Tag: 杭州zj论坛

Commissioner Ruth Uses Facebook for Debate Prep

first_img Sue Grandy Sam RuthThis afternoon, Commissioner Sam Ruth, running for re-election to Seat #3 against Pastor Doug Bankston and Alice Nolan, took to Facebook to ask for help “defining his opponent”. On his personal Facebook page, Commissioner Ruth made these remarks and asked these questions:“Working on talking points for debate. I have my accomplishments under control. Working on defining my opponent – how’s this one?”“Says he’s for the future but runs with the good ‘ole boys from the past.”“Says he’s for accountability but defended in a letter to the editor the lack of transparency of the board of a private trust fund he is a member of.”“My issue is he can be perceived as a great guy. He hasn’t crossed the good ole boys to yet see how they truly are. So, the old guard puts up a minister who himself is deceived about their true nature to try to deceive 50% of the vote. Ideas of how to get this across are appreciated.”“You’re a great guy,…. – but why are you promoted all over the good ‘old boys FB pages, taking thousands of dollars from them and refusing to talk about how bad city hall was under their leadership. Talking about a future for Apopka when you still don’t have a clear picture of the past – isn’t a credential for public service.”Doug BanksonRuth’s candid remarks appear to be about Bankson. In a statement to The Apopka Voice, he did not distance himself or walk back any of his posts.“I was in thought preparation trying to see how hard-hitting to be in the debate. I wanted my supporters to weigh-in prior to the debate. Their opinions matter very much to me. Everyone will know how I handle all debate issues Wednesday evening.”When asked to respond to Ruth’s remarks, Bankson simply stated “I’m disappointed.” Reply 1 COMMENT Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Previous articleAccountability, not race, the reason for single member districtsNext articleMayor’s Job Fair on Wednesday Denise Connell RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Florida gas prices jump 12 cents; most expensive since 2014 Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter I am very surprised by Commissioner’s Ruth position against Doug Bankson and/or Alice Nolan who is not to be disregarded because she is a woman and a Generation Y, she is sincere. Ruth’s position regarding the good ole boy is very interesting considering Ruth’s alignment within a new system of good ole boy, Mayor Joe. Under the Mayor, Ruth has factually sat muted and been a dependent rubber stamp vote for the Mayor. A vote against transparency, a vote for initiatives that warrant council approval but executive decisions made by the Mayor only, a vote for blatant disregard for public interest over that of government intervention and intrusion, a vote for questionable deal making that has become the rule instead of the exception to it. Ruth needs to wake up, He and Velazquez ran in a PAC with Mayor Joe when he won office, questions Ruth should be asking himself is, why hasn’t the Mayor endorsed him already. Political self interest. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Well, Ruth, it 34 degree outside, step out in the cold and wake UP!!! Hope these questions help you in your preparation.center_img Please enter your name here UF/IFAS in Apopka will temporarily house District staff; saves almost $400,000 January 24, 2016 at 7:52 am Please enter your comment! LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Gov. DeSantis says new moment-of-silence law in public schools protects religious freedom last_img read more

Lawyers Seeking Declaration Of Services Rendered By Them As Essential Service; Two Separate Benches Of Bombay HC Issue Notice To State, Centre & BC[Read Petition]

first_imgNews UpdatesLawyers Seeking Declaration Of Services Rendered By Them As Essential Service; Two Separate Benches Of Bombay HC Issue Notice To State, Centre & BC[Read Petition] Nitish Kashyap7 July 2020 4:16 AMShare This – xTwo separate benches of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued notices to State, Centre and Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in two separate proceedings by lawyers seeking the same relief, declaration of services rendered by lawyers as an essential service. While the bench of Justice AA Sayed and Justice MS Karnik was hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Chirag Chanani and others, the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginTwo separate benches of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued notices to State, Centre and Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in two separate proceedings by lawyers seeking the same relief, declaration of services rendered by lawyers as an essential service. While the bench of Justice AA Sayed and Justice MS Karnik was hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Chirag Chanani and others, the division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Madhav Jamdar heard the writ petition filed by Advocate Imran Shaikh. The PIL contended that petitioners are lawyers, practicing in various Courts at Mumbai and suburbs and are restricted from commuting by local train and are not considered as essential services by the circular issued by the Divisional Railway Manager’s office enumerating the categories of essential services staff permitted to travel by local train. Advocate Shyam Dewani submitted on behalf of the petitioners that a large number of advocates live in the suburbs and it was almost impossible to attend Courts without local train services. Whereas, GP Poornima Kantharia argued that Courts are functioning through video conferencing and even the court staff is not allowed to travel in locals. She contended that lawyers can make their own arrangements for travel like moving in private vehicles. Justice Sayed directed the State and Centre to file a reply in the case and adjourned the hearing for two weeks. Whereas, it was contended in the writ petition that the petitioner Advocate Imran Shaikh that on June 29, he was appearing in a bail application filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade court and so he left home on his friend’s motorcycle but was stopped by the police on the Western Express Highway. Despite the petitioner showing his advocate ID and telling them about his appearance before the Esplanade Court, the cops did not listen to him and charged a challan of Rs.500. The petition states- “The petitioner was on his way to provide legal services seeking justice for his old age, ailing undertrial client and he had to face arbitrariness of the traffic police and embarrassment. The petitioner is not questioning the good intentions of the government, the grievance of the petitioner is limited to the point that lawyers may be included in essential services so that the justice delivery system can smoothly function.” Thus, the petitioner sought directions to the State to exempt lawyers and their staff from restrictions of lockdown for the purpose of their court work only and directions to the Commissioner to revoke the challan issued against the petitioner for alleged violation of lockdown rules. Advocate Karim Pathan appeared on behalf of the petitioner and APP VB Konde Deshmukh for the State. Justice SS Shinde issued notice to the State and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and posted the matter for hearing on July 10.Click Here To Download Petition[Read Petition]  Next Storylast_img read more