North Carolina HC upholds video poker ban

Court upholds video poker ban

Hickory Daily Record December 23, 2009

By Sarah Newell Williamson, Hickory Daily Record, N.C.

Dec. 23-- NEWTON -- Catawba County Sheriff David Huffman said he is happy to hear the N.C. Court of Appeals upheld a state law banning video poker machines.

"They couldn't go any other way, based on the law," Huffman said.

The N.C. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Tuesday that video poker machines can only be operated by the Cherokee Indians at their Smoky Mountains casino.

The case came before the Court of Appeals after a Superior Court judge sided with a gaming company and could have legalized video poker machines throughout the state.

If the Cherokee Indians no longer had exclusive video poker rights, "the tribe would no longer have preferential gaming rights, but instead would be in competition with other gaming enterprises," Judge Robert C. Hunter wrote for himself and Judges Martha Geer and Linda Stephens.

Huffman said he was glad the ruling was unanimous.

"They don't have the recourse of an appeal," he said. "They can only ask the Supreme Court to hear it, and it would be unlikely that they would."

Video poker has long had a tarnished image in North Carolina. Sheriff's throughout the state have regularly complained about video poker machines that are used illegally.

Huffman said there are some businesses in Catawba County that he knows of that operate video poker machines. He said the businesses will have until the end of the year to get rid of them.

"We'll make sure the folks are notified," Huffman said. "Our officers will be on patrol the next week, looking for them. The first week of January, we'll hit them."

He said if the businesses don't remove their machines, sheriff's deputies will confiscate them.

Huffman said he and the sheriffs from Burke and Caldwell counties, John McDevitt and Alan Jones, had planned a bust last week on video poker machines under the previous state law. The bust was hampered by the weather.

"I'm glad this passed, because it gave us more strength," he said. "All the sheriffs are glad this happened."

Huffman said the supporters of video poker who hoped the Court of Appeals would rule in their favor were "grasping at straws."

For the businesses in Catawba County that have video poker machines, he has a warning.

"If they don't remove them, we'll help them," Huffman said. "The ruling came down, and we're going to come down, too."

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

To see more of the Hickory Daily Record or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.hickoryrecord.com.

Copyright (c) 2009, Hickory Daily Record, N.C.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

Courtesy_

http://www.leagle.com

Justice Dinakaran not to hear cases

Justice Dinakaran not to hear cases

NetIndian News Network

New Delhi, December 16, 2009: Karnataka Chief Justice P D Dinakaran, who could face an impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha following allegations of land grabbing and possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, will not hear any cases till further orders.

A notification issued by the Registrar General of the High Court today said Mr Justice Dinakaran, whose elevation to the Supreme Court has been put on hold, would not be sitting on the Bench to take up judicial matters until further orders.

As many as 76 members of the Rajya Sabha, belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Left, the Samajwadi Party, the Janata Dal (United), the Akali Dal and the All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) had submitted notice of a motion on December 14 to Rajya Sabha Chairman M Hamid Ansari seeking the impeachment of Mr Justice Dinakaran.

Courtesy_

http://netindian.in

Also read the related stories in Indian Express as follows:

The law on impeachment of judges

Maneesh Chhibber

Posted: Thursday , Dec 17, 2009 at 0829 hrs

On Monday, 75 members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a signed motion for impeachment of controversial Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran. Maneesh Chhibber takes a look at what the process entails:

What is impeachment?

A member of the higher judiciary, which means the Judges and Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of India and the state High Courts, can be removed from service only through the process of impeachment under Article 124 (4) of the Constitution on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. In India, there is no other process by which a Judge can be removed from office before his term comes to an end. However, the process is very cumbersome.

Who decides if a Judge should be impeached?

As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a Judge has to be made through a resolution either by 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members. After the MPs submit a duly signed motion to this effect to their respective presiding officers — Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or Speaker of the Lok Sabha — the presiding officer constitutes a three-member committee comprising two Judges — one from the Supreme Court and one Chief Justice of a High Court if the complaint is against a HC Judge; and two Supreme Court Judges if the complaint is against a sitting Judge of the apex court — and a jurist to probe the complaint and determine if it is a case fit for initiating the process of impeachment.

Courtesy_

http://www.indianexpress.com

1,000 lawyers face deregistration in Tamil Nadu

1,000 lawyers face deregistration in Tamil Nadu

STAFF WRITER 11:47 HRS IST

Madurai, Dec 14 (PTI): About 1,000 lawyers in Tamil Nadu face deregistration by the state bar council as they had obtained their law degree after completing post graduation through Open University without regular basic degree.

"About 1,000 lawyers may be deregistered and asked to surrender their enrolment certificate (EC)," an official of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (BCT) said here recently.

The identification process of lawyers who got their PG degree from Open Universities was on and the BCT had already sent letters to some of them cancelling their enrolment.

The Madras High Court had last year declared as invalid the post-graduation degrees obtained without basic degrees (through regular university) and 12 years of school education.

Dismissing appeals, the Supreme Court had recently upheld the High Court judgement following which the BCT decided to deregister lawyers without the basic degree.

Courtesy_

http://www.ptinews.com/news/422263_1-000-lawyers-face-deregistration-in-TN

SC to decide if judges should sit in panels of enquiry

SC to decide if judges should sit in panels of enquiry

Krishnadas Rajagopal

Posted: Saturday, Dec 05, 2009 at 2130 hrs IST

New Delhi: In a reference to the criticism against the Justice RS Liberhan Commission's findings after its probe into the events that led to the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition, the Supreme Court on Friday said it would consider if retired or sitting judges should even be "permitted" to sit in commissions of enquiry.

A Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly said the flak faced by judges for their conclusions in commission reports was "affecting the credibility of the judiciary" as an institution.

The court said it would examine "whether sitting/retired judges of the high courts or the Supreme Court should be permitted to sit in commissions when they are not seriously considered".

"Look at the case of this latest report—the criticism of the commission findings in the media and among the public... This is affecting the credibility of the judiciary," the Bench noted while hearing an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the directions of the Madras High Court to take disciplinary action and even consider the suspension of police officers involved in the clash between lawyers and policemen on February 19.

The court, however, observed in its written order that the stay would not "prevent the state from taking appropriate action as per law".

Attorney General GE Vahanvati, appearing for the government, questioned how the high court could in its judgment on October 29 direct disciplinary action against the police officers when a one-man fact-finding commission of former Supreme Court judge BN Krishna had strongly indicted the Tamil Nadu lawyers for their unruly behaviour.

The high court had held four senior police officers, including the then Chennai Police Commissioner Radhakrishnan, responsible for the police action on the day.

Staying the high court directions for disciplinary action against the police officers, the Bench observed that "it has become a practice across the country for members of the Bar to take law into their hands".

The Madras High Court campus saw pitched battles between lawyers and police personnel for several hours with over 50 lawyers and Justice AP Adityan, a sitting judge of the high court, 20 policemen, dozens of bystanders and two journalists injured.

Courtesy_

www.financialexpress.com

Madras HC directs action against Inspector, AC

HC directs action against Inspector, AC

STAFF WRITER 23:20 HRS IST

Chennai, Dec 2 (PTI): The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu police to take suitable action against two police officials, including a woman police inspector, for arresting a man in violation of a court direction.

Justice T Sudanthiram directed city Police Commissioner to inquire into the matter and take suitable action against the woman police inspector attached to an All Womens' Police Station and an Assistant Commissioner of Police for arresting one Sivaraman, recently married, facing charges of ill-treating his wife among other things.

Apprehending arrest, Sivaraman had moved the High Court for anticipatory bail and the Judge on October 29 had adjourned the hearing by several weeks, saying there was the possibility of the man and his wife reaching a compromise.

The Judge had, however, directed that the man should not be arrested till then.

Courtesy_

http://www.ptinews.com

Police-lawyers clash: State opposes HC judgment

Police-lawyers clash: State opposes High Court judgment

J. Venkatesan

---

SLP raises substantial questions of law

"CBI enquiry will become a farcical formality"

---

New Delhi: The Tamil Nadu government on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court challenging the directions issued by the Madras High Court in the case relating to the clash between lawyers and the police on the court campus on February 19.

The High Court in its judgment on October 29 held four senior police officers – the then Chennai Police Commissioner, Radhakrishnan, the then Addl. CoP, A.K. Viswanathan, the then JCP (North), Ramasubramani, and the then DCP, Flower Bazaar Prem Anand Sinha responsible for the incident and the police excess in violation of statutory provisions. It asked the State government to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against these police officers and proceed with them in accordance with law.

The court said to enable fair and unbiased enquiry, it would be in order for the State government to exercise its discretion to place them under suspension pending disciplinary action.

Assailing the judgment, the State in its SLP filed through its counsel T. Harish Kumar said the SLP raised substantial questions of law of general public importance, viz whether the jurisdiction to maintain public order vested with the State was subject to the control of the High Court; whether the High Court was right in imposing conditions for maintenance of public order within the High Court, intruding into the Executive powers; whether it was right in holding that prior permission was required for mobilising police force and for taking effective steps to avoid any law and order problem on the High court campus, especially when the campus comprised many public offices and was visited by thousands of people everyday and declared as a high security zone.

The SLP also raised whether the High Court was right in directing the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner when the statutes vest discretionary power upon an administrative authority. In this case, the police officers had acted in good faith to maintain law and order situation on the High court premises.

'No conspiracy'

There was no conspiracy and it was a spontaneous decision taken by police officials who were present in the scene of occurrence.

The SLP said the High Court having earlier directed a CBI probe in respect of the February 19 incidents erred in giving a finding on various issues, which affects the fair enquiry by the CBI and the one-man Commission. The CBI enquiry will become a farcical formality as it cannot give any finding in the report contrary to the order passed by the High Court. The SLP sought quashing of the impugned judgment and an interim stay of its operation.

Courtesy_

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/12/03/stories/2009120350250100.htm