Archive for the ‘Fifth Amendment’ Category

Anambra House of Assembly Passes 5th Amendment Bills – TVC News

The Fifth Amendment Bills of the 1999 Constitution, from Alteration One to Alteration Sixty-Six, have been approved by the Anambra State House of Assembly for the benefit of the people.

The Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, amended sixty-six sections of the 1999 Constitution in March of this year. The amended sections were sent to all state Houses of Assembly in Nigeria for consideration as it requires two-thirds of the states in Nigeria to pass it before it becomes law, according to the majority leader, Dr. Nnamdi Okafor.

Advertisement

Among the changes were those that supported the final autonomy of the state legislature, judiciary, local government, and independent candidacy.

Speaker of the House, Right Honourable Uche Okafor read out the sixty-six alterations to the House, while the lawmakers supported it through a voice.

In his reaction, the member representing Nnewi North Constituency, Honourable Nonso Smart-Okafor, commended the House for concurring with the entire alterations as sent to them by the National Assembly , stressing that the alterations were made to capture the present realities of the country and meet the yearnings and aspirations of the people.

Honourable Uzoma Eli, member representing Onitsha South One Constituency, described it as a step in the right direction, adding that the changes will ensure that Nigeria has a progressive constitution that can guarantee unprecedented development of the country.

Read more from the original source:
Anambra House of Assembly Passes 5th Amendment Bills - TVC News

How do grand juries work? Their major role in criminal justice, and why prosecutors are using them to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020…

Grand juries play a major role in the U.S. criminal justice system. And theyre very much in the news these days.

A grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, is looking into former President Donald Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in that state. Among the latest witnesses to give testimony to the grand jury was Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

In Washington, D.C., the U.S. Justice Department is in the middle of an investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and it is questioning witnesses before a grand jury as well. Most recently, two top aides to former Vice President Mike Pence were questioned in that probe.

A grand jury does not mean that the investigation will lead to any formal criminal charges, which are known as indictments. There was a grand jury that issued subpoenas during the investigation into Hillary Clintons email server, for example, but no one was charged with any crimes.

In order to understand grand juries and their work, I offer the following explanation of how federal and state grand juries are used in the U.S.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the legal basis for grand juries. In federal criminal cases, federal grand juries are made up of 16 to 23 members. They decide whether to indict someone who is being investigated, and at least 12 grand jurors need to agree to issue an indictment.

In addition to considering whether individuals may have committed a crime, a grand jury can also be used by a prosecutor as an investigative tool to compel witnesses to testify or turn over documents. Reports indicate that Special Counsel Robert Mueller used a grand jury for the latter when he investigated whether there was collusion between former President Donald Trumps election campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Grand jurors are usually chosen from the same jury pool as trial jurors. For a federal grand jury, all U.S. citizens over the age of 18 living in the federal district courts geographic jurisdiction are in the pool.

Court clerks first identify members of the grand jury pool from public records, including records of licensed drivers and registered voters.

Next, prospective grand jurors are screened, usually through questionnaires.

To be a member of a federal grand jury, a person has to be adequately proficient in English, have no disqualifying mental or physical condition, not be currently subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored). The court then randomly chooses candidates for the grand jury from this pool.

In all felony cases, there must be a probable cause determination that a crime has been committed in order for a case to move forward to a trial or a plea. Probable cause means that there must be some evidence of each element of the offense.

In the federal system, a grand jury is the body that makes the probable cause determination. In many states, like Missouri, the probable cause determination can be made either by a grand jury or at a preliminary hearing before a judge.

When there is an option for either a grand jury or preliminary hearing to determine probable cause, the prosecutor decides which one to use. For example, in the shooting death of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in 2014, the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney brought the evidence to a grand jury rather than choosing to present evidence to a judge through a preliminary hearing. In serious cases like murder, most prosecutors use the grand jury because it is usually quicker than a preliminary hearing.

Most people whose cases go to the grand jury have already been arrested. These include all of the cases in which a person is arrested while committing a crime or shortly after the crime has been committed.

In some cases, like Muellers Russia investigation, prosecutors do not have all the evidence they need to make a good case. In these investigations, a grand jury is used to help with the investigation. Once the grand jury is impaneled, the prosecutor has the ability to subpoena records and witnesses.

Subpoena power means the prosecutor can compel witnesses to turn over documents and to testify. If the prosecutor obtains sufficient evidence of a crime, the same grand jury has the power to indict whomever it believes has committed a crime.

The work of a grand jury is required by law to be done in secret, so the public has no right to know who is subpoenaed or what documents the grand jury is reviewing. Even though the grand jury work is secret, federal rules and a majority of states permit grand jury witnesses to discuss what occurred when they testified.

In some high-profile cases, witnesses subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury will talk to the press if they think it will be helpful to them. For example, when former President Bill Clinton testified before a grand jury during the investigation into Whitewater real estate investment and the affair with Monica Lewinsky, he went on national television and announced that he had testified.

The secrecy of a grand jury presents some dangers. The defendant does not know the evidence being considered, does not have a right to be present, and cannot question the evidence early in the criminal justice process.

As a result of the secrecy, the grand jury can also end up being a tool of the prosecution, and the prosecutor can choose to withhold evidence that is favorable to the accused. That is why a former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, famously said that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

These types of dangers are always present during any grand jury, and getting a grand jury to issue an indictment may be easy. But in high-profile cases, like the Russia connection to the Trump presidency and possibly the current investigation into Trumps efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia, proving wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt through a trial or a negotiated guilty plea usually proves much more difficult.

This is an updated version of a story originally published on Aug. 7, 2017.

The rest is here:
How do grand juries work? Their major role in criminal justice, and why prosecutors are using them to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020...

TRANSOCEAN LTD. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet…

Item 1.01Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement

Amendment to Revolving Credit Facility

On July 27, 2022, Transocean Inc. (the "Company"), Citibank, N.A., asadministrative agent, certain lenders and, for the limited purposes set forththerein, Transocean Ltd. and certain of the Company's subsidiaries entered intothe fifth amendment (the "Amendment") to the Company's credit agreement datedJune 22, 2018 (as amended, the "Revolving Credit Facility"). The Amendmentamended the Revolving Credit Facility to, among other things, (i) extend thematurity date to June 22, 2025 from June 22, 2023 with respect to the 2025Extended Commitments (as hereinafter defined), subject to (a) permittedextensions thereof in accordance with the terms of the Revolving Credit Facilityand (b) certain early maturity triggers, including if on any date the aggregateamount of scheduled principal repayments of indebtedness (excluding certainspecified indebtedness) due within 91 days thereof is equal to or in excess of$200 million and available cash (pro forma for the repayment of such debt) isless than $250 million, (ii) reduce the borrowing capacity from $1.33 billion to$773.5 million until June 22, 2023, and thereafter reduce the borrowing capacityto $600 million until June 22, 2025 (the "2025 Extended Commitments"), includinga reduction in the sublimit for the issuance of letters of credit from $500million to $350 million, (iii) replace the Company's ability to borrow under theRevolving Credit Facility at the reserve adjusted London Interbank Offered Rateplus a margin (the "Revolving Credit Facility Margin") with the ability toborrow under the Revolving Credit Facility at a forward looking term rate basedon the secured overnight financing rate ("Term SOFR") plus the Revolving CreditFacility Margin and a Term SOFR spread adjustment of 0.10%, (iv) decrease therequired available cash needed as a condition to borrowing from $500 million to$325 million, (v) require the Company to prepay outstanding borrowings under theRevolving Credit Facility if its available cash exceeds $325 million and (vi)permit the refinancing of certain indebtedness, subject to certain conditions,including limitations relating to liens, guarantees and maturity of any suchrefinanced indebtedness.

The foregoing description of the Amendment does not purport to be complete andis qualified in its entirety by reference to the complete document, which isfiled as Exhibit 10.1 to this Current Report. For a description of theRevolving Credit Facility, see also Item 7 of Transocean Ltd.'s Annual Reporton Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 .

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant

The information described in Item 1.01 is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9.01Financial Statements and Exhibits

(d) Exhibits.

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

See more here:
TRANSOCEAN LTD. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...

Partisan congressional hearings are a threat to all citizens – Monroe Evening News

Bruce Diven| The Monroe News

A great injustice is being perpetrated on the American people by the congressional hearings focused on bringing legal charges against former President Donald Trump. These hearings are very partisan and solely an exercise in making sure that former President Trump will be unable to gain enough support for another presidential run in 2024.

The media (who never liked Trump and were called fake news) have been willing allies in airing this prime time attack on the former president. What happened to the Fairness Doctrine of 1968? Federal Communications Commission rules stated that the Fairness Doctrine should apply to everyone.Whether you like or dislike President Trump, we have lost the balanced and fair reporting that Americans expect of our media.Shame on them and shame on the citizens of this country for not calling them out.The voters and citizens deserve better.

So lets say that I dont like you, my next door neighbor.I also have a group of other people that I find out dont like you either. If I have enough money and hate you enough, then I could buy TV air time and show video clips of you cutting off the tops of flowers at your home, kicking your dog, and putting your trash out in the street rather than on the curb.

I bet I could find a number of employees who worked at the business you ownto tell stories of the terrible things they saw at your business and get statements from the employees who were fired for no just cause. If I can spin the story over and over again linked with distasteful images, then I am able to cast doubt on your character and ruin your personal and business reputation.

Does this sound fair or legal? It is not.You have legal rights from slander and can sue me for monetary damages and/or jail time up to one year. Even in criminal cases, all Americans are able to have a lawyer and provide opposing evidence to mount a defense against your accuser. If these congressional hearings can do this to former President Trump and provide him no legal defense, then they can do this to you and me.

This isnt the first time that the U.S. government and politicians have run a similar scam on the American people. In 1938, Rep. Martin Dies, D-Texas, convened the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) to investigate alleged disloyalty and rebel activities on the part of private citizens, public employees and organizations suspected of having communist ties.The committee employed several controversial methods to accomplish its goal of ferreting out suspected communists. During the hearing, the suspected communist was grilled about his or her political beliefs and activities and then asked to provide the names of other people who had taken part in allegedly subversive activities.

Any additional figures identified in this manner also received subpoenas, widening the committees probe. Individuals who refused to answer the committees questions or to provide names could be indicted for contempt of Congress and sent to prison. Subjects of HUAC investigations had the option of invoking their right to avoid self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, but pleading the Fifth created the impression that they were guilty of a crime. In addition, those who refused to cooperate were often blacklisted by their employers. They lost their jobs and were effectively prevented from working in their chosen profession.

HUACs tactics amounted to a witch hunt that trampled on citizens rights and ruined their careers and reputations. Most people who were called before the committee had broken no laws, but instead were targeted for their political beliefs or for exercising their right to free speech.

No matter what your feelings are regarding President Trump, these ongoing congressional hearings are a threat to every citizens right to fair and equitable treatment under the law. I have had enough … how about you?

Bruce Diven, D.P.T., of Monroe is a physical therapist and a clinical and adjunct professor with Wayne State University. He can be contacted at BCDDPT@comcast.net.

Read the original here:
Partisan congressional hearings are a threat to all citizens - Monroe Evening News

Outcome of first kidnapping trial can’t be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules – WKAR

Another federal trial is scheduled to begin in two weeks for two men accused of conspiring to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

But jurors wont be told much about their previous trial. In a final pretrial hearing Tuesday afternoon in Grand Rapids judge Robert Jonker ruled on what will and wont be allowed to be presented as evidence in the upcoming trial. One thing that jurors wont hear, Jonker said, is that two other men were found not guilty of the kidnapping conspiracy during the previous trial in the fall.

Adam Fox and Barry Croft are facing trial for the second time, after a jury deadlocked on their charges in the spring. Two other men - Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta - were both acquitted.

But the outcome of the first trial should not be part of deliberations for jurors in the second trial, Jonker told attorneys Tuesday. In particular, evidence of the acquitals for Harris and Caserta cant be introduced as evidence in the trial, though Jonker said jurors may ultimately hear about it.

Defense attorneys for both Fox and Croft tried to argue that jurors may already come to the case knowing about the prior case.

The outcome of the first trial was somewhat unusual and it did gather a lot of press, said Christopher Gibbons, an attorney for Fox.

I think it needs to come out, argued Joshua Blanchard, Barry Crofts attorney.

Jonker acknowledged that some of the potential jurors in the case could have been following it closely, and could blurt out the outcome during the jury selection process - thus informing any other potential jurors about the outcome. But, he said, that didnt mean the acquittals could be treated as evidence by attorneys in the trial.

Another complicating factor could be that Caserta and Harris could be called as witnesses in the new trial, in which case jurors would likely find out about their acquittal. But Jonker said its also possible they would invoke their fifth amendment right to not self-incriminate. In that case, jurors wouldnt hear from them at all.

Jonker also ruled on other bits of possible evidence - including texts from a confidential informant in the case to his FBI handler, and evidence that one of the FBI agents in the case was trying to launch his own business on the side. Jonker ruled that, as in the previous case, most of that information would be inadmissible in the new trial.

A total of 14 men were charged over the alleged plot to kidnap Whitmer in 2020. Of those 14, six were charged in federal court. Two of them pleaded guilty, two were found not guilty and two are being retried. Eight other men face charges in state court, and have yet to face trial.

Jury selection for the trial against Croft and Fox is scheduled to begin August 9.

See the original post here:
Outcome of first kidnapping trial can't be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules - WKAR