Sentences with phrase «public right of access to the court»

In an Aug. 27 decision written by Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, the court rejected the ACLU's request, finding that the First Amendment provides no public right of access to the court's records and that the statute provides private parties no right to participate in the proceedings.

Not exact matches

To the extent permitted by law, we will disclose your information to government authorities or third parties if: (a) required to do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawTo the extent permitted by law, we will disclose your information to government authorities or third parties if: (a) required to do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto government authorities or third parties if: (a) required to do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto violate applicable laws.

Police were within their rights to deprive members of the public of access to food, water and toilets during a 2001 protest, the European court of human rights has ruled.

The New York Times and NBCUniversal, citing the First Amendment right of access to the courts, filed papers arguing that the materials should be made public.

This month, the state of Connecticut is in state court facing a lawsuit for failing to provide the financial support cities and towns need to ensure that all students have access to their constitutionally guaranteed right to a quality public school education.

This definition includes legal work affecting broad areas of public concern including the legal rights of consumers, the elderly, minorities, the poor, and groups whose legal rights are not otherwise adequately represented and who traditionally lack access to the courts.

I clicked on the «Settled Principles» tab to find 30 well - settled principles for public records, such as this statement from a California appellate decision, «[I] t is well established that the media has no greater right of access to public records than the general public,» and this from a Florida court, «It is well - settled that public records and reports or business records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule provided they are authenticated by a custodian.»

The Judiciary / Media Committee of the Supreme Judicial Court is considering revisions to the Guidelines on the Public's Right of Access to Judicial Proceedings and Records.

Yet, this is not a case about free speech writ large, nor about the guaranty of a fair trial, nor about any cognizable constitutional right of public access to the courts.

Noting that the document was the result of a public consultation concerning electronic access to court records and its impacts on the open court principle, individual privacy and security rights, the Findings cite the Model Policy's guiding principles:

In the UK we have a separation between Solicitors and Barristers and they are two separate professions (although recently they have started to come together with the public now able to access Barristers directly and solicitors having wider rights of audience at Court).

Both Wiley and Kirtsaeng proposed that the Court provide guidance to district courts in order to direct their discretion in determining whether to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party «towar [d] the purposes of the Copyright Act,» which the Court articulates as «enriching the general public through access to creative works» and «enhancing the probability that both creators and users... will enjoy the substantive rights» provided by the Copyright Act.

Our attorneys are experienced in all aspects of Pennsylvania's Right - to Know Law, frequently representing requesters, public agencies and interested third parties in litigation before the Office of Open Records and Pennsylvania's appellate courts concerning requests for, and access to, government records.

Notwithstanding the custody arrangement and in addition to all rights and duties given to parents pursuant to Section 63-5-30, each parent has equal access and the same right to obtain all educational records and medical records of his or her minor children and the right to participate in the children's school activities and extracurricular activities that are held in public locations unless prohibited by an order of the court or State law.

I am involved right now in a case to which the respondent Law Society of BC was easily able to secure a court order sealing the record and denying the public access to any hearings, though it is not clear to us on what basis that order is supposedly justified.

Firstly, the Supreme Court in Mentuck held that once information has entered the public domain of the courtroom, access to disseminate this information should be denied only where its publication would present a real and substantial risk to the proper administration of justice (e.g. a risk to the accused's section 11 (d) Charter right to a fair trial), and where the salutary effects of denying access outweigh the deleterious effects.

An interesting article last week in the UK Human Rights Blog makes the point that it is not so much the unelected bench that results in a democratic deficit, as the lack of meaningful public access to court decisions.

Guest columnist Anastasia Konina, writing recently in the online journal Jurist, says: «the proposed system of consumer rights enforcement has been heavily criticized for a number of reasons, such as «putting efficiency above judicial scrutiny,» loss of public access, pressure due to general confidentiality of ADR and ODR proceedings and banning access to courts.»

An order that limits publication of certain information for a fixed time period, while permitting full access to the material or the relevant proceeding, has a less deleterious effect on the open court principle, and associated individual rights, than does an order that effectively locks the courtroom door to the media and the public.

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper puPublic Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pupublic interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

This Model Policy reduces the issue of access to court information in a few simple access rules, effectively achieving a recommended balance between the right of the public to open courts with the right of an individual to privacy.

The issue of balancing the right of the public to open courts with the right of an individual to privacy was tackled in 2003 in a discussion paper by the Canadian Judicial Council Judges Technology Advisory Committee (JTAC) titled «Open Courts, Electronic Access to Court Records, and Privacy&rcourts with the right of an individual to privacy was tackled in 2003 in a discussion paper by the Canadian Judicial Council Judges Technology Advisory Committee (JTAC) titled «Open Courts, Electronic Access to Court Records, and Privacy&rCourts, Electronic Access to Court Records, and Privacy».

The other winners were: Legal Aid Newcomer — Tom Royston, Garden Court North; Legal Aid Barrister — Philip Rule, No5 Chambers; Family Private (inc Mediation)-- Mary Shaw, David Gray Solicitors; Family Public — Sheila Donn, Philcox Gray Solicitors; Social & Welfare — Stuart Luke, Bhatia Best; Public Law — Keith Lomax, Minton Morrill Solicitors; Criminal Defence — Graeme Hydari, Hodge, Jones & Allen; Children's Rights — Solange Valdez - Symonds, Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens / Migrant Resource Centre; Legal Aid Firm / Not - for - profit Agency — Community Law Partnership; and Access to Justice through IT — Advicenow, Law for Life.

And that irks Loyola University College of Law ethics professor Dane S. Ciolino, who tells the newspaper that Lemelle's order violates not only the public's right of access to court records but also legal - ethics rules that say a client is entitled to know how his lawyer shares fees with other lawyers.

The right of public access to the courts is «one of principle... turning, not on convenience, but on necessity».

Whether or not one treats the majority opinion's public forum analysis of social networks as «dicta» (which is legalese for «stuff in an opinion I don't like so I don't consider binding»), all 8 Supreme Court justices agreed that subscribers have a First Amendment right to access information and speak online, and that the government can not prohibit a person from accessing content that has nothing to do with preventing repeat offenses — even when the repeat offense is child molestation, and the evidence arguably supported that child molesters were particularly prone to repetition.

R (Barkas) v North Yorkshire County Council [2011] EWHC 3653 (Admin): the Administrative Court upheld the report and recommendation of Vivian Chapman QC sitting as an inspector at a village green inquiry on a tricky point of prescription law, i.e. when will a landowner be able to defeat an application to register a new green on the ground that the public had a legal right of access to the land, with the result that public use was not «as of right» but «by right»?

Although Cranston J accepted that the public interest might require persons to be given access to a court of the purpose of challenging the issue and execution of a search warrant and the retention of material (either in the Administrative Court or the Crown Court under section 59) given the relative weakness of the individual rights at stake and the relatively trivial interference with those rights, it was legitimate for the courts to permit the withholding of PII material in the wider public interest [33,court of the purpose of challenging the issue and execution of a search warrant and the retention of material (either in the Administrative Court or the Crown Court under section 59) given the relative weakness of the individual rights at stake and the relatively trivial interference with those rights, it was legitimate for the courts to permit the withholding of PII material in the wider public interest [33,Court or the Crown Court under section 59) given the relative weakness of the individual rights at stake and the relatively trivial interference with those rights, it was legitimate for the courts to permit the withholding of PII material in the wider public interest [33,Court under section 59) given the relative weakness of the individual rights at stake and the relatively trivial interference with those rights, it was legitimate for the courts to permit the withholding of PII material in the wider public interest [33, 41].

To promote training programs for judges and national courts on the proper enforcement of judicial guarantees to protect the right to access public informatioTo promote training programs for judges and national courts on the proper enforcement of judicial guarantees to protect the right to access public informatioto protect the right to access public informatioto access public information.

In addition to helping SRLs access legal information and locate referrals to affordable legal services, this system of portals hopes to connect the public to more information about their legal rights, court information, social services in their area, and other resources.

It is difficult to disagree in the abstract with that court's analysis balancing the defendant's right to a fair trial against the public right of access.

«Clarifying the Opacity of the Duty of Transparency» [2018] P.L. (forthcoming) «Public Law in the Supreme Court 2015 - 2016» [2017] 22 J.R. 215 (with T. Cross) «Public Law in the Supreme Court 2014 - 2015» [2016] 21 J.R. 1 (with T. Cross) «The Rule of Law, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Veto» (2015) 131 L.Q.R. 548 «Public Law in the Supreme Court 2013 - 2014» [2015] 20 J.R. 1 (with T. Cross) «The Veto in the Court of Appeal» (2014) 130 L.Q.R. 552 «Public Law in the Supreme Court 2012 - 2013» [2014] 19 J.R. 9 (with T. Cross) «The Prince of Wales and a Constitutional Aberration» (2014) 130 L.Q.R. 37 «Article 10 and a Right of Access to Information» [2013] P.L. 648 «The Discretion Afforded to Statutory Regulators in Public Law» [2013] 18 J.R. 116 «Public Law in the Supreme Court 2011 - 2012» [2012] 17 J.R. 330 (with T. Cross) «The Supreme Court Gives Its Reasons» (2012) 128 L.Q.R. 481 «Doing (Linguistic) Violence to Prevent (Domestic) Violence?

The OPC adopts the case - by - case balancing of interests approach endorsed by the Federal Court of Appeal in a Privacy Act case called Pirrie: «In determining the right to have access to this information under PIPEDA, the interests of the individuals concerned should be balanced against each other along with the public interest for and against disclosure.»

The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed that the university had a right to limit public access to parts of the university and upheld the charge.

Both solutions will occur because the power of the news media and of the internet, interacting, will quickly make widely known these types of information, the cumulative effect of which will force governments and the courts to act: (1) the situations of the thousands of people whose lives have been ruined because they could not obtain the help of a lawyer; (2) the statistics as to the increasing percentages of litigants who are unrepresented and clogging the courts, causing judges to provide more public warnings; (3) the large fees that some lawyers charge; (4) increasing numbers of people being denied Legal Aid and court - appointed lawyers; (5) the many years that law societies have been unsuccessful in coping with this problem which continues to grow worse; (6) people prosecuted for «the unauthorized practice of law» because they tried to help others desperately in need of a lawyer whom they couldn't afford to hire; (7) that there is no truly effective advertising creating competition among law firms that could cause them to lower their fees; (8) that law societies are too comfortably protected by their monopoly over the provision of legal services, which is why they might block the expansion of the paralegal profession, and haven't effectively innovated with electronic technology and new infrastructure so as to be able to solve this problem; (9) that when members of the public access the law society website they don't see any reference to the problem that can assure them that something effective is being done and, (10) in order for the rule of law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the whole of Canada's constitution be able to operate effectively and command sufficient respect, the majority of the population must be able to obtain a lawyer at reasonable cost.

Mediators further argue that mandatory mediation would: l create another strata of costly procedure; l unfairly impede the public's right of free access to the courts; l achieve statistically lower success rates.

From this review of jurisprudence, it appears the courts have not found a public access right to academic libraries based on the status of the university or the amount of public funding it receives.

«Ending Mandatory Arbitration: Strategies for Restoring Access to the Courts,» Symposium on «The Future of Public Rights Litigation,» Fordham Law School, New York, March 2009

While a child has a right to privacy in court, it appears that information on every aspect of his private life will soon be available to, and sought by, all public authority and health workers, as from next year they will have free access to the ContactPoint database.

[212] In assessing proportionality, the court considered both the Charter rights of patients to equitable access to medical services as part of the right of each individual to «life, liberty and security of the person», [195] and the expectation that the privilege of practising is subject to protection of the public interest.

The goals of the Centers are to increase access to justice, educate people about their legal rights and responsibilities, educate litigants about court processes and procedures, link people with existing legal and community resources, and improve public trust in the judicial system.

[20] Departing from the open court principle, which in this case would entail restricting the public right of access to the reasons of the Court, should not be embraced lightly, and, as the Court policy provides, should generally only involve exceptions recognized by law, serious risks to privacy, and other important interests such as the administration of juscourt principle, which in this case would entail restricting the public right of access to the reasons of the Court, should not be embraced lightly, and, as the Court policy provides, should generally only involve exceptions recognized by law, serious risks to privacy, and other important interests such as the administration of jusCourt, should not be embraced lightly, and, as the Court policy provides, should generally only involve exceptions recognized by law, serious risks to privacy, and other important interests such as the administration of jusCourt policy provides, should generally only involve exceptions recognized by law, serious risks to privacy, and other important interests such as the administration of justice.

Highlights Monitor the progress of various clients and institute adjustments when necessary Effectively communicate with parolees, fellow parole officers and representatives of the court Compile and analyze various court reports Ensure full compliance with State regulations and standard operation procedures of the facility Apply strong problem solving skills in different situations Assist parolees in securing jobs and other necessary resources to transition into civilian life Strong public relations skills Proficient in Microsoft Office Experience Probation Officer 1/1/2010 — Present Central Offender Services — Augusta, GA Manage the cases of several different parolees simultaneously Ensure that parolees have access to needed resources to make a successful transition out of the system Maintain an in - depth understanding of the criminal justice system and current and pending laws Hold periodic meetings with paroles to ensure that they are meeting all requirements for their parole Analyze various court reports to determine appropriate courses of action with clients Receive and address parolee issues to help keep them on the right path

While traditional law in Northern Australia recognises an exclusive right of access to particular areas of sea country by its owners, the High Court denied recognition of this right on the basis that it was inconsistent with two fundamental tenets of the non-Indigenous legal system: the right of innocent passage and the public right to fish.

In Yarmirr the High Court found that an exclusive right to control access to the sea could not be recognised because it was inconsistent with the public right of navigation and fishing and Australia's international obligation to permit innocent passage of ships through Australia's territorial sea.

The High Court indicated that infrastructure, which would be needed to exploit under - sea resources, is not inconsistent with public rights of fishing, navigation and innocent passage:» [N] either the public right to navigate, nor the right of innocent passage, require free access to each and every part of the territorial sea», joint judgment of Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ, Croker Island, para 96.

The High Court indicated that infrastructure, which would be needed to exploit under - sea resources, is not inconsistent with public rights of fishing, navigation and innocent passage:» [N] either the public right to navigate, nor the right of innocent passage, require free access to each and every part of the territorial sea», joint judgment of Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ, Yarmirr, para 96.

Justice Olney and all the members of the Federal Court found that the common law could not recognise an exclusive native title right to control access because this would conflict with the public right of navigation and Australia's international obligation to permit innocent passage of ships through Australia's territorial seas.

Amenities: Street Lights, Boathouse: No Dock Or Boathouse, Cooling Source: Electric, Cooling Type: Central, Kitchen Equipment: Dishwasher, Kitchen Equipment: Garbage Disposal, ES Bus: Yes, Patio, Out Building, Fees Include: None, Fireplace Location: Family Room, Fireplace Type: Factory Built, HS Bus: Yes, Hardwood Floors, Wall - to - wall Carpet, Walk - in Closet, Kitchen: Solid Surface Counters, List Type: Exclusive Right To Sell, Lot Description: Level Lot, Lot Size: 2 - 1 Acre, MS Bus: Yes, Photo Available: YES, Ownership: Fee Simple, Photo: Broker Will Provide Photo, Parking: Parking Pad, Parking: 2 Car, Rooms: Great Room, SQFT Source: Public Record, State: GA, Share Address with Public Websites: Yes, Include in Auto - Valuation Models: Yes, Allow additional comments: Yes, Share with Public Websites: Yes, Water: Public Water, Equipment: Fire, Amenities: Pool, Cable In Street, Wet Bar, Energy Related: Thermo, Energy Related: Water Heater - gas, Kitchen: Breakfast Area, Kitchen: Walk - in Pantry, Lot Description: Wooded, Lot Description: Private Backyard, Fireplace Type: Gas Starter, Heating Source: Gas, Date Of Possession: Negotiable, Parking: Detached, Parking: Garage, Foyer - Entrance, Rooms: DR - Separate, Rooms: Office, Laundry Type: Room, Showing Instructions: Appt Owner, Style: Traditional, Swift Entry: Yes, Water: Sewer Connected, Construction: Frame, Kitchen Equipment: Refrigerator, Lot Description: Cul De Sac, Rooms: Sun Room, Acreage Source: Public Record, Garden Area, Accessibility: Garage Van Access, Amenities: Tennis Courts, Basement: Crawlspace, Market Code: Available, Rooms: Dining Room Seats 12 +, Stories: Over 2 Stories, Parking: Rear Entrance, Amenities: Walk To Shopping, Heating Type: Other (See Remarks), Amenities: Clubhouse, Equipment: Satellite Dish, source: RETS, Skylight, Special Conditions: Agent Owned, Hot Tub, Accessibility: 32» Doors, Area: FUN1, Elementary School: GA, High School: GA, Middle School: GA, High School: Fulton County, Middle School: Fulton County, Elementary School: Fulton Counto - wall Carpet, Walk - in Closet, Kitchen: Solid Surface Counters, List Type: Exclusive Right To Sell, Lot Description: Level Lot, Lot Size: 2 - 1 Acre, MS Bus: Yes, Photo Available: YES, Ownership: Fee Simple, Photo: Broker Will Provide Photo, Parking: Parking Pad, Parking: 2 Car, Rooms: Great Room, SQFT Source: Public Record, State: GA, Share Address with Public Websites: Yes, Include in Auto - Valuation Models: Yes, Allow additional comments: Yes, Share with Public Websites: Yes, Water: Public Water, Equipment: Fire, Amenities: Pool, Cable In Street, Wet Bar, Energy Related: Thermo, Energy Related: Water Heater - gas, Kitchen: Breakfast Area, Kitchen: Walk - in Pantry, Lot Description: Wooded, Lot Description: Private Backyard, Fireplace Type: Gas Starter, Heating Source: Gas, Date Of Possession: Negotiable, Parking: Detached, Parking: Garage, Foyer - Entrance, Rooms: DR - Separate, Rooms: Office, Laundry Type: Room, Showing Instructions: Appt Owner, Style: Traditional, Swift Entry: Yes, Water: Sewer Connected, Construction: Frame, Kitchen Equipment: Refrigerator, Lot Description: Cul De Sac, Rooms: Sun Room, Acreage Source: Public Record, Garden Area, Accessibility: Garage Van Access, Amenities: Tennis Courts, Basement: Crawlspace, Market Code: Available, Rooms: Dining Room Seats 12 +, Stories: Over 2 Stories, Parking: Rear Entrance, Amenities: Walk To Shopping, Heating Type: Other (See Remarks), Amenities: Clubhouse, Equipment: Satellite Dish, source: RETS, Skylight, Special Conditions: Agent Owned, Hot Tub, Accessibility: 32» Doors, Area: FUN1, Elementary School: GA, High School: GA, Middle School: GA, High School: Fulton County, Middle School: Fulton County, Elementary School: Fulton CounTo Sell, Lot Description: Level Lot, Lot Size: 2 - 1 Acre, MS Bus: Yes, Photo Available: YES, Ownership: Fee Simple, Photo: Broker Will Provide Photo, Parking: Parking Pad, Parking: 2 Car, Rooms: Great Room, SQFT Source: Public Record, State: GA, Share Address with Public Websites: Yes, Include in Auto - Valuation Models: Yes, Allow additional comments: Yes, Share with Public Websites: Yes, Water: Public Water, Equipment: Fire, Amenities: Pool, Cable In Street, Wet Bar, Energy Related: Thermo, Energy Related: Water Heater - gas, Kitchen: Breakfast Area, Kitchen: Walk - in Pantry, Lot Description: Wooded, Lot Description: Private Backyard, Fireplace Type: Gas Starter, Heating Source: Gas, Date Of Possession: Negotiable, Parking: Detached, Parking: Garage, Foyer - Entrance, Rooms: DR - Separate, Rooms: Office, Laundry Type: Room, Showing Instructions: Appt Owner, Style: Traditional, Swift Entry: Yes, Water: Sewer Connected, Construction: Frame, Kitchen Equipment: Refrigerator, Lot Description: Cul De Sac, Rooms: Sun Room, Acreage Source: Public Record, Garden Area, Accessibility: Garage Van Access, Amenities: Tennis Courts, Basement: Crawlspace, Market Code: Available, Rooms: Dining Room Seats 12 +, Stories: Over 2 Stories, Parking: Rear Entrance, Amenities: Walk To Shopping, Heating Type: Other (See Remarks), Amenities: Clubhouse, Equipment: Satellite Dish, source: RETS, Skylight, Special Conditions: Agent Owned, Hot Tub, Accessibility: 32» Doors, Area: FUN1, Elementary School: GA, High School: GA, Middle School: GA, High School: Fulton County, Middle School: Fulton County, Elementary School: Fulton CounTo Shopping, Heating Type: Other (See Remarks), Amenities: Clubhouse, Equipment: Satellite Dish, source: RETS, Skylight, Special Conditions: Agent Owned, Hot Tub, Accessibility: 32» Doors, Area: FUN1, Elementary School: GA, High School: GA, Middle School: GA, High School: Fulton County, Middle School: Fulton County, Elementary School: Fulton County