News News Follow the news on Israel Organisation IsraelMiddle East – North Africa Reporters Without Borders is shocked by a raid by Israeli security forces two days ago on a Palestinian radio, television and online media network set up by Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem.“With this illegal intrusion into the premises of media organizations in illegally occupied and annexed Palestinian territory, Israeli forces have once again flouted international law with impunity,” Reporters Without Borders said.“They are doing all they can to prevent the establishment of a free and independent Palestinian media in occupied Palestinian territory, in East Jerusalem in particular.”The press freedom organization demands the Al-Quds University community network be allowed to reopen. In the early afternoon, dozens of Israeli police officers invaded the offices of the media centre in the Al-Khaldyeh district of East Jerusalem. The network is part of the university’s Institute of Modern Media, and comprises the radio station Houna Al-Quds and a news agency with the same name, The raid took place on the day of the launch ceremony for the Jerusalem-based multimedia community network. A simultaneous transmission from Ramallah and Jerusalem via Skye was cut off. Police seized equipment and private files and arrested two employees, Adel Ruished and Mohannad Izheman, who were released later.The Quds Net News Agency has posted photographs of the operation on its website.The network’s editor, Mohammad Abu Arqub, told Agence France-Presse the police said the operation was a result of an order signed by Israel’s internal security minister stating that the media network was linked to the Palestinian Authority, which is banned from any activity in the city by Israeli law.Thus the Israeli leadership has found a legal loophole justifying the closure, which is illegal under international law.In a statement, Al-Quds University denied that the media network was linked to the Palestinian Authority.By using this false pretext, the Israeli authorities aim to discredit Palestinian media outlets and justify restricting press freedom. The assault took place a month after a raid by Israeli troops on two Palestinian TV stations, Al-Watan and Al-Quds Educational TV – also linked to Al-Quds University — on 29 February in Ramallah, a city under the control of the Palestinian Authority. The two stations were forced to close as a result.Israeli authorities said the raids were carried out on two “pirate” TV stations broadcasting without licences.Reporters Without Borders also deplores the arrest by Israeli troops in the West Bank city of Nablus yesterday of Muhammad Anwar Muna, a 30-year-old Palestinian reporter for the news agency Quds Press. It was the fourth time he had been arrested and he has spent a total of more than four years behind bars.Reporters Without Border notes that many journalists are detained in Israeli prisons. Israel now holding 13 Palestinian journalists IsraelMiddle East – North Africa Related documents Illegal action by Israeli authorities shuts down Palestinian media centre – Arabic versionPDF – 36.93 KB May 28, 2021 Find out more Receive email alerts to go further News June 3, 2021 Find out more RSF_en News WhatsApp blocks accounts of at least seven Gaza Strip journalists Help by sharing this information April 4, 2012 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Illegal action by Israeli authorities shuts down Palestinian media centre RSF asks ICC prosecutor to say whether Israeli airstrikes on media in Gaza constitute war crimes May 16, 2021 Find out more
Home / Daily Dose / U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Ticking FDCPA Timer Sign up for DS News Daily The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago in Daily Dose, Featured, News, REO January 8, 2020 2,406 Views Share Save Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Print This Post Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Ticking FDCPA Timer Tagged with: Collection debt FDCPA Collection debt FDCPA 2020-01-08 Seth Welborn In Rotkiske v. Klemm, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 7521, the United States Supreme Court resolved a dispute between the federal appellate circuits regarding when the statute of limitations begins to run under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA or Act).A statute of limitations is the amount of time permitted to bring a particular court action—in other words, it’s the ticking timer. Typically, once that countdown ends, or in legal terms, the limitations period expires, the right to sue expires along with it.The FDCPA, which is a federal Act designed to keep debt collectors in-check, permits suits “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d). Although this language appears to be rather clear-cut, in law, shadows can often be created out of seemingly transparent passages.In Mangum v. Action Collection Serv, Inc., 575 F.3d 925 (9th Cir., 2009), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that all federal statutes of limitation, including the FDCPA’s, begin to run “when the plaintiff knows or had reason to know of the injury.” Id. at 940. This rule, otherwise known as the discovery rule, sets the clock to begin ticking only upon the detection, rather than the occurrence of the violation, despite the contradicting language of the FDCPA itself, thereby greatly expanding the timeframe to litigate for many possible suits.However, in a later case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals declined to follow this path, reiterating that the FDCPA statute of limitations runs from “the date on which the violation occurs.” Rotkiske v. Klemm, 890 F.3d 422 (3rd Cir., 2018.) In doing so, the Court directly rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach and refused to apply a broad discovery rule to all federal limitations periods.To silence its squabbling children, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to weigh-in—legally phrased as granting certiorari to resolve an appellate conflict—and deemed the Third Circuit the victor. The Court held that “[t]he FDCPA limitations period begins to run on the date the alleged FDCPA violation actually happened. We must presume that Congress ‘says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says…’” Rotkiske v. Klemm, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 7521, *8. In appearing to chastise the Ninth Circuit, the High Court went on to state that “[i]t is not our role to second-guess Congress’ decision to include a ‘violation occurs’ provision, rather than a discovery provision…[w]e simply enforce the value judgments made by Congress.” Id. at *10.However, a door to widening the limitations period was left distinctly ajar, as the Supreme Court carefully stated that it was not deciding whether the application of “equitable doctrines” would be permissible. According to the Court, this issue wasn’t properly presented, and therefore wouldn’t be determined. Nonetheless, the Court distinctly acknowledged the existence of something known as the “fraud discovery rule.” Id. at *11.The fraud discovery rule, a close cousin to the similarly worded ‘discovery rule,’ states that “where a plaintiff has been injured by fraud and remains in ignorance of it without any fault or want of diligence or care on his part, the bar of the statute [of limitations] does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered.” Id. at *13-14. More simply stated, under the fraud discovery rule, a delayed clock start time is permitted when fraud exists.In dissent, Justice Ginsburg, although agreeing with the Supreme Court’s disallowance of the general discovery rule, argued that the fraud discovery rule was properly presented and should have been ruled upon. Moreover, she stated that she would have held that “the [fraud discovery] rule governs if either the conduct giving rise to the claim is fraudulent, or if fraud infects the manner in which the claim is presented.” Of course, fraud allegations must typically be pled with particularity, so specific facts regarding the fraud would still be needed.Regardless, absent allegations of fraud, it’s now clear that the ticking timer for FDCPA suits really does begin on the date of the violation, just as the FDCPA dictates, which finally brings long-awaited certainty to the interpretation of already definitive language. Lauren Riddick handles contested foreclosure matters as a member of the Codilis & Associates, P.C.’s Contested Litigation Unit and also assists with title matters. She joined the firm in August 2013. Prior to joining the firm, she was an Adjunct Professor of Law with several colleges and a Securities Attorney for a large broker-dealer in Florida. Riddick is a member of the Illinois and Florida Bar Associations. She received her Juris Doctor in 2001 from the University of Florida Levin College of Law, and her Bachelor of Science in 1998 from the University of Florida. Previous: Navigating Opportunity Zones Investment Regulation Next: Wells Fargo Names New Risk Officer Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Related Articles Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago About Author: Lauren Riddick The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Subscribe
Sale and Consumption of Liquor is a Privilege Granted By The State For Which Special Fee Can Be Imposed: Delhi Govt Informs Delhi HC [Read Affidavit]
News UpdatesSale and Consumption of Liquor is a Privilege Granted By The State For Which Special Fee Can Be Imposed: Delhi Govt Informs Delhi HC [Read Affidavit] Karan Tripathi28 May 2020 12:55 AMShare This – xAssistant Commissioner of Excise, Delhi Government, has informed the Delhi High Court that the Delhi Excise Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, does empower the State Government to not only regulate the sale/purchase of liquor but also to formulate different rules which are specific to the regulation of liquor. The information has been given under an affidavit in a PIL filed…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?LoginAssistant Commissioner of Excise, Delhi Government, has informed the Delhi High Court that the Delhi Excise Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, does empower the State Government to not only regulate the sale/purchase of liquor but also to formulate different rules which are specific to the regulation of liquor. The information has been given under an affidavit in a PIL filed by Praveen Gulati challenging the decision of the Delhi Government to impose a Special Corona fee of 70% on the sale of liquor. ‘There’s an element of privilege vis-a-vis the sale/dealing in liquor or for that matter the consumption of liquor, which the State is free to accord or regulate as per the State Excise law. Accordingly, State is also free to impose and recover a price for grant of such privilege’, the affidavit states. Such grant of privilege for the sale/consumption/regulation of liquor, the affidavit submits, can be done through subordinate legislation or administrative orders. The Special Corona fee, which has been imposed during the unprecedented circumstances posed by the COVID19, is nothing but a combination of price towards the grant of privilege and the cost of regulation/supervision. The affidavit also highlights that apart from Delhi, 10 other States have also imposed a similar levy on alcohol. While highlighting that sections 26 and 28 of the Delhi Excise Act do not apply to the present case, the affidavit submits that the MRP of liquor is not being raised and the same is only being used as the basis for calculating the amount of the present Special Corona fee. In the present PIL, the Petitioner has argued that the bare reading of the said Section 26 does not contemplate generating revenue under a new category of ‘Special Corona Fee’. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that the government wrongfully invoked section 81 of the Delhi Excise Act to charge this new fee. It is claimed that section 81(2)(g) is merely a procedural and regulatory provision which derives its powers from the other substantive provisions of the Act. Since neither section 26 nor Rules 152 and 154 provide for any such category, the Petitioner submits, the Delhi Government cannot invoke section 81 to generate revenue under the head of ‘Special Corona Fee.’Click Here To Download Affidavit[Read Affidavit] Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
MILAN (AP) — Italian bank UniCredit says Andrea Orcel, one of Europe’s leading investment bankers, will replace outgoing CEO Jean Pierre Mustier, who offered his resignation this fall over strategic differences with the board. Orcel, a 57-year-old Italian, faces a shareholder vote before being confirmed in the role running Italy’s largest bank. Orcel spent 20 years at Merrill Lynch, where he helped manage some of the biggest bank mergers n Europe, including the merger of Credito Italiano and UniCredito to form UniCredit in 1998. He most recently ran the UBS Investment bank from 2014-2018 and was slated to take over Spanish bank Santander in 2018, but ended up in a dispute over compensation.