Known as the “Little Rock Nine,” they were harassed and ostracized by most of the white students who had opposed the school’s integration. For many years, LaNier remained silent about the turmoil she endured while becoming the first black girl to graduate from the school — until now.
Read the entire story in the Washington Post.
A recently released study shows that Arkansas has a grade of “C” when it comes to protecting the legal rights of children. The study does say that Arkansas is “improved.”
The peer-reviewed study — A Child’s Right to Counsel: A National Report Card on Legal Representation for Abused and Neglected Children — was released today on Capitol Hill by First Star and the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law.
The whole story is here.
From an article by Bodenhamer in a California Law Review article:
There are four criteria that parents must meet before obtaining a joint custody decree.
The first one is that it is a mutual proposal; almost never will a joint custody decree be had in a contested case.
Second, the parents of other custodies must demonstrate more maturity than normal. They both must demonstrate the emotional stability necessary to make joint custody work.
Third, they must geographically live close to each other. If the child is about to start, or has started, school they should live in the same school district.
Fourth, there must be a fair division of periods relating to events in the child’s life, such as birthday, school vacation, Christmas, etc.
On rare occasions the children are divided between the parents or other custodies.
Two factors contribute to these rulings. The age and desire of the children. If the children are becoming independent enough to cause the judge concern about their running away, and if they simply will not live together, then the judge will split them.
| By: Associated Press – Texarkana Gazette - | Published: 10/09/2009 |
LITTLE ROCK—The Arkansas Supreme Court listened Thursday as lawyers argued whether a new law fulfills its aim by clarifying the state’s lethal injection procedures or puts death-row inmates at greater risk of suffering unconstitutional harm.
A federal public defender for death-row inmate Frank Williams Jr. claimed the new law puts additional mental stress on all condemned inmates, and public defender Josh Lee claimed it strips away regulations that required the state prison system to use a three-drug cocktail approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Under the new statute, we have no way of knowing what procedure will be used,” Lee said. Without that oversight, he said the risk of botched executions grows. He mentioned a recent Ohio case where an inmate undergoing a failed lethal injection wept as executioners stuck him with needles as many as 18 times.
Nevertheless, the justices’ questioning appeared to give the state an edge.
Justin Allen, the state’s chief deputy attorney general, said there would be no repeat of the Ohio case in Arkansas. Allen said the new law passed by the Legislature this year made public the amount and kind of drugs used by executioners and that the state’s prison director couldn’t use “rat poison” or anything else to execute prisoners, as he would be subject immediately to a federal lawsuit.
“As a practical matter, Larry Norris or any other prison director would be out of his mind not to follow” the law, Allen said.
Justice Robert L. Brown said he agreed with Allen’s point, one of the few moments that indicated what the justices thought.
The justices gave no indication of when they might rule.
Federal public defenders representing Williams filed the lawsuit in 2008, as their client faced a scheduled execution. They argued the state prison system had altered its execution protocols without following a requirement that state agencies offer notifications and hold public hearings when they change administrative rules.
A lower court judge issued an injunction halting Williams’ execution and the case quickly made its way to the state’s highest court. While there, lawmakers passed a law freeing the state prison system from following the public notification and hearing rule when it came to execution
The state doesn’t want to comply with a federal law aimed at preventing people illegally in the country from obtaining driver’s licenses even if it could pay the cost.
“Real ID” is a set of federal standards for issuing state driver’s licenses. Those standards require people who want a driver’s license to provide birth certificates and other documents ensure they are legally in the country. The information and updates to the licensee’s personal information, such as changes of address, would then be stored in a format that could be shared with other states and the federal government.
Terrorists used state driver’s licenses with false information as identification to board the planes used in Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Residents of states that do not comply with Real ID would not be allowed to use state driver’s licenses as valid identification to board planes of federally regulated airlines or get into certain federal installations.
Arkansas and 45 other states received an extension until Dec. 31, 2009 to start implementing Real ID. At least three of the four remaining states announced they will not ask for an extension because they refuse comply.
Doug Thompson has more here.
FROM THE ANB:
A few months ago, Christy Martin started letting the Ultimate Poker League hold poker nights at her club, the Ice House of Bentonville.
The club does not charge people to play, but Martin said poker has been a moneymaker for her business in other ways.
When players are away from the poker table, “they’ll play pool, they’ll eat food,” Martin said. “It brings people in.”
Poker, especially the Texas hold ‘em version featured on ESPN’s “World Series of Poker,” has experienced an unprecedented surge in popularity, and entertainment businesses are cashing in. Midland Bowl in Fort Smith, Billy’s Blues Club in Fayetteville and Zack’s Place in Little Rock are among dozens of Arkansas businesses that lure customers in the door by hosting poker games.
“Pretty much every club here (in Bentonville) has it,” Martin said.
The businesses say they are able to host the games legally, despite Arkansas’ anti-gambling laws and constitutional ban on lotteries, because customers are not really gambling – they pay nothing to play and no betting is allowed.
“We don’t take any money at all. It’s totally free,” said Cindy Carter, a manager at Fox and Hound English Pub & Grille in North Little Rock.
The National Poker Challenge has made similar claims about its poker club in Little Rock, but the club’s future is uncertain following a Nov. 18 raid by Little Rock police.
“The fact that we are most proud of is that it is non-gambling, not a lottery and that no customer ever has a chance to risk money,” the Memphis-based company said in a statement posted on its Web site, explaining how it could operate in Arkansas.
Local authorities see things differently. Four people who worked at the club now face felony charges of maintaining a gambling house.
Bank of America is suing two businessmen who ran a West Memphis company in an attempt to collect $4.1 million.
Theodore M. Jenney of Holley, N.Y., and Stanley J. Chiras of Florida are the principals of Diaz Intermediates Corp., which produced chemicals that were supplied to Tetra Industries and other agriculture and pharmaceutical clients.
In September 2002, the company borrowed $6.5 million and eventually went out of business.
But Jenney and Chiras had each signed guarantees for half of the unpaid principal, plus any interest, court costs and other fees if Diaz defaulted on the loan. In January, the bank notified the two businessmen that the loan was in default. In May, BOA told Jenney and Chiras to pay off the loan, but they didn’t.
The bank has sued in U.S. District Court to collect the money.
Some have wondered if the wildly high interest rates charged for pay check loans violate constitutional usury limitations. Apparently not. Judge Barry Sims found the 1999 law to be constitutional. However, his decision will be appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court…with 400 % interest.
More here.
Two developers said they are out nearly $1 million after they built homes at the city of Harrisburg’s request, but the city hasn’t installed the water and sewer lines.
Tom Ford and Charles Dunham, who own Ford/Dunham Subdivision, are suing the city of Harrisburg, the mayor and the city council alleging breach of contract, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The developers are seeking nearly $8 million in damages in Poinsett County Circuit Court.
In 2006, city of Harrisburg officials asked Ford to build moderately priced homes in a section of Harrisburg, according to the lawsuit. In exchange, the city would install water and sewer lines to the homes.
After four homes were built, at a cost of $258,000, the city then backed out of supplying the utilities, the lawsuit said.
“The refusal of the Defendants to honor the agreement has made the constructed residence virtually unsellable and uninhabitable,” the lawsuit said.
Read the whole story at Arkansasbusiness.com.
