In Re Winship

Michael Winship: Forget the Rich: Tax the poor and middle class!

No matter what proof the White House provides that Osama bin Laden indeed has had his bucket kicked — and at this point even al Qaeda admits he’s dead — there still will be uncertainty. Whether they ever release those damned photos or not, a lunatic few will continue to insist that Osama’s alive and well and running a Papa John’s Pizza in Marrakesh. As for taxes, having to pay them is no longer a sure thing either , especially if you’re a corporate giant like General Electric, with a thousand employees in its tax department, skilled in creative accounting. You’ll recall recent reports that although GE made profits last year of $5.1 billion in the United States and $14.2 billion worldwide they would pay not a penny of federal income tax. It gets worse. In 2009, Exxon-Mobil didn’t pay any taxes either, and last year, they had worldwide profits of $30.46 billion. Neither did Bank of America or Chevron or Boeing. According to a report from the office of the New York City Public Advocate, in 2009, the five companies, including GE, received a total of $3.7 billion in federal tax benefits. As The New York Times’ David Kocieniewski reported in March, “Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less. … Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation’s tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.” What’s greasing the wheels for these advantages is, hold on to your hats, cash . Over the last decade, those same five companies — GE, Exxon-Mobil, Bank of America, Chevron and Boeing — gave more than $43.1 million to political campaigns. During the 2009-10 election cycle, the five spent a combined $7.86 million in campaign contributions, a 7 percent jump over their 2007-08 political spending. Meanwhile, last week Republicans like Utah’s Orrin Hatch, ranking member of the US Senate Finance Committee, grabbed hold of an analysis by Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and wrestled it to the ground.

No. 08–09–00291–CV. - IN RE: M.H.V.-P. - TX Court of Appeals

OPINION

On September 23, 2009, a jury determined that MHV-P., Appellant was delinquent conduct by committing the offense of assault and the trial court placed him on probation until his eighteenth eighth birthday, which occurred about six months later than April 4, 2010. In its sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court violated his confrontation rights by admitting a witness statement in evidence at the arbitration hearing. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On 16 February 2009 the applicant was in school when the appellant, a person much taller than him, called him a "fag" as he walked past appellant in the hallway of the school. The appellant started to walk behind the complainant and pushed. The complainant has attempted to keep walking, but appellant pushed him again. At this time, the complainant turned around and asked what was his problem. The appellant replied that he did not love him and struck the complainant in the face with his fist.The complainant tried to defend himself by pushing the appellant, but appellant lifted his legs and pushed to the ground. Appellant continued to hit the complainant on the whole body and stomped on him with his feet as well. The attack only stopped when two teachers pushed appellant away.

LC, a classmate who witnessed the assault. However, at trial, she has no recollection of the fight, and she did not remember what she told the security officer's school aggression. At that time, the State sought to introduce LCIn a written statement under section 804 (a) (3), which provides for the admission of hearsay when the declarant does not remember what happened. See Tex.R. Evid. 804 (a) (3). However, the appellant objected that the admission of the statement would violate his rights to confrontation. The trial court overruled the objection, but the parties agreed that only part of the declaration of LC would be admitted. The statement, as admitted, as follows:

[Appellant] saw [the complainant] and followed him and began pushing and hitting [the complainant] out of nowhere.And [the claimant] fell to the ground, if [the applicant] stood up and defended himself in case [sic], he was getting hit by the [appellant]. [Appellant] just started beating [the complainant] and thats [sic] not right.

SM, the former girlfriend of the complainant has not forgotten the struggle. SM reiterated that it was in class when SC came in and told him that the complainant was fighting with the complainant. SM then in the hallway and saw the boys punching each other. When the caller has stopped, SM noticed that the lips of the complainant was bleeding.

Legal aspects of corrections management

In re Winship What should be the standard of proof in juvenile proceedings? This was the issue before the Supreme Court in the case of In re Winship, ...

Criminal procedure, a contemporary perspective

10.3A In re Winship In re Winship, 397 US 358, 90S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 ( 1970) Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. ...

The burden of proof in comparative and international human rights law, civil and common law approaches with special reference to the American and German legal systems

In Re Winship, Harlan, J., concurring The foregoing ideas were expanded upon by Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in the famous In Re Winship Case. ...

Juvenile Justice, A Text/Reader

Section I •»• History and Development of the Juvenile Court and Justice Process 27 In re Winship Samuel Winship, age 12, was accused of stealing money from ...

Juvenile delinquency

JUVENILE LAW In re Winship The Winship case involved a New York boy who was ... IN RE WINSHIP (1970) In Winship the Supreme Court decided that juveniles are ...