Attorney Matthews R Bark
Casselberry DUI Attorney – Supreme Court Freakout at the New York Times
Source : Powerline Blog News
By : JOHN HINDERAKER
Category : Casselberry DUI Attorney , Attorney Matthews R Bark
The New York Times was once known as The Grey Lady. Today, a more apt moniker would be The Hysterical Bag Lady. The Times editorial board is home to the most immoderate, shrieking Leftism you will find this side of the Nation. On Christmas Eve, the Times editorialized on The Stolen Supreme Court Seat. It is a classic of the post-Trump-election freakout genre: Soon after his inauguration next month, President-elect Donald Trump will nominate someone to the Supreme Court, which has been hamstrung by a vacancy since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. This is wrong. The Supreme Court has been working away, deciding cases. Where the vote is 4-4, as has occasionally happened, the decision of the Court of Appeals stands. Temporarily having an even number of Supreme Court justices (the Constitution does not specify a number) is not optimal, but it isn’t “hamstrung,” either.
No matter how it plays out, Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat. Seriously? A “stolen seat”? The next Supreme Court justice may be on the Court for decades, but the Times implies that all decisions in which he or she participates will be of questionable legitimacy, since the seat was “stolen.” What the editorialists mean, of course, is that the justice will be a Trump appointee rather than an Obama appointee: It was stolen from Barack Obama, a twice-elected president….
It was stolen by top Senate Republicans, who broke with longstanding tradition and refused to consider any nominee Mr. Obama might send them, because they wanted to preserve the court’s conservative majority. This is the substance of the Times’s complaint: that Senate Republicans “broke with longstanding tradition” by deferring the next Supreme Court selection until after the November 2016 election. How do the editorialists support their claim? By citing their own paper. The Republican party line — that it was an election year, so the American people should have a “voice” in the selection of the next justice — was a patent lie. The Times editorial board, like so many liberals, has been unhinged by Trump’s victory. The entire board seems to be off its meds.
The people spoke when they re-elected Mr. Obama in 2012, entrusting [Ed.: sic] him to choose new members for the court. And the Senate has had no problem considering, and usually confirming, election-year nominees in the past. The link goes to an op-ed in the Times by Timothy Huebner. Huebner writes: On 13 occasions, a vacancy on the nation’s highest court has occurred — through death, retirement or resignation — during a presidential election year. … In 11 of these instances, the Senate took action on the president’s nomination. In all five cases in which a vacancy occurred during the first quarter of the year the president successfully nominated a replacement. But those events occurred long ago, and instances where the president’s party also controlled the Senate are inapposite. Mr. Huebner admits: Of course, none of these represents an exact parallel to today’s situation. In all but one of these instances, the president and Senate majority were of the same political party, unlike today.
The fact is that there is no exact, or nearly exact, precedent for the situation the Senate found itself in when Justice Scalia died earlier this year. A distinguished appellate lawyer wrote to Power Line: If Grassley has any sense, the nomination never makes it out of committee. The last time a justice was confirmed for a vacancy that occurred during an election year was 1932, and Cardozo was more than acceptable to the Democrats. The closest parallel in more recent history occurred in 1968: Chief Justice Earl Warren announced that he would retire upon confirmation of a successor. President Johnson then nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice, and Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas as an associate justice. The Republicans filibustered Fortas, with the vote being taken in October, near the end of Johnson’s term. As a result, Warren did not retire until 1969, when Nixon was president. It’s not an exact parallel, since there was no vacancy on the court during the election year of 1968. But then, as now, the Senate refused to vote on the president’s nominee, and the decision was deferred until after the election, when a new president nominated a new chief justice. Nuances of this sort are, of course, beyond the capacities of the Times’s dim-witted editorial board. For them, it is sufficient to spew venom against “[t]he shameful, infuriating actions of the Senate Republicans.” It is fair, however, to ask: if a Supreme Court vacancy had occurred during the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency, when the Democrats controlled the Senate, is there a snowball’s chance in Hell that Harry Reid would have allowed a vote on Bush’s nominee? Of course not. And the Times editorial board undoubtedly would have found excuses to cheer Reid on. The Times editorialists denounce the “infuriating actions” of Senate Republicans, but what is actually infuriating the Times, one suspects, is that Hillary Clinton lost the election.
Read more : powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/supreme-court-freakout-at-the-new-york-times.php
Attorney Matthews R Bark – San Francisco doubles down on sanctuary city policies with legal defense push
Source : FOXS News
By : Claudia Cowan
Category : Attorney Matthews R Bark , Criminal Defense Attorney Seminole
Reaffirming its reputation as the most sheltering sanctuary city in the country, San Francisco is doubling down on its support of illegal immigrants with a proposal to fund legal assistance for those facing deportation. The initiative was introduced by San Francisco Supervisor David Campos, a staunch immigrant-rights advocate. “We are proud to be a sanctuary city,” Campos said. “And we’re not only proud to stand up for that, but we’re going to invest the resources needed to make sure that the 44,000 undocumented people who live in the city and county of San Francisco have, at a minimum, legal representation if they’re taken into immigration court.” The legislation would offer legal defense to anyone who ends up being detained.
“People who are facing criminal charges, no matter their immigration status, already have the right to an attorney under the Constitution,” Tamara Aparton, a spokesperson with San Francisco’s Public Defender’s office, told Fox News. “People whose only ‘crime’ is being in the country illegally currently do not have that same protection.” But critics say moves like the city’s proposed legal aid lay out the welcome mat for illegal immigrants. “We’ve seen for the past two administrations, at least, encouragement to illegal immigration,” immigration reform activist Rick Oltman said. “What we need to be sending is a message around the world of discouragement to reduce the flow to our border. That will make securing the border easier.” President-elect Donald Trump has said he will deport convicted felons who are in the country illegally, and throughout his campaign pointed to the 2015 shooting death of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier by a repeat felon who had been deported several times.
At recent rally outside San Francisco City Hall, former detainees said that they deserve the same legal rights as anyone else, and that their lack of access to an immigration lawyer turned their lives upside down. Isolda Matamoros said when she was jailed after passing a bad check in 2014, her young son became suicidal and still suffers from post-traumatic stress. “It’s so important to get the lawyer and get these families back together,” Matamoros said, “because the American citizen children, of America, will get affected – extremely – when they wake up and their parents are not there.” In the wake of the election, cities including New York and Chicago are looking to set aside millions of dollars to try to block deportations.
In San Francisco, a proposal calls for spending $5 million, half of which would go to the Public Defender’s office. Mayor Ed Lee opposes that part of the plan, saying he only wants to fund community-based legal groups that specialize in deportation defense. Even so, the legislation is going through the budget committee process, with a vote by the full Board of Supervisors expected early next year. Eventually, city leaders also may have to consider which programs will have to go. Trump has vowed to cut funding to sanctuary cities, a sum that could total about a billion dollars a year in San Francisco alone.
Read more : foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/13/san-francisco-doubles-down-on-sanctuary-city-policies-with-legal-defense-push.html
Criminal Defense Attorney Seminole – 24 high courts have a total of 43% judicial vacancies
Source : Times of India
By : Pradeep Thakur
Category : Attorney Matthews R Bark , Criminal Defense Attorney Seminole
The justice delivery system is taking a beating as the Centre and the Supreme Court slug it out over norms for appointment of judges. Andhra leads with 62% vacancy among the 10 high courts with most number of vacant judicial posts. The approved strength of the country’s 24 high courts stands at 1,079, of which 464 posts or 43% are vacant. According to the law ministry, 10 HCs account for 355 of the 464 vacant posts as of October 1. Allahabad HC leads with 83 vacant posts of judges, accounting for 52% of approved strength. It is followed by Punjab & Haryana HC with 39 vacancies, or 46% of its sanctioned strength. The high court of judicature at Hyderabad, formerly the Andhra Pradesh HC, has 38 vacancies which is 62% of its sanctioned strength of 61, Karnataka HC has 36 posts vacant or 58% of its strength of 62 judges.
While a three-judge SC bench, headed by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur, on Friday blamed the situation on the “executive’s inaction or indifference” of sitting on recommendations by the collegium, the government insists there has been no abnormal increase in vacancies. Though the government argues that an increase in the approved strength of judges in the last two years has added to the backlog, tensions over finalising a memorandum of procedure (MoP) has affected judicial appointments. Between June 2014, when the NDA government assumed office, and now, the combined approved strength of the 24 HCs increased from 906 to 1,079. The increase in sanctioned judicial posts by 173 judges has primarily been responsible for an overall vacancy of 43%. The government claimed the working strength of judges in HCs remained more or less at the 615-620 level during this period.
In 2014, the 24 HCs had 267 vacant positions against an approved strength of 906. The vacancies accounted for less than 30%. In contrast, as a percentage of the sanctioned strength, the vacancies have gone up to 43% as of October 1. The CJI had on Friday asked the attorney general to explain the delay in appointing judges, with some recommendations cleared by the SC collegium pending for nine months. The delay, according to the attorney general, was due to the SC collegium not finalising the MoP for appointment of judges. The CJI rejected the argument, saying the government had communicated to the collegium that the pending MoP would not obstruct the appointmentof judges.
Read more : timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/24-high-courts-have-a-total-of-43-judicial-vacancies/articleshow/55192912.cms
Casselberry DUI Attorney – Massachussetts transgender bathroom law faces legal challenge
Source : Catholic Herald News
By : Associated Press
Category : Casselberry DUI Attorney , Attorney Matthews R Bark
A religious liberty organisation is taking legal action to protect Massachussetts churches from having to open transgender bathrooms. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a federal lawsuit against a new state law which they say is “punishing” the protected religious speech of churches and pastors.
It comes as states are suing the Obama administration over its efforts to make hospitals, schools and other institutions change their policies towards transgender issues. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said it sued on behalf of four Massachusetts churches to protect their right to operate their facilities “in a manner that doesn’t violate their core religious beliefs.” The lawsuit names Democratic state Attorney General Maura Healey and members of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination as defendants.
The law, which was signed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker in July and went into effect in October, bars “discrimination” against transgender people in public accommodations – which, according to Attorney General Healey, includes churches. The law mandates that people must be able to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender they say they identify with. ADF contends in the lawsuit that churches would be forced to open changing rooms, shower facilities and restrooms based on perceived gender identity and not on biological sex. The group says because the law also prohibits covered entities from making statements intended to discriminate or to incite others to do so, Healey and the commission “also intend to force churches and pastors to refrain from religious expression regarding sexuality that conflicts with the government’s views.”
Steve O’Ban, senior counsel for ADF, said: “Neither the commission nor the attorney general has the constitutional authority to dictate how any church uses its facility or what public statements a church can make concerning a deeply held religious belief, such as human sexuality.” A spokeswoman for Healey said her office is reviewing the lawsuit. “We are pleased that we finally have a law in place that protects transgender people from discrimination in public places. This law is about civil rights and is critical for people who were without full protection and equality under the law for too long,” spokeswoman Jillian Fennimore said. An assistant to the commission did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Read more: catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/10/13/massachussetts-transgender-bathroom-law-faces-legal-challenge/
Seminole County DUI Attorney – Canadian law school’s legal battles likely headed to country’s Supreme Court
Source : JS Online
By : Business in Vancouver
Category : Seminole County DUI Attorney , Attorney Matthews R Bark
Trinity Western University’s (TWU) proposed law school will end up before the country’s top court, according to the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF). Howard Anglin, CCF executive director, said everything is now pointing towards one end point. “It is pretty clear where this is all heading,” he said. “The Supreme Court of Canada, where the court will not be able to avoid the Charter issue.”
TWU’s argument that its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been infringed upon need to be addressed by Canada’s top court, said Anglin. On July 26, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in which the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society sought to bar TWU’s law graduates from practising in the Atlantic province. Earl Phillips, executive director of TWU’s proposed law school, commended the decision. “Our teachers, nurses and business graduates in particular are sought after for their compassion, integrity, training and skill. I look forward to seeing the extraordinary difference that graduates of TWU’s School of Law will make.” stated Phillips in a media release. The ruling is the latest in a longstanding court battle the Langley-based private Christian university is waging with various provincial accreditation bodies concerning its proposed law school, scheduled to open in 2018. The pushback levelled at TWU stems from its community covenant which requires students, teachers and staff to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” The covenant is further outlined as “according to the Bible, sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman, and within that marriage bond it is God’s intention that it be enjoyed as a means for marital intimacy and procreation.” Anglin cited the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2001 judgment that ruled against the B.C. College of Teachers as a precedent. The teachers college had denied accreditation to TWU’s teaching program on the grounds that religious beliefs would impede their competence as teachers. The same reasoning applies to TWU’s law school and the practice of law, said Anglin.
“Indeed, thousands of Christians are already members of the B.C., Ontario, and Nova Scotia bars, including many graduates of TWU’s undergraduate programs. While we believe that the Supreme Court will vindicate TWU once again, the dogged persecution of the provincial bar associations shows that Canada still has a long way to go in living up to our founding promise of religious pluralism and tolerance of diversity,” said Anglin. The Law Society of British Columbia recently filed an appeal concerning the B.C. Supreme Court’s decision handed down last December which recognizes graduates from TWU. In April of 2014, the law society’s board of governors initially approved granting accreditation to TWU’s proposed law school. However, in October 2014, 74 per cent of B.C. lawyers voted to oppose TWU’s accreditation in a law society referendum. At the end of the year, Minister of Advanced Education Amrik Virk released a statement which revoked the approval for the university’s proposed school of law. “The current uncertainty over the status of the regulatory body approval means prospective graduates may not be able to be called to the bar, or practise law, in British Columbia. This is a significant change to the context in which I made my original decision,” stated Virk. Shortly after, TWU began the process of starting a judicial review of the law society’s decision. In December 2015, B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson ruled in favour of TWU, leading to the current appeal before the B.C. Supreme Court of Appeal. The Law Society of British Columbia said they are reviewing the Nova Scotia Court of Appeals decision. However, they would not comment further given the case is ongoing.
Read more at: scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/1995760/canadian-law-schools-legal-battles-likely-headed
Attorney Matthews R Bark – Appeals court strikes down North Carolina’s voter-ID law
Source : Washington Post
By : Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow
Category : Casselberry DUI Attorney , Attorney Matthews R Bark
Voting rights activists scored legal victories in key presidential election states Friday, the most important being a federal appeals court ruling that North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature enacted new voting restrictions in 2013 to intentionally blunt the growing clout of African American voters. The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was an overwhelming victory for the Justice Department and civil rights groups. Election law experts consider North Carolina’s voter law one of the nation’s most far-reaching. In Wisconsin, where one federal judge already had eased restrictions on voter-ID requirements, a second judge found that additional elements of the law passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) were unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson suggested he would strike the entire law if he were not bound by the Supreme Court’s decision that states may use properly written voter-ID laws to guard against voter fraud. “The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” Peterson wrote. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease.” The state will appeal both rulings. In the North Carolina case, the 4th Circuit panel agreed with allegations that North Carolina’s omnibus bill selectively chose voter-ID requirements, reduced the number of early-voting days and changed registration procedures in ways meant to harm blacks, who overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party.
“The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.” The rulings — along with that of a state court that halted an attempt in Kansas to require proof of citizenship to register — marked important wins for opponents of restrictive voting laws that are being challenged throughout the country ahead of November’s presidential election. Put together, the decisions suggest a growing judicial suspicion of the wave of voting-restriction legislation passed in recent years by Republican-led legislatures that said it was necessary to combat voter fraud. The decisions are likely to prompt the states to ask the Supreme Court for emergency action. But it is far from clear whether the eight justices, evenly divided between conservative and liberal, would get involved. The proximity of an election is often reason for justices to let an appeals court ruling stand. Federal courts have been examining what are popular and, to some, seemingly common-sense laws — requiring photo ID, for instance — to see whether they favor one group over another.
Read more at: washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html
Casselberry DUI Attorney – Supreme Court rules against Named Person scheme
Source : BBC News
By : Press Release
Category : Casselberry DUI Attorney , Attorney Matthews R Bark
Opponents of the scheme appealed to the Supreme Court in London after their case was dismissed by the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year. The system would appoint a named person – usually a teacher or health visitor – to ensure the wellbeing of every child. Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said the aim of the Act, which is intended to promote and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of children and young people, was “unquestionably legitimate and benign”. However, judges said specific proposals about information-sharing “are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”. And they said the legislation made it “perfectly possible” that confidential information about a young person could be disclosed to a “wide range of public authorities without either the child or young person or her parents being aware”.
‘Greater clarity’
The Scottish government has said it will not commence the legislation until the problems are fixed – meaning it will be delayed until after its intended implementation date of 31 August. It is understood the government still hopes to roll out the system before the end of the year. Education Secretary John Swinney said the government would move to “provide greater clarity” about information-sharing and would start work immediately on the necessary legislative amendments.The Scottish government has also indicated that proposed changes to the named person legislation would be scrutinised by MSPs at Holyrood, which is in recess until the start of September. A spokesman for the group that launched the challenge said the “state snooper” scheme had been “blocked” and the government must go back to the “drawing board”. He called for “intrusive data-sharing powers” to be scrapped. Analysis by BBC Scotland home affairs correspondent Reevel Alderson The ruling by Supreme Court judges – two of whom are Scottish – does not mean the controversial Named Person legislation cannot ever be implemented. It simply means the Scottish government must make some changes to the law to ensure it complies fully with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The charities opposed to the scheme had already seen judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh rule on two occasions that it could go ahead.
The appeal to the UK Supreme Court was on a claim that it breached ECHR. The judges said in general terms the law – part of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 – did comply. But they ruled some changes are required to the scheme. In particular the way in which information could be shared by named persons and others was ruled non-compliant.The court has said the Scottish government must provide greater clarity about how health visitors, teachers and other professionals who will be Named Persons will share and receive information in their role. Ministers said they will start work on this immediately. lthough the provisions of the legislation were due to be implemented at the end of August 2016, it will now be delayed until changes can be made. The Scottish government contend that the system would help to protect young people and has accused opponents of misrepresenting the legislation, which was approved by 103 votes to nil by MSPs when it formed part of the Children and Young People Act in 2014. The Supreme Court heard two days of evidence in March on the case. The appeal was brought by the No to Named Persons (NO2NP) coalition, which includes the Christian Institute, Care (Christian Action Research and Education), Tyme Trust and the Family Education Trust.
They tried to convince the panel of five Supreme Court judges that the named person legislation authorised “unjustified and unjustifiable state interference with family rights”. Their arguments had previously been dismissed as “hyperbole” by the Court of Session, which said named person did not diminish the role of parents and had “no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”. And while the Supreme Court did not oppose the legislation in principle, it said information-sharing proposals interfered with privacy and family life. NO2NP spokesman Simon Calvert said he was “delighted” with the court’s decision, saying it “proves our concerns were properly founded”. He added: “This proposed scheme was intrusive, incomprehensible and illegal. “This ruling means the Scottish government has been blocked from implementing this scheme on 31 August. It must scrap its plan for state snoopers with intrusive data sharing powers. It has to go back to the legislative drawing board.
Read more at: bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513
Criminal Defense Attorney Seminole – New York State Makes It Legal to Cry in Your Funeral Pie
Source : New York Times
By : SARAH MASLIN NIR
Category : Attorney Matthews R Bark , Criminal Defense Attorney Seminole
In the West, a homey casserole of slivered potatoes, sour cream and canned mushroom soup is so often served at wakes and memorials that it is commonly known as “funeral potatoes.” In Pennsylvania Dutch country, the go-to dish is a custard and raisin pastry called “funeral pie.” Yet in New York State’s funeral homes, arcane rules had long forbidden food and drinks. But last week, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, signed a law permitting funeral parlors to serve light refreshments and nonalcoholic drinks, joining 46 other states where the bereaved have the option of crying into their potatoes and pie. “Culturally, we use food as a socializing element in all sorts of circumstances,” said Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, a Democrat who represents Midtown Manhattan. Mr. Gottfried was a sponsor of the legislation along with State Senator Betty Little, a Republican who represents parts of northern New York. “To me, the notion that at a funeral you couldn’t get a cup of tea or something to eat to stave off hunger or maintain your blood-sugar level just doesn’t make sense,” he said. Each state has its own rules governing funeral procedure. Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania ban food in funeral homes, but that is changing. Pennsylvania’s ban was lifted in 2012 after a group of funeral directors sued the state, but it was reinstated two years later when a federal appeals court overturned the ruling. Last year, Massachusetts lawmakers permitted food to be served, pending the drafting of new regulations.
“Food is a vehicle for memory, and so it seems so inherent in the process and ritual of remembering and celebrating a life to have present the foods that that person and that family loved in their lifetime,” said Niki Russ Federman, a fourth-generation owner of Russ & Daughters, a Manhattan restaurant and caterer. It regularly caters services outside funeral parlors, like shivas, or memorials. In states with bans, the rules mostly came about in the 1950s, put in place ostensibly to prevent competition with restaurants or to streamline services offered by funeral homes, according to interviews with 10 funeral directors. Some have cited sanitation concerns, but Joshua Slocum, the executive director of Funeral Consumers Alliance, a consumer education nonprofit, said those roots go further back, to the Victorian era. They are based, he said, in “pre-germ theory” that dead bodies could spread disease through the ether.
“It’s an emotional reaction to a fear of death,” Mr. Slocum said of the bans. “In reality, it is ridiculous to be afraid of getting sick from an inert body that is not talking, not breathing and not sneezing.” The new rules in New York allow refreshments to be served, but do not allow funeral homes to become caterers themselves. Not all in the funeral business appreciate the change. “I’m of the old school,” said Marie Keenan, the president and an owner of the Daniel Keenan Funeral Home in Albany. Her small funeral home is carpeted, and she fears crumbs and spills. There is also something that feels undignified about snacking near a loved one lying in repose, Ms. Keenan added.
“I feel absolutely that there should be a social gathering,” she said. “After a wake.” Nevertheless, to remain competitive now, Ms. Keenan said, she may have to allow food. In the Brownsville neighborhood, Anthony R. Cassieri, the owner of Brooklyn Funeral Home and Cremation Service, derided the plan as ill conceived and said it would open the door for unscrupulous owners to add fees to services. “You’ll have bugs,” he said. “It’s just going to be an absolute nightmare. It’s going to run rampant. People are going to bring a pizza.” The new rules will most broadly affect funeral homes in rural areas, which frequently lose the business of hosting memorials to catering halls and hotels, said Robert Ruggiero, the executive director of the Metropolitan Funeral Directors Association, which represents directors in New York City. Little would change for funeral homes in the city, where restaurants abound and a funeral parlor might struggle to entice people to eat there instead. What does change, Mr. Ruggiero said, is that there will no longer be legal grounds “to stop someone from bringing a sandwich into the funeral home and eating it in public view of the remains, which I think is a little tacky.” (While the state no longer bars food, funeral homes may set their own rules.) Peter DeLuca, the owner of the Greenwich Village Funeral Home and Crestwood Cremation and Funeral Services in Midtown, said he was happy that customers would no longer be compelled to hold memorials outside his businesses, where every need of the grieving is met, from tissues to eulogies streamed live.“The funeral home is the ideal place to have a celebration of life event, or memorial,” Mr. DeLuca said, “and the only thing that was missing was that you can’t have any amount of food.”
Read more at: nytimes.com/2016/07/27/nyregion/new-york-law-funeral-food-beverages.html?_r=0
Attorney Matthews R Bark | “Homeless Man With ‘Great Heart’ Finds $42,000, Turns It In”
Source : opb.org
By : NPR – Press Release
Category : Attorney Matthews R Bark
“A homeless good Samaritan who turned in a lost backpack stuffed with nearly $42,000 yesterday was hailed by his fellow down-and-outers as a guy with a ‘great heart,’ ” The Boston Herald reports.
The Herald adds that:
‘People will probably tell him he’s nuts, but homeless people are the first to help you out,’ said Bob Boisselle, who, like the nameless humanitarian, stays at the city’s Long Island Shelter on Boston Harbor. ‘They don’t have anything, but they’ll give you what they do have.’ “On Saturday night, Boston police said, the man turned in a lost backpack he had found at South Bay Mall in Dorchester — a backpack Boston police said contained $2,400 cash and $39,500 in American Express Travelers Cheques.”
According to CBS Boston:
“Officers notified store security at the South Bay Mall about the backpack. Later Saturday night, police were contacted by an employee of Best Buy who said a customer lost his backpack. The passport matched the customer’s identity and his backpack was returned to him.” This is the second story we’ve noticed in the past week about someone who, as the Herald might say, is down-and-out but went out of his way to do something for someone else. Washington Post columnist John Kelly wrote about Glen Hilbrand, who for 18 years has been panhandling in Falls Church, Va. Hilbrand brought some comfort to a woman whose dog was hit and killed by a car. He had removed the dog’s body from the street — to stop it from being hit again and again. He was later able to give owner Laurie Nakamoto some closure because she at least then knew what had happened to “Ms. Winter.” “Glen’s a real hero to me,” Nakamoto told the Post. “Think of all the other people who drove by and never stopped.” Last month in San Francisco, another homeless man — Ryan Raso — was praised for coming to the aid of a police officer “who was attacked when she tried to make an arrest.”
Source === npr.org/
Read More : opb.org/news/article/npr-homeless-man-with-great-heart-finds-42000-turns-it-in/
Matthews Bark Attorney, Criminal Defense, Family Law Attorney 