.
8507-2T 8/25; 9/1
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of Formation of EAST END BARTER LLC, a domestic Limited Liability Company (LLC). Articles of Organization filed with the Secretary of State on April 12, 2011. Managed by: Member. NY Office Location: SUFFOLK County. Secretary of State is designated as agent upon whom process against the LLC may be served. Secretary of State shall mail a copy of any process against the LLC served upon him/her to The LLC, 6 Atlantic Avenue, East Moriches, NY 11940. Purpose: To engage in any lawful act or activity.
8517-6T 8/25; 9/1, 8, 15, 22, 29
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF SPECIAL
DISTRICT MEETING
OF THE RIVERHEAD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
IN THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NEW YORK
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Education of the Riverhead Central School District, in the County of Suffolk, New York, has adopted a resolution on July 19, 2011, authorizing a Special District Meeting of the qualified voters of said School District to be held on:
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
from 6:00 o’clock A.M. until 9:00 o’clock P.M. (Prevailing Time) (1) Riley Avenue Elementary School, 374 Riley Avenue, Calverton, New York, for those persons residing in Election District No. 1; (2) Phillips Avenue Elementary School, 141 Phillips Avenue, Riverhead, New York, for those persons residing in Election District No. 2; (3) Riverhead High School, 700 Harrison Avenue, Riverhead, New York, for those persons residing in Election District No. 3; and (4) Aquebogue Elementary School, Main Road, Aquebogue, New York, for those persons residing in Election District No. 4 for the purpose of voting upon the following bond propositions:
FIRST BOND PROPOSITION
RESOLVED:
(a) That the Board of Education of the Riverhead Central School District, in the County of Suffolk, New York (the “District”), is hereby authorized to undertake a school facilities improvement project (the “Project”) substantially as described in a report entitled “Community Partnership for Revitalization”, dated July 19, 2011, prepared for the District by Burton, Behrendt and Smith, P.C., Architects, Patchogue, New York (the “Plan”), which plan is on file and available for public inspection at the office of the District Clerk; such Project consisting of the construction of additions and/or alterations and improvements to all District school buildings and the sites thereof, including (as and where required): the construction of building additions to provide for new classroom, lavatory, kitchen, cafeteria and other space; interior reconstruction and space reconfiguration; roof replacement and/or reconstruction; replacement of windows, doors, floors, lockers and ceilings; heating, air conditioning, ventilation, plumbing, electrical, security, fire alarm, clock, public address and lighting system enhancements; improvements to facilitate access by the physically challenged; auditorium and gymnasium upgrades; exterior building envelope improvements; drainage, parking, driveway, sidewalk and curb improvements; construction of athletic facility improvements, including the construction of new ballfields and the reconstruction of existing fields, running track, tennis courts and playground areas; all of the foregoing to include the original furnishings, equipment, machinery, apparatus and ancillary or related site, demolition and other work required in connection therewith; and to expend therefor, including preliminary costs and costs incidental thereto and to the financing thereof, an amount not to exceed the estimated total cost of $78,334,247; provided that the detailed costs of the components of the Project as set in the Plan may be reallocated among such components if the Board of Education shall determine that such reallocation is in the best interests of the District;
(b) that a tax is hereby voted in the amount of not to exceed $78,334,247 to finance such cost, such tax to be levied and collected in installments in such years and in such amounts as shall be determined by said Board of Education; and
(c) that in anticipation of said tax, bonds of the District are hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $78,334,247 and a tax is hereby voted to pay the interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable.
SECOND BOND PROPOSITION
RESOLVED:
(a) THAT IN THE EVENT THE FIRST BOND PROPOSITION IS APPROVED, the Board of Education of the Riverhead Central School District, in the County of Suffolk, New York (the “District”), is hereby further authorized to construct a gymnasium addition to the High School, including the original furnishings, equipment, machinery, apparatus and ancillary or related site, demolition and other work required in connection therewith; and to expend therefor, including preliminary costs and costs incidental thereto and to the financing thereof, an amount not to exceed the estimated total cost of $6,955,454;
(b) that a tax is hereby voted in the amount of not to exceed $6,955,454 to finance such cost, such tax to be levied and collected in installments in such years and in such amounts as shall be determined by said Board of Education;
(c) that in anticipation of said tax, bonds of the District are hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $6,955,454 and a tax is hereby voted to pay the interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable; and
(d) that if this SECOND BOND PROPOSITION is approved, it shall become effective only in the event that the FIRST BOND PROPOSITION is approved.
Such bond propositions shall appear on the ballot labels to be inserted in the voting machines used for voting at said Special District Meeting in substantially the following condensed forms:
FIRST BOND PROPOSITION
[YES]       [NO]
RESOLVED:
(a) That the Board of Education of the Riverhead Central School District is hereby authorized to construct additions and/or alterations and improvements to all District school buildings and the sites thereof, and to expend therefor not to exceed $78,334,247; (b) that a tax is hereby voted in the amount of not to exceed $78,334,247 to finance such cost, such tax to be levied and collected in installments in such years and in such amounts as shall be determined by said Board of Education; and (c) that in anticipation of said tax, bonds of the District are hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $78,334,247 and a tax is hereby voted to pay the interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable.
SECOND BOND PROPOSITION
[YES]       [NO]
RESOLVED:
(a) THAT IN THE EVENT THE FIRST BOND PROPOSITION IS APPROVED, the Board of Education of the Riverhead Central School District is hereby further authorized to construct a gymnasium addition to the High School and to expend therefor not to exceed $6,955,454; (b) that a tax is hereby voted in the amount of not to exceed $6,955,454 to finance such cost, such tax to be levied and collected in installments in such years and in such amounts as shall be determined by said Board of Education; (c) that in anticipation of said tax, bonds of the District are hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $6,955,454 and a tax is hereby voted to pay the interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable; and (d) that if this SECOND BOND PROPOSITION is approved, it shall become effective only in the event that the FIRST BOND PROPOSITION is approved.
The voting will be conducted by ballot on voting machines as provided in the Education Law and the polls will remain open from 6:00 o’clock A.M. until 9:00 o’clock P.M. (Prevailing Time) and as much longer as may be necessary to enable the voters then present to cast their ballots.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN, pursuant to Education Law §2014, personal registration of voters is required, and no person shall be entitled to vote at the Special District Meeting whose name does not appear on the register of the District.
Registration of the qualified voters of the District shall take place at the office of the District Clerk, 700 Osborne Avenue, Riverhead, New York, between the hours of 8:15 o’clock A.M. and 4:00 o’clock P.M. (Prevailing Time), Monday through Friday, up to and including October 4, 2011, at which time any person shall be entitled to have his/her name placed upon such register, provided that at he/she is known or proven to be then or thereafter entitled to vote at said Special District Meeting for which such register is prepared.
The register of the qualified voters of said District prepared for the Annual District Meeting and Election held on May 17, 2011, shall be used by said Board of Registration as the basis for the preparation of the register for said Special District Meeting to be held on October 11, 2011. Any person whose name appears on such register or who shall have been previously registered for any annual or special District meeting or election and who shall have voted at any annual or special District meeting or election held or conducted at any time since January 1, 2007, will not be required to register personally for this Special District Meeting. In addition, any person otherwise qualified to vote who is registered with the Board of Elections of Suffolk County under the provisions of the Election Law shall be entitled to vote at said Special District Meeting without further registration.
The register of the School District will be filed in the office of the District Clerk, located at 700 Osborne Avenue, Riverhead, New York and will be open for inspection by any qualified voter of the District between the hours of 8:15 o’clock A.M. and 4:00 o’clock P.M. (Prevailing Time) on each of the five (5) days prior to the day set for the Special District Meeting, except Sunday, including the date set for the meeting, and on Saturday, October 8, 2011 and Monday, October 10, 2011, by advance appointment only between the hours of 9:00 o’clock A.M. and 12:00 Noon (Prevailing Time).
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that applications for absentee ballots may be applied for at the Office of the District Clerk, located at 700 Osborne Avenue, Riverhead, New York, between the hours of 8:15 o’clock A.M. and 4:00 o’clock P.M. (Prevailing Time) on any school day. If the ballot is to be mailed to the voter, the completed application must be received by the District Clerk no later than Tuesday, October 4, 2011. If the ballot is to be delivered personally to the voter at the office of the District Clerk, the completed application must be received by the District Clerk no later than Monday, October 10, 2011. All absentee ballots must be received by the District Clerk no later than 5:00 o’clock P.M. (Prevailing Time), on October 11, 2011.
A list of all persons to whom absentee ballots shall have been issued will be available in the office of the District Clerk between the hours of 8:15 o’clock A.M. and 4:00 o’clock P.M. (Prevailing Time) on each of the five (5) days prior to the day set for the Special District Meeting, except Saturday and Sunday.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that descriptions of the boundaries of the election districts designated by the Board of Education by resolution duly adopted at a meeting on July 19, 2011, together with a map of the District, are on file and available for inspection by any qualified voter in the office of the District Clerk at 700 Osborne Avenue, Riverhead, New York during regular business hours, and that said election districts and the respective schools in each where voting herein provided shall take place are generally described as follows:
ELECTION DISTRICT NO. 1
Place of Voting:   Riley Avenue Elementary School, 374 Riley Avenue, Calverton, New York
Election District No. 1 comprises the areas of the District serviced by the Riley Avenue Elementary School.
ELECTION DISTRICT NO. 2
Place of Voting:   Phillips Avenue Elementary School, 141 Phillips Avenue, Riverhead, New York
Election District No. 2 comprises the areas of the District serviced by the Phillips Avenue Elementary School.
ELECTION DISTRICT NO. 3
Place of Voting:   Riverhead High School, 700 Harrison Avenue, Riverhead, New York
Election District No. 3 comprises the areas of the District serviced by the Roanoke Avenue Elementary School.
ELECTION DISTRICT NO. 4
Place of Voting:   Aquebogue Elementary School, Main Road, Aquebogue, New York
Election District No. 4 comprises the areas of the District serviced by the Aquebogue Elementary School.
Only qualified voters who are duly registered will be permitted to vote.
Dated: August 25, 2011
BY ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Barbara O’Kula
District Clerk
8506-4T 8/25; 9/1, 8, 15
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of formation of ARLINGTON CARDINAL PLAZA LLC. Art. of Org. filed w/ NYSS on 8-08-2011. Office in Suffolk County. NYSS is agent for process service and shall mail process to PO Box 77, Mattituck NY 11952. Purpose: any lawful purpose.
8508-6T 8/25; 9/1, 8, 15, 22, 29
LEGAL NOTICE
To satisfy a storage lien under New York State Law on September 8th 2011, Inspection @ 11:30 a.m., Auction @ 12 p.m. For Cassone Leasing Inc., 1950 Lakeland Avenue, Ronkonkoma NY 11779. The property described as household/business records of: Baculy, John Unit Sr-028-78, Cornerstone Funding Company unit # O836-201, Nichagacha Corp Unit # Sr-28-98, Long Island Mechanical of NY Inc Unit # V832-220, Long Island Educational Resources Inc Unit # SH-48-56, Erwiah Alex Unit # SR-028-28/ SR-028-77, Energy Efficient Soluntions Inc Unit # CC-4264, Darville John Carol Unit # CC-3519, Bella Bambino Pizzeria Rest. Unit # CC-3370, Hi-Tech Homes Unit # CC-3494, K.A.R Ltd d/b/a/ Rooms Unlimited Trailer #’s SH-5570, SH-53-05, SH-48-86, SR-5873, SH-48-78, SH-5374, SH-48-54, SR-5880
Kings Bridge Designer Inc CC# 20726 , R Brothers Group Constr. Unit # SH-5465, Liquid Energy Tech Unit # O1050-153, KS Contracting Corp unit # V832-182 / O825-168/ v832-145/ CC-20368 cc-2469 V832-227 cc-30-72
8520-1T 9/1
LEGAL NOTICE
Please take notice that the regular Monthly Meeting of the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Jamesport Fire District scheduled for Wednesday, September 7, 2011, has been RESCHEDULED for Wednesday, September 14, 2011, to commence at 7:30 p.m.
By Order of the Board
of Fire Commissioners
Jamesport Fire District
Betsy Johnson-Patrick
District Secretary
8521-1T 9/1
LEGAL NOTICE
EXECUTIVE ORDER
DECLARING A DISASTER
EMERGENCY IN THE
TOWN OF RIVERHEAD
WHEREAS, Hurricane Irene may create life-threatening situations throughout the Town of Riverhead: and
WHEREAS, prior storms have seriously damaged or destroyed our beaches and bluffs on our shorelines in many locations leaving the areas vulnerable to further devastation; and
WHEREAS, there is a grave concern for the safety of those citizens residing and vacationing in low lying coastal areas within the Town of Riverhead; and
WHEREAS, those citizens living in low lying coastal or other flood prone areas and within our Senior and manufactured home communities throughout the remainder of the Town of Riverhead will also be exposed to severe flooding conditions, serious erosion, possible electrical outages, downed trees and powerlines, and structural losses and damages to property; and.
NOW THEREFORE, I, SEAN M. WALTER, Supervisor of the Town of Riverhead, do hereby declare that a threatening disaster exists and, therefore, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 24 of Article 2-b of the Executive Law of the State of New York, declare a disaster emergency effective 10:00 a.m. on August 27, 2011, within the Town of Riverhead; and,
FURTHER, pursuant to Section 24 of Article 2-b of the New York State Executive Law, I direct the following:
1. The non-mandatory evacuation of all residents residing in the low-lying coastal areas and of all residents residing within mobile/manufactured home communities within the Town of Riverhead.
2. Implementation of the Town of Riverhead Emergency Operations Plan.
3. All other Town of Riverhead Departments take action to provide assistance as may be necessary to protect public health and safety and the property of the citizens of Town of Riverhead.
4. Town Departments will continue to support the Town of Riverhead Emergency Operations Plan.
5. Residents of the Peconic Bay beaches and Peconic River shoreline and in the low lying areas along the shores of the mainland that are normally subject to flooding are strongly advised to seek safe shelter on higher grounds on the mainland.
6. All residents within the Town of Riverhead are urged to follow the latest weather and emergency notifications by local radio and television stations.
7. Residents within the Town of Riverhead are further urged to gather necessary storm provisions, flashlights, batteries, a portable radio, a three day supply of non-perishable food and potable water, and other essentials, in the event power is lost in their neighborhood.
8. Residents are cautioned to stay away from all downed wires as they may be energized and to report these conditions to LIPA.
Dated: August 26, 2011
Riverhead, New York 11901
Sean M. Walter, Supervisor
Town of Riverhead
8522-1T 9/1
PUBLIC NOTICE
Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law a Public Hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County, New York on September 8, 2011 at the Riverhead Town Hall, 200 Howell Avenue, Riverhead, New York not before the time shown below on each of the following appeals:
7:15 p.m., prevailing time, Appeal No. 11-27, the appeal of Glen Ravn, 23 Green Street, South Jamesport, New York, for variances to Chapter 108, Section 108-14.1 of the Code of the Town of Riverhead, requesting permission to provide proposed parcel lot area of 16,125 sq. ft. instead of the required 40,000 sq. ft. and to provide for a front yard depth of 30 feet instead of the required 50 feet and a rear yard depth of 30 feet instead of the required 60 feet.
7:20 p.m., prevailing time, Appeal no. 11-30, the appeal of Paul Scharpf, 11 Bayside Avenue, Jamesport, New York, for variances to Chapter 108, Section 108-13 of the Code of the Town of Riverhead, requesting permission to demolish and reconstruct a garage in the front yard and to Section 108-14.1, to provide for impervious surface of 18.4% instead of the permitted 15%.
7:25 p.m., prevailing time, Appeal No. 11-31, the appeal of Riverhead Motors/Leo Sternlicht, 1076 Old Country Road, Riverhead, New York, for an interpretation to Chapter 108, Section 108-262 of the Code of the Town of Riverhead, to determine whether a retail tire sales and service shop is an allowable shopping center use; or in the alternative, allow the retail tire sales and service use to be re-established.
7:30 p.m. prevailing time, Appeal No. 11-32, the appeal of Gintaras Gricius, 56 Daly Drive, Riverhead, New York, for variances to Chapter 108, Section 108-9 of the Code of the Town of Riverhead, requesting permission to maintain an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard having a distance of 5 feet from the single family residence instead of the required 10 feet distance.
Any person desiring to be heard on the above mentioned appeals should appear at the specified time and place.
Zoning Board of Appeals work session begins at 6:45 P.M. in the office of the Town of Riverhead Planning Department.
F. J. MCLAUGHLIN, CHAIRMAN, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
8523-1T 9/1

Article source: http://riverheadnewsreview.timesreview.com/2011/08/22105/legal-notices-september-1-2011/

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - at 8:50 pm

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

eTrial Expands Brief-Lynx Technology to Streamline Documentation for Clients and Courtroom

DENVER, Aug. 31, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — While a particular legal position may appear simple, the evidence supporting it can be so complex that attorneys and expert witnesses have to dig through boxes of binders and documents to retrieve it. eTrial Communications Inc. is using its Brief-Lynx™ (http://www.brief-lynx.com) technology to place supporting testimony, legal authority, exhibits, analyses and much more right at the fingertips of attorneys and their clients with just the click of a mouse.

Attorneys use the Brief-Lynx technology to create hyperlinked e-briefs as well as presentations that link to graphics, exhibits and video or have graphics directly embedded with the links going to supporting documentation. “With Brief-Lynx, an attorney can respond immediately if someone challenges their graphics or expert testimony in court, but our technology isn’t just applicable to the courtroom,” said David Vanderport, president of eTrial. “Recent partnerships with technology firms, combined with the creative talents of our team, have allowed us to stretch the boundaries of what has typically been offered by trial service firms.”

For example, eTrial is now creating presentations for key documents, case outlines and maps, interactive timelines, closing binders, training manuals and much more. Attorneys link proposed graphics and evidential support to their oral argument outlines so that their clients can review and approve them prior to trial. Some attorneys send their clients case reports that are hyperlinked to the key evidence. “Once clients experience the savings in time and money, they keep expanding the way they use Brief-Lynx in their daily practice,” said Vanderport. “We have clients who are requesting hyperlinks in opening statements, closing arguments, expert reports, transcripts and various other internal and external presentations.”

Brief-Lynx also includes features, such as the ability to zoom and annotate to specific sections within the hyperlinked document, that not only save time for the reader, but can be used to record internal commentary right on the key aspect of the document itself. “eTrial consultants have been working with attorneys for the past few decades and our goal has always been to provide visuals that are clear, simple and easy to understand,” said Vanderport. “With these new developments, we’ve taken the way lawyers present evidence to a whole new level.”

eTrial is available at http://www.etrialinc.com or by calling (877) 760-9045.

About eTrial

Denver-based eTrial provides legal industry presentation support, with an emphasis on electronic, persuasive communication for leading law firms across the nation. The company also offers the industry’s most efficient, cost-effective electronic brief software system, Brief-Lynx™, for attorneys who want to customize their court briefs with easy-to-follow, pinpoint links to evidence, case citations, graphics and other supporting materials, including multimedia tools.

Contact:

David Vanderport
eTrial Communications Inc.
720-221-7936
dvanderport@etrialinc.com

This press release was issued through eReleases(R). For more information, visit eReleases Press Release Distribution at http://www.ereleases.com.

Article source: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/110831/ph59966.html?.v=1

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - at 2:46 pm

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Legal&en Inv Mgmnt – Form 8.3

SymbolPriceChangeFP.NX33.82+0.66{“s” : “FP.NX,TFK.BE”,”k” : “a00,a50,b00,b60,c10,g00,h00,l10,p20,t10,v00″,”o” : “”,”j” : “”}

<![CDATA[
/**/
/**/
H1 {
TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 12pt 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
H2 {
TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 13pt
}
H3 {
TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 12pt 0cm 3pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Arial","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal
}
H4 {
LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
H5 {
TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 16pt
}
H6 {
TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 12pt 0cm 3pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
OL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0cm
}
UL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0cm
}
LINK {
COLOR: blue
}
visited {
COLOR: purple
}
.o {
MARGIN: 72pt 90pt; size: 595.45pt 841.7pt
}
DIV.o {

FORM 8.3

PUBLIC OPENING POSITION DISCLOSURE/DEALING DISCLOSURE BY

A PERSON WITH INTERESTS IN RELEVANT SECURITIES REPRESENTING 1% OR MORE

Rule 8.3 of the Takeover Code (the “Code”)

KEY INFORMATION

POSITIONS OF THE PERSON MAKING THE DISCLOSURE

(a) Interests and short positions in the relevant securities of the offeror or offeree to which the disclosure relates following the dealing (if any)

All interests and all short positions should be disclosed.

Details of any open derivative or option positions, or agreements to purchase or sell relevant securities, should be given on a Supplemental Form 8 (Open Positions).

(b) Rights to subscribe for new securities (including directors’ and other executive options)

If there are positions or rights to subscribe to disclose in more than one class of relevant securities of the offeror or offeree named in 1(c), copy table 2(a) or (b) (as appropriate) for each additional class of relevant security.

DEALINGS (IF ANY) BY THE PERSON MAKING THE DISCLOSURE

(a) Purchases and sales

(b) Derivatives transactions (other than options)

(i) Writing, selling, purchasing or varying

(ii) Exercising

(d) Other dealings (including subscribing for new securities)

The currency of all prices and other monetary amounts should be stated.

Where there have been dealings in more than one class of relevant securities of the offeror or offeree named in 1(c), copy table 3(a), (b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate) for each additional class of relevant security dealt in.

OTHER INFORMATION

(a) Indemnity and other dealing arrangements

(b) Agreements, arrangements or understandings relating to options or derivatives

Public disclosures under Rule 8 of the Code must be made to a Regulatory Information Service and must also be emailed to the Takeover Panel at monitoring@disclosure.org.uk. The Panel’s Market Surveillance Unit is available for consultation in relation to the Code’s dealing disclosure requirements on +44 (0)20 7638 0129.

The Code can be viewed on the Panel’s website at www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk.

ENDRETLLFSITTILVIL

Article source: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Legal-en-Inv-Mgmnt-Form-8-3-afxcnf-1079358794.html?x=0

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - at 2:46 pm

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Legal firm wants secrecy over fraud

LEGAL firm Minter Ellison wants to protect its partners from financial information being publicly aired in a civil case against a former employee, a court has heard.

In the Supreme Court today lawyers for the firm said it would be an “invasion of privacy” for details of the partners’ financial affairs to be heard in public and reported.

Minter Ellison is suing the company’s former finance chief Craig Raneberg.

Raneberg is being investigated by police for allegedly stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from trust accounts of partners of the firm’s SA/NT branch.

“It’s ultimately … an invasion of the partners’ privacy and the personal and private financial affairs and in the interest of the administration of justice,” Jonathan Wells, QC, for Minter Ellison, said.

It is believed Raneberg is accused of stealing from an account shared by the firm’s “equity partners” who own the firm and receive a cut of its annual revenue additional to their salary.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Mr Wells said releasing these details publicly would “serve the appetite” of the public, but it was not in the public interest.

The court also heard Raneberg had “fled the jurisdiction” and his present whereabouts were unknown.

The Advertiser understands he flew to Thailand two months before his alleged fraud was reported to police.

“He has left and our attempts to find him have so far failed,” Mr Wells said.

No-one appeared for Raneberg.

Justice Tom Gray reserved his decision regarding the suppression order.

Article source: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/legal-firm-wants-secrecy-over-fraud/story-e6frea83-1226126470878?from=public_rss

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - at 8:43 am

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Bank of America kept AIG legal threat under wraps

NEW YORK: Top Bank of America Corp lawyers knew as early as January that American International Group Inc was prepared to sue the bank for more than $10 billion, seven months before the lawsuit was filed, according to sources familiar with the matter, Reuters reported on Tuesday, Aug 30.

Bank of America shares fell more than 20 percent on August 8, the day the lawsuit was filed, adding to worries about the stability of the largest U.S. bank. It wasn’t until Warren Buffett stepped up with a $5 billion investment that those fears were eased, though hardly eliminated.

The bank made no mention of the lawsuit threat in a quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission just four days earlier. Nor did management discuss it on conference calls about quarterly results and other pending legal claims.

The SEC’s rules for litigation disclosure are murky, and some lawyers said Bank of America may have been justified in not revealing AIG’s lawsuit before it was filed. The bank’s litigation disclosures are in line with those of many rivals.

But other lawyers said banks have an obligation to disclose legal threats that could have major consequences.

“Publicly owned companies are supposed to disclose material threatened litigation under generally accepted accounting principles,” said Richard Rowe, a former director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, who was commenting generally and not specifically about Bank of America.

Rowe, now a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Proskauer Rose, said bank executives must make a “judgment call” as to what is material, but “the general rule is, if it’s threatened litigation and it’s material, and you can put a number on it, you should disclose it.”

AIG’s lawsuit shows why investors are so fearful: they have no idea how much litigation lurks behind closed doors.

“Management surely has a credibility problem with investors,” said Jonathan Finger, whose Finger Interests Number One Ltd in Houston owns Bank of America shares. “They continue to under-address or under-disclose on the mortgage issue.”

Finger in 2009 sued the bank over its disclosures related to the takeover of Merrill Lynch Co.

Bank of America and AIG declined to comment for this article.

DISCLOSING MORE

SEC staff have this year advised banks including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Co, Citigroup Inc, Wells Fargo Co, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, and Morgan Stanley to disclose more information about lawsuits that have been filed, as well as legal proceedings that they know the government is considering.

Banks have responded by providing additional information, including legal loss estimates in some cases.

But the agency has given banks more leeway in disclosing the expected cost of early-stage litigation, or threats of litigation whose outcome is more difficult to predict, according to securities lawyers and current and former regulatory officials.

There are two standards for disclosing legal liabilities. One under banks’ legal proceedings relies on whether losses are “reasonably probable” and “reasonably estimable.” Another, under management’s discussion and analysis, is based on whether losses are “reasonably possible.” Disclosure relies heavily on management’s assessment of the merits of a case.

Companies might need to disclose large potential lawsuits, even if they believe a loss is improbable, as well as less consequential cases if a loss appears certain, said Meredith Cross, director of the agency’s Division of Corporation Finance, in an interview with Reuters about the SEC’s disclosure requirements.

“The goal has been to have better disclosures, which should result in fewer surprises,” said Cross, who was speaking generally and not commenting on any specific institution.

Legal experts say it is difficult for top bank executives to decide exactly what they have to disclose in relation to pending and potential legal matters. That is particularly true in the current environment, they said, in which confidence in large banks is so easily shaken by legal threats that may or may not have merit.

“This is a classic problem in the disclosure regime with litigation,” said Charles Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. “You’re required to disclose anything material. The question is, ‘is it material?’ You have to gauge the size and the probability of success, which is very hard to evaluate.”

NOT FRUITFUL

Before suing Bank of America, AIG spent months analyzing publicly available data on a sample of 262,322 loans behind mortgage-backed securities it bought from Bank of America and its Merrill Lynch and Countrywide units between 2005 and 2007.

In its court filing, AIG said marketing materials touted the loans as being much safer than they were.

For instance, AIG said that in almost every bond offering, it was told that none of the mortgages were worth more than the value of the underlying property, when in fact one in six loans were underwater from the day they were born.

AIG raised such issues with Bank of America in January and said it planned to sue unless a settlement could be reached, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. The sources either had direct knowledge of the legal proceedings or were briefed on them, but were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

Both sides entered a “tolling agreement” to stop any legal statutes of limitation from running out while settlement talks were underway, but by March it became clear that AIG was prepared to sue for more than $10 billion, the people said.

Bank of America disputed AIG’s claims, saying losses stemmed from the insurer’s flawed decision making, as well as broader declines in home values and capital , the people said. The parties agreed to enter mediation proceedings during the second quarter, and also floated other proposals to no avail, the people said.

“There were lots of efforts made to avoid the filing over a period of months, but ultimately the discussions were not fruitful,” said one of the people.

A key stumbling block was Bank of America’s refusal to provide data for all of the loans, to show whether AIG’s sample — the heart of its case — was representative.

Bank of America “ignored” AIG’s requests for such information, while trustees and mortgage-servicers that also had access to the information “flat-out refused to cooperate,” according to AIG’s complaint.

The Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank has yet to respond in court to AIG’s lawsuit, but has said the insurer should have been smart enough to understand what it was buying.

“AIG recklessly chased high yields and profits throughout the mortgage and structured markets,” spokesman Larry DiRita said. “It is the very definition of an informed, seasoned investor, with losses solely attributable to its own excesses and errors.”

FULSOME DISCLOSURE?

Bank of America devotes plenty of space in its regulatory filings to mortgage litigation.

The bank suffered after buying Countrywide Financial Corp, the largest U.S. subprime lender, in 2008 for $2.5 billion. Litigation and loan losses linked to that have cost the bank more than $30 billion.

In its August 4 quarterly filing, Bank of America spent nearly 4,000 words on a footnote describing litigation and regulatory matters. The bank said it spent $2.3 billion on legal costs, not including external fees, during the period, and could be short on reserves for future legal liabilities by as much as $2.3 billion.

On June 29, Bank of America said it agreed to pay $8.5 billion to resolve what it said would be much of the litigation it faced over mortgage-backed securities, and set aside another $5.5 billion for future possible claims.

The agreement with 22 investors including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Blackrock Inc, Allianz SE’s Pimco and others, covered mortgages with $174 billion in unpaid principal balance. Still, many investors have challenged the planned payout and disclosures as inadequate.

On a conference call to discuss the agreement, Credit Suisse analyst Moshe Orenbuch asked for further explanation of securities litigation not covered by the deal.

“That will be an ongoing process,” Bank of America Chief Financial Officer Bruce Thompson replied. “And I think if you look at the disclosure and what we have out there, it is pretty fulsome.”

Many large U.S. banks offer limited disclosure about their potential future legal bills.

None of the six biggest U.S. banks have volunteered definitive estimates of future legal costs, exact numbers of lawsuits or the potential damages that plaintiffs seek.

In its most recent quarterly filing, for example, JPMorgan said it is facing more than 10,000 legal proceedings, and that it may have to pay about $5.1 billion more to resolve these claims than the sum it has set aside. What that sum is, it does not say. Citigroup and Wells Fargo have made similar disclosures.

Morgan Stanley has offered legal-loss estimates for a handful of cases, totaling $1.7 billion, while Goldman Sachs lowered its legal-loss estimate by $700 million last quarter to $2 billion, even though it also detailed a slew of new legal and regulatory matters.

Barclays analyst Roger Freeman describes such legal-loss estimates as little more than holding a finger to the wind.

“We do not believe that this represents the realistic expected value of legal liabilities,” he said of Goldman Sachs’ estimate.

Bank of America’s shares dropped 20.3 percent on August 8 when the AIG lawsuit was filed, though many other factors influenced bank that day, including Standard Poor’s downgrade of the United States.

Since that time, its stock recovered only after Buffett — whose Berkshire Hathaway has made several investments in financial firms since 2008 — expressed support with a $5 billion preferred stock investment.

On Monday, the bank said it sold about half its stake in Construction Bank for $8.3 billion, which also boosted Bank of America’s shares.

But even with the extra capital, Bank of America is sure to face huge legal hurdles over the long term.

“I’m concerned about the litigation, obviously,” said University of Delaware’s Elson, who is also a Bank of America shareholder. “Until it happens, you just don’t know.” – Reuters

Article source: http://my.news.yahoo.com/bank-america-kept-aig-legal-threat-under-wraps-000858860.html

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - at 2:40 am

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Legal blow to Texas sonogram law

30 August 2011
Last updated at 21:25 ET

Under the Texas law, doctors would have to present images of foetuses to pregnant woman

A federal judge has ruled key parts of a new Texas law requiring a doctor to perform a sonogram before an abortion are unconstitutional.

Under the law, a doctor would have to present an ultrasound image of the foetus to a pregnant woman.

Judge Sam Sparks said provisions of the law, which was to go into effect on Thursday, violated the free speech rights of both doctors and patients.

But he upheld the requirement that sonograms be performed.

A reproductive rights group from New York had sued to block the legislation.

It was signed in May by Republican Governor Rick Perry, now a White House contender for next year’s presidential elections.

‘Branding women’

Tuesday’s ruling said that requiring doctors to show women images taken from a sonogram, as well as audio of foetal heartbeats, violated the First Amendment of the constitution.

He added that the disclosures “permanently brand women who choose to get an abortion”.

The judge also struck down a requirement of the law that women should only avoid seeing the sonogram images if they sign a statement that they became pregnant because of sexual assault or incest.

Judge Sparks said the state could not compel a woman to disclose such private information.

Supporters have said the law would make certain that women in Texas understood what an abortion procedure entailed.

But opponents have argued the measure could prompt pregnant women to make decisions against their will.

Doctors found breaking the law would face a $10,000 (£6,000) fine and an automatic loss of their medical licences.

Though abortion sonograms are common, they are not always considered necessary.

Article source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/world-us-canada-14725371

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - at 2:40 am

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Former Senator Sonny Osmeña visits female farmers detained at the Pinamungajan Police Station following a standoff …

CEBU, Philippines - After the flying of fists, stones and even human wastes and urine, legal charges and counter-charges are now being thrown by and against the police and civilians involved in last Monday’s land-related chaos at Barangay Bonbon, Aloguinsan, Cebu.

The Philippine National Police will file four charges against 39 persons including 13 women, three students of the University of the Philippines and three minors arrested during the commotion that followed the fencing of a 168-hectare agricultural land owned by a private family.

The Farmers Development Center (Fardec), meanwhile, will also file five counter-charges against the police, including Police Regional Office-7 Director Ager Ontog and Cebu Provincial Police Office Director Patrocinio Comendador.

The Gantuangco family, meanwhile, will file a motion for contempt of court against Fardec, the farmers and some support groups.

Because of the pending cases in court, the Commission on Human Rights announced it will no longer be dipping its fingers on the issue, although Fardec yesterday announced it will seek the agency’s help.

Fardec, a nongovernment group helping farmers in Central Visayas, accused the police of starting the commotion although the police have denied this.

Lawyer Julius Ompad, head of the investigating team, told The FREEMAN that for the two minors, he will ask a certificate of discernment from the Department of Social Welfare and Development where the two are being housed temporarily.

Police are eyeing charges for obstruction of justice, direct assault, malicious mischief and resisting arrest.

Senior Inspector Jaime Tolentino, chief of the Aloguinsan Police Station, said tension eased after Monday’s arrest of 39 farmers. The fencing work has continued.

All augmentation personnel, however, will remain in the area to monitor the situation.

Those who were detained at the police stockades of Pinamungajan and Toledo City are Jason Engarcial, 28; Nelson Engarcial, 18; Terry Obtina, 49; Lilia Engarcial, 58; Jino Jilwano, 34; Amita Tumulak, 59; Adelaida Alcos, 58; Behamia Maurin, 60; Merlyn Engarcial, 39; Filicidad Lausa, 50; Alejandra Pañares, 42; Teresa Nengasca, 54; Eremias Nengasca, 19; Ramil Engarcial, 37; Cerilo Engarcial, 59; Jimmy Obtina, 27; Susan Elaria, 42; Andrea Quiño, 55; Rosalinda Bayadog, 37; Jeanalyn Hilaria, 19; Jevelyn Hilaria 19; Susan Alcos, 30; Arlene Ordanesa, 37; Romeo Ordanesa, 39; Adelina Tumulak, 38; Ramelo Arnaiz, 45; and three girls aged 15, 16 and 17 all of Barangay Bonbon.

Also arrested were Rocky Aribado, 27; Lebrado Manzano, 61; Florentino Seguesbal, 77 all of Barangay Poblacion, Aloguinsan; Beam Abasolo, 19, of Barangay Kimar; Emarito Roble, 41, of Barangay Lamac; Alfrida Alcos, 69, of Barangay Poblacion all of Pinamungajan town.

Others who are still in jail are Januella Rontos, 21, of Barangay Looc and Melanie Montanio, 20, of Barangay Jagobiao both of Mandaue City. Cristina de la Cerna, 47, of Barangay Bato, Toledo City and Remy Jade Manzon, 19, of Barangay Lahug, Cebu City.

They were allegedly violent when court sheriff Melvin Destura presented a temporary restraining order dated August 12 issued by Judge Hermes Montero of the Regional Trial Court Branch 59 in Toledo City.

The police claimed that farmers started throwing stones, pieces of wood, hot water, acid, tear gas, urine placed inside plastic bags, human wastes, Indian arrows and sling shots.

Backhoe driver Arnel Agas was hit with a stone on the nape while the hose of the Aloguinsan fire truck was cut and burned. PO1 Leroy Quisido was also hit with a stone.

The group also reportedly started another round of commotion by throwing things at PO3 Gerardo Abad, who suffered from burns on his back. A PO1 Ompad of the RPSB-7 was also hit in the neck.

Some farmers were lying on the ground of the national highway of Barangay Bonbon, blocking the commuters and causing a traffic jam.

In an official statement, Comendador said the rule of law, and not anarchy, must prevail. Inspector Allan Cuizon, Public Information Officer of the CPPO, said that the PNP is ready to face the charges filed by the Fardec.

Cuizon said the PNP was protecting both sides but when the farmers crossed the police line, this provoked the commotion.

After almost two months of monitoring the case, the Commission on Human Rights will no longer intervene. CHR supervising investigator Primo Cadampog said they cannot assist the Karapatan-Central Visayas, who is planning to file complaints before their office, with the issuance of the temporary restraining order (TRO).

Cadampog said the lawyer of the Gantuangco family furnished him a copy of the TRO before its implementation. He took the accounts of the farmers last July 7 who complained of harassment from the opposite camp, thus, the CHR conducted an investigation.

Cadampog said he accompanied the farmers to the barangay hall in Bonbon to secure a certificate to file action. However, until now the CHR has yet to receive the said certificate so the investigation is still pending.

“Karon nga naa na’y TRO, di na ta manghilabot kay kita man sad ang makiha sa korte,” he said.

Former Senator Sonny Osmeña yesterday visited the detainees. His ally, former congressman Antonio Yapha, Jr. is reportedly taking care of the food for the detainees in Pinamungajan where his daughter, Geraldine Yapha, is mayor.

Osmeña said he intends to help the detainees post bail but no charges have been filed yet by the authorities as of yesterday.

He learned from Arman Perez of Bayan Muna that the detainees will be charged with contempt of court for allegedly blocking the court order to fence the property of the Gantuangco family.

He said he will ask Perez to petition the court to just release the detainees “out of the goodness of the judge.”

“That is very minor, hangyoon nga pasayloon na lang na kay mga tiguwang na tawn na ang uban,” Osmeña said.

Osmeña stressed that the long term solution of the problem is to apply the law on agrarian reform.

Perez confirmed they asked the help of Osmeña to bail the detainees out today when the court sets the amount of bail for obstruction of justice.

The inquest proceedings and the hearing of the injunction case will also be heard today at the Regional Trial Court in Toledo City.

In an email sent to The Freeman, Fr. Crispin Mostajo, Fardec chairperson and Estrella Catarata, the executive director of Fardec accused the police of illegal arrest.

“The victims are still illegally detained… Some of those arrested sustained injuries in their heads and bodies,” they wrote.

The San Roque Farmers Association (SRFA) in Bonbon, Aloguinsan, Cebu has 86 farming households tilling the 168 hectares of land tilled by their peasant parents since 1900.

In the late 1990’s, Catarata said, they were informed by DAR that the land is public land therefore under the DENR’s jurisdiction. The SRFA farmers later got hold of a DENR-certified cadastral claim certificates.

Catarata accused the police of starting the trouble.

They will file criminal and administrative charges against the police including arbitrary detention, physical injuries and unlawful arrest.

Regional Trial Court (RT) Branch 59 Judge Hermes Montero issued an order on August 10 that allowed the family to fence the farm. – (FREEMAN)

Article source: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=722289

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - August 30, 2011 at 8:28 pm

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

UPDATED with the sign messages: The sign of a ‘no fun’ city?

The City of Revelstoke has given the owner of the moveable letterboard sign located out front of the former PT Farm Market until Sept. 9 to get rid of it or face legal action.

The move sparked a protest by the sign’s owner, who on Aug. 29 took action. “City says sign bad must go,” he wrote on one side. “So much for free speech,” he posted on the other.

Neighbouring business Jacobson Ford got into the action too: “Ford says sign good!! Please stay!!” Not missing a beat, on the other side they added: “Buy a car and speak your mind!”

The sign has been a source of amusement to commuters who looked forward to the sign’s frequently-changing messages. When they started several months ago, they sought to entice potential clients into the vacant building on the lot.

However, the sign soon expanded into general comedy, seeking to crack up drivers as they passed by on the busy Victoria Road commuter route.

The City of Revelstoke, however, says some residents are not laughing, and the sign and its sometimes snarky messages were a blight on their commute to work.

City bylaw enforcement officer Tim Luini said the city had received “quite a few” complaints about the sign, and a recent posting had upset some residents, prompting even more complaints.

“Some of the comments that were on the sign is what got people complaining about it, more than anything,” Luini said. “Others thought it was quite funny. But, sometimes as soon as you sort of cross that line, that’s the one time — from my understanding — that a lot of the complaints came in.” He said the sign had been on his to-do list for a while. The posting that offended most came while he was away on vacation and he took action when he returned.

Luini said he wasn’t aware what the offensive message was and added it was beside the point.

Moveable signs like the one in question are not allowed in Revelstoke, he said. They have been banned for years because they are often moved around and obscure lines of sight. Without a prohibition, they tend to proliferate.

So, the city sent the letter and is giving the owner a grace period until Sept. 9 because he had committed to advertising a charity event on the sign.

What about Jacobson Ford, who has a similar sign out front? Luini told the Times Review that a letter asking them to remove their sign had already been sent. This was news to a salesman who wandered over to talk to me as I was taking pictures of the sign on Monday afternoon. It was all about having a little fun, he said.

Luini also said another property owner had also been asked to remove their sign on Victoria Road. What happens if the owners don’t take down the signs? “Then we proceed with legal actions,” Luini said, adding they first try to work through bylaw issues with the owners. The owners could also apply to the city to put up a permanent sign.

What about the idea that the city was lacking a sense of humour on the issue? “We have to go with bylaws that are approved by council,” he said. In fact, the approval process for fixed signs is relatively intensive and approval is required from a special committee.

The Times Review attempted to contact the business owner on Monday, but an employee at his place of business said he would be away until tomorrow. We’ll follow up then.

UPDATE: Aug. 29, 10:10 p.m.

Revelstoke businessman Peter Humphreys bought the former PT Market property in April.

He’s planning to divide it up into smaller retail units and has been seeking tenants ever since.

His letterboard sign comedy career was a result of several circumstances coming together.

When he was negotiating the purchase of the building, he says they were at a deadlock on price, so he looked around for other things that could be thrown into the deal.

That’s when he saw the letterboard sign, which became his when the papers were signed.

It sat beside the building for a while until he had some lumber and other items from the building to get rid of, so he hauled it out and posted a ‘free stuff’ sign. And the debris was soon gone. “Everything just went immediately,” he said.

That’s when the realization set in: “Wow! People are reading this thing.”

From there, he said he wanted to keep the building looking fresh, saying it was partly civic pride that kept him going. “I didn’t want the building to look abandoned,” he said, so he started coming up with jokes for commuters.

He has no comedy training. “It’s funny where your mind gets going,” he says. He drew lots of inspiration from songs. “I was having fun with it. Whatever pops into my head.”

He even learned a key habit of successful comedians; he kept a notebook close to write down ideas before they slipped away.

He also struggles with a serious limitation many may not be aware of. He has a limited set of letters. “You get this great idea in your head and you’re laying it out on the floor and you’re missing a letter,” Humphreys says. One slogan was dashed when he realized “I don’t have enough zeds.”

He also got encouragement from passersby, saying just the other day a cyclist stopped to tell him she enjoyed the messages.

Humphreys says he avoided political messages, but says maybe some offence came after the sign was hacked. Twice the words were rearranged in the night when pranksters inserted harder language than his fun messages. “I think it was kids in the middle of the night,” he said, noting that the pranksters were respectful and piled up the letters they didn’t need next to the front door of the store. “Nobody damaged anything. It wasn’t malicious.”

His signboard messages today were his first political statements, ones he wrote after he got the cease and desist letter. Humphreys says he’s bummed at the message from the city: “No more fun for you. You’re done. It gets your hackles up. Why do you need to do that?” he asked.

What happens next? He’s not sure. “There’s half of me that says fight it until they take it away,” he said, saying the sign could be put up on the roof.

He reminds me that his plan is to renovate the building and divide it up. “At some point I will have to apply for a building permit.”

For now, he explains his plan is like this: “If people like the sign, I might just keep going until things happen as they will.”

UPDATE: Aug. 30, 10:25 p.m.

When we spoke with Peter Humphreys on the phone last night, he said he’d send along the messages that appeared on the sign, which he wrote down in the notebook.

Here are the messages. It’s not a complete list and some of the dates are unknown:

June 12: Free ceiling tiles. Great Father’s day gift

June ?: Quit the railway and open a Booster Juice

June ?: Mr. S. Jobs. Please call back about leasing

June ?: Yo just say NO to the beer and nacho tax

June ?: New Math – 7 PST 5 GST is less than 10% HST

June or July: For a good time call 867-5309

June or July: Welcome to Rev. Stay awhile – spend lots.

July ?: Timba Days Day Sat

July ?: Mmmm … Donuts

July 16: If you lived here you could watch trains every day

Opposite side: If you lived here you would be on the lake by now

July 18: Teenagers are punishment for past sins

July 23: Wives are a gift from Heaven

July 29: 4/5 people read this sign. The last one is on the phone

Aug 1: Zoom

Aug 4: I bought this building for the sign

Aug 8: Does anyone work in Aug?

Aug 8: I have a ltd num of letters

Aug 11: Free flowers – U pick out back.

Aug 16: The sign says you’ve got to have a mbrship card to get inside. – 3 man …

Aug 23: This is not a portable reader sign – I’m urban art

Aug 25: This sign was used for traffic contol at the last spike

Aug 25: Good day eh

***

What do you think? Is the city lacking a sense of humour and going too far? Or is it reasonable that these signs are prohibited and the ban enforced to prevent a cluttered mess of letterboards across the city? Did you have a favourite saying from the sign? Why not post it below?

Article source: http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/128631153.html

Be the first to comment - What do you think? Posted by 24hrlega - at 8:28 pm

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Archive for August, 2011

AgForce welcomes legal aid for CQ farmers

Gibson to Pay Ex $750K to Settle Nasty Legal Fight

Legal Notices: September 1, 2011

eTrial Expands Brief-Lynx Technology to Streamline Documentation for Clients and Courtroom

Legal&en Inv Mgmnt – Form 8.3

Legal firm wants secrecy over fraud

Bank of America kept AIG legal threat under wraps

Legal blow to Texas sonogram law

Former Senator Sonny Osmeña visits female farmers detained at the Pinamungajan Police Station following a standoff …

UPDATED with the sign messages: The sign of a ‘no fun’ city?

Recent Posts

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll