DOCSLIB.ORG

The Long-Term Legal Strategy Project from April 2003 - November 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Long-Term Legal Strategy Project from April 2003 - November 2004 A joint project of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School Long-Term Legal Strategy Project for Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism Philip B. Heymann, Harvard Law School Juliette N. Kayyem, Kennedy School of Government Sponsored by The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government administered the Long-Term Legal Strategy Project from April 2003 - November 2004. The Belfer Center provides leadership in advancing policy-relevant knowledge about the most important challenges of international security and other critical issues where science, technology, environmental policy, and international affairs intersect. To learn more about the Belfer Center, visit www.bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu. Long-Term Legal Strategy Project Attn: Meredith Tunney John F. Kennedy School of Government 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-5275 www.ksg.harvard.edu/bcsia/longtermlegalstrategy www.mipt.org/Long-Term-Legal-Strategy.asp The Long-Term Legal Strategy Project for Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism at Harvard University Board of Advisors All members of the Board of Advisors agreed with the necessity to evaluate the legal terrain governing the “war on terrorism.” This final Report is presented as a distillation of views and opinions based on a series of closed-door meetings of the Board. The advisors have from time to time been offered the opportunity to express views or make suggestions relating to the matters included in this Report, but have been under no obligation to do so, and the contents of the Report do not represent the specific beliefs of any given member of the Board. The authors of the Long-Term Legal Strategy Report, Philip Heymann and Juliette Kayyem, are responsible for the final analysis herein. Directors Philip B. Heymann, James Barr Ames Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School; former Deputy U.S. Attorney General; former Associate Prosecutor and Consultant to the Watergate Special Force. Juliette N. Kayyem, Acting Executive Director for Research and Adjunct Lecturer at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government; former Member the National Commission on Terrorism; former Legal Adviser to the Attorney General. Advisors Joseph R. (Bob) Barnes, Senior Policy Advisor (Department of Defense), The Nature Conservancy; Brigadier General, U.S. Army (retired). Bob Barr, 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy, American Conservative Union. Rand Beers, Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism; National Security/Homeland Security Issue Coordinator for John Kerry’s Presidential campaign. Michael Chertoff, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the U.S Department of Justice (2001- 2003). Vicki Divoll, Former General Counsel (2001-2003) to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; former Assistant General Counsel to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Paul Evans, Director, Police Standards Unit, London; former Police Commissioner, Boston Police Department. Neil Gallagher, Homeland Security Executive, Bank of America; former Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Security Division. Mary Graham, Co-Director, Transparency Policy Project, Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government; Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution. Donald R. Hamilton, Coalition Provisional Authority, Baghdad, Iraq and Deputy Director, National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Eleanor Hill, Partner, King & Spalding, LLP; former Staff Director, House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ Joint Inquiry regarding the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Lance Liebman, Director, American Law Institute; William S. Beinecke Professor of Law at Columbia Law School; Director, Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law. John MacGaffin, Former Member, Senior Intelligence Service and former Associate Deputy Director for Operations for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); former Senior Advisor to the Director and Deputy Director for the Federal Bureau for Investigation (FBI). Robert McNamara, Jr., Former General Counsel to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and former Chief Enforcement Attorney for the U.S. Treasury Department. Oliver "Buck" Revell, Founder and President Revell Group International, Inc.; former Special Agent and former Senior Executive to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Suzanne Spaulding, Chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security; former Democratic Staff Director for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the U.S. House of Representatives. Michael Traynor, Lawyer practicing in San Francisco, California. Michael Vatis, Independent Consultant on Security and Intelligence issues and an Attorney; former Official for the Departments of Defense and Justice and the FBI. Participants from the United Kingdom Experts from the United Kingdom served as observers to the proceedings. Chris Albiston, Consultant to the Director General of the Estonian Police Service in Tallinn; former head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s (PSNI) Crime Department; former United Nations Police Commissioner in Kososvo. Lord Alex Carlile of Berriew Q.C., Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, appointed by the UK Home Secretary to report to him and to Parliament; Head of Chambers (Chairman) at 9-12 Bell Yard, London WC2. David Feldman, Rouse Ball Professor of English Law at the University of Cambridge and Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge; Judge of the Court, Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina; former Legal Adviser to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Houses of Parliament. Sir Ronnie Flanagan, HM Inspector of Constabulary. Tom Parker, Fellow at Brown University; former Special Adviser on Transitional Justice to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad, Iraq and former Head of the CPA’s Crimes against Humanity Investigation Unit. Peter Smith Q.C., Deputy Judge, High Court, Northern Ireland; Judge of the Court of Appeals of Jersey and Guernsey. The Long-Term Legal Strategy Project is supported under Award MIPT- 2003D-C-002 from the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) and the Office for Domestic Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Points of view in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or MIPT. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are indebted to a number of individuals who provided insight and talent to this effort. We want to first thank our task force members as well as our advisors from the United Kingdom who, over the course of several meetings in Cambridge and in Oklahoma City, were exceptionally forthright, honest and productive. They have reviewed drafts and offered insights. Their collective talent and experience has rarely been replicated. We also want to pay tribute to our National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) partners. General Dennis J. Reimer always was an important contributor to this effort; James "Chip" O. Ellis III provided the necessary carrots and sticks and was a pleasure to work with; and, simply put, we are proud of Donald R. Hamilton's service to our country, but also grateful that he is home safely. Susan Lynch was served as our willing and able editor. Sady Cohen and Ben Lambert were instrumental law school partners. John Neffinger and Sharon Wilke helped tremendously in the final stages of this Report and its release. Tom Parker reminded us why we like the British so much. And Tom Lue, a "mere" Harvard law student, provided invaluable advice throughout. We are particularly indebted to him. Throughout we sought the advice of outside counsel -- both inside and outside government. Thank you. But, this all would not have been possible without Meredith Tunney who took this project on, gave it life, got everyone in the same room at the same time, edited and copied, and performed as a remarkable administrator of this Project. She was a patient and understanding partner in this effort. We thank her tremendously. Table of Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………...1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..11 Recommendations I. Coercive Interrogations……………………………………………………….23 II. Detentions……………………………………………………………………..33 III. Military Commissions………………………………………………………...51 IV. Targeted Killing………………………………………………………………59 V. Communications of U.S. Persons or Others within the United States Intercepted During the Targeting of Foreign Persons Abroad………………..71 VI. Information Collection………………………………………………………..79 VII. Identification of Individuals and Collection of Information for Federal Files…………………………………………………………………………...91 VIII. Surveillance of Religious and Political Meetings…………………………….99 IX. Distinctions Based on Group Membership………………………………….109 X. Oversight of Extraordinary Measures……………………………………….119 Appendix A: Counterterrorism Policies in the United Kingdom By Tom
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Martha L. Minow
    Martha L. Minow 1525 Massachusetts Avenue Griswold 407, Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-4276 [email protected] Current Academic Appointments: 300th Anniversary University Professor, Harvard University Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor Faculty, Harvard Graduate School of Education Faculty Associate, Carr Center for Human Rights, Harvard Kennedy School of Government Current Activities: Advantage Testing Foundation, Vice-Chair and Trustee American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Access to Justice Project American Bar Association Center for Innovation, Advisory Council American Law Institute, Member Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University, Director Campaign Legal Center, Board of Trustees Carnegie Corporation, Board of Trustees Committee to Visit the Harvard Business School, Harvard University Board of Overseers Facing History and Ourselves, Board of Scholars Harvard Data Science Review, Associate Editor Initiative on Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery Law, Violence, and Meaning Series, Univ. of Michigan Press, Co-Editor MacArthur Foundation, Director MIT Media Lab, Advisory Council MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, Co-Chair, External Advisory Council National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Science, Technology, and Law Profiles in Courage Award Selection Committee, JFK Library, Chair Russell Sage Foundation, Trustee Skadden Fellowship Foundation, Selection Trustee Susan Crown Exchange Foundation, Trustee WGBH Board of Trustees, Trustee Education: Yale Law School, J.D. 1979 Articles and Book Review Editor, Yale Law Journal, 1978-1979 Editor, Yale Law Journal, 1977-1978 Harvard Graduate School of Education, Ed.M. 1976 University of Michigan, A.B. 1975 Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude James B. Angell Scholar, Branstrom Prize New Trier East High School, Winnetka, Illinois, 1968-1972 Honors and Fellowships: Leo Baeck Medal, Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Services Ombudsmen. This Consultation
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 196 PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMEN A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Munby (Chairman), Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Mr David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod1 and Miss Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is: Mr Mark Ormerod CB. Topic of this consultation This consultation paper deals with the public services ombudsmen. Impact assessment An impact assessment is included in Appendix A. Scope of this consultation The purpose of this consultation is to generate responses to our provisional proposals. Duration of the consultation We invite responses from 2 September 2010 to 3 December 2010. How to respond By email to: [email protected] By post to: Public Law Team, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020-3334-0262 / Fax: 020-3334-0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, wherever possible, you could send them to us electronically as well (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. After the consultation In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide our final recommendations and we will present them to Parliament. It will be for Parliament to decide whether to approve any changes to the law. Code of Practice We are a signatory to the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation and carry out our consultations in accordance with the Code criteria (set out on the next page).
    [Show full text]
  • Statement by the Police Ombudsman for Northern
    SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT BBYY TTHHEE PPOOLLIICCEE OOMMBBUUDDSSMMAANN FFOORR NNOORRTTHHEERRNN IIRREELLAANNDD OONN HHEERR IINNVVEESSTTIIGGAATTIIOONN OOFF MMAATTTTEERRSS RREELLAATTIINNGG TTOO TTHHEE OOMMAAGGHH BBOOMMBBIINNGG OONN AAUUGGUUSSTT 1155 11999988 The persons responsible for the Omagh Bombing are the terrorists who planned and executed the atrocity. Nothing contained in this report should detract from that clear and unequivocal fact. Wednesday 12 December 2001 STATEMENT OF THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND IN RELATION TO THE OMAGH BOMB INVESTIGATION REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Under the provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (the Police Act), Section 55(6)(b), the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (the Police Ombudsman) may, without a complaint, formally investigate a matter in accordance with Section 56 of the Act if it is desirable in the public interest. 1.2 A Report has been presented to the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) under Regulation 20 of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2000. The public interest relates to material issues preceding and following the Omagh Bomb on 15 August 1998. 1.3 This Statement in relation to the Report on the Omagh Bomb is published under Section 62 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 2. THE OMAGH BOMB 2.1 On Saturday 15 August 1998 at approximately 3.05 p.m. a terrorist bomb (the Omagh Bomb) exploded in the small county town of Omagh, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. Three telephone calls were made, the first of which was at 2.29 p.m. warning that a bomb was going to detonate in the town.
    [Show full text]
  • Maladministration and Its Remedies
    THE HAMLYN LECTURES Twenty-fifth Series MALADMINISTRATION AND ITS REMEDIES K. C. Wheare STEVENS MALADMINISTRATION AND ITS REMEDIES by K. C. WHEARE Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford Maladministration may be defined as administrative action (or inaction) based on or influenced by improper considerations or conduct. In this book, published contemporaneously with the 25th series of lectures under the auspices of the Hamlyn Trust, Sir Kenneth Wheare discusses the existing remedies for maladministration in Britain, and assesses their effec- tiveness in comparison with those available in other countries, particularly in Europe. The book begins with a comprehensive survey of maladministration as it may occur in the actions of the officials of both central and local government With the tendency towards giant departments in central government, and with the introduction in 1974 of enlarged local government units, the author sees a real danger, not only that public administration may be still further removed from those it is intended to serve, but also that more administration is likely to mean correspondingly more maladministration. The discussion opens up the vast question of how a civil service should be recruited and organised in the first place. The author goes on to consider, in separate chapters, the institutions intended at present to remedy mal- administration. He discusses the work of the Courts of Law, including Tribunals, and compares them with their counterparts in France and elsewhere. He takes a fresh look at the doctrine of Ministerial Respon- sibility and considers the effectiveness of Parliamentary Select Committees and Public and Ministerial Inquiries, making particular reference to the 1954 Crichel Down affair and to the yehicle and General Insurance Inquiry of 1972.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefighter Or Fire-Watcher?
    12 The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefi ghter or fi re-watcher? Contents 1. In search of a role 2. The PCA’s offi ce 3. From maladministration to good administration 4. Firefi ghting or fi re-watching? (a) The small claims court (b) Ombudsmen and courts (c) Fire-watching: Inspection and audit 5. Inquisitorial procedure (a) Screening (b) Investigation (c) Report 6. The ‘Big Inquiry’ (a) Grouping complaints: The Child Support Agency (b) Political cases 7. Occupational pensions: Challenging the ombudsman 8. Control by courts? 9. Conclusion: An ombudsman unfettered? 1. In search of a role In Chapter 10, we considered complaints-handling by the administration, set- tling for a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Th is led us to focus on proportionate dispute resolution (PDR) and machinery, such as internal review, by which complaints can be settled before they ripen into disputes. In so doing, we diverged from the ‘top-down’ tradition of administrative law where tribunals are seen as court substitutes. We returned to the classic approach in Chapter 11, looking at the recent reorganisation of the tribunal service and its place in the administrative justice system. We saw how the oral and adversarial tradition of British justice was refl ected in tribunal procedure and considered the importance attached to impartiality and independence, values now protected by ECHR Art. 6(1). We, 529 The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefi ghter or fi re-watcher? however, argued that recent reshaping of the tribunal system left unanswered key questions about oral and adversarial proceedings and whether they are always the most appropriate vehicle for resolving disputes with the administra- tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking out of Britain's Neo-Liberal State
    cDIREoCTIONmFOR THE pass DEMOCRATIC LEFT Breaking out of Britain’s Neo-Liberal State January 2009 Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett 3 4 r Tr hink e b m m u N PIECES 3 4 Tr hink e b m u N PIECES Breaking out of Britain’s Neo-Liberal State Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett “In the big-dipper of UK politics, the financial crisis suddenly re-reversed these terms. Gordon Brown excavated a belief in Keynesian solutions from his social democratic past and a solidity of purpose that was lacking from Blair’s lightness of being” Compass publications are intended to create real debate and discussion around the key issues facing the democratic left - however the views expressed in this publication are not a statement of Compass policy. Breaking out of Britain’s Neo-Liberal State www.compassonline.org.uk PAGE 1 Breaking out of Britain’s reduced for so many, is under threat with The British Empire State Building Neo-Liberal State no state provisions in place for them. The political and even military consequences England’s “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett could well be dire. created a framework of compromise between monarchy and Parliament. It was Nonetheless we should celebrate the followed by the union of England with possible defeat of one aspect of neo- Scotland of 1707, which joined two he world we have lived in, liberal domination. It cheered the different countries while preserving their created from the twin oil-price destruction of a communist world that distinct legal traditions. Since then the T shockwaves of 1973 and 1979 was oppressive and unfree.
    [Show full text]
  • HLS in the World
    HLS in the World Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law Faculty Host: Susan Crawford ​ Participants: Edward Felten, Stasia Kelly ​ Join Edward Felten, one of the nation's leading experts on artificial intelligence, and Stasia Kelly, a leader of DLA Piper, as they discuss the effect of artificial intelligence on the practice of law. When clients get their answers from machines, what's left for lawyers to do? The Changing Political and Intellectual Landscape of Criminal Justice Reform Faculty Hosts: Andrew Crespo ’08, Carol Steiker ’86, Alex Whiting ​ ​ ​ Participants: Rachel Barkow ’96, Brook Hopkins ’07, Alan Jenkins ’89, Derecka Purnell ​ ’17, Jonathan Wroblewski The law, politics, and scholarship of criminal justice reform have been shifting in potentially tectonic ways. After several decades of increasingly punitive policies across the country which resulted in surging incarceration rates, the last several years have seen an increasingly bipartisan shift towards a critique of what has come to be called mass incarceration. Yet, the recent presidential election signals a shift in federal priorities away from a reform agenda a development that may (or may not) have consequences for the recent trajectory in favor of reform by many state and local actors. This interactive discussion explores these crosscurrents in the law, policy, and discourse surrounding our criminal justice system. Constitutionalism and Courts: A Transnational Conversation Among Judges Faculty Hosts: Vicki Jackson, Mark Tushnet ​ Participants: Rosalie Abella, Manuel Jose Cepeda LL.M. ’87, Dieter Grimm LL.M. ’65, ​ Koenraad Lenaerts LL.M. ’78, Sandile Ngcobo LL.M. ’86 A moderated discussion among justices from high courts around the world about, among other topics, the challenges they face, the ways they interpret their constitutions and similar documents, and the role of international and comparative law in their work.
    [Show full text]
  • “A Peace of Sorts”: a Cultural History of the Belfast Agreement, 1998 to 2007 Eamonn Mcnamara
    “A Peace of Sorts”: A Cultural History of the Belfast Agreement, 1998 to 2007 Eamonn McNamara A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy, Australian National University, March 2017 Declaration ii Acknowledgements I would first like to thank Professor Nicholas Brown who agreed to supervise me back in October 2014. Your generosity, insight, patience and hard work have made this thesis what it is. I would also like to thank Dr Ben Mercer, your helpful and perceptive insights not only contributed enormously to my thesis, but helped fund my research by hiring and mentoring me as a tutor. Thank you to Emeritus Professor Elizabeth Malcolm whose knowledge and experience thoroughly enhanced this thesis. I could not have asked for a better panel. I would also like to thank the academic and administrative staff of the ANU’s School of History for their encouragement and support, in Monday afternoon tea, seminars throughout my candidature and especially useful feedback during my Thesis Proposal and Pre-Submission Presentations. I would like to thank the McClay Library at Queen’s University Belfast for allowing me access to their collections and the generous staff of the Linen Hall Library, Belfast City Library and Belfast’s Newspaper Library for all their help. Also thanks to my local libraries, the NLA and the ANU’s Chifley and Menzies libraries. A big thank you to Niamh Baker of the BBC Archives in Belfast for allowing me access to the collection. I would also like to acknowledge Bertie Ahern, Seán Neeson and John Lindsay for their insightful interviews and conversations that added a personal dimension to this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • To Serve Without Favor
    TO SERVE WITHOUT FAVOR Policing, Human Rights, and Accountability in Northern Ireland Human Rights Watch/Helsinki Human Rights Watch New York AAA Washington AAA London AAA Brussels Copyright 8 May 1997 by Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 1-56432-216-5 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 97-73331 Cover photograph copyright 8 1996 by Oistín Mac Bride. RUC riot squad in Drumcree. Addresses for Human Rights Watch 485 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6104 Tel: (212) 972-8400, Fax: (212) 972-0905, E-mail: [email protected] 1522 K Street, N.W., #910, Washington, DC 20005-1202 Tel: (202) 371-6592, Fax: (202) 371-0124, E-mail: [email protected] 33 Islington High Street, N1 9LH London, UK Tel: (171) 713-1995, Fax: (171) 713-1800, E-mail: [email protected] 15 Rue Van Campenhout, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Tel: (2) 732-2009, Fax: (2) 732-0471, E-mail: [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org Gopher Address://gopher.humanrights.org:5000/11/int/Human Rights Watch Listserv address: To subscribe to the list, send an e-mail message to [email protected] with Asubscribe Human Rights Watch-news@ in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank). HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Human Rights Watch conducts regular, systematic investigations of human rights abuses in some seventy countries around the world. Our reputation for timely, reliable disclosures has made us an essential source of information for those concerned with human rights. We address the human rights practices of governments of all political stripes, of all geopolitical alignments, and of all ethnic and religious persuasions.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 567 Filed 11/12/16 Page 1 of 16 1 DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (S.B. #97802) [email protected] 2 DAVID MARROSO (S.B. #211655) [email protected] 3 DAVID L. KIRMAN (S.B. #235175) [email protected] 4 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars 5 Los Angeles, California 90067–6035 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 6 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779 7 JILL A. MARTIN (S.B. #245626) [email protected] 8 c/o TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB One Trump National Drive 9 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Telephone: (310) 202-3225 10 Facsimile: (310) 265-5522 11 Attorneys for Defendants DONALD J. TRUMP and 12 TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT, and Case No. 10-CV-0940-GPC (WVG) 17 JOHN BROWN, on Behalf of Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P Curiel Themselves and All Others Similarly 18 Situated, CLASS ACTION 19 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE 20 v. TRIAL DATE 21 TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC et al., DATE: EX PARTE 22 TIME: EX PARTE Defendants. COURT: 2D 23 JUDGE: HON. CURIEL 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 567 Filed 11/12/16 Page 2 of 16 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 4 II. THE CONSTITUTION, DEFERENCE TO THE PRESIDENT- ELECT, AND BASIC PRAGMATISM COMPEL THE MODEST 5 RELIEF SOUGHT IN THIS MOTION. ......................................................... 3 6 A. Separation of Powers Requires That the Trial Court Schedule Its Proceedings So As To Not Impede a President’s Public Duties.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts Service Ireland
    Response questionnaire project group Timeliness Courts' Service Ireland 1 The Court System and Available Statistics 1.1 The Court System The Irish justice system consists primarily of four tiers of courts; the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court. The District Court is the lowest court, having jurisdiction over minor civil and criminal matters. The civil jurisdiction does not exceed €6,348.69. For criminal matters the Court only hears minor offences. It only hears criminal cases where the maximum custodial sentence permitted upon conviction is 12 months or up to 2 years where a consecutive sentence is imposed. The District Court also has some jurisdiction in the family law area. Proceedings in Family Law are not heard in open court and are as informal as is practicable. The District Court also has wide powers in relation to liquor and lottery licensing. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction in most criminal jury trials and civil matters with a jurisdiction not exceeding €38,092.14. It also hears appeals from the District Court. The Circuit and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in the area of Family Law. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction in a wide range of family law proceedings, (judicial separation, divorce, nullity and appeals from the District Court). The High Court has full and original jurisdiction in all matters and is the constitutional Court of first instance. In terms of its criminal jurisdiction, it sits as the Central Criminal Court and has jurisdiction over the most serious criminal trials, including those relating to murder, rape and serious sexual offences.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts Service Annual Report 2020
    Courts Service Annual Report 2020 Mission Statement“ To manage the courts, support the judiciary and provide a high quality and professional service to all users of the courts. Table of Contents At a glance1 Glossary of terms 2 Structure of the Courts 5 Foreword by the Chief Justice and Chairperson of the Board ��������������������6 Chapter 1: About the Courts Service ����������������������������������������������������������8 Chapter 2: The year in review 15 Chapter 3: The year in numbers ���������������������������������������������������������������38 Chapter 4: Governance and transparency 118 Chapter 5: Legislative provisions and reports of the Rules Committees 130 Chapter 6: Financial statements 139 Chapter 7: Additional Information 152 2020 At a glance | 1 0 €1.981bn €5.436m 2,411 Record of Covid-19 Court funds Covid-19 related Remote Court being acquired managed expenditure sessions in 2020 or transmitted in any workplace or courtroom At a glance Capital Members of staff Training Days Irish Prison expenditure availed of our fi rst virtual delivered Service remote classroom sessions appearances €66.1m 140 1,300 13,326 Delivering excellent services to court users; working in partnership 2020 2030 2 | Courts Service Annual Report 2020 Glossary of Terms Appeal – a proceeding, taken by a party to a Defendant – a person against whom an action case who is dissatisfi ed with a decision made, is brought; a person charged with a criminal to a court having authority to review or set offence. aside that decision. Emergency care order – an order placing a Barring order – an order preventing the child under the care of the Child and Family person against whom the order is made (‘the Agency (Tusla) for a maximum period of eight respondent’) from entering the family home days if the court considers that there is a or using or threatening violence against serious risk to the health or welfare of a child.
    [Show full text]