Suspendisse Efficitur Fringilla
Felis non dui efficitur suscipit. Nulla gravida dolor quis tellus mattis, vel viverra risus tincidunt. Quisque in luctus lorem.
Commodo Cursus Odio
Morbi lectus mi, molestie et blandit ut, finibus a est. Nullam at ligula in urna mollis dictum. Nullam aliquam pulvinar.
Vestibulum Vitae Dictum
Etiam eu sem pretium, sodales nulla in, elementum lacus. Vestibulum vitae elit dictum, pellentesque massa sed.
Nullam Aliquam Pulvinar
Tellus mattis vel viverra risus tincidunt. Quisque in luctus lorem ut finibus a est molestie et blandit vitae elit dictum.

Category Archives

Archive of posts published in the category: xngacmrd

Star jobs #1

first_imgFollowing a busy and stressful week, there are some jobs you think, you’d love to do – something untaxing that involves getting away from the rat race. Shooting to the top of that aspirational list is ’spokesperson for Starbucks’. When BB tried to check up on reports that the firm had posted its first loss for 15 years, Starbucks’ press officer was not budging from her seat on the fence. “I can’t be quoted as either confirming or denying it,” she said. Nice work if you can get it.last_img read more

Press release: Husband and wife banned for failing to preserve company records

first_img Email [email protected] You can also follow the Insolvency Service on: YouTube Mr Mohammed Miah and Mrs Anwara Miah, were both directors of Murrayfield Developments Limited (MDL), which was incorporated in 2004 and traded as The Original Raj Hotel in Edinburgh.From January 2012, Mr and Mrs Miah were joint directors of MDL and the company ceased trading on 19 November 2015 and went into liquidation on 9 December 2015 owing creditors over £260,000.An investigation by the Insolvency Service, which followed the liquidation, led to a trial.The court heard that the Insolvency Service investigation found Mr and Mrs Miah failed to preserve or deliver up the accounting records for MDL to the liquidator, as they were required to by insolvency law. This meant it wasn’t possible to account for over £1 million paid out from the company’s bank account, including cheques written to cash after the commencement of winding up proceedings. This was aggravated by the directors’ failure to provide a statement of affairs to the liquidator.It was also found that Mr and Mrs Miah caused MDL to trade to the detriment of HMRC whilst insolvent from 1 January 2014 to the date of liquidation resulting in a tax debt of at least £228,920.In the absence of either Mohammed Miah or Anwara Miah at the court hearing, the Sheriff granted a disqualification order against both Mr and Mrs Miah.The disqualification commenced on 6 March 2018 and is effective until 6 March 2025.Robert Clarke, Head of Company Investigation at the Insolvency Service said: LinkedIn Directors have a duty to ensure that their companies maintain proper accounting records, and, following insolvency, deliver them to the office-holder in the interests of fairness and transparency. This service is for journalists only. For any other queries, please contact the Insolvency Enquiry Line.For all media enquiries outside normal working hours, please contact the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Press Office on 020 7215 1000. Notes to editorsMurrayfield Developments Limited (Company number SC262655), was incorporated in 2004.Mr Mohammed Miah’s date of birth is March 1959. He was appointed as a director of MDL on 30 January 2012 and remained in office until the date of liquidation. Mrs Anwara Miah’s date of birth is June 1960. She was appointed as a director of MDL on 2 February 2004 and remained in office until the date of liquidation.A disqualification order has the effect that without specific permission of a court, a person with a disqualification cannot: Office currently closed during the coronavirus pandemic. Media Manager 0303 003 1743 Persons subject to a disqualification order are bound by a range of other restrictions.The Insolvency Service administers the insolvency regime, investigating all compulsory liquidations and individual insolvencies (bankruptcies) through the Official Receiver to establish why they became insolvent. It may also use powers under the Companies Act 1985 to conduct confidential fact-finding investigations into the activities of live limited companies in the UK. In addition, the agency deals with disqualification of directors in corporate failures, assesses and pays statutory entitlement to redundancy payments when an employer cannot or will not pay employees, provides banking and investment services for bankruptcy and liquidation estate funds and advises ministers and other government departments on insolvency law and practice. Further information about the work of the Insolvency Service, and how to complain about financial misconduct, is available.Contact Press OfficeMedia enquiries for this press release – 020 7674 6910 or 020 7596 6187 Press Office act as a director of a company take part, directly or indirectly, in the promotion, formation or management of a company or limited liability partnership be a receiver of a company’s property Twitter Without a full account of transactions it is impossible to determine whether a director has discharged his duties properly, or is using a lack of documentation as a cloak for impropriety.last_img read more

Press release: Government announces easier court entrance for legal sector

first_img Of course, we need to do this in the right way, without compromising the security of our courts. To ensure this pilot is a success we are working closely with the legal profession. The Bar Council has worked hard with HMCTS to promote a scheme that enables barristers to avoid long delays and searches. A scheme allowing practising legal professionals direct entrance to courts without the need to be searched will be piloted by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) in five courts, with registration beginning in August and fast-track entry from September.The Bar Council has led the development of an app for its members to use as ID, and Law Society members will benefit from the pilot, using approved photo ID.While tightened security procedures introduced during the last year will continue, the ‘Professional Entry Scheme’ intends to ease queues to get into court buildings and allow easier and swifter access for legal professionals who come to court regularly.The scheme will recognise the trusted status of legal professionals without compromising security and is supported by the judiciary.Justice Minister, Lucy Frazer, said: In advance of the pilot, practising legal professions will need to register with their local court, agree to conditions of entry (which continue to include a list of prohibited items) and meet secure ID authentication requirements when they attend court. This includes identifying themselves as a legal professional and showing photographic ID, which will be checked by a court security officer against a registration list.Random searches on a proportion of the participants in the pilot will be carried out to make sure the scheme is working as intended.Legal practitioners will be invited to register with their local court from today, with fast-track entries predicted to open in early September.If successful, the scheme will be extended nationally and could be grown to other professional groups. It will not be implemented at courts hearing terrorist or high security cases.Notes to editors Courts taking part in the pilot are Brighton Magistrates’ Court, Maidstone Combined Court; Southwark Crown Court, Tameside Magistrates’ Court and Wood Green Crown Court. A second strand of the pilot will allow some Solicitors’ Association members access to other courts with their existing professional ID, providing they are registered at the courts. It will be mandatory for professional bodies to verify and accredit the status of legal professionals. HMCTS will work with them to agree suitable and appropriate levels of ID are in place for entry to court. Both the Bar Council and Law Society will invite their members to register in advance of the pilot. Courts will also contact known local users. Chair of the Bar, Andrew Walker QC, said: Law Society President, Christina Blacklaws, said:center_img There is no doubt that easier access will benefit our members and we welcome this sensible initiative. Courts and tribunals are the daily workplace for many trusted legal professionals. This pilot will make it easier for them to simply get on with their job. We have spoken to HMCTS officials about the delays practitioners can face in clearing security and we hope the pilot will pave the way for a permanent system of easier access. We are delighted that this has now led to a pilot of the Professional Entry Scheme. If the pilot is a success, then the new secure, easy to use ID app that we are developing should enable practising barristers to make the most of the scheme, wherever they practise.last_img read more

Guidance: Hospital discharge service: policy and operating model

first_imgIt replaces ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19) hospital discharge service requirements’ published on 19 March 2020. are discharged safely from hospital to the most appropriate place continue to receive the care and support they need after they leave hospital This document sets out how health and care systems can ensure that people:center_img Please read guidance on designated settings for people discharged to a care home for further information on discharging people who are likely to be infectious with COVID-19 from hospital to a care home.last_img read more

President Obama Reminds Us Just How Cool He Is With Personalized Summer Playlists

first_imgUnless you’ve been living under a rock the last 16 months, you know that the 2016 presidential primaries have been, for lack of a better word, a shit-show. Both ends of the political spectrum have been caught up in questionably moral politics and been the target of an unusual amount of hostility, even for an election year. But while the bare knuckle battle for the next presidency rages on, let us not forget about that guy who still runs the free world. Whatever you think about the job he did in the Oval Office, we can all agree that he is, by every account, a seriously cool dude. As we learned in high school civics class, one of the roles of the US President is acting as Chief of Party. This morning, Obama made it known that he’s also Chief of THE Party, dropping two 2016 Summer Playlists via Twitter, one for the daytime and one for when the sun goes down. You can check out the tweet below, including festival lineup-style track listing graphics for each playlist–and they’re pretty amazing: The daytime mix contains more upbeat, happy tracks from a wide range of artists, including Wale, Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros, Sara Bareilles, Jay Z, Common, Aloe Blacc, Nina Simone, Nas & Damian Marley, Prince, Beach Boys, Gary Clark Jr., and more. The nighttime list includes tracks by Aaron Neville, D’Angelo, Tower Of Power, Mary J. Blige and Method Man, Billie Holiday, Fiona Apple, Chance The Rapper, Lizz Wright, Anthony Hamilton and others. You can stream them both now and party like POTUS.last_img read more

Racing to find her passion

first_imgSkiing is in Marguerite Thorp’s DNA. So is perseverance.The Michigan native was on skis at age 2. When she was a child, her parents moved the family west, and she spent her youth in the snow-packed mountains of Colorado and Utah, careening down trails, hungry for speed and any jumps she could find.“I was in love with being in the air,” Thorp recalled.Her passion became the unpredictable sport of ski cross. (Think roller derby on skis, with tight turns, airborne racers, and high-speed collisions.)But a horrific crash on the slopes during a routine race with the Harvard Ski Team during her junior year left her with a metal plate and six screws in her left leg, and a torn anterior cruciate ligament in her right leg. The sanguine senior, who spent almost two months on campus in a wheelchair, knows it could have been worse.“I was lucky,” Thorp said. “At least I was still able to do a number of things myself.”But Thorp’s determination and her skiing experiences would shape her life at Harvard and beyond in ways she never imagined.On her left hand is an engagement ring from another skier with a passion for the sport, global health, and social justice. Her fiancé is Matthew Basilico, a Harvard graduate and Harvard Medical School student.Thorp jokingly called their romance “scandalous,” describing how they met when she was a freshman and he was senior captain of the men’s ski team. When the pair realized they shared a mutual interest in Africa, and in issues of public health and social justice, their connection blossomed.“Matt,” she said with a smile, “was very special.”Several factors deepened Thorp’s interest in public health and social justice her first year at Harvard. There was the “life-altering” class about Africa and the legacy of colonialism taught by Harvard Professor Caroline Elkins. She became involved with the Harvard College Global Health and AIDS Coalition. And she read “Mountains Beyond Mountains,” the book about Paul Farmer, the Harvard doctor and founder of Partners In Health, a mainstay health care provider in Haiti.But for the competitive athlete, skiing was still paramount. Thorp arrived as the school’s fastest female racer and established herself as a vital part of the Crimson’s alpine team. She took a break from school during her sophomore spring semester, preparing to try out for the 2010 Winter Olympics U.S. ski cross team. But stress fractures in both legs forced her to drop out.So she headed to Africa. Thorp used her time off in the landlocked African nation of Malawi to work with Partners In Health and the William J. Clinton Foundation on public health initiatives. The four-month trip was a turning point.“It was the best Plan B ever,” she said of her decision not to return immediately to Harvard. “I have no idea how I would have stayed with pre-med if I hadn’t seen the outlet of working internationally and working in settings of poverty.”The following year, Thorp’s skiing crash forced her to trade her third-floor room in Eliot House for a ground-floor unit in Leverett House. She relied on friends and Harvard staff to navigate campus life with her two injured legs, but her spirit never dimmed.“There is an incredible support system built in for things like this. All in all, it was as positive an experience as it could be,” she said.Determined to return to Malawi, Thorp held off on surgery to her right leg so she could continue her public health work there last summer.She had her torn ligament repaired just weeks before classes began last fall. Knowing that the decision meant she would be unable to compete, Thorp helped out as the team’s assistant coach, mentor, driver, and sometime cook. The previous season her teammates, inspired by her ongoing support despite her injuries, had elected her captain.“Being asked to lead the team while transitioning from a wheelchair to crutches was a huge honor,” she said.With plans to attend medical school in 2012, Thorp credits her Harvard experience with helping her to develop and maintain her passions.“I don’t think there are many other places I could have held together those two interests in any way. I am so very, very grateful to Harvard.”As for her other passion, Thorp and Basilico will marry next June.last_img read more

Backup and ITaaS – Your Business Depends on It

first_imgWhile companies now understand that information drives their business, many have yet to consider the impact backup can have on their bottom line. IT organizations that drive a service-provider approach to backup can accelerate both IT and business initiatives. To deliver backup in an IT-as-a-Service (ITaaS) model, however, the team must transform both their approach and their technology.Backup Matters to the Bottom LineWhy does backup matter to the business?At a recent manufacturing conference, the head of a cosmetics factory lamented: “With my virtualized environment, IT can set up a new application in 48 hours. Everything is set up automatically in one hour… except backups. This delays everything, and that’s unacceptable.” Conversely, organizations with service-oriented backup teams innovate more quickly because everybody is confident that, even if something goes wrong, their data will be safe and accessible. Backup affects the velocity of IT and business.IT organizations need a new service-provider approach. Unfortunately, legacy backup solutions tend to be architecturally monolithic, labor-intensive and absolutely centralized – the exact opposite of how to deliver anything as a service.Attitude Is EverythingOne step in transitioning to an ITaaS model is for the backup team to embrace a service provider mindset. This can be a huge shift for backup administrators who, for years, have had one mode of customer interaction: “What do you need backed up/restored? We’ll let you know what we can do.” As a result of this shift, backup teams worry about additional complexity, loss of environmental control and organizational irrelevance.Moving to an ITaaS model requires the backup team to change its approach. DBAs want to run their own backups and recoveries. Storage teams want to use snapshots, clones, and replicas. Virtualization teams want virtual machine-specific protection tools. These teams want more control over protecting their data because it gives them confidence to accelerate their innovation. The backup team’s concern is that if all those teams run their own protection tools, the organization will be plunged into chaos.In reality, it’s too late to try and stop the diversity of protection tools. When your backup team does an assessment, they’ll find that they don’t have to worry about losing control… because they already have. Every organization already leverages multiple protection technologies.The backup team has a new mission: to be service providers to the business. As backup teams adjust to their new reality, they understand the expanded value they can bring to their customers – application teams, virtualization teams and end users. Their focus now is not IT-centric: “How can I force fit you into my one-size-fits-all monolithic backup solution?” but business-centric: “How can the backup team help you?” They can develop a catalogue of service offerings (e.g., central reporting, cataloging, replication, and management) aligned with business goals.From Vision to Execution How can the backup team deliver their value-added services to drive the business forward?By shifting to an ITaaS-oriented protection storage architecture, the backup team can deliver the high-value services organizations need today while evolving to meet future requirements. This type of architecture leverages consolidated protection storage as a repository for the data; integrates across the IT environment (physical and virtual servers, applications, and storage); and is tied together with consolidated data management as a way to deliver a catalogue of services to application owners, business partners and other stakeholders.While much of the focus to date has been on the consolidated protection storage layer, data management will become increasingly important as organizations look to deliver backup in the ITaaS model.Data management services focus on visibility and value-added services. First, the backup team needs visibility across the environment. With a centralized view, the backup team can identify the challenges and opportunities for optimization across the environment. Visibility helps them understand their customers. Second, the backup team can then design and deliver the value-added services that the business needs.Companies who have taken this type of approach can:Deploy applications faster and more efficiently, while ensuring that they meet their SLAs – with consolidated protection reporting.Scale globally, across distributed environments, and be confident in the safety of their information assets – with consolidated backup management.Reduce costs by optimizing the capacity, performance, network bandwidth, and system management of their backup storage – with consolidated protection storage managementWhen this happens, backup stops being an organizational tax and becomes a service that accelerates business.For more on backup solutions from EMC, check out www.emc.com/backupleader.last_img read more

UGA experts to train landscape pros

first_imgA University of Georgia workshop – Between the Flowers and the Gardeners – set for June 15 in Athens, Ga., will help professional landscapers better serve home gardeners. It will be held from 1:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. at the Athens Trial Gardens on the UGA campus.Taught by professors from the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, the workshop will cover ways to provide clients with the highest quality plant material, how to grow specific plants like salvia and petunia, which plants should be partnered in the landscape and how to maintain healthy, beautiful color in the landscape. Other topics include integrated pest management, insect scouting and employee safety.The workshop will also feature a roundtable discussion between university and landscape industry experts. Sponsored by UGA Cooperative Extension, the UGA Department of Horticulture and the UGA Center for Urban Agriculture, the workshop costs $30. Registration can be mailed in check form to UGA CAES Athens Conference Office, 202 Hoke Smith Building, Athens, Ga., 30602. Or, register with a credit card online at www.areg.caes.uga.edu.For more information on the workshop, call (706) 583-0347.last_img read more

Panel encourages giving a greater voice to jurors

first_img December 15, 2001 Jan Pudlow Associate Editor Regular News Panel encourages giving a greater voice to jurors Panel encourages giving a greater voice to jurors Associate Editor Like children of yesteryear, jurors should be seen and not heard — until it’s time to ask for their verdict at the end of the criminal trial.Out with that old tradition, recommend members of the Jury Innovations Committee of the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Management Council.The committee embraces a new attitude that elevates jurors from muted mannequins filling the jury box to engaged, curious full partners in the trial, allowed to ask witnesses questions, like the lawyers and judge.Inviting jurors to ask questions in criminal trials is one of 48 recommendations from the committee, chaired by Third District Court of Appeal Judge Robert Shevin, who plans to represent the committee at oral arguments before the Florida Supreme Court on February 4.“The goal of this committee from the get-go was to come up with suggestions to help bring about jurors who are more educated, who can understand the facts better, who will be much more in a position of being able to reach a conclusion, who will be more accurate about the decision-making process, who will be more confident in their verdict and decision – all of these things to get them to play a more active role, so we will have jurors who have a better understanding of the importance of their responsibility,” Judge Shevin said.“And I would say questioning by jurors is designed to do just that.”But some would rather have jurors simply listen to witnesses and keep their thoughts to themselves.“I absolutely hate the idea of jurors asking questions in criminal cases, because they ask the wrong questions all the time,” said Miami criminal defense attorney Michael Catalano, a member of the Florida Bar Criminal Rules Committee that is busy drafting and voting on proposed rules to address the concept.“To me, it shifts the focus of the trial and it interferes. Good lawyers are like air-traffic controllers. On both sides, good lawyers like to control the presentation, and when jurors ask questions, it could change the focus of how we’re presenting the case.”The real issue should be making the trial a better experience for jurors, said Palm Beach County Judge Barry Cohen, who served on the Jury Innovations Committee’s In-Court Procedures Subcommittee that dealt with the jury-asking-questions issue.“I think jurors will perform better the more friendly they find the surroundings. To tell someone who wants to think to not ask questions or take notes seems to only make their job more difficult,” said Cohen, who teaches the jurors-may-question-witness concept to new county judges.And 11th Circuit Judge Fredricka Smith, who chaired the subcommittee, said, “I’m very much in favor of this innovation.”Learning from the positive experiences of Arizona, Colorado, California, and the District of Columbia, the Florida committee concluded that benefits of allowing jurors’ questions in criminal trials “strongly outweigh any potential harm.”Judge Smith has embraced the juror-questioning option in every one of her civil trials, allowed by Florida Statutes §40.50, since October 1, 1999. Yet two years later, she notes, “very few lawyers are aware of it.”“In every case, I tell lawyers about the law and how I employ it. I’m in favor of it, and it works out well,” said Judge Smith.As Judge Smith explains, jurors don’t just blurt out their questions. After a witness has been examined and cross-examined, it’s the jurors’ turn to write down any questions they may have, and they are submitted without signing their names. Then, at a bench conference, the lawyers argue on the admissibility of each question, and the judge rules.Smith tells the jurors at the beginning of the trial about their right to ask questions and instructs them not to take it personally if their questions cannot be answered because of the rules of evidence. Her subcommittee has recommended that the Supreme Court address the issue of jurors asking questions in criminal trials in its rule-making authority. The committee’s report noted that instruction by the District of Columbia Jury Project could serve as a model.“The jurors love it. I haven’t done a real survey on it, but I can tell when I tell them they can ask questions, they like it,” said Judge Smith.For those who fear that jurors questions will bog down a trial, burden the system with delay, or cause awkward moments when lawyers’ objections about jurors’ questions are sustained — Judge Smith said that hasn’t been her experience.“A lot depends on the personality of jurors, rather than the nature of the case. I’ve had trials where not one question was asked. And I had a case where a juror asked a zillion, million questions. Come to think of it, that juror was a lawyer.” Losing Control Not everyone on Judge’s Smith’s subcommittee was gung ho about opening the courtroom floor to jurors.Harry Shorstein, Fourth Judicial Circuit state attorney, cautioned that allowing questions in criminal cases could cause reversible error.“Some people thought it was disruptive — that may be too strong a word — but it took away from the attorneys’ ability, on both sides, to direct their strategy, and questions from jurors could negatively impact on their strategy,” said Shorstein.“Particularly in criminal trials, we are extremely concerned about the protection of our case and procedures and want to avoid reversal on appeal, as well as protect the constitutional rights of the defendant. It has the potential to inject another element of appellate review.. . . To allow jurors to question throws in a third party.”But Judge Shevin counters: “I don’t think it should be controversial with any lawyer. The reality is it will provide them with jurors who are better educated, who may ask questions about issues not fully aired. And it might convince lawyers they might perhaps want to address an issue in a mini-argument or by putting on a witness. I think it will be helpful to both sides to understand weaknesses or strengths of their case.”The debate goes beyond whether jurors should be allowed to ask questions in criminal trials. Another big question is whether, at the beginning of trial, the judge should announce an open invitation for jurors to inquire.The Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee voted not to encourage questions by an instruction prior to testimony.“.. . I was unable to write a rule that would cause this instruction to be given as needed (when a juror blurts out a question), and it didn’t seem fair to have a procedure and not tell jurors about it,” Statewide Prosecutor Melanie Hines wrote to the rules committee in a November 13 letter.A week later, after conference calls, Hines submitted a revamped proposed rule on the issue, noting: “While there remains considerable debate over ‘planting the seed’ in the preliminary instructions vs. waiting to see if the jurors try to ask questions before giving the instruction, I believe a committee note could give the judge the option of handling it either way. Because several attorneys wish to know prior to voir dire if the court is going to give the initial jury question instruction, it will be incumbent on the attorneys to raise this matter prior to jury selection.”As part of the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee’s proposal, there is an instruction that would limit the jurors from asking questions that would break new ground: “Please also keep in mind that the purpose of the questioning is to clarify testimony or other evidence and is not to explore theories of your own.” Good Question David C. Miller, who has been on the criminal bench in Miami’s 11th Circuit since January, has allowed jurors to ask questions in every one of his dozen trials so far. Though there is not yet a statute or rule specifically addressing it in criminal cases, Judge Miller believes he has the authority from case law: a 1994 Florida Supreme Court death penalty case ( Watson v. State, 651 S. 2d 1159) and a 1998 Third District Court of Appeal case ( Paterson v. State, 725 S. 2d 386).“As far as I know, I’m the only judge who does it in every criminal case,” said Judge Miller.The questions posed by jurors in his courtroom, he said, “range from the incredibly perceptive to questions reflecting they didn’t hear something or they missed something to questions that call for explanations of law or call for an inadmissible answer.”Judge Miller offered this example of a perceptive question that popped up during a recent trial: One juror, who wound up being the foreman, noticed that the police officers and prosecutor kept talking about the evidence of four little white boxes, each containing a bullet casing. Yet, later, when a firearms expert testified, he referred to examining only three bullet casings.The juror had a question about that discrepancy and asked if a bullet casing was missing and whether the fourth box was empty. As it turns out, that is exactly what happened — the fourth casing had been lost, but the prosecutor chose not to explain that fact to the jury.“I thought it was incredible. I was paying attention and didn’t notice the discrepancy myself,” Judge Miller said.The worst question, Judge Miller said, was when a juror asked him to explain the hearsay rule.“I told the juror that legal scholars write books on that, and there are too many exceptions to the exceptions,” said Judge Miller.Judge Miller said he’s heard his share of criticism of his practice to invite jurors’ questions at the beginning of every criminal trial. Judges think it takes too long, he said, and they worry about lawyers who don’t like giving up control.“Attorneys are resisting it, and you know, attorneys get to vote on bar polls and make their feelings known. Even the Dade County Bar has a policy that if you don’t get a 70-percent approval rating or above, no one is supposed to endorse you or financially support you. So, in theory, it could knock you out of the running,” Judge Miller said.“But I’m undaunted. I’m going to keep doing it untill I get reversed.”Jurors who fill out his survey after jury duty note they appreciate the opportunity to inquire. And when Miami Herald reporter David Green wrote a story about Judge Miller’s practice to let jurors ask questions, Green said he received an avalanche of e-mails — “about 50, more than I’ve ever received on any other story, and all of them were positive.”One came from Julie Townsend of Knoxville, Tenn., who wrote: “I applaud Judge Miller!. . . Not too long ago, I served as a juror in Tennessee. The questions asked by the attorneys left much unclear. We ended with a hung jury. If we had been able to ask questions, I think a decision could have been reached and justice served — which is, after all, the intent, is it not?”last_img read more

May 15, 2003 Notices

first_imgJoseph John Titone of Margate has submitted an application with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners for readmission to The Florida Bar.Titone was disbarred pursuant to a June 4, 1992, Supreme Court order due to his felony arrest for perjury in an official proceeding and unlawful compensation.The Florida Board of Bar Examiners will conduct a public hearing on Titone’s application for readmission. All members of the Bar are invited to write to the board regarding their knowledge of Titone, particularly in relation to his character and fitness for readmission.If you wish to be notified of the time and place of the hearing, submit a written request to the executive director at the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 1891 Eider Court, Tallahassee 32399-1750.Evans petitions for Bar reinstatement The 11th Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission is now accepting applications to fill a Dade County court vacancy, created by the resignation of Judge A. Leo Adderly.Applicants must be registered voters, member of the Bar in good standing for the preceding five years, and live in the territorial jurisdiction of the court.Applications are available from the Bar’s Web site at www.flabar.org or from Pamela I. Perry, JNC Chair, 201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1100, Miami 33131, phone (305) 373-1000. An original and nine copies of the application must be returned to Perry by 5 p.m. May 29.LSC announces availability of grants The Supreme Court of Florida is in the process of adopting new rules of procedure in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S. Ct. 2242 (2002), and the enactment of section 921.137, Florida Statutes (2002). On its own motion, the Supreme Court proposes Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203 (Defendant’s/Prisoner’s Mental Retardation as a Bar to Execution) and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(c) (Appeal of Determination of Mental Retardation Claim).The court invites all interested persons to comment on the proposals, which are reproduced in full below, as well as online at www.flcourts.org/sct/sctdocs/proposed.html. The court specifically invites comments on the proposals from the Attorney General, the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the Florida Public Defender Association, the Commission on Capital Cases, the Capital Collateral Regional Counsels, the Appellate Court Rules Committee, and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee. An original and nine copies of all comments must be filed with the court on or before July 1, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument scheduled in this case for Monday, August 25. All comments must be filed in paper format and in WordPerfect 5.1 (or higher) format on a DOS formatted 3-1/2 inch diskette. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, CASE NO. SC 03-685. • Proposed rule of criminal procedure for determining mental retardation in “future” cases. RULE 3.203. DEFENDANT’S MENTAL RETARDATION AS A BAR TO EXECUTION Text of section effective for all trials that begin after (date on which this rule is adopted). (a) Scope. This rule applies in all first-degree murder cases in which the state has not formally waived the death penalty on the record. (b) Definition of Mental Retardation. As used in this rule, the term “mental retardation” means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the period from conception to age 18. The term “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” for the purpose of this rule, means performance that is two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test specified in the rules of the Department of Children and Family Services. The term “adaptive behavior,” for the purpose of this rule, means the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his or her age, cultural group, and community. (c) Notice of Intent to Raise Mental Retardation as Bar to Execution; Time for Filing; Contents. A defendant who intends to raise mental retardation as a bar to the defendant’s execution shall give written notice to the prosecutor not less than 20 days before trial or at such other time as ordered by the court. When the defendant bases mental retardation upon the findings of a mental health expert or experts who has or have tested, evaluated, or examined the defendant, notice shall provide the names and addresses of all mental health experts by whom the defendant expects to establish mental retardation. (d) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation not more than 10 days after an advisory jury has recommended a death sentence. (e) Notice of Intent to Seek Death Sentence; Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Life. The prosecutor shall notify the defendant, within 10 days after an advisory jury has returned a recommended sentence of life imprisonment, if the state intends to seek a sentence of death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation not more than 10 days after receiving notice that the state intends to seek a death sentence. (f) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Waiver of Advisory Recommendation. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule and who has waived the right to a penalty phase jury may file a motion for determination of mental retardation no later than 10 days after waiving the right to a penalty phase jury. (g) Appointment of Experts; Time of Examination. Within 30 days of the filing of the motion for determination of mental retardation, the court shall appoint 2 experts in the field of mental retardation. Each expert shall promptly evaluate the defendant and submit to the court and parties a written report of the expert’s findings prior to the final sentencing hearing. Further, where it is the intention of the defendant to present the findings of a mental health expert chosen by the defense who has tested, evaluated, or examined the defendant, the court also shall order that the defendant be examined by a mental health expert chosen by the state. Attorneys for the state and defendant may be present at the examinations conducted under this subdivision. The reports of the mental health experts shall be exchanged prior to the hearing required in section (i) as directed by order of the court. (h) Defendant’s Refusal to Cooperate. If the defendant refuses to be examined by or fully cooperate with the court-appointed experts or the state’s expert, the court may, in its discretion:(1) order the defense to allow the court-appointed experts to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the defendant’s expert;(2) prohibit the defense experts from testifying concerning any tests, evaluations, or examinations of the defendant regarding the defendant’s mental retardation; or(3) order such relief as the court determines to be appropriate. (i) Hearing on Motion to Determine Mental Retardation. The court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion. At the hearing, the court shall consider the findings of the court-appointed experts, the findings of any other expert offered by the state or the defense, and all other evidence on the issue of whether the defendant is mentally retarded. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is mentally retarded as defined in subdivision (b) of this rule, the court shall enter a written order setting forth with specificity the court’s findings in support of its determination. The court shall stay the sentencing proceeding for 30 days from the date of rendition of the order on mental retardation, or if a motion for rehearing is filed, for 30 days following the rendition of the order denying rehearing, to allow the state the opportunity to appeal the order. If the court determines that the defendant has not established mental retardation, the court shall enter a written order setting forth with specificity the court’s findings in support of its determination, and thereafter continue with the sentencing proceeding. (j) Waiver. A claim authorized under this rule is waived if not filed in accord with the time requirements for filing set out in this rule, unless good cause is shown for the failure to comply with the time requirements. (k) Appeal. An appeal may be taken by any adversely affected party. Appeals are to proceed in accord with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(c). • Proposed rule of criminal procedure for determining mental retardation in “nonfinal” cases. RULE 3.203. DEFENDANT’S MENTAL RETARDATION AS A BAR TO EXECUTION Text of section effective in all trials that begin on or before the effective date of this rule but where sentence has not been imposed and affirmed on direct appeal on or before the effective date of this rule. (a) Scope. This rule applies in all first-degree murder cases in which the state has not formally waived the death penalty on the record. The effective date of this rule is ____________. (b) Definition of Mental Retardation. As used in this rule, the term “mental retardation” means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the period from conception to age 18. The term “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” for the purpose of this rule, means performance that is two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test specified in the rules of the Department of Children and Family Services. The term “adaptive behavior,” for the purpose of this rule, means the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his or her age, cultural group, and community. (c) Notice of Intent to Raise Mental Retardation as Bar to Execution; Contents. A defendant who intends to raise mental retardation as a bar to the defendant’s execution shall give written notice to the prosecutor no later than 30 days after the effective date of this rule. When the defendant bases mental retardation upon the findings of a mental health expert or experts who has or have tested, evaluated, or examined the defendant, notice shall provide the names and addresses of all mental health experts by whom the defendant expects to establish mental retardation. (d) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation not more than 10 days after an advisory jury has recommended a death sentence, or if an advisory jury has already recommended a death sentence on the effective date of this rule, the motion shall be filed prior to the filing of an appeal or in accord with section (g) if an appeal is pending on the effective date of this rule. (e) Notice of Intent to Seek Death Sentence; Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Life. The prosecutor shall notify the defendant, within 10 days after an advisory jury has returned a recommended sentence of life imprisonment, if the state intends to seek a sentence of death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation not more than10 days after receiving notice that the state intends to seek a death sentence. (f) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Waiver of Advisory Recommendation. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule and who has waived the right to a penalty phase jury may file a motion for determination of mental retardation no later than 10 days after waiving the right to a penalty phase jury. (g) If Appeal is Pending. If an appeal of a circuit court order imposing a judgment of conviction and sentence of death is pending on the effective date of this rule, the defendant may file a motion to relinquish jurisdiction for a mental retardation determination within 60 days of the effective date of this rule. The motion shall contain a certification by appellate counsel that the motion is made in good faith and on reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is mentally retarded. (h) Appointment of Experts; Time of Examination. Within 30 days of the filing of the motion for determination of mental retardation in the circuit court, or within 30 days of relinquishment of jurisdiction by the supreme court in a case in which an appeal is pending, the circuit court shall appoint 2 experts in the field of mental retardation. Each expert shall promptly evaluate the defendant and submit to the court and parties a written report of the expert’s findings prior to the final sentencing hearing. Further, where it is the intention of the defendant to present the findings of a mental health expert chosen by the defense who has tested, evaluated, or examined the defendant, the court also shall order that the defendant be examined by a mental health expert chosen by the state. Attorneys for the state and defendant may be present at the examinations conducted under this subdivision. The reports of the mental health experts shall be exchanged prior to the hearing required in section (j) as directed by order of the court. (i) Defendant’s Refusal to Cooperate. If the defendant refuses to be examined by or fully cooperate with the court-appointed experts or the state’s expert, the court may, in its discretion:(1) order the defense to allow the court-appointed experts to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the defendant’s expert;(2) prohibit the defense experts from testifying concerning any tests, evaluations, or examinations of the defendant regarding the defendant’s mental retardation; or(3) order such relief as the court determines to be appropriate. (j) Hearing on Motion to Determine Mental Retardation. The court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion. At the hearing, the court shall consider the findings of the court-appointed experts, the findings of any other expert offered by the state or the defense, and all other evidence on the issue of whether the defendant is mentally retarded. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is mentally retarded as defined in subdivision (b) of this rule, the court shall enter a written order setting forth with specificity the court’s findings in support of its determination. The court shall stay the sentencing proceeding for 30 days from the date of rendition of the order on mental retardation, or if a motion for rehearing is filed, for 30 days following the rendition of the order denying rehearing, to allow the state the opportunity to appeal the order. If the court determines that the defendant has not established mental retardation, the court shall enter a written order setting forth with specificity the court’s findings in support of its determination, and thereafter continue with the sentencing proceeding or, if a sentence of death has already been imposed, the court shall order that jurisdiction be returned to the supreme court. A notice of an order on mental retardation that returns jurisdiction to the supreme court shall be filed in the supreme court with a copy of the order attached. (k) Waiver. A claim authorized under this rule is waived if not filed in accord with the time requirements for filing set out in this rule, unless good cause is shown for the failure to comply with the time requirements. (l) Appeal. An appeal may be taken by any adversely affected party. Appeals are to proceed in accord with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(c). • Proposed rule of criminal procedure for determining mental retardation in “final” cases. RULE 3.203. PRISONER’S MENTAL RETARDATION AS A BAR TO EXECUTION Text of section effective in all cases where a sentence of death was imposed and affirmed on direct appeal on or before the effective date of this rule. (a) Scope. This rule applies in all cases where the prisoner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death and the conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal on or before the effective date of this rule which is ___________. (b) Definition of Mental Retardation. As used in this rule, the term “mental retardation” means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the period from conception to age 18. The term “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” for the purpose of this rule, means performance that is two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test specified in the rules of the Department of Children and Family Services. The term “adaptive behavior,” for the purpose of this rule, means the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his or her age, cultural group, and community. (c) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Conformity with Rule 3.851. A prisoner may file a motion for collateral relief seeking a determination of mental retardation. The motion must be filed in conformity with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. The following conditions apply.(1) A motion for collateral relief seeking a determination of mental retardation made by counsel for the prisoner shall contain a certification by counsel that the motion is made in good faith and on reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is mentally retarded.(2) If a death-sentenced prisoner has not filed a motion for collateral relief on or before the effective date of this rule, the prisoner shall raise a claim under this rule in an initial rule 3.851 motion.(3) If a death-sentence prisoner has filed a motion for collateral relief and that motion has not been ruled on by the circuit court on or before the effective date of this rule, the prisoner may amend the motion to include a claim under this rule within 60 days of the effective date of this rule. The filing of this motion shall not stay any other proceedings.(4) If a death-sentenced prisoner has filed a motion for collateral relief and that motion has been ruled on by the circuit court and an appeal is pending on or before the effective date of this rule, the prisoner may proceed under subdivision (d) of this rule.(5) If a death-sentenced prisoner has filed a motion for collateral relief and that motion has been ruled on by the circuit court and that ruling is final on or before the effective date of this rule, the prisoner may raise a claim under this rule in a successive rule 3.851 motion filed within 60 days of the effective date of this rule. The circuit court may reduce this time period and expedite the proceedings if the circuit court determines that such action is necessary. (d) Appeal of Motion for Collateral Relief Currently Pending. If an appeal of a circuit court’s ruling on a motion for collateral relief is pending on the effective date of this rule, the prisoner may file a motion to relinquish jurisdiction for a mental retardation determination within 60 days of the effective date of this rule. If the prisoner’s motion complies with subdivision (c) of this rule, the supreme court will relinquish jurisdiction to the circuit court for a mental retardation determination under this rule. Failure to raise such a motion to relinquish under this subdivision will be deemed a waiver of the claim and the prisoner will be barred from raising the claim in a successive motion. The court may reduce the time period for filing such motion if the court determines that such action is necessary. (e) Appointment of Experts; Time of Examination. Within 30 days of the filing of a properly filed motion or amended motion seeking a determination of mental retardation in the circuit court, or within 30 days of relinquishment of jurisdiction by the supreme court in a case in which an appeal is pending, the circuit court shall appoint 2 experts in the field of mental retardation. Each expert shall promptly evaluate the prisoner and submit to the court and parties a written report of the expert’s findings. Further, where it is the intention of the prisoner to present the findings of a mental health expert chosen by the prisoner who has tested, evaluated, or examined the prisoner, the court also shall order that the prisoner be examined by a mental health expert chosen by the state. Attorneys for the state and prisoner may be present at the examinations conducted under this subdivision. The reports of the mental health experts shall be exchanged prior to the hearing required in section (g) as directed by order of the circuit court. (f) Prisoner’s Refusal to Cooperate. If the prisoner refuses to be examined by or fully cooperate with the court-appointed experts or the state’s expert, the court may, in its discretion:(1) order the prisoner to allow the court-appointed experts to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the prisoner’s expert;(2) prohibit the prisoner’s experts from testifying concerning any tests, evaluations, or examinations of the prisoner regarding the prisoner’s mental retardation;(3) order such relief as the court determines to be appropriate. (g) Hearing on Motion to Determine Mental Retardation; Disposition. The circuit court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion. At the hearing, the court shall consider the findings of the court-appointed experts, the findings of any other expert offered by the state or the defense, and all other evidence on the issue of whether the prisoner is mentally retarded. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the prisoner is mentally retarded as defined in subdivision (b) of this rule, the court’s written order addressing the motion for collateral relief shall state that the prisoner is not death eligible due to mental retardation. The court’s order denying or granting collateral relief shall conform with the requirements identified in rule 3.851. As explained under rule 3.851, the order shall be considered the final order for purposes of appeal. The clerk of the trial court shall promptly serve upon the parties and the attorney general a copy of the final order, with a certificate of service. Motions for rehearing shall be filed with 15 days of the rendition of the trial court’s order and a response thereto filed with 10 days thereafter. The trial court’s order disposing of the motion for rehearing shall be rendered not later than 15 days thereafter. If the supreme court relinquished jurisdiction, the order shall return the case to the supreme court. A notice of an order on mental retardation that returns jurisdiction to the supreme court shall be filed in the supreme court with a copy of the order attached. (h) Waiver. A claim authorized under this rule is waived if not filed in accord with the time requirements for filing set out in this rule, unless good cause is shown for the failure to comply with the time requirements. (i) Appeal. An appeal may be taken by any adversely affected party. Appeals are to proceed in accord with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(a). (j) Deadline for Filing Claim. A claim under this rule must be filed no more than 60 days after the effective date of this rule. • Proposed addition to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142. RULE 9.142. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW IN DEATH PENALTY CASES (c) Appeal of determination of mental retardation claim.(1) Appeal by Defendant or Prisoner. (A) Commencement. A defendant or prisoner appealing an order determining that the defendant or prisoner has failed to established mental retardation shall appeal at the time the defendant files an appeal of the defendant’s conviction and sentence of death, or at the time prisoner files an appeal of an order denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.(B) Briefs. A defendant shall include in the defendant’s brief in the appeal of the conviction and sentence of death, the appeal of the order on mental retardation. A prisoner shall include in the prisoner’s brief in the appeal of the order denying a rule 3.851 motion, the appeal of the order on mental retardation.(2) Appeal by State. (A) Commencement. The state may appeal to the appropriate district court an order determining that the defendant or prisoner is mentally retarded within 30 days of the order on mental retardation. In the event that a motion for rehearing of the order on mental retardation is filed by the state, the 30 days shall commence to run from the rendition of the order denying the rehearing.(B) Stay. During the pendency of the state’s appeal, further proceedings in the circuit court are stayed.11th JNC seeks judicial applicants The US/Cuba Legal Forum, Inc., and La Unión Nacional de Juristas de Cuba have rescheduled their third annual conference aimed at promoting discussions of different views, exchanges of experience and necessary reflections on the state of US/Cuba legal relations. It will now be held from July 28 to July 31 in Havana, Cuba.The conference is open to attorneys, law students, and legal professionals.For more information, contact the US/Cuba Legal Forum at [email protected] yahoo.com, or write to US/Cuba Legal Forum, 235 S.W. LeJeune Road, 2nd Floor, Miami 33134 or call (305) 303-0660.Business torts panel seeks members Murray B. Silverstein has been elected to The Florida Bar Board of Governors, and Garrett Biondo has been elected to the Young Lawyers Division board.Silverstein defeated Raleigh W. Greene III in a runoff election 503 to 479 for the Sixth Judicial Circuit’s Seat 2 board race.Biondo outpolled Mario Garcia 229 to 174 in the runoff for the YLD’s 11th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 contest.Both will be sworn into office at the Bar’s Annual Meeting in Orlando in June.Grier petitions for Bar reinstatement The Business Torts Committee of the Litigation Section of the ABA is inviting the members of The Florida Bar to learn more about the committee.“Members of the Business Torts Committee make great contacts, put on cutting edge CLE programs and publish and receive the excellent Business Torts Journal, among other benefits of membership,” said Tampa’s Sean Johnson, the group’s Florida membership coordinator. “Every Litigation Section member can join three committees at no extra charge.”For more information visit the ABA Web site at www.abanet.org or contact Johnson at P.O. Box 1102, Tampa 33601; fax (813) 229-6553; or e-mail at [email protected] trenam.com. Applicants are now being sought to fill a judicial vacancy on the Broward County bench due to the retirement of Judge Zebedee W. Wright, effective June 30.Applicants must be registered voters, a member of the Bar in good standing for the preceding five years, and reside in Broward County upon assuming office.Applications may be obtained from William S. Spencer, 17th JNC chair, 500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1400, Ft. Lauderdale 33394-3076, or from The Florida Bar Web site at www.flabar.org.An original plus nine copies of the completed application (with photographs and attachments) must be received by Spencer no later than May 27, at 5 p.m.Titone applies for Bar readmission The 18th Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission is now accepting applications to fill a seat on the circuit bench, created by the retirement of Judge Thomas G. Freeman.Applicants must be registered voters, members of the Bar in good standing for the preceding five years, and live in the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Applications may be obtained from the JNC’s Web site at www.18jnc.com and must be returned to Sidney L. Vihlen III, JNC Chair, 1173 Spring Centre South Blvd., Suite C, Altamonte Springs 32714, telephone (407) 786-2200 no later than 5 p.m. May 30. New Rules of Criminal and Appellate Procedure Pursuant to Rule 3-7.10, Robert Edwin Grier has petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for Bar reinstatement.Pursuant to a December 23, 1993, order from the Supreme Court, Grier was suspended from practice of law for three years, effective retroactively to December 13, 1991, for engaging in multiple acts of misconduct. Grier failed to adequately represent a client in a foreclosure action, improperly retained trust funds as payment of his legal fees, failed to forward Medicare payments to a medical services provider for services rendered a ward in a guardianship where Grier was the court- appointed guardian, incompetently handled an IRS matter, failed to maintain adequate communications with clients, failed to account for fees paid, assisted his wife in attempting to make a fraudulent claim for injuries, neglected legal matters, failed to refund unearned legal fees, failed to appear at hearings on behalf of a client, misappropriated trust funds, made misrepresentations to clients, failed to advise clients of a change in his office address and telephone number, withdrew from a client’s case without taking steps to protect the client’s interests, failed to advise a client of the dismissal of the case, and failed to advise a client that he could not continue handling the case due to his serious illness.Any persons having knowledge bearing upon Grier’s fitness or qualifications to resume the practice of law should contact: Frances R. Brown-Lewis, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando 32804-6314, phone (407) 425-5424.17th JNC seeks judicial applicants Time to update your Bar records The Legal Services Corporation has announced the availability of competitive grant funds to provide civil legal services to eligible clients during calendar year 2004.In accordance with LSC’s multi-year funding policy, grants are available for only specified service areas. A listing of those service areas for each state, and the estimated grant amounts are included in Appendix-A of the Request for Proposals.The RFP and other information pertaining to the LSC grants competition is available at www.ain.lsc.gov.Applicants must file a Notice of Intent to Compete to participate in the competitive grants process.Refer to www.ain.lsc.gov for filing dates and submission requirements. The NIC is available from the RFP. E-mail competition inquiries to Competition(q),lsc.gov.Section plans Russian symposium The Young Lawyers Division is now seeking applications to fill a 17th Judicial Circuit seat on its board of governors due to the resignation of Cleveland Ferguson III.The appointment is for a full two-year term ending in June 2005. Eligible members of the division from the 17th Circuit wishing to apply for this seat should submit, (by mail or fax), a letter requesting consideration to Austin Newberry, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson St., Tallahassee 32399-2300, phone (850) 561-5624, fax (850) 561-5825 by no later than 5p.m., June 19. The YLD board will make the appointment at its June 26 meeting.18th JNC seeks judicial applicants May 15, 2003 Regular News The International Law Section is co-sponsoring a Russian International Legal Symposium in Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia, July 5-13.The focus of the CLE event will be Russian international business law and coincides with St. Petersburg’s 300th anniversary.From July 5-8 participants will experience the following activities in Moscow:• A one-day symposium focusing on the Russian legal, judicial, and legislative systems, and the impact of significant “western” treaties. This includes interactive workshops.• Collegial meetings with Moscow attorneys, notaries, and judges and a visit of the Supreme Court of Russia.• Visits to the Kremlin and the Duma (Russia’s parliament).• Social/cultural visits, including the Bolshoi Ballet, museums, etc.On July 9, participants board a train for St. Petersburg. The trip will wind its way through the scenic and historic Russian countryside. English speaking guides will accompany the tour.From July 9-13 participants will experience the following activities in St. Petersburg:• A symposium focusing on specific bilateral topics, such as US-Russia investments, immigration, and visas, negotiating contracts, corporate and commercial law; arbitration, collection of judgements and legal ethics.• Collegial meetings with St. Petersburg attorneys, notaries, and judges.• Visits to the St. Petersburg regional courts and notary chambers.• Social and cultural events, including the Kirov Ballet and the Hermitage Museum.On July 12, closing ceremonies will be held at Peter the Great’s Palace.For more information visit www.Russia-Florida-Forum.com or call Angela Froelich at (850) 561-5633.US/Cuba Legal Forum rescheduled Moved? Got a new phone number or e-mail address?Now would be a good time to take a few moments to update your Bar member records.Occasionally, the Bar president or the Florida Supreme Court’s chief justice sends out important e-mail messages to the membership. The Florida Bar Journal also uses the membership records on file with the Bar for the annual September directory.To review your current record, log on to www.flabar.org and use the attorney search feature under the “What’s New” heading near the top of the page. If your records need to be updated, click on the Membership Records Change of Address Form, fill it out and electronically transmit it directly to the Bar Membership Records Department.Members also may send fax updates (850) 561-1141 or call the Bar toll-free at (800) 342-8060, ext. 5832 to update the records.The deadline to change your membership record for publication in the 2003 directory is June 30.Silverstein elected to the Board of Governors May 15, 2003 Notices Pursuant to Rule 3-7.10, William Earl Evans, Jr., has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for Bar reinstatement.Evans was suspended from the practice of law for three years, effective May 2, 1997, for conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine, a controlled substance.Any persons having knowledge bearing upon Evans’ fitness or qualifications to resume the practice of law should contact JoAnn Marie Stalcup, The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando 32804-6314, telephone (407) 425-5424.YLD seat availablelast_img read more