關於 federal criminal law ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

第六回，
大會考週！

這是最佳檢視自己是否有熟讀前五回題本、筆記的機會，
要記得溫故知新嘿！

這次的「英語正則」要認真讀喔
俐媽有在課堂中提醒一些重要的law搭配詞，
今天再送上局部補充，

完整版？
要來上俐媽的英模A, C, I, F班啦😉😉
———————————————————————
🏢 俐媽英文教室—搭配詞篇law:
🧑🏻‍⚖️ enact the law 制定法律
🧑🏻‍⚖️ adopt/pass the law 通過法律
🧑🏻‍⚖️ enforce/apply/administer the law 執行法律
🧑🏻‍⚖️ violate/transgress/ contravene the law 違反法律
🧑🏻‍⚖️ follow/obey/observe the law 遵守法律
🧑🏻‍⚖️ abolish the law 廢除法律
🧑🏻‍⚖️ interpret the law 解釋/詮釋法律
🧑🏻‍⚖️ revise/amend the law 修改法律
🧑🏻‍⚖️ challenge the law 挑戰法律
🧑🏻‍⚖️ civil law 民法
🧑🏻‍⚖️ criminal law 刑法
🧑🏻‍⚖️ federal law 聯邦法
🧑🏻‍⚖️ international law 國際法
🧑🏻‍⚖️ electoral law 選舉法
🧑🏻‍⚖️ strict/stringent law 嚴格的法律

🆙 延伸學習：
* file a lawsuit 提出告訴/訴訟
* settle the lawsuit 和解
* lose/win the lawsuit 打輸/贏官司
* dismiss the lawsuit 駁回訴訟

📚 其他相關補充，見 #俐媽英文教室法律篇

———————————————————————
暑假快要到尾聲了，
高二孩子，暑假作業進展如何？😂
高三孩子，為試辦學測和北模衝一波！💪🏻

#俐媽英文教室
#俐媽英文教室搭配詞篇
#俐媽英文教室搭配詞篇law
#台大明明孩子要守法喔
#聽說今天是情人節膩
#英文就是你的忠實情人啦💕
#不准分手劈腿嘿

Barak Obama's statement on killing of George Floyd.

As millions of people across the country take to the streets and raise their voices in response to the killing of George Floyd and the ongoing problem of unequal justice, many people have reached out asking how we can sustain momentum to bring about real change.

Ultimately, it’s going to be up to a new generation of activists to shape strategies that best fit the times. But I believe there are some basic lessons to draw from past efforts that are worth remembering.

First, the waves of protests across the country represent a genuine and legitimate frustration over a decades-long failure to reform police practices and the broader criminal justice system in the United States. The overwhelming majority of participants have been peaceful, courageous, responsible, and inspiring. They deserve our respect and support, not condemnation — something that police in cities like Camden and Flint have commendably understood.
On the other hand, the small minority of folks who’ve resorted to violence in various forms, whether out of genuine anger or mere opportunism, are putting innocent people at risk, compounding the destruction of neighborhoods that are often already short on services and investment and detracting from the larger cause. I saw an elderly black woman being interviewed today in tears because the only grocery store in her neighborhood had been trashed. If history is any guide, that store may take years to come back. So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.

Second, I’ve heard some suggest that the recurrent problem of racial bias in our criminal justice system proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time. I couldn’t disagree more. The point of protest is to raise public awareness, to put a spotlight on injustice, and to make the powers that be uncomfortable; in fact, throughout American history, it’s often only been in response to protests and civil disobedience that the political system has even paid attention to marginalized communities. But eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices — and in a democracy, that only happens when we elect government officials who are responsive to our demands.
Moreover, it’s important for us to understand which levels of government have the biggest impact on our criminal justice system and police practices. When we think about politics, a lot of us focus only on the presidency and the federal government. And yes, we should be fighting to make sure that we have a president, a Congress, a U.S. Justice Department, and a federal judiciary that actually recognize the ongoing, corrosive role that racism plays in our society and want to do something about it. But the elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels.
It’s mayors and county executives that appoint most police chiefs and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with police unions. It’s district attorneys and state’s attorneys that decide whether or not to investigate and ultimately charge those involved in police misconduct. Those are all elected positions. In some places, police review boards with the power to monitor police conduct are elected as well. Unfortunately, voter turnout in these local races is usually pitifully low, especially among young people — which makes no sense given the direct impact these offices have on social justice issues, not to mention the fact that who wins and who loses those seats is often determined by just a few thousand, or even a few hundred, votes.

So the bottom line is this: if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both. We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform.
Finally, the more specific we can make demands for criminal justice and police reform, the harder it will be for elected officials to just offer lip service to the cause and then fall back into business as usual once protests have gone away. The content of that reform agenda will be different for various communities. A big city may need one set of reforms; a rural community may need another. Some agencies will require wholesale rehabilitation; others should make minor improvements. Every law enforcement agency should have clear policies, including an independent body that conducts investigations of alleged misconduct. Tailoring reforms for each community will require local activists and organizations to do their research and educate fellow citizens in their community on what strategies work best.

But as a starting point, here’s a report and toolkit developed by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and based on the work of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing that I formed when I was in the White House. And if you’re interested in taking concrete action, we’ve also created a dedicated site at the Obama Foundation to aggregate and direct you to useful resources and organizations who’ve been fighting the good fight at the local and national levels for years.

I recognize that these past few months have been hard and dispiriting — that the fear, sorrow, uncertainty, and hardship of a pandemic have been compounded by tragic reminders that prejudice and inequality still shape so much of American life. But watching the heightened activism of young people in recent weeks, of every race and every station, makes me hopeful. If, going forward, we can channel our justifiable anger into peaceful, sustained, and effective action, then this moment can be a real turning point in our nation’s long journey to live up to our highest ideals.

Let’s get to work.

https://medium.com/@BarackObama/how-to-make-this-moment-the-turning-point-for-real-change-9fa209806067

Ramai yang ingat, kes Najib Razak sengaja dilambat-lambatkan.

Dalam kita memastikan Najib Razak akan mendapat “fair trial”, adalah juga penting memastikan prosedur kehakiman adalah dijalankan mengikut proses undang-undang yang betul.

There has been a lot of discussion on Najib's trial being adjourned indefinitely.

I think media reporting on the court proceedings doesn't fully explain what transpired because it is very technical.

There is a lot to unpack and I think a bit of context is required here.

When Najib was first charged, his case was at the Sessions Court.

In the hierarchy of courts in Malaysia, we have the subordinate courts, which are the Magistrates Court and Sessions Court.

Magistrates Court will try less serious offences (like petty theft, assault, etc) and Sessions Court will try more serious offences (rape, cheating, criminal breach of trust).

And then we have the superior courts – the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

The High Court will try the most serious of offences (usually involving capital punishment) or complex cases. The Court of Appeal and the Federal Court are the appellate courts (they do not try cases but only hear appeals from the High Court).

What happened after Najib was charged was the Public Prosecutor issued a certificate to transfer the case to the High Court from the Sessions Court because the High Court was in a better position to try this complex case.

So after the case was transferred to the High Court, trial dates were fixed and directions were given.

However, the Public Prosecutor (as a matter of principle) withdrew the certificate of transfer because he was of the opinion that the particular provision of law which allows him to issue the certificate is unconstitutional in that it allows the Public Prosecutor to take away the powers from the Court. This is wrong because in our democracy, there is separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary. Each branch of government is independent of one another and should not encroach into the domain of the other.

Once Najib’s case is before the courts, the Public Prosecutor being part of the executive should not decide which court hears the case, that is for the courts to decide.

So it was on that basis, the Public Prosecutor took a principled position that the certificate is akin to him encroaching into the domain of the judiciary and that is why he decided to withdraw the certificate. He probably should have done this earlier.

So once the certificate was withdrawn, the case should be sent back to where it originally came from, the Sessions Court. However, after the certificate was withdrawn, the High Court Judge on his own motion (as allowed under the law) decided to transfer the case from the Sessions Court to him.

Now here is where the dispute lies, when the Public Prosecutor withdrew the certificate. Najib’s legal team argued that he could not do so because by doing so he would be encroaching into the domain of the judiciary. Najib’s legal team also argued that it was improper for the High Court Judge to bypass the High Court Registry and transfer the case directly back to him, the High Court Judge should have let the Registrar of the High Court decide which judge should hear the case.

The High Court did not agree with Najib’s legal team’s argument and proceeded to allow the withdrawal of the certificate and transferred the case directly back to him. And Najib’s team appealed.

When Najib’s team appealed, they asked for the trial to be stayed (or in laymen terms, for the trial to be halted) pending the outcome of the appeal because if he succeeds on appeal, the trial will be a nullity. So the prudent thing to do is to have the appeal decided first rather than risking a waste of time and costs.

I don’t think it’s a tactic to delay the trial because there are genuine concerns as to what happens when the Public Prosecutor withdraws the certificate. I think it concerns procedural justice. To a lay person, everything that has happened here may seem to be lawyers being pedantic but I think there is need to adhere strictly to due process. Should Najib have been discharged in the High Court and charged again with the same offence in the Sessions Court? These are questions which the Court of Appeal must answer.

Now that the Court of Appeal has ordered that the trial be halted until they decide on Najib’s appeal, we will just have to wait until Najib’s appeal is decided. It is uncertain when that will happen but this is an important case of public interest so the appeal should be heard fairly quickly.

The Public Prosecutor could of course appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to halt the trial (because Malaysia usually we have two tiers of appeal) but I think the Court of Appeal arrived at the right decision and I don’t think the Federal Court will decide differently.

If the Court of Appeal agrees with Najib’s legal team then we will most likely see the charges against Najib be dropped and charged against at the Sessions Court as a new case and most likely transferred again to the High Court. And the public will have to wait perhaps a few more months before the trial begins.

If the Court of Appeal disagree with Najib’s legal team then Najib’s trial will proceed at the High Court at new trial dates which again, could be a few more months away.

Of course, Najib will have the option of appealing to the Federal Court as a last resort and that could further delay matters.

Either way, it could be few more months ahead before we see the trial commences.

You can also listen to my interview at BFM89.9: