Monday, October 14, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
Replace White Supremacy With Justice
@GwenJackson: The C.O.W.S. with Dr Frances Cress Welsing Part 2 http://t.co/WqG2a4x1AwReplace White Supremacy With Justice
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Sunday, May 27, 2012
US Army Memorial Day Message 2012
Heroes are ordinary people with hearts of steel. Their courage, determination, and will power make them rise as sentinels of peace and liberty. On this Memorial Day, we salute those brave-hearts who lay down their life defending the nation.
http://www.linkedin.com/company/us-army?trk=tabs_biz_home&_mSplash=1
http://www.linkedin.com/company/us-army?trk=tabs_biz_home&_mSplash=1
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
Did Edwardo Saverin Defriend the U.S. By Renouncing his U.S. Citizenship
In Case you missed it. Check me out on Judge & Jury every Friday after 10am EST at either www.TheTVNews.TV or http://www.TheTVNews.TV/thetvnews/thetvnews.tv_Home_TV_Industry_News.html
Also for a permanent link to today's show simply go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ7Xu4TRVy4&sns=em and remember to hit the like button
Want to Reach Thousands of Key Executives in the TV, Radio and Media Industry. Advertise with us!
In Case you missed it. Check out Judge & Jury every Friday after 10 a.m. At http://www.TheTVNews.TV
Friday May 18th I examined whether Facebook's Co-Founder Edwardo Saverin DeFriended the U.S. by renouncing his citizenship thus avoiding paying MILLIONS in Taxes!
TVNews.TV is an excellent way to get your company ideas, pitches and concepts seen by thousands of Key TV, Radio, Internet and Media Executives throughout the Industry.
To advertise on TheTVNews.TV reach out DIRECTLY to
TGrim@americaningenuity.com Today! For special pricing mention that Gwen referred you and copy me at my personal email address at TVLegalNews@gmail.com
Have a wonderful day!
Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson,Esq.
www.TVLegalNews.com
For Guest Booking and Contract On Air Media Employment contact me directly 24/7 @
Email:TVLegalnews@gmail.com
Also for a permanent link to today's show simply go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ7Xu4TRVy4&sns=em and remember to hit the like button
Want to Reach Thousands of Key Executives in the TV, Radio and Media Industry. Advertise with us!
In Case you missed it. Check out Judge & Jury every Friday after 10 a.m. At http://www.TheTVNews.TV
Friday May 18th I examined whether Facebook's Co-Founder Edwardo Saverin DeFriended the U.S. by renouncing his citizenship thus avoiding paying MILLIONS in Taxes!
TVNews.TV is an excellent way to get your company ideas, pitches and concepts seen by thousands of Key TV, Radio, Internet and Media Executives throughout the Industry.
To advertise on TheTVNews.TV reach out DIRECTLY to
TGrim@americaningenuity.com Today! For special pricing mention that Gwen referred you and copy me at my personal email address at TVLegalNews@gmail.com
Have a wonderful day!
Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson,Esq.
www.TVLegalNews.com
For Guest Booking and Contract On Air Media Employment contact me directly 24/7 @
Email:TVLegalnews@gmail.com
Monday, May 14, 2012
BREAKING NEWS: Top KONY Commander captured by Ugandan Army
The Ugandan army announced Sunday, May 13, the arrest of a deputy Joseph Kony , the leader of the Arm ed Lord's Resistance Army (LRA, Lord's Resistance Army ), wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes war.
According to the Popular Defence Forces of Uganda (UPDF), General Achellam Caesar was captured during an ambush Saturday on the banks of Mboun in Central African Republic . He was armed with an assault rifle AK-47 magazines and eight had in his possession. He was arrested with his wife, one daughter and one of his assistants.
According to Ugandan military sources, the Ugandan units waited in ambush for three weeks after having followed the track of his band of thirty fighters. Caesar Acellam was separated from his men, however, a few days ago, for reasons unknown at present. The Ugandan army is at the forefront of the regional force charged with the support of U.S. Special Forces to hunt down the LRA and Joseph Kony in particular. The army believes that his capture might encourage other militiamen to abandon the ranks of the LRA.
Acellam is the most senior LRA captured to date. This is number four, behind its three main leaders, Joseph Kony, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen , all wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The arrest warrant of the ICC is also a fourth man, Vincent Otti , historically Commander and Vice President of the LRA, but everything leads us to believe that he died.
He has been transferred Sunday in the small town of Nzara Southern Sudan, bordering the Democratic Republic of Congo , the headquarters of the regional forces mandated by the African Union (AU) to hunt down the LRA. The man, tall, aged 49 and an old injury is limping , has to undergo medical checks.
Created in the late 1980s in northern Uganda, the LRA is known for its sinister child abduction, she transforms into soldiers or slaves, and his mutilation of civilians. Since being expelled from Uganda , it operates from other countries in the region - Central, South Sudan , Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Ugandan forces are allowed to intervene either in the DRC or the Sudan . Last month, a controversial video of the American NGO Invisible Children of Joseph Kony had thrown a spotlight on the LRA, making Internet sensation.
May 10, the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo , predicted that Kony would be "arrested or killed before the end of this year." The next day, the UN special representative for Africa, Central, Abu Musa, had revealed that the troops on the heels of Joseph Kony constrained him to move constantly. After having a thought in the Central time, Moussa said that the fugitive could now find in the Darfur region of western Sudan ravaged by civil war since 2003.
Joseph Kony, a former altar boy semi-illiterate, took in 1988 the head of the LRA, whose objective was to replace the government in Kampala by a regime based on the Ten Commandments of the Christian faith.
According to the Popular Defence Forces of Uganda (UPDF), General Achellam Caesar was captured during an ambush Saturday on the banks of Mboun in Central African Republic . He was armed with an assault rifle AK-47 magazines and eight had in his possession. He was arrested with his wife, one daughter and one of his assistants.
According to Ugandan military sources, the Ugandan units waited in ambush for three weeks after having followed the track of his band of thirty fighters. Caesar Acellam was separated from his men, however, a few days ago, for reasons unknown at present. The Ugandan army is at the forefront of the regional force charged with the support of U.S. Special Forces to hunt down the LRA and Joseph Kony in particular. The army believes that his capture might encourage other militiamen to abandon the ranks of the LRA.
Acellam is the most senior LRA captured to date. This is number four, behind its three main leaders, Joseph Kony, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen , all wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The arrest warrant of the ICC is also a fourth man, Vincent Otti , historically Commander and Vice President of the LRA, but everything leads us to believe that he died.
He has been transferred Sunday in the small town of Nzara Southern Sudan, bordering the Democratic Republic of Congo , the headquarters of the regional forces mandated by the African Union (AU) to hunt down the LRA. The man, tall, aged 49 and an old injury is limping , has to undergo medical checks.
Created in the late 1980s in northern Uganda, the LRA is known for its sinister child abduction, she transforms into soldiers or slaves, and his mutilation of civilians. Since being expelled from Uganda , it operates from other countries in the region - Central, South Sudan , Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Ugandan forces are allowed to intervene either in the DRC or the Sudan . Last month, a controversial video of the American NGO Invisible Children of Joseph Kony had thrown a spotlight on the LRA, making Internet sensation.
May 10, the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo , predicted that Kony would be "arrested or killed before the end of this year." The next day, the UN special representative for Africa, Central, Abu Musa, had revealed that the troops on the heels of Joseph Kony constrained him to move constantly. After having a thought in the Central time, Moussa said that the fugitive could now find in the Darfur region of western Sudan ravaged by civil war since 2003.
Joseph Kony, a former altar boy semi-illiterate, took in 1988 the head of the LRA, whose objective was to replace the government in Kampala by a regime based on the Ten Commandments of the Christian faith.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Can John Travolta Fight Off The Sexual Assault Allegations of Two Male Massage Therapists?
Can John Travolta successfully win a defamation lawsuit against two male massage therapists? What are your thoughts?
Here are the allegations most of which remain in dispute by Mr. Travolta.
While A Travolta rep has offered proof that the actor dined at the famous eatery and was presented with a check late in the evening. He paid a bill of $382.69 for the meal, as well as a $100 tip and thus could not have been present in California when the first alleged incident occurred, however Mr Okorie Okorocha, the lawyer representing both alleged victims - who are each seeking $2 million in damages - states that the receipt does not prove much. He said: 'The credit card receipt that Mr. Travolta says proves he was in New York City has a time stamp of 11:38p.m., our complaint clearly says the assault occurred in the morning of January 16.'This credit card receipt proves absolutely nothing, and it doesn't account for the day of January 16. My client was sexually assaulted at 10 a.m. Travolta could make it to New York on horseback in that time.'
The Pulp Fiction actor, who has described the sexual assault claims as 'baseless', was also photographed in New York on January 16th.
New York dining: A receipt from a meal the Pulp Fiction actor ate at Mr. Chow restaurant in New York on the same day has also emerged
New York dining: A receipt from a meal the Pulp Fiction actor ate at Mr. Chow restaurant in New York on the same day has also emerged
two photos show him first at 4:30p.m. and then again at 5:21p.m., at a fitting for his upcoming movie Killing Season.
Yesterday a second man filed a lawsuit claiming the actor tried to grab his penis during a massage session on January 28 in Atlanta, Georgia but John's attorney Marty Singer has denied both claims, and states he can prove not only that his client was in New York on January 16 but that he was there the day before as well.
Okorocha claims there are over 100 other men prepared to come forward with similar stories about the 'Hairspray' star.Whispers about John Travolta's sexuality have plagued his movie career almost from the outset.
Various camp roles in films -- most notably as a drag queen in the musical Hairspray -- have helped fuel rumours he is secretly gay.
But there have also been strongly denied accusations he has been living a double life strikingly at odds with his family man image.
They include rumours that his 1991 marriage to Kelly Preston was arranged by the shadowy cult-like religion of Scientology, of which he is a leading disciple.
Seven years later, the father-of-two Travolta was named as a homosexual in court papers by a former member of the Church. The case never got a hearing, however.
And in 2001, Travolta faced unsubstantiated claims that he had tried to pick up a business executive in a health club.
However, the rumour mill reached a crescendo in 2006, when the actor was seen apparently kissing a male friend as he prepared to board his own Boeing 707 jet in Canada.
Travolta has always maintained he is not worried by rumors surrounding his sexuality, insisting 'I don't think anyone can hurt me.'
Personally I'm praying that these allegations are false. Here's a link to how I'd like to remember John http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0cEwsB27A&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Here are the allegations most of which remain in dispute by Mr. Travolta.
While A Travolta rep has offered proof that the actor dined at the famous eatery and was presented with a check late in the evening. He paid a bill of $382.69 for the meal, as well as a $100 tip and thus could not have been present in California when the first alleged incident occurred, however Mr Okorie Okorocha, the lawyer representing both alleged victims - who are each seeking $2 million in damages - states that the receipt does not prove much. He said: 'The credit card receipt that Mr. Travolta says proves he was in New York City has a time stamp of 11:38p.m., our complaint clearly says the assault occurred in the morning of January 16.'This credit card receipt proves absolutely nothing, and it doesn't account for the day of January 16. My client was sexually assaulted at 10 a.m. Travolta could make it to New York on horseback in that time.'
The Pulp Fiction actor, who has described the sexual assault claims as 'baseless', was also photographed in New York on January 16th.
New York dining: A receipt from a meal the Pulp Fiction actor ate at Mr. Chow restaurant in New York on the same day has also emerged
New York dining: A receipt from a meal the Pulp Fiction actor ate at Mr. Chow restaurant in New York on the same day has also emerged
two photos show him first at 4:30p.m. and then again at 5:21p.m., at a fitting for his upcoming movie Killing Season.
Yesterday a second man filed a lawsuit claiming the actor tried to grab his penis during a massage session on January 28 in Atlanta, Georgia but John's attorney Marty Singer has denied both claims, and states he can prove not only that his client was in New York on January 16 but that he was there the day before as well.
Okorocha claims there are over 100 other men prepared to come forward with similar stories about the 'Hairspray' star.Whispers about John Travolta's sexuality have plagued his movie career almost from the outset.
Various camp roles in films -- most notably as a drag queen in the musical Hairspray -- have helped fuel rumours he is secretly gay.
But there have also been strongly denied accusations he has been living a double life strikingly at odds with his family man image.
They include rumours that his 1991 marriage to Kelly Preston was arranged by the shadowy cult-like religion of Scientology, of which he is a leading disciple.
Seven years later, the father-of-two Travolta was named as a homosexual in court papers by a former member of the Church. The case never got a hearing, however.
And in 2001, Travolta faced unsubstantiated claims that he had tried to pick up a business executive in a health club.
However, the rumour mill reached a crescendo in 2006, when the actor was seen apparently kissing a male friend as he prepared to board his own Boeing 707 jet in Canada.
Travolta has always maintained he is not worried by rumors surrounding his sexuality, insisting 'I don't think anyone can hurt me.'
Personally I'm praying that these allegations are false. Here's a link to how I'd like to remember John http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0cEwsB27A&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Board recommends ouster of anti-Obama Marine
Board recommends ouster of anti-Obama Marine
It could take two to three weeks for a decision to be made on Sgt. Gary Stein's dismissal, a military official said.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Marine Sgt. Gary Stein posted anti-Obama comments on his Facebook page
A board recommends an "other than honorable" discharge
A separation authority will make the final decision
Stein said he was entitled to his opinions and alleged a PR campaign against him
(CNN) -- A Marine Corps board has recommended that a politically active Marine sergeant who questioned President Barack Obama's authority be dismissed from service with an "other than honorable" discharge.
Sgt. Gary Stein, 26, who posted anti-Obama comments on his Facebook page, stands accused of violating a catch-all military justice provision against conduct endangering "good order and discipline."
He is also accused of violating a Department of Defense policy limiting the political activities of service members. The case has raised First Amendment issues.
The recommendation for dismissal, made late Thursday after a 13-hour hearing, will now go to a separation authority headed by Brig. Gen. Daniel Yoo, commander of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, said Maj. Michael Armistead, the public affairs director for the installation.
It could take two to three weeks for the authority to hand down a decision, Armistead said.
If he leaves the Marines with an other than honorable discharge, Stein will be demoted a rank to lance corporal. One of Stein's lawyers, Capt. James Baehr, said Stein would also lose benefits and his uniform.
Anti-Obama Marine may be discharged Military freedom of speech Marine calls President Obama the 'enemy'
Baehr said his client was extremely disappointed.
"I don't think any law was violated by Gary Stein," he said.
"The reason we have this reticence in the military to get engaged in politics is that we were afraid a long time ago of military dictatorship," Baehr said. "We are so far from that in suggesting that on a private Facebook page, you can't say something about politics."
Stein came under scrutiny from Marine officials after saying he would not obey Obama's orders.
In a January 26 post to the Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook page, Stein called Obama a liar. Two days later, he said the president is "the 'Domestic Enemy' our oath speaks about."
In a March 4 posting, he questioned Obama's birth certificate. Another discussion on the site in March said he would refuse to obey orders given by Obama. He later clarified to say he meant illegal orders, which he has explained as orders such as sending the military to Syria without congressional approval.
"The allegations drummed up against me are no more than an agenda by the Marine Corps to use me as an example," Stein said in a statement posted to his page.
"If I am guilty of anything it would be that I am American, a freedom loving Conservative, hell bent on defending the constitution and preserving Americas greatness."
He noted that the opinions he expressed were his own, saying, "I have never spoken on behalf of the Marine Corps or in uniform."
He told CNN the charges were a "PR thing."
"They have to make some sort of stand with this," he said.
On Friday, his Facebook page said: "Its going to be a tough day today. I know God has a plan and has paved the road ahead ... it's just not clear to me now."
CNN's Chelsea J. Carter and Barbara Starr contributed to this report.
It could take two to three weeks for a decision to be made on Sgt. Gary Stein's dismissal, a military official said.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Marine Sgt. Gary Stein posted anti-Obama comments on his Facebook page
A board recommends an "other than honorable" discharge
A separation authority will make the final decision
Stein said he was entitled to his opinions and alleged a PR campaign against him
(CNN) -- A Marine Corps board has recommended that a politically active Marine sergeant who questioned President Barack Obama's authority be dismissed from service with an "other than honorable" discharge.
Sgt. Gary Stein, 26, who posted anti-Obama comments on his Facebook page, stands accused of violating a catch-all military justice provision against conduct endangering "good order and discipline."
He is also accused of violating a Department of Defense policy limiting the political activities of service members. The case has raised First Amendment issues.
The recommendation for dismissal, made late Thursday after a 13-hour hearing, will now go to a separation authority headed by Brig. Gen. Daniel Yoo, commander of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, said Maj. Michael Armistead, the public affairs director for the installation.
It could take two to three weeks for the authority to hand down a decision, Armistead said.
If he leaves the Marines with an other than honorable discharge, Stein will be demoted a rank to lance corporal. One of Stein's lawyers, Capt. James Baehr, said Stein would also lose benefits and his uniform.
Anti-Obama Marine may be discharged Military freedom of speech Marine calls President Obama the 'enemy'
Baehr said his client was extremely disappointed.
"I don't think any law was violated by Gary Stein," he said.
"The reason we have this reticence in the military to get engaged in politics is that we were afraid a long time ago of military dictatorship," Baehr said. "We are so far from that in suggesting that on a private Facebook page, you can't say something about politics."
Stein came under scrutiny from Marine officials after saying he would not obey Obama's orders.
In a January 26 post to the Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook page, Stein called Obama a liar. Two days later, he said the president is "the 'Domestic Enemy' our oath speaks about."
In a March 4 posting, he questioned Obama's birth certificate. Another discussion on the site in March said he would refuse to obey orders given by Obama. He later clarified to say he meant illegal orders, which he has explained as orders such as sending the military to Syria without congressional approval.
"The allegations drummed up against me are no more than an agenda by the Marine Corps to use me as an example," Stein said in a statement posted to his page.
"If I am guilty of anything it would be that I am American, a freedom loving Conservative, hell bent on defending the constitution and preserving Americas greatness."
He noted that the opinions he expressed were his own, saying, "I have never spoken on behalf of the Marine Corps or in uniform."
He told CNN the charges were a "PR thing."
"They have to make some sort of stand with this," he said.
On Friday, his Facebook page said: "Its going to be a tough day today. I know God has a plan and has paved the road ahead ... it's just not clear to me now."
CNN's Chelsea J. Carter and Barbara Starr contributed to this report.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Monday March 26th 2012 @12noon EST Join Directors from the National Institute of Military Justice to discuss Military Justice in light of the recent events in Afghanistan
NIMJ is holding a teleconference for media on Monday, March 26, 2012 at noon to discuss the military justice process and the recent shootings in Afghanistan.
Join Directors from the National Institute of Military Justice to discuss Military Justice in light of the recent events in Afghanistan.
Date: Monday March 26, 2012
Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT
Teleconference Dial-in Instructions:
Continental US Dial-in: 1.888.439.7610
International Dial-in: 719.955.2424
Meeting Passcode: 2024298081
Security Code: 1330
Email address to send Questions for the Panelists During the Conference Call: nimjemail@gmail.com
Featured Speakers:
Moderator, Prof. Elizabeth Hillman, University of California Hastings College of the Law and President, National Institute of Military Justice
Philip Cave, a NIMJ Director, retired Navy Judge Advocate, private practitioner with military law practice;
Michael Navarre, a NIMJ Director, former active duty Navy Judge Advocate, and currently Special Counsel at Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Washington D.C.);
Prof. Gary Solis, Georgetown Law School, a NIMJ Advisor; and retired Marine Corps Judge Advocate;
Prof. Stephen Salzburg, George Washington Law School, NIMJ General Counsel, expert on criminal law and procedure.
Join our panel for a discussion regarding the military justice procedures in the potential courts-martial of SSGT Robert Bales, and other current military cases of public interest.
For more information about the Teleconference, please e-mail nimjemail@gmail.com.
CLE/Events
Join Directors from the National Institute of Military Justice to discuss Military Justice in light of the recent events in Afghanistan.
Date: Monday March 26, 2012
Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT
Teleconference Dial-in Instructions:
Continental US Dial-in: 1.888.439.7610
International Dial-in: 719.955.2424
Meeting Passcode: 2024298081
Security Code: 1330
Email address to send Questions for the Panelists During the Conference Call: nimjemail@gmail.com
Featured Speakers:
Moderator, Prof. Elizabeth Hillman, University of California Hastings College of the Law and President, National Institute of Military Justice
Philip Cave, a NIMJ Director, retired Navy Judge Advocate, private practitioner with military law practice;
Michael Navarre, a NIMJ Director, former active duty Navy Judge Advocate, and currently Special Counsel at Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Washington D.C.);
Prof. Gary Solis, Georgetown Law School, a NIMJ Advisor; and retired Marine Corps Judge Advocate;
Prof. Stephen Salzburg, George Washington Law School, NIMJ General Counsel, expert on criminal law and procedure.
Join our panel for a discussion regarding the military justice procedures in the potential courts-martial of SSGT Robert Bales, and other current military cases of public interest.
For more information about the Teleconference, please e-mail nimjemail@gmail.com.
CLE/Events
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Technically SSG Robert Bales could be tried in an Afgan Court of Law for the Massacre
Although, the (Status of Forces Agreement) SOFA between the US and Afghanistan does not allow Afghan prosecution, that doesn’t mean the US could not release SSG Bales to the Afghans for trial.
I think the most relevant part reads as follows:
"An agreement exists regarding the status of military and civilian personnel of the U.S. Department of Defense present in Afghanistan in connection with cooperative efforts in response to terrorism, humanitarian and civic assistance, military training and exercises, and other activities. Such personnel are to be accorded “a status equivalent to that accorded to the administrative and technical staff” of the U.S. Embassy under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Accordingly, U.S. personnel are immune from criminal prosecution by Afghan authorities, and are immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction except with respect to acts performed outside the course of their duties. In the agreement, the Islamic Transitional Government of Afghanistan (ITGA) explicitly authorized the U.S.
government to exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel, and the Government of Afghanistan is not permitted to surrender U.S. personnel to the custody of another State, international tribunal, or any other entity without consent of the U.S. government"
Although the agreement was signed by the ITGA, the subsequently elected Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan assumed responsibility for ITGA’s legal obligations and the agreement remains in force. The agreement does not appear to provide immunity for contract personnel.
It must be noted that the United States is always free to turn over servicemembers to a host nation regardless of the preference in a SOFA. And, potentially, keep the accused in US custody during the host nation trial–as the former US/IRAQ Sofa anticipated under certain circumstances. I think it is important to remember that the jurisdiction is the United States to claim, not a right we have as an individual deployed in a foreign land. I know it is U.S. policy to exercise jurisdiction over its own servicemembers. However, I can also see that depending on the political winds, in the case of a murder, rape, etc., I am sure that our higher political powers could decide those acts are being performed “outside the course of [a servicemember's] duties.” I believe that the biggest reason for it not to happen is the negative precedent it would set.
If there is any In Theater case that may end in a plea agreement this is the case. However, in as much as our Afghan partners may want to see a trial and swift execution, this may not be the case if the mental health issues play out in the direction they currently seem to be heading.
Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson,Esq.
www.TVLegalNews.com
I think the most relevant part reads as follows:
"An agreement exists regarding the status of military and civilian personnel of the U.S. Department of Defense present in Afghanistan in connection with cooperative efforts in response to terrorism, humanitarian and civic assistance, military training and exercises, and other activities. Such personnel are to be accorded “a status equivalent to that accorded to the administrative and technical staff” of the U.S. Embassy under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Accordingly, U.S. personnel are immune from criminal prosecution by Afghan authorities, and are immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction except with respect to acts performed outside the course of their duties. In the agreement, the Islamic Transitional Government of Afghanistan (ITGA) explicitly authorized the U.S.
government to exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel, and the Government of Afghanistan is not permitted to surrender U.S. personnel to the custody of another State, international tribunal, or any other entity without consent of the U.S. government"
Although the agreement was signed by the ITGA, the subsequently elected Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan assumed responsibility for ITGA’s legal obligations and the agreement remains in force. The agreement does not appear to provide immunity for contract personnel.
It must be noted that the United States is always free to turn over servicemembers to a host nation regardless of the preference in a SOFA. And, potentially, keep the accused in US custody during the host nation trial–as the former US/IRAQ Sofa anticipated under certain circumstances. I think it is important to remember that the jurisdiction is the United States to claim, not a right we have as an individual deployed in a foreign land. I know it is U.S. policy to exercise jurisdiction over its own servicemembers. However, I can also see that depending on the political winds, in the case of a murder, rape, etc., I am sure that our higher political powers could decide those acts are being performed “outside the course of [a servicemember's] duties.” I believe that the biggest reason for it not to happen is the negative precedent it would set.
If there is any In Theater case that may end in a plea agreement this is the case. However, in as much as our Afghan partners may want to see a trial and swift execution, this may not be the case if the mental health issues play out in the direction they currently seem to be heading.
Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson,Esq.
www.TVLegalNews.com
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Friday, July 22, 2011
9/11 Responder Wants to Know if News Corp. Hacked Victims Phones
As a member of the National Guard, Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson responded to the attack on September, 11, 2001. As a lawyer, she brought legal services directly to those who were helping to clean up and rescue survivors after the disaster. "Maj. Jackson and fellow attorney Maj. Alexander Selkirk of New York staffed the temporary field headquarters for the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps. section of the Headquarters Aviation Brigade, 42nd Infantry Division U.S. Army, a National Guard unit," wrote the Judiciary Times of her service.
With Lindsay-Jackson's personal connection to 9/11, she decided to start a petition here on change.org calling for a congressional investigation and for the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to revoke the license of News Corp. if it continues to violate people's privacy. "The British government is investigating and now the Australians are also calling for an investigation of Murdoch's papers there. Americans also need to know whether our privacy was violated by Murdoch reporters searching for a good scoop to sell news," explains the petition.
If you, too, are disturbed by News Corp.'s abuses, you can help by signing Lindsay-Jackson's petition. News outlets can't simply disregard our privacy in the search for sensational stories. Tell Congress they must investigate News Corp. Tell the FCC they need to take away News Corp.'s license if they continue to break the law. We need to know if laws were broken. We need to know whose privacy was compromised. We need to stop those responsible. Sign the petition now.
Photo Credit: TVLegalNews.com
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Legal Basis for Prosecuting Gaddafi in the International Criminal Court. (Shocking Development Gaddafi African Mercinaries may receive Immunity from Prosecution)
Legal Basis for Prosecuting Gaddafi in the International Criminal Court. (Shocking Development Gaddafi African Mercinaries may receive Immunity from Prosecution)
I. WHY DID THE U.N. REFER LIBYA TO THE ICC?
Libya is not a signatory to the ICC and as such the court does not automatically have jurisdiction in Libya.
However, the ICC can investigate alleged crimes committed in Libya if Libyan authorities, possibly successors to Gaddafi's administration, accept the court's jurisdiction or if the U.N. Security Council asks the ICC prosecutor to take up the case.
This kind of referral has happened once before, in March 2005, following the conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region. The court has since indicted Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur.
On Saturday, the Security Council did refer the events in Libya since February 15 to the ICC.
Book Me, Gwendolyn E. Lindsay-Jackson,Esq. International Military/Legal Analyst and Retired Military Prosecutor as a guest on your network; (845)405-3666 http://www.tvlegalnews.com/, http://www.blogtvlegalnews.blogspot.com/
II. Because Libya is not a Signatory to the Internatuonal Criminal Court There are only Three practical ways to assert Jurisdiction:
1. Gaddafi Voluntarily Accepts Jurisdiction: The other option lies in Tripoli itself. It is extremely unlikely that Gaddafi'would ever accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, but a new Libyan regime might. The ball remains in Libya’s court: Ocampo will have to wait and see whether a new Libyan leadership will invite him to investigate the current political violence.
2. New regime in Libya Accepts Jurisdiction
The ICC can only intervene if Libya refuses or is unable to carry out its own investigation into the crimes. Until such times, Mr Ocampo can only wait on the sidelines. If Gaddafi is toppled, a new regime may want to bring him to justice before a Libyan court. Ocampo will only be able to act if Libya’s new leaders are unwilling or unable to take such steps.
3. United Nations Security Council Instructs the International Criminal Court (ICC) to conduct an investigation
On Thursday March 3, 2010 the UN Security Counsel asserted jurisdiction over the Libyan affer by unanimously passed Resolution 1970 (2011), referring the 'situation' in Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
The resolution was part of a robust set of Security Council measures directed at the Libyan regime, including a travel ban and asset freezes for Colonel Ghaddafi and his associates, and an arms embargo. It is the first concrete action by the Council in respect of the events that began earlier this month, as increasing reports of widespread attacks on civilians in Libya confirm the lengths to which Ghadafi will go to cling to power
Subject Matter Jurisdiction requirement of UN Resolution 1970 .
I. Crimes Against Humanity:
First, as far as the subject-matter jurisdiction is concerned the resolution’s preamble states that “the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity”. However, the Security Council’s reference is by no means binding on the Court, and the Prosecutor will have to investigate, formulate and prove any charges relating to the ongoing violence. This includes the crucial element of the attacks’ widespread and systematic nature, the distinguishing feature of crimes against humanity.
2. Further, the referral is not limited to crimes against humanity and individuals could potentially be charged with other crimes under the Rome
Sttute such as war c rimes (and possible even genocide).
3. I In order for war crimes to be alleged however, the situation in Libya must amount to a non-international armed conflict; which the Rome
Statute defines as a situation of “protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between
such groups”. According to the Rome Statute, this excludes “situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated
and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature”. Again, although Resolution 1970 suggests that the situation in Libya
does amount to an armed conflict when it urges the Libyan authorities to respect international humanitarian law (the law that relates to war
crimes), the Court will have to make its own determination in this regard.
II. Persons falling within the ICC's Juriction
Secondly, as far as the persons potentially falling with the Court’s jurisdiction, the resolution contains a controversial provision excluding “nationals, current or former officials or personnel” of states other than Libya from the Court’s jurisdiction in respect of “alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council”.
Somed have reported that this controversial clause grands African mercenaries hired by the Gaddafi regime to kill Libyan protesters would be immunity from prosecution at the International Criminal Court, for war crimes due to a clause inserted in the UN resolution that was demanded by the United States. which stated that
that anyone from a non-ICC sigbatirt country( tunisia etc.) alleged to have committed crimes in Libya, these people would “be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction” of their own country" and " Such persons might only be prosecuted if their home states waive their jurisdiction. This provision, which would apply to any members of an international peacekeeping operation authorised by the Security Council, was included at the insistence of the United States, as a pre-condition to allowing the resolution to pass.
The move was seen as an attempt to prevent a precedent that could see Americans prosecuted by the ICC for alleged crimes in other conflicts. While the US was once among the signatories to the international criminal court, it must be duly notied that the US is not a signatory to the international criminal couort because George W. Bush withdrew from it in 2002 and declared that it did not have power over Washington.
III. Time
1. Thirdly, and less controversially, the referral is temporarily limited to events that have taken place since 15 February 2011. ( The Security Council did refer the events in Libya since February 15 to the ICC
Book Me, Gwendolyn E. Lindsay-Jackson,Esq. International Military/Legal Analyst and Retired Military Prosecutor as a guest on your network; (845)405-3666 http://www.tvlegalnews.com/, http://www.blogtvlegalnews.blogspot.com/
I. WHY DID THE U.N. REFER LIBYA TO THE ICC?
Libya is not a signatory to the ICC and as such the court does not automatically have jurisdiction in Libya.
However, the ICC can investigate alleged crimes committed in Libya if Libyan authorities, possibly successors to Gaddafi's administration, accept the court's jurisdiction or if the U.N. Security Council asks the ICC prosecutor to take up the case.
This kind of referral has happened once before, in March 2005, following the conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region. The court has since indicted Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur.
On Saturday, the Security Council did refer the events in Libya since February 15 to the ICC.
Book Me, Gwendolyn E. Lindsay-Jackson,Esq. International Military/Legal Analyst and Retired Military Prosecutor as a guest on your network; (845)405-3666 http://www.tvlegalnews.com/, http://www.blogtvlegalnews.blogspot.com/
II. Because Libya is not a Signatory to the Internatuonal Criminal Court There are only Three practical ways to assert Jurisdiction:
1. Gaddafi Voluntarily Accepts Jurisdiction: The other option lies in Tripoli itself. It is extremely unlikely that Gaddafi'would ever accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, but a new Libyan regime might. The ball remains in Libya’s court: Ocampo will have to wait and see whether a new Libyan leadership will invite him to investigate the current political violence.
2. New regime in Libya Accepts Jurisdiction
The ICC can only intervene if Libya refuses or is unable to carry out its own investigation into the crimes. Until such times, Mr Ocampo can only wait on the sidelines. If Gaddafi is toppled, a new regime may want to bring him to justice before a Libyan court. Ocampo will only be able to act if Libya’s new leaders are unwilling or unable to take such steps.
3. United Nations Security Council Instructs the International Criminal Court (ICC) to conduct an investigation
On Thursday March 3, 2010 the UN Security Counsel asserted jurisdiction over the Libyan affer by unanimously passed Resolution 1970 (2011), referring the 'situation' in Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
The resolution was part of a robust set of Security Council measures directed at the Libyan regime, including a travel ban and asset freezes for Colonel Ghaddafi and his associates, and an arms embargo. It is the first concrete action by the Council in respect of the events that began earlier this month, as increasing reports of widespread attacks on civilians in Libya confirm the lengths to which Ghadafi will go to cling to power
Subject Matter Jurisdiction requirement of UN Resolution 1970 .
I. Crimes Against Humanity:
First, as far as the subject-matter jurisdiction is concerned the resolution’s preamble states that “the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity”. However, the Security Council’s reference is by no means binding on the Court, and the Prosecutor will have to investigate, formulate and prove any charges relating to the ongoing violence. This includes the crucial element of the attacks’ widespread and systematic nature, the distinguishing feature of crimes against humanity.
2. Further, the referral is not limited to crimes against humanity and individuals could potentially be charged with other crimes under the Rome
Sttute such as war c rimes (and possible even genocide).
3. I In order for war crimes to be alleged however, the situation in Libya must amount to a non-international armed conflict; which the Rome
Statute defines as a situation of “protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between
such groups”. According to the Rome Statute, this excludes “situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated
and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature”. Again, although Resolution 1970 suggests that the situation in Libya
does amount to an armed conflict when it urges the Libyan authorities to respect international humanitarian law (the law that relates to war
crimes), the Court will have to make its own determination in this regard.
II. Persons falling within the ICC's Juriction
Secondly, as far as the persons potentially falling with the Court’s jurisdiction, the resolution contains a controversial provision excluding “nationals, current or former officials or personnel” of states other than Libya from the Court’s jurisdiction in respect of “alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council”.
Somed have reported that this controversial clause grands African mercenaries hired by the Gaddafi regime to kill Libyan protesters would be immunity from prosecution at the International Criminal Court, for war crimes due to a clause inserted in the UN resolution that was demanded by the United States. which stated that
that anyone from a non-ICC sigbatirt country( tunisia etc.) alleged to have committed crimes in Libya, these people would “be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction” of their own country" and " Such persons might only be prosecuted if their home states waive their jurisdiction. This provision, which would apply to any members of an international peacekeeping operation authorised by the Security Council, was included at the insistence of the United States, as a pre-condition to allowing the resolution to pass.
The move was seen as an attempt to prevent a precedent that could see Americans prosecuted by the ICC for alleged crimes in other conflicts. While the US was once among the signatories to the international criminal court, it must be duly notied that the US is not a signatory to the international criminal couort because George W. Bush withdrew from it in 2002 and declared that it did not have power over Washington.
III. Time
1. Thirdly, and less controversially, the referral is temporarily limited to events that have taken place since 15 February 2011. ( The Security Council did refer the events in Libya since February 15 to the ICC
Book Me, Gwendolyn E. Lindsay-Jackson,Esq. International Military/Legal Analyst and Retired Military Prosecutor as a guest on your network; (845)405-3666 http://www.tvlegalnews.com/, http://www.blogtvlegalnews.blogspot.com/
Friday, January 28, 2011
Take It On: What Constitutes Child Abuse?
Slapping your teenage child.
Or taking money from their paycheck to help pay bills, may rub some people the wrong way.
But according to the New Jersey Supreme Court it does not constitute child abuse.
A teenage girl was removed from her home after her grandfather reported her parents to authorities.
He said they were taking her earnings and slapping her around.
A division of youth and family services worker also found the home had no heat.
And authorized an immediate removal.
Psychologist Doctor Jeffrey Gardere says the court found the case fell short of abuse.
My9 News takes on this issue with Legal Analyst Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson, Esq.
Or taking money from their paycheck to help pay bills, may rub some people the wrong way.
But according to the New Jersey Supreme Court it does not constitute child abuse.
A teenage girl was removed from her home after her grandfather reported her parents to authorities.
He said they were taking her earnings and slapping her around.
A division of youth and family services worker also found the home had no heat.
And authorized an immediate removal.
Psychologist Doctor Jeffrey Gardere says the court found the case fell short of abuse.
My9 News takes on this issue with Legal Analyst Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson, Esq.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Should Rahm Emanuel be disqualified from running for Mayor of Chicago?
Clearly Rahm Emanuel can not with a straight face, claim that he met the required one year active residency requirement prior to running for Mayor at the address of the private home recently used to validate Emanuel's residency requirement that he owns at Hermitage Ave is also the exact same address being used by Rahm Emanuel's current tenant Rob Halpin who is also running for Mayor.
PLEASE BOOK Legal Analyst Gwendolyn Lindsay Jackson, Esq. To discuss this developing story (845)405-3666 tvlegalnews@gmail.com
Website: http://www.tvlegalnews.com/
Blog: http://www.blogtvlegalnews.blogspot.com/
Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/facebook/uMqY
Check Out Gwendolyn's Feeds: Should Rahm Emanuel disqualified from running for Mayor of Chicago?
PLEASE BOOK Legal Analyst Gwendolyn Lindsay Jackson, Esq. To discuss this developing story (845)405-3666 tvlegalnews@gmail.com
Website: http://www.tvlegalnews.com/
Blog: http://www.blogtvlegalnews.blogspot.com/
Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/facebook/uMqY
Check Out Gwendolyn's Feeds: Should Rahm Emanuel disqualified from running for Mayor of Chicago?