Judge rules against NYC court protest organizers
Court Alerts
A judge has ruled demonstrators don't have a First Amendment right to protest Friday afternoon in front of a New York City federal courthouse that has hosted several major terrorism trials.
Judge Lewis Kaplan said Thursday he wouldn't order the federal government to let an Occupy the Courts demonstration occur outside the lower Manhattan courthouse. He says the space isn't a public forum and the government acted reasonably in denying a permit.
A government lawyer says the courthouse poses unique security concerns in part because of terrorism fears.
Protest organizers had asked the judge to overturn the General Services Administration's rejection of their permit application. Their lawsuit said their First Amendment rights were violated.
The nationwide protest marks the second anniversary of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against limits on spending by independent organizations.
Related listings
-
Pacman Jones pleads guilty to disorderly conduct
Court Alerts 01/18/2012Cincinnati Bengals cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones pleaded guilty Wednesday to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. Jones entered the plea in Hamilton County Municipal Court just as his non-jury trial was scheduled to begin. A second misdemeano...
-
Court rejects appeals in student speech cases
Court Alerts 01/17/2012The U.S. Supreme Court has passed up a pair of cases for the online age — whether schools may censor students who are at home when they create online attacks against school officials and other students. The justices on Tuesday rejected appeals from P...
-
Court upholds firing of deputy who claimed racism
Court Alerts 01/16/2012A federal appeals court has upheld the firing of an Indiana sheriff's deputy who accused the department of racism in part because detectives watched excerpts from the movie "Blazing Saddles" in his presence. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.