first_img Human rights groups warns European leaders before Turkey summit News Organisation Turkey’s never-ending judicial persecution of former newspaper editor Receive email alerts Journalists threatened with imprisonment under Turkey’s terrorism law News Help by sharing this information April 2, 2021 Find out more News to go further April 28, 2021 Find out more Follow the news on Turkey October 5, 2009 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Editor of newspaper’s website faces 15 years in prison TurkeyEurope – Central Asia TurkeyEurope – Central Asia Journalist Aylin Duruoglu has spent nearly six months in Istanbul’s Bakirköy prison on totally unfounded charges of belonging to a terrorist organisation, Reporters Without Borders said today. The Istanbul prosecutor’s office requested a 15-year jail sentence for Duruoglu when she appeared in court on 1 October.Duruoglu was accused of belonging to an armed group called the Revolutionary Headquarters after acknowledging, during interrogation by Istanbul counter-terrorism police, that she knew one if its members, writer Ohran Yilmazkaya. Duruoglu told the court she had known him at university and, for that reason, and because he was a writer, she met with him again subsequently. “If I had known he was a member of an armed organisation, I would never have agreed to see him,” she said.“The mere fact of that Duruoglu knew a member of a terrorist group constitutes neither complicity nor evidence of any affiliation, especially if she was unaware that he belonged to this armed organisation,” Reporters Without Borders said. “We call for this journalist’s immediate release.”In the absence of any evidence of criminal activity punishable under the law, Duruoglu’s detention is unjustified and a violation of articles 5.1.c and 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Turkey has signed.Arrested on 27 April, Duruoglu edited the daily Vatan’s website, Gazetevatan.com. She also wrote a book entitled “Turkish Baths.”————————————————————02.06.2009 – Woman journalist held for past five weeks on baseless charge of link to armed groupReporters Without Borders firmly condemns the detention of journalist Aylin Duruoglu, the editor of the daily Vatan’s website, Gazetevatan.com, for the past five weeks on a charge of collaborating with an outlawed armed organisation. Arrested on 27 April, she is now being held in Istanbul’s Bakirköy prison.“Duruoglu is the victim of inexplicable judicial persecution,” Reporters Without Borders said. “If the authorities want to try her, they should do so without delay and ensure that the trial is fair. In the meantime, there are no grounds for continuing her arbitrary detention, which has already gone on for too long.”In the course of major police operation on 27 April, Duruoglu was arrested on a charge of collaborating with the Revolutionary Headquarters, an armed group on the Turkish government’s list of terrorist organisations, because she knew one if its alleged members, writer and former journalist Ohran Yilmazkaya.They studied together at Istanbul University and, as a journalist, Duruoglu attended the launch of one his books. She denies the charge.Turkey is ranked 103rd out of 173 countries in the latest Reporters Without Borders press freedom index. News “Duruoglu is the victim of inexplicable judicial persecution,” Reporters Without Borders said. “If the authorities want to try her, they should do so without delay and ensure that the trial is fair. In the meantime, there are no grounds for continuing her arbitrary detention, which has already gone on for too long.” RSF_en April 2, 2021 Find out morelast_img read more

first_img Google+ (Photo supplied/Indiana Senate Republcians) It’s not just President Trump who believes there was election fraud. A group of Republican senators, including Mike Braun of Indiana, plan not to vote to accept some of the election results.Braun, along with Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) announced on Saturday, Jan. 2, in a joint statement, they will reject electors from disputed states, called for a commission to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in those states, and for those states to convene special legislative sessions to certify their vote in a manner consistent with the findings of the commission’s audit.“America is a Republic whose leaders are chosen in democratic elections. Those elections, in turn, must comply with the Constitution and with federal and state law.“When the voters fairly decide an election, pursuant to the rule of law, the losing candidate should acknowledge and respect the legitimacy of that election. And, if the voters choose to elect a new office-holder, our Nation should have a peaceful transfer of power.“The election of 2020, like the election of 2016, was hard fought and, in many swing states, narrowly decided. The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.“Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.“And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate.  Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.’  That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).“Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.“But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear.  It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.“Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.“On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud.“At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.“The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states — Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina — were alleged to have been conducted illegally.“In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy.  Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission — consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices — to consider and resolve the disputed returns.“We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.“Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.“We are not naïve. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise. But support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue. A fair and credible audit — conducted expeditiously and completed well before January 20 — would dramatically improve Americans’ faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President. We owe that to the People.“These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to defend.  We do not take this action lightly. We are acting not to thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it. And every one of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore faith in our Democracy.” Twitter Facebook Braun among group of GOP Senators not accepting Presidential election results Google+ Pinterest WhatsApp WhatsApp Facebook Twitter Pinterest IndianaLocalNews By 95.3 MNC – January 2, 2021 4 331 Previous articleCity of South Bend opens Century Center as warming siteNext articleCrouch: Way out of economic slump may lie in rural Indiana 95.3 MNCNews/Talk 95.3 Michiana’s News Channel is your breaking news and weather station for northern Indiana and southwestern Michigan.last_img read more

first_img Court strikes statute dealing with pretrial release Says the legislature encroached on its exclusive procedural rulemaking authority Mark D. Killian Managing Editor The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a statute dealing with nonmonetary pretrial release as an impermissible intrusion on the court’s exclusive procedural rulemaking ability and has temporarily readopted two Rules of Criminal Procedure that the statute amended back in 2000.However, because the court now says a “vacuum” exists as to when judges may consider some defendants for nonmonetary pretrial release, it is republishing the two rules (3.131 and 3.132) in this News for comments concerning whether they should be amended to reflect the legislature’s intent as demonstrated by the now unconstitutional statute (§907.041(4)(b)). (See notice, page 29)“The court is particularly concerned that it be fully informed as to the policy concerns of the Florida Legislature before it takes any final action on these rules,” the court said in a June 30 opinion. “For that reason, the court expressly invites the legislature to file comments particularly addressing the policy concerns that the legislature was attempting to address by enacting section 907.041(4)(b).”At issue is the court’s finding in State v. Raymond, No. SC03-1263 (Fla. June 30, 2005), that §907.041(4)(b) is purely procedural and therefore an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution.The case involves Marti Cassandra Raymond, who was arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery that involved domestic violence. Raymond was brought before the Dade County court for her first appearance and was found to qualify for nonmonetary release to pretrial services (PTS) because she had no prior offenses. Despite making a finding that Raymond qualified, the court said it could not grant nonmonetary pretrial release, citing §907.041(4)(b). It provides in pertinent part: “No person charged with a dangerous crime shall be granted nonmonetary pretrial release at a first appearance hearing. . . . ” Misdemeanor domestic violence is classified as a dangerous crime and because Raymond was charged with committing a dangerous crime, even though she was otherwise eligible for nonmonetary pretrial release at her first appearance, the court was required to set a bond.Raymond could not afford to post the $1,500 bond and remained in jail through the weekend, until the second scheduled appearance the following Monday. During that time, Raymond filed a motion seeking nonmonetary pretrial release, alleging that §907.041(4)(b) was unconstitutional because it created a procedural rule that regulated the timing of her eligibility for release to PTS. The county court denied Raymond’s motion but asked the appellate division of the 11th Judicial Circuit if the statute impermissibly intrudes upon the Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority. The 11th Circuit’s appellate division found that it did and the Third DCA agreed. The state appealed, arguing that the statute is substantive in nature for several reasons.The state argued that the amendment alters the presumption from favoring nonmonetary release to a presumption against nonmonetary release when the defendant is charged with a dangerous crime. That presumption is found in the following statutory provision:“(3) Release on nonmonetary conditions.—“(a) It is the intent of the legislature to create a presumption in favor of release on nonmonetary conditions for any person who is granted pretrial release unless such person is charged with a dangerous crime as defined in subsection (4). Such person shall be released on monetary conditions if it is determined that such monetary conditions are necessary to assure the presence of the person at trial or at other proceedings, to protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, to assure the presence of the accused at trial, or to assure the integrity of the judicial process.”“We do not agree that a change in the presumption in §907.041(3)(a) means that a change to §907.041(4)(b) is substantive,” Justice Peggy Quince, wrote for the 5-2 majority. “The change in presumption does not affect the defendant’s eligibility for nonmonetary pretrial release. Any defendant who was eligible for nonmonetary pretrial release is still eligible for nonmonetary pretrial release. The statutory provision granting this right was fixed in a portion of the statute that is not at issue here. Because the right to nonmonetary pretrial release is not itself at issue — any person entitled to PTS nonmonetary release before the amendment is still entitled to it after the amendment — this is not a substantive provision. The provision at issue here merely affects the timing of the release on nonmonetary conditions.”The court also rejected the state’s claim that the amendment concerns itself with the period of time that a defendant accused of a violent crime must be held before nonmonetary release, thus making it substantive and not purely procedural. The court found the section does not set forth a specific period of time that a defendant must be detained before a judicial hearing.“In fact, even the state agrees that the trial court could have called Raymond’s case for a second hearing immediately following her initial appearance,” Quince said.In 2000, the court said, the legislature amended §907.041, and repealed Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3.132, relating to pretrial release and pretrial detention, to the extent the act and the session law is inconsistent with rules 3.131 and 3.132 on whether certain defendants will be considered for nonmonetary pretrial release at the first appearance hearing. The rules require the judge to determine and impose the conditions of pretrial release at the first appearance hearing for all defendants, but the session law prohibits such consideration for certain defendants by specifying that “[n]o person charged with a dangerous crime shall be granted nonmonetary pretrial release at a first appearance hearing.”“Thus, those portions of the rules which require the trial judge to determine and impose the conditions of pretrial release for persons charged with a dangerous crime at the first appearance, including nonmonetary conditions, have been repealed by the legislature,” the court said.Although the legislature may repeal a court procedural rule, it cannot create a new procedural rule by statute.“In this case, the legislature repealed a portion of two procedural rules; however, by enacting §907.041(4)(b), which is a rule of procedure affecting the timing of a defendant’s eligibility for pretrial release to PTS, it also imposed a new procedural rule, essentially rewriting the Rules of Criminal Procedure. This the legislature may not do.”Therefore, the court temporarily readopted rules 3.131 and 3.132 in their entirety and is calling for comments concerning whether they should be amended to reflect the legislature’s intent as demonstrated in §907.041.“We are particularly concerned that we be fully informed as to the policy concerns of the Florida Legislature before we take any final action on these rules,” Quince said. “For that reason, we expressly invite the legislature to file comments particularly addressing the policy concerns that the legislature was attempting to address by enacting §907.041(4)(b).”Chief Justice Barbara Pariente and Justices Charles Wells, Harry Lee Anstead and Raoul Cantero concurred. Justices Fred Lewis and Kenneth Bell dissented. August 1, 2005 Managing Editor Regular News Court strikes statute dealing with pretrial releaselast_img read more

first_img Facebook Twitter Google+ Published on November 28, 2014 at 11:14 pm Contact Jesse: [email protected] | @dougherty_jesse Chris McCullough caught the ball in the short corner and the game seemed to slow down.Rakeem Christmas called for the ball in the post, Trevor Cooney waved his arms across the court and Holy Cross forward Malcolm Miller shyly shuffled out to meet Syracuse’s 6-foot-10 freshman forward.With his teammates wanting the ball and his team clinging to an 11-point lead with just over 11 minutes, McCullough pumped once before rising up and sinking a mid-range jumper in Miller’s face.The make gave him his 13th and 14th points — his last of the night — and the Orange (5-1) went on to beat the Crusaders (3-1), 72-48, in the Carrier Dome on Friday night. But while McCullough finished in double-figures for the sixth time in as many college games and went for his second double-double of the season with 13 rebounds, SU head coach Jim Boeheim redirected the attention to a ESPN article published on Wednesday by Chad Ford, which said McCullough was recently pegged as an NBA lottery pick by a group of pro scouts.“You keep looking at what Chris Ford says, he’s a really smart guy, he knows exactly who’s going to get drafted,” Boeheim said of Chad Ford after the win. “I talked to 10 pro scouts, not one of them thought that Chris McCullough was a first-round pick.AdvertisementThis is placeholder text“So who (Ford)’s talking to, I have no idea. And when you print that stuff, people read that, parents read that … ‘He’s in the Top 10 in the draft board, that’s why he’s going to go.’ On whose draft board? ESPN? They don’t have a team. They do not have a team.”After acknowledging McCullough’s mid-range ability, Boeheim touched on the negatives of his performance against Holy Cross.Boeheim said that McCullough gave up 15 points, on his own, as the Crusaders climbed back into the game in the second half. McCullough agreed with his head coach, saying he gave up too many shots in the corner while playing the wing of Boeheim’s 2-3 zone.McCullough’s teammates praised the forward’s ability to stretch the floor, which helped compensate for an 0-for-14 performance from 3-point range. By establishing his mid-range jumper, McCullough helped senior Rakeem Christmas to a career-high 25 points in the low post.Together, they shot 15-for-21 for 39 points, collected 25 rebounds and blocked five shots. But as far as recognizing the performance as a hint to McCullough’s draft stock, Boeheim pointed to the opponent McCullough splurged against.“‘I’m 6-10 I’m playing against 6-3 guys, I should be able to get 14 points. I think that should be something I can accomplish,’” said Boeheim, talking as if he were McCullough. “Maybe I couldn’t now, I’d probably only get 10. Just let the kids play. Let them play, will you? If there’s any voracity in anything that those people say, it would be different.”McCullough didn’t make much of Boeheim’s comments or the Ford article. He said he received a text message telling him he was being called a lottery pick, but mostly brushed it off before turning in what was arguably his most well-rounded offensive performance of the season.“I’m not paying attention to it,” McCullough said. “I’m not worried about nothing like that right now.”After beating Holy Cross, Boeheim couldn’t say the same. Commentslast_img read more