Australian decide overturns tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa cancellation

Novak Djokovic from Serbia celebrates the win against Marin Cilic from Croatia in the second game of the Davis Cup semi-finals at the Madrid Arena on December 3, 2021.

Sanjin Strukic Pixsell | MB media | Getty Images

Tennis star Novak Djokovic has won his court battle in Australia after his visa was canceled due to his Covid-19 vaccination status prior to the Australian Open.

Australian federal judge Anthony Kelly read the verdict in a virtual emergency court hearing on Monday. “The court orders as follows: Paragraph 1, the delegate’s decision to cancel the applicant’s subclass 048 visa for temporary activities dated January 6, 2022, is repealed,” he said.

This means that Djokovic’s visa will remain valid. He is released from custody and receives back his passport and other items confiscated in custody.

The 34-year-old Serbian national and world number one was arrested at an immigration office last week after arriving in Melbourne before the Australian Open for allegedly violating the country’s strict entry regulations, which require visitors to be vaccinated against Covid-19. Djokovic, a vocal vaccine skeptic, had his visa revoked and his passport confiscated after customs officials ruled that he did not have adequate medical justification for a vaccination exemption.

Judge Kelly scored points in Djokovic’s defense on Monday, demanding to know what more the athlete could have done to meet Australia’s entry requirements. The government admitted Monday that it did not give Djokovic and his team enough time to respond after informing him of the cancellation of his visa.

But the saga is not over yet – Australia’s immigration minister can still intervene personally and cancel his visa for new reasons. If Minister Alex Hawke decides to take these measures, Djokovic could face another legal battle and a possible ban on tennis in Australia for up to three years.

History sparked the vaccine requirements debate and put Australia’s tough Covid measures in the spotlight, which saw Australians endured some of the longest and strictest bans in the world. While the case enraged Djokovic fans in the country and around the world, many in Australia resisted the idea that a millionaire tennis player might be able to disregard their country’s laws if no one else could was.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison criticized Djokovic, saying “rules are rules”. But, ironically, Judge Kelly’s justification for his decision on Monday was referring to this very statement: “We all play by the same rules. The reason this Secretary of the Interior has agreed to the delegate’s decision in this process.” [to cancel the visa] should be set aside for the reasons given in the notation. In other words: these rules were not followed. “

Florida Choose Weighs Resolution To Reinstate Federal Unemployment Cash Suspended By Gov. DeSantis In June – CBS Miami

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami / NSF) – A Leon County district judge rushed into a lawsuit on Wednesday over whether Governor Ron DeSantis’s government violated state law by withdrawing unemployment benefits from tens of thousands of unemployed Floridians in June Federal deleted.

Judge Layne Smith heard testimony from plaintiffs who said the decision to end the $ 300 a week in federal benefits resulted in them having difficulty paying housing and other expenses. As part of the COVID-19 aid, the federal government provided the money in addition to the state’s maximum unemployment benefits of $ 275 per week.

CONTINUE READING: Poll: Majority of Floridians Disapprove of Governor DeSantis’ Response to COVID-19

The lawsuit alleges that payments should have continued through September 6, as approved by Congress, and that the unemployed should receive retroactive payments through June 26. The money comes from a federal funding law commonly known as the CARES law.

Plaintiffs attorneys say the DeSantis government has violated a state law directing the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity to work with the US Department of Labor and take action “by adopting appropriate rules, administrative methods, and standards that are necessary for the state ”. all advantages according to the federal regulations on re-employment (unemployment) assistance. “

“The governor and the DEO (the Department of Economic Opportunity) have no discretion as to whether or not to accept the money,” said Marie Mattox, plaintiff’s attorney.

However, Daniel Nordby, an attorney for the DeSantis administration, denies the state needs to provide the additional services.

“Florida law quite simply does not require participation in the CARES Act programs that were passed by Congress,” Nordby said. “Neither federal nor Florida law requires participation.”

Smith, who is contemplating plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction, said repeatedly that he would not address the political issues surrounding the suspension of federal payments. He said he needed to focus on the details of state and federal laws.

“The bottom line is it’s a legal construction case,” said Smith.

Plaintiffs, who testified on Wednesday, described economic troubles during the pandemic, made worse by the state cutting $ 300 a week in federal payments.

For example, Harriett Rubin, a 68-year-old Broward County resident who has been unemployed since the pandemic began, said she put a tax lien on her home because she couldn’t pay property taxes.

“To worry about your apartment or whether your air conditioning is on and working, and can I bring some food into the house. That little bit of money helps, ”said Rubin.

Will Currie, chief financial officer of the Department of Economic Opportunity, testified that in the spring of 2020, the state began providing the additional federal benefits – known as Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation or FPUC benefits – to provide assistance as the pandemic was major economic Caused problems and an increase in unemployment.

But the state decided to stop the services that summer as vacancies remained unfilled. Many companies have argued in recent months that they cannot find enough workers.

“The idea was to add the weekly benefit that was believed to be

Incentivizing people not to return to work, ”Currie said.

But Mattox said the people who need the extra money aren’t “free riders” who don’t want to be hired.

“DeSantis decided to cut those benefits because he said it was keeping people from going back to work,” Mattox said. “Research just doesn’t confirm that.”

MORE NEWS: Governor Ron DeSantis continues to double his stance on masks in schools

(© 2021 CBS Local Media. All rights reserved. You may not publish, broadcast, rewrite, or redistribute this material. The Florida News Service of Jim Saunders and Tom Urban contributed to this report.)

Decide Weighs DeSantis Administration Choice To Halt Unemployment Cash

TALLAHASSEE — A Leon County district judge on Wednesday looked into a lawsuit over whether Governor Ron DeSantis’s government violated state law by cutting federal unemployment benefits for tens of thousands of unemployed Floridians in June.

Judge Layne Smith heard testimony from plaintiffs who said the decision to end the $ 300 a week in federal benefits resulted in them having difficulty paying housing and other expenses. As part of the COVID-19 aid, the federal government provided the money in addition to the state’s maximum unemployment benefits of $ 275 per week.

The DeSantis government stopped the additional federal benefits on Jan.

The lawsuit alleges that payments should have continued through September 6, as approved by Congress, and that the unemployed should receive retroactive payments through June 26. The money comes from a federal funding law commonly known as the CARES law.

Plaintiffs attorneys say the DeSantis government has violated a state law directing the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity to work with the US Department of Labor and take action “by adopting appropriate rules, administrative methods, and standards that are necessary for the state ”. all advantages according to the federal regulations on re-employment (unemployment) assistance. “

“The governor and the DEO (the Department of Economic Opportunity) have no discretion as to whether or not to accept the money,” said Marie Mattox, plaintiff’s attorney.

However, Daniel Nordby, an attorney for the DeSantis administration, denies the state needs to provide the additional services.

“Florida law quite simply does not require participation in the CARES Act programs that were passed by Congress,” Nordby said. “Neither federal nor Florida law requires participation.”

Smith, who is contemplating plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction, said repeatedly that he would not address the political issues surrounding the suspension of federal payments. He said he needed to focus on the details of state and federal laws.

“The bottom line is it’s a legal construction case,” said Smith.

The judge said he was likely to give a verdict on Friday. However, he added that he expects his decision to be appealed.

Plaintiffs, who testified on Wednesday, described economic troubles during the pandemic, made worse by the state cutting $ 300 a week in federal payments.

For example, Harriett Rubin, a 68-year-old Broward County resident who has been unemployed since the pandemic began, said she put a tax lien on her home because she couldn’t pay property taxes.

“To worry about your apartment or whether your air conditioning is on and working, and can I bring some food into the house. That little bit of money helps, ”said Rubin.

Will Currie, chief financial officer of the Department of Economic Opportunity, testified that in the spring of 2020, the state began providing the additional federal benefits – known as Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation or FPUC benefits – to offer assistance on how the pandemic caused major economic benefits Problems and an increase in unemployment.

But the state decided to stop the services that summer as vacancies remained unfilled. Many companies have argued in recent months that they cannot find enough workers.

“The idea was to add the weekly benefit that was believed to be

Incentivizing people not to return to work, ”Currie said.

But Mattox said the people who need the extra money aren’t “free riders” who don’t want to be hired.

“DeSantis decided to cut those benefits because he said it was keeping people from going back to work,” Mattox said. “Research just doesn’t confirm that.”

Choose asks why DOJ is not searching for extra money from US Capitol rioters

“Where we have that Congress donate all of this money directly to the events on Jan. to pay the bill for nearly half a billion dollars, a bit of a surprise, “said Chief Judge Beryl Howell.

“I’m used to the government being pretty aggressive,” Howell added.

The defendant, who pleaded guilty during Monday’s hearing, Glenn Wes Lee Croy, agreed to pay $ 500 in damages, which has become typical of defendants pleading for offense. The few rioters who pleaded guilty to the criminal charge have agreed to pay $ 2,000 in compensation each.

DC's chief federal judge questions criminal offense treaties for US Capitol riotersAs the Justice Department intensifies its efforts to investigate the more than 560 federal cases related to the Sept. Howell has repeatedly questioned whether prosecutors are doing enough to deter similar attacks in the future and whether the offense plea offers adequately take into account the severity of the damage caused that day.

So far, 34 people who resulted from the uprising have pleaded guilty.

According to federal prosecutors, Croy bragged to a social media agent that “I was there on January 6th,” and shared photos of himself at the Capitol. He faces a potential prison sentence of up to six months, although if convicted he may face a much shorter or no prison sentence.

Prosecutors said they would explain why they capped the $ 1.5 million refund before Croy is convicted in October.

Norwegian Cruise can require Florida passengers to be vaccinated, decide guidelines

Norwegian Dawn from Norwegian Cruise Line

Paul Marotta | Getty Images

Norwegian Cruise Line said Sunday that a federal judge ruled to temporarily suspend enforcement of a law in Florida that prohibits companies from requiring customers to provide proof of vaccination.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams issued the injunction that allowed Norwegian to request vaccine documents from customers while the case is on trial. The Norwegian Gem is scheduled to leave Miami on August 15th. It’s the cruise line’s first trip out of the state since the pandemic shut down the cruise industry more than a year ago.

Infection numbers in Florida have increased 51% in the last seven days, according to Johns Hopkins University. The state reported 134,506 new Covid cases from July 30 to August 5, more than any other 7-day period tracked by the JHU, and the positivity of new cases is 18.9%.

“It’s scary what’s happening in Florida,” said Derek Shaffer, an attorney for Norwegian Cruise Line, during a trial Friday to seek the injunction. “All of Florida is a hot spot … All we do is protect our employees and passengers.”

Norwegian CEO Frank Del Rio said the company is trying to keep passengers and crew members safe.

“The health and safety of our guests, our crew and the communities we visit is our top priority today, tomorrow and forever,” Del Rio said in a statement on Sunday. “It’s not a tagline or a tagline, we mean business, and our commitment to these principles is demonstrated by the effort our company has put into providing the safest cruise experience possible from Florida.”

On Friday, Florida attorney Pete Patterson said the law protects customers’ civil liberties and prevents companies from discriminating against unvaccinated people.

“You can’t discriminate against customers for refusing to give you information,” Patterson said.

Had the cruise line not received the injunction and continued to request proof of vaccination for the upcoming trip, it could have been prosecuted under Florida law and fined up to $ 5,000 per passenger.

In his argument, Shaffer said that “no cruise line in Norwegian ‘s position can afford” to withstand a fine of this magnitude. Shaffer claimed Florida lawmakers wanted “political points” in the vaccination debate.

If the law stays in place, the cruise operator could be forced to cancel upcoming cruises or “sail in a way that’s worse for our passengers and crew,” Shaffer said.

The company that operates the Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises brands, filed suit against Florida surgeon general challenged the law in July.

Norwegian attorney said the company had waited to file the lawsuit pending a federal appeals court ruling on another Florida case against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The court sided with Florida, which claimed the CDC’s cruise ship regulations were too burdensome and cost millions of dollars in tax revenue.

The cruise operator plans that all guests and crew members on its trips are fully vaccinated and must have Covid-19 tests before embarkation.

On Friday, Norwegian announced that its second quarter loss rose to $ 717.8 million, or $ 1.94 per share, on revenue from $ 4.37 million. The company expects further losses until the shipping company can resume its regular trips.

Decide: Lady accused of stealing cash from Ossineke enterprise will head towards trial | Information, Sports activities, Jobs

ALPENA – Judge Thomas LaCross, who is accused of stealing a quarter of a million dollars from the business of her brother-in-law Gena Carstens from Spruce, is on trial, Judge Thomas LaCross ruled on Wednesday in the 88th District Court of Alpena.

In a trial that continued from Tuesday, a witness said Carstens had given herself two raises over eight years and diverted cash from the cash register only to eventually steal enough to move the hardware store business where she was no longer doing business.

A chartered accountant who analyzed Ossineke Building Supply’s financial records in Ossineke resumed the testimony begun Tuesday when she said that between 2010 and 2018 when the store closed, more than $ 200,000 in sales and withdrawals were made Cash drawers were missing.

According to statements, Carstens was responsible for the business’s money during those years. The inconsistencies were discovered after the shopkeepers discovered that they were missing money while searching the records for the sale of the shop.

On Wednesday, CPA Cynthia Scott said a fraud investigation into the store’s financial records revealed that Carstens increased by $ 2 an hour in 2012 and 2013.

The store owners have not approved these increases, according to Annette Carstens, co-owner of the store, who testified Tuesday.

The unauthorized increases totaled $ 35,300 in excess labor costs, Scott said. She also testified that her review revealed suspicious bills for $ 16,000 relating to a company owned by Gena Carsens’ husband.

Defense attorney Dave Funk clarified through cross-examination that Scott could not prove who had transferred the money that had not made it from the cash register to the bank account.

LaCross said Alpena County Prosecutor Cynthia Muszynski has produced more than enough evidence to tie Gena Carsens to the Circuit Court. Carstens remains free and faces a prison sentence of up to 20 years if convicted.

Get the latest news and more in your inbox

Decide tosses lawsuit of man who alleged Jackson molestation | Ap-entertainment

LOS ANGELES (AP) – A judge on Monday dismissed a man’s lawsuit alleging Michael Jackson sexually abused him as a boy.

Los Angeles District Supreme Court Justice Mark A. Young granted the Jackson estate’s motion to dismiss Wade Robson’s 2013 lawsuit. The judge said two Jackson entertainment companies affected by the lawsuit had no legal obligation to protect Robson from Jackson.

“There is no evidence to support the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendants exercised control over Jackson,” the judge wrote. “The evidence further shows that defendants had no legal capacity to control Jackson because Jackson had complete and complete ownership of the company’s defendants.”

The dismissal came after the judge dismissed a similar lawsuit by James Safechuck in October. Both men made their allegations in the HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland”.

Vince Finaldi, attorney for Robson and Safechuck, said the verdict had “fatal flaws” and was being challenged.

“If the decision persists, it would set a dangerous precedent that would leave thousands of children working in the entertainment industry vulnerable to sexual abuse by people in places of power,” Finaldi said in a statement.

Robson, now a 38-year-old choreographer, met Jackson at the age of 5. He appeared in Jackson music videos and recorded music on his label.

His lawsuit alleged that Jackson molested him for a period of seven years and that, as Jackson’s employees, the two companies Jackson founded had a duty to protect him in the same way that Boy Scouts or a school should protect children from their leaders. However, the judge found that the companies were only legal entities that Jackson controlled, and not organizations that could control him.

Another judge dismissed Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits in 2017, finding that the statute of limitations had expired. An appeals court revived legal action in 2019 after California Governor Gavin Newsom signed new law giving those accused of childhood sexual abuse more time to file lawsuits.

The allegations took on new life when the two men repeated them extensively in “Leaving Neverland,” a documentary that premiered at Sundance Film Festival and later aired on HBO.

The Jackson estate has relentlessly and repeatedly denied that he molested any of the boys and has filed a lawsuit against HBO that is currently in private arbitration.

“Wade Robson has made frivolous claims in various lawsuits against Michael Jackson’s estate and related companies over the past 8 years,” Jackson estate attorney Jonathan Steinsapir said in a statement following Monday’s judgment on I Have No Merit at All, that no process is necessary. “

The Associated Press does not normally name people who claim to have been victims of sexual abuse. But Robson and Safechuck have come back repeatedly and approved the use of their identities.

Follow AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter: https://twitter.com/andyjamesdalton

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in any way without permission.

Choose: Ogden legal professional violated ethics guidelines by withholding, spending shopper’s cash | Courts

OGDEN – A judge found Monday that an Ogden attorney violated the rules of professional ethics by pocketing and pretending to be a client’s dispute settlement and lying about it after he was caught.

At the end of a two-and-a-half-day trial in the Second District Court, Judge Noel Hyde ruled that Richard H. Reeve had been guilty of dishonesty, failed to seize three clients’ funds, and wrongly granted a paralegal curtailment of a settlement.

Hyde also objected to statements made by Reeve during the trial, saying there was “no evidence” to support some of Reeve’s allegations, “even under oath on his testimony during that trial.”

The judge said Reeve “stopped short of deliberate perjury, but there were certainly shades and artful answers to questions.”

Hyde hosted a status conference on February 25 that gave Reeve and Barbara Townsend, an attorney for the Office of Professional Conduct at the Utah State Bar, time to prepare for the trial.

Possible penalties range from a warning to a ban.

The OPC filed the case in 2017, accusing Reeve of processing a $ 380,000 severance payment awarded to Jean Tonioli in a 2015 death against a drug company. The Roy wife’s husband, Bob, died in New York City when the couple returned from a Baltic vacation in 2011.

The previous Monday, Townsend interviewed Reeve about two withdrawals he made in August and September 2015 from the personal credit union account where he had deposited Tonioli’s stake of approximately $ 254,000 in February.

Reeve testified that he withdrew $ 22,110 on Aug. 1 to pay a car dealer for a vehicle and on Sept. 9, he withdrew $ 16,000 to pay a woman who later became a wife.

Townsend said those withdrawals came “after he testified there was trouble” when he was able to pay Tonioli because by then much of her money had been spent.

Last week, Reeve blamed his ex-wife for at least two large withdrawals earlier this year that he said still had access to the account during the divorce.

In her concluding argument, Townsend said, even if his ex-wife spent part of Tonioli’s money, “He’s the attorney in charge of the settlement money. It doesn’t matter what (the first wife) did.”

“Over the course of seven months, he spent not only $ 99,000 on what was his (part of the settlement) but also $ 167,000 of Tonioli’s money,” Townsend said.

Last week Townsend detailed other expenses, such as trips to Las Vegas, San Antonio and Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and purchases from wedding chapels and rings.

Reeve, who represented himself in the ethics process, admitted in his final argument that he had endangered his integrity, put his legal partners in a difficult position and violated Tonioli’s trust.

“I deeply regret the behavior I demonstrated,” he said, adding that he “tried to take immediate steps to correct the problems.”

Townsend argued that the evidence is overwhelming that Reeve is violating the rule of ethics that prevents a lawyer from engaging in “dishonesty, fraud, deception or misconduct”.

According to testimony, Reeve ordered his trainee attorney to have the billing check forwarded to him, not the usual procedure on the law firm’s escrow account.

That was in February 2015. The paralegal eventually went to executives at a law firm in Ogden, where she and Reeve were working on his failure to pay Tonioli and his client’s stone wall when she asked for the money.

Reeve was confronted with this in September 2015, saying the money was in an escrow account and Tonioli knew about it. After the company investigated, Reeve changed its story, saying the settlement was still pending in federal court, which was also wrong.

The company fired Reeve on September 16, and he met with Tonioli and her son the next day to pay for the money they had come.

But as evidence, the OPC produced a document Reeve had prepared for that meeting, which Townsend said covered up the truth about what had happened to the money.

“He made up this document to show for the Toniolis’ that it was all in there all along,” said Townsend. “Don’t be fooled by what Mr. Reeve said.”

Hyde ruled that several of the arguments Reeve made in his defense were “not credible”, including his description of that September 17 document.

The document, a screenshot of what was presented as a credit union banking record, “is in and of itself a misrepresentation and Mr. Reeve knew it at the time he was preparing it,” said Hyde.

Hyde said he found it “very worrying” that Reeve would “go to considerable effort in attempting to create the appearance of a justification for this document” by this process.

Last week Reeve testified that he had sold part of his stake in a limited liability company to his brother so that he could raise enough money to pay Tonioli what she owed.

But Hyde said Reeves’ details on these moves “weighs on credibility” because there is no record of such a transaction and no evidence of the source of the $ 167,000 Reeve deposited to offset what he spent.

The judge found that Reeve had broken rules not to trust the custody of client funds in the Tonioli matter and two other cases where Reeve had directed the trainee attorney to send settlements to him.

Hyde also confirmed allegations that Reeve violated restrictions on attorney independence by seeing the trainee attorney received approximately $ 3,000 from his share of court profits.

Tv Q&A: Is that this the final season of ‘Choose Judy?’ | Leisure



Judy Sheindlin announced early last year that the current 2020-21 season of “Judge Judy” would be the last with new episodes.


Ken Hively, Los Angeles Times

Rich Heldenfels Tribune News Service

You have questions. I have some answers.

Q: Is this the final season of “Judge Judy”? And will she be back with a different venue than I thought I read some time ago?

Reply: Judy Sheindlin announced early last year that the current 2020-21 season of “Judge Judy” would be the last with new episodes. After that, retries are available. In October 2020, Amazon Studios announced a deal with Sheindlin for a new untitled show that will air on IMDb TV, the free streaming service, later in 2021. The series will provide “a no-nonsense, fast-paced Judge Sheindlin’s signature-scoring style with a new suite of cases, litigation and verdicts,” said Amazon.

“I am overjoyed to be in business with Amazon Studios and to continue this incredible journey with them on a new platform is so exciting,” Sheindlin said in a statement. “I yelled at my husband Jerry about all of the packages he’d ordered from Amazon every day. I have enough mouthwash in the closets to keep the breath of the entire planet fresh for the next millennium. “

Q: Can you identify the song as the ending of the “Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Life” episode called “Fall”? It was so memorable.

Reply: That was Sam Phillips’ “Reflecting Light”.

Q: I enjoy watching a Canadian TV show called “The Listener” on a local TV station. What is the name of the main actor whose character is called “Toby”? (The credits pass quickly.) It portrays a mind reader who advises a city police. It seems like a well written and well played show. What else can you tell us about it?