Australian court approved the trial of a man at the age of 81 years after his wifeaccused him of raping her 50 years ago.
 
The Supreme Court issued a ruling which said the Australian that there is no legal impediment to the old man’s trial for the alleged rape of his ex-wife has more than50 years.
 
The man said he had not committed any criminal offense because the principle ofmarriage existed at the time.
 
The man hoped to set aside a judgment by a lower court under the law stipulatesthat a man is guilty when he raped his wife.
The man’s lawyers failed in an acquittal, saying that there is a law in 1963 statesthat marriage means of satisfaction, then it is not guilty of the offenses for which to do at that time.
 
The man accused of rape by his former wife in 2009, prompted him to carry out a series of challenges to the indictment alleged.

For the more simple divorces, theDivorce Hotel might be a good option that avoids the prolonged timing for finalizing the split — or for couples who don’t have a lot to sort out.

In a nutshell, this is the primary principle behind the Stand Your Ground Law.

But two recent deaths of two people in two different states, is causing officials to take a closer look at the Stand Your Ground Law.

This Law recently found itself in the spot light, after an unarmed teen in Florida was shot and killed.  The shooter was not arrested until some 45 days later, because he said that he felt that his life was being threatened by the teen.

The same incident happened in the parking lot, of a Taco Bell in Phoenix on April 3.

In this case a 29 year old mentally challenged man walking his dog, was shot and killed by a 22 year old man, who claimed that the victim had threatened his safety and that of his pregnant girlfriend, with what he thought was either a bat or pipe.  Either of which was found at the scene.  But because there weren’t any witnesses to dispute what happened, the shooter was not arrested, and the shooting fell under the SYG_Law.

Under the SYG_Law, a person does not have to be trying to kill the other person, they can just be trying to hurt them, and just like that lose their life.

Most people feel that a person should have the right to defend and protect themselves and that of their love ones, but they also feel that a closer look should be made to the SYG_Law.

To date almost 25 states have implemented the SYG_ Law or one similar to it. 

Little ones whose parents are both registered citizens of Poland automatically purchase the ability to have polish citizenship. This however is dependent on the situation that the children remain within the guardianship and support of the proclaimed mother and father. Which means that children born under the stated situations are listed as pure born nationals of Poland. In case the parents are separated, the child can still be born a national if three situations are met. First, each parent should be citizens; second, any of the mother or father will keep custody of the child until he or she attains legalized age; and third, the non-custodian parent consents on giving the kid the citizenship.

There are persons with no nationality. These people are often those abandoned since childhood or have lost their memory. In the case that it proves extremely hard to find out his/her basis, a person can request for polish citizenship. The individual yet needs to first reside in the state for at least five years. His stay should be authorized with any of the three licenses mentioned earlier. The children of someone with no nationality may also turn into Polish citizens under three situations. First, one of the parent must be a nationality of Poland. Second, either the stateless man or the national would’ve guardianship of the kid till it extends to the legal age. And lastly, both couples agree on the approving of citizenship.

There’s also specific ways of receiving polish citizenship even if you don’t possess one of the requisites. This is when you have distinct abilities or knowledge that would make you an asset to the state. This exceptional privilege only functions generally for legendary athletes and even then, may need to revoke their existing nationalities in place of a polish citizenship.

To obtain any legal help including civil, administrative, commercial and company law in Poland, go here

Non-citizens of Poland could also obtain their own Polish passport even if they’ll need to go through way stricter steps and interviews. The easiest method for a non-citizen to be able to have the item would be to get petitioned by a citizen of Poland. Furthermore, the petitioner must be associated with you by blood. The petitioner also needs to be able to give you a high-quality standard of living at least until you become capable to live on your own. A petition is a particular power of attorney that allows a citizen to serve as catalyst in the conversion of a non-Polish person to a Polish citizen.

The Polish passport is a prerequisite when a citizen of Poland desires to travel outside of the country. The item is necessary not just in air-ports but also in most ports in EU. You’ll need it regardless if you are intending to go to abroad via plane, by ship, or by train. You can just use an official Identification as a replacement if you are able to verify that you’ll come back to the nation within 90 days of your leaving. For people who want to go into Poland but don’t have any pass, a tourist visa will suffice but you won’t be allowed to be in the country for a period of time going above ninety days.

Should you be considering to go into or leave Poland over and over again within 10 years, getting yourself a Polish passport is strongly recommended. This will allow you to take pleasure in the benefits as being a Poland citizen and also determine the legality of your citizenship.

To get any legal help including civil, administrative, commercial and company law in Poland, go here

Many of you have probably already heard of CISPA, the bullshit law that the government is attempting to shove down our throats. Basically the aim of this law is to help the government have all the information it deems necessary, information about your online habits, purchases, conversations and much, much more. While the government seems to be wanting to make this law seem like its a benefit to society, it clearly is not. CISPA takes away our right to privacy and gives private companies and the government a new way (after SOPA and PIPA) to “spy” on us.

Though the government wants to write CISPA off as a law that helps the government have information to stop future cyber-attacks against private companies or itself. It doesn’t draw the line as to why and how the government can receive information. At this stage, the government will basically be able to ask any company about anyone’s private information regardless of what they have done. Therefore it allows the government to watch over us whenever they deem necessary. Cause enough for outcry, especially for me.

CISPA, also referred to as SOPA’s meaner brother has already caused public outcry, however without enough public support no administration will veto it. Even though the white house has given statements that say that they will veto the law look what happened with NDAA the white house had said that they would veto that as well but as it happens to be that law stands firm. If the people of this country don’t stand together against CISPA it will pass as well.

There are only a few ways that we can stop CISPA in its tracks. First find a website that has an anti CISPA petition and sign it, hell if you can find ten websites sign them all. Secondly, call your senators or email them tell them how you will never again be in their favor if they agree to have CISPA pass. Lastly call your friends, text them do something become proactive in this campaign against CISPA, if your have even five minutes to spare spread the knowledge or refer people to this article or any other article that shows how CISPA will take away your privacy.  

TAN VS. COURT OF APPEALS

174 SCRA 403 (G.R. NO. 48049)

JUNE 29, 1989

Petitioner:          Emilio Tan, Juanito Tan, Alberto Tan

                                and Arturo Tan

Respondent:      Court of Appeals and the Philippine American

                                Life Insurance Company

J. Gutierrez Jr.:

FACTS:

On September 23, 1973, Tan Lee Siong, father of herein petitioners, applied for life insurance in the amount of ₱ 80,000.00 with respondent Philippine American Life Insurance Company. Said application was approved and Policy No. 1082467 was issued effective November 6, 1973, with petitioners the beneficiaries thereof.

On April 26, 1975, Tan Lee Siong died of Hepatoma. Petitioner then filed with respondent company their claim for the proceeds of the life insurance policy. However, in a letter dated September 11, 1975, respondent company denied petitioner’s claim and rescinded the policy by reason of the alleged misrepresentation and concealment of material facts made by the deceased Tan Lee Siong in his application for insurance. The premium paid on the policy were thereupon refunded.

Petitioners filed on November 27, 1975, a complaint against the former with Office of the Insurance Commissioner.

The petitioners contend that the respondet company no longer had the right to rescind the contract of insurance as rescission must allegedly be done during the lifetime of the insured within two years and prior to the commencement of action.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent company had the right to rescind the contract of insurance as rescission must allegedly be done during the lifetime of the insured within two years and prior to the commencement of action.

HELD:

The contention is without merit. The so-called “incontestability clause” precludes the insurer from raising the defenses of false representations or concealment of material facts insofar as health and previous diseases are concerned if the insurance has been in force for at least two years during the insured’s lifetime. The phrase “during the lifetime” found in Section 48 simply means that the policy is no longer considered in force after the insured has died. The key phrase in the second paragraph of Section 48 is “for a period of two years.”

As noted by the Court of Appeals, to wit: “The policy was issued on November 6, 1973 and the insured died on April 26, 1975. The policy was thus in force for a period of only one year and five months. Considering that the insured died before the two-year period had lapsed, respondent company is not, therefore, barred from proving that the policy is void ab initio by reason of the insured’s fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. Moreover, respondent company rescinded the contract of insurance and refunded the premiums paid on September 11, 1975, previous to the commencement of this action on November 27, 1975.”

The insurer has two years from the date of issuance of the insurance contract or of its last reinstatement within which to contest the policy, whether or not, the insured still lives within such period. After two years, the defenses of concealment or misrepresentation, no matter how patent or well founded, no longer lie. Congress felt this was a sufficient answer to the various tactics employed by insurance companies to avoid liability. The petitioners’ interpretation would give rise to the incongruous situation where the beneficiaries of an insured who dies right after taking out and paying for a life insurance policy, would be allowed to collect on the policy even if the insured fraudulently concealed material facts.

Probably due to period dramas and school history lessons, I think most of us have grown up wearing rose tinted glasses and thinking that the world encompassed a much more disciplined and moral social structure prior to the 1960s “years of enlightenment” so it may be interesting for you to discover that 100 years ago drugs were readily available for common consumption and, on the whole, governments considered alcohol abuse to be the greater evil.

Before the 1912 International Opium Convention narcotics were trafficked across the world with scant intervention by authorities but the 1912 Convention committed countries across the world to stop trading in opium (produced from the dried residue of poppies), morphine and cocaine.  On the whole this drug was supposedly used for its “anaesthetic properties” but needless to say, things had got a little out of hand and use for “recreation” began in earnest.

The US embraced this document wholeheartedly, and the British said they were happy to go along with it and sign it although perhaps not quite as enthusiastically as the US!  In fact, Britain had fought two wars against China back in the 1800s in favour of the importation of opium.

Pre 1912

The opium wars saw us good old stiff upper lipped Brits battling the Chinese as we regularly shipped copious amounts of the drug through India and into China before it finally arrived on the shores of our “Sceptred Isle”.  However, China viewed the drug much as we view it today and were keen to restrict the amount being trafficked through their country.

Joe Public in the UK was able to buy opium, cocaine and poisons such as arsenic readily over the chemist’s counter and it if you’d lived or worked in any of our major ports in the UK, you would have found it amongst ordinary cargo being unloaded, and in 1785 The Times actually listed opium from Symya (now called Izmir) in Turkey in amongst oil from Leghorn (now Livorno) in Italy and peas from Dantzic (now Gdansk) in Poland being unloaded from a ship in London.

I was particularly interested to learn that, come the early part of the 19th century, travellers coming into my sleepy little home county of Norfolk UK were warned not to drink the beers and ales served in taverns as it could well be laced with opium.  At that time, opium was considered to be a great boon to ward off malaria which flourished in our wide expanses of wetland, known as the fens.  I suspect this laced booze was most prevalent in Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, our major ports.  But this drug was not only prescribed for malaria, it was also promoted as a cure for coughs and colds and was often given to “patients” for all manner of ailments in the form of laudanum – a concoction of opium mixed with alcohol.

Balmoral Castle, Scotland

Amongst the great and the good who were believed to have imbibed in this “wonder drug” were, most notably, Queen Victoria who ordered the stuff from the royal apothecary at Balmoral in Scotland and she is understood to have enjoyed a touch of opium gum with a very young Winston Churchill (later to become Prime Minister).

A Young Winston Churchill

And apparently Prime Minister William Gladstone took opium in his tea or coffee before he “took to the stage” when making speeches.  No wonder our British Empire turned to dust!!

In 1868 the Pharmacy Act was passed which restricted the use of opiates but, like so many Acts passed by the government over the years, it really wasn’t very effective.  It stated that any opium user had to provide a name, address and other personal details to the chemist before the drug could be handed over at the counter.

Limehouse, London (early 20th century)

Being an avid fan of Victorian history, it had, I suspect due to period dramas and Victorian based novels, been my belief that hundreds of bored aristocrats who had nothing better to do would lurk amongst the unruly and unwashed members of society in the east end of London doped up to their eyeballs on opiates or contracting sexually transmitted diseases from the vice dens, particularly those in Limehouse where the Chinese sailors settled but, according to recent research, there’s no real evidence that this was the case.  Thinking on it, I’m now considering that some aristocrats could undoubtedly be found there but feel it more likely that these “jolly good chaps” would prefer to mix with their own classes and imbibe in a gallon or two of good wine and have a flutter at the gaming tables, then stumble back to their gentlemen’s clubs to crash out in comfort and be waited on hand and foot following a “binge and a flutter” night.

Oscar Wilde

The belief that the upper crust of our British society spent hours in opium dens was further enhanced in Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Gray” where he referred to the fact that you could “buy oblivion” and “horrors and memory of old sins could be destroyed by the madness of sins that were new”.  However, around that time, the intake of opium which was considered a drug of misery was fast becoming old fashioned in favour of the more uplifting cocaine and of course, the most famous fictional character who took cocaine to lift his spirits was none other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes who injected it to lift him from depression. 

Arthur Conan Doyle

It also became particularly popular with the more Bohemian members of our society – those arty farty intelligentsia and often highly strung artistic people who maintained it was vital to open up their minds when they needed a spot of artistic stimulation.

Fortunately the US didn’t perceive cocaine as a vital artistic stimulant and were more concerned with the association there with street gangs and, ultimately, with the usual (and still prevalent!) propaganda that this drug sent “black men insane” and thereby put poor defenceless little white women at risk.  This obviously had a knock on effect to drive the US to sign up to the 1912 Act.

Post 1912

Although the Act undoubtedly reduced the importation of drugs it didn’t stop individual  users and when the Great War (World War I) broke out in 1914, opium and cocaine were still legal drugs in Great Britain.  During the second year of the war there was concern over the general intake of alcohol in the front-line ranks which it was considered may have a significant detrimental effect on the progress of the war so, in 1915 stricter licensing laws were passed which led to a hive of underground “vice dens” particularly in the more theatrical area of London, through which so many of our gallant troops travelled before being shipped overseas.  Some of our gallant troops it seems were not particularly “gallant” however, and on passing through London headed to the brothels or made good use of the prostitutes within this area and this was a criminal offence.  With the new strict drink licensing laws it soon became apparent that brothels were selling sex alongside the still readily available opium and cocaine.  The government therefore brought in emergency legislation to restrict the use of drugs.

Towards the end of the war in 1918 journalists were keen to find another outlet for “shock factor” articles and began delving more into the seedy side of drug taking, most notably amongst theatrical celebrities.  One of the most famous scandals was based around the death of popular actress Billie Carleton.

Billie Carleton

Billie had attended an opium party the night before her death in 1918 and the inquest revealed that she had died from an overdose of cocaine.  Her friend, one Reginald de Veulle was subsequently charged with manslaughter and conspiracy to supply a prohibited drug.  He had bought the drug from a woman called Ada and her Chinese husband Lau Ping You in Limehouse, London.  However, de Veulle was acquitted of the manslaughter charge but was found guilty of supplying Billie with the cocaine and for this crime he received an eight month prison sentence.  Ada was sentenced to five months hard labour and her husband was fined £10.

Eventually, in 1920, the emergency action which had been put into place during the war, was made permanent in the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1920.

Freda Kempton

Another case which caught the public’s attention in the media was that of Freda Kempton, a  young dancer, who was found dead after taking an overdose of cocaine in 1922.  The journalists, who it seemed were targeting the Chinese community in connection with any drug death incidents, had a field day with this case as it involved a “poor young woman” who had obviously been seduced by a Chinaman, an entrepreneur known as Billy “Brilliant” Chang. 

Billy “Brilliant” Chang

Freda had been with Mr Chang on the night she died.  Needless to say, this did nothing to aid inter-racial harmony and it became apparent that the Chinese community as a whole would come under fire from the “native” British people who now considered that every Chinese man was out to ensnare innocent white women with his charismatic manners and force them to use drugs.

However, following the Kempton case this panic amongst the British that cocaine was having a considerable effect on our innocent little women, the fire dwindled and was soon extinguished although drugs were known to be dealt in Limehouse and in the “red light district” of Soho and, once the drug laws came in banning the use of cocaine and opium, the problem was so insignificant it was easily dealt with by the police.

The real drug problem began after World War II during the “baby boom” period which saw the rise of rebellious teenagers throughout the 1950s and 1960s.  These young people, due to the more modern and speedier transport links, were able to travel further afield and those who were getting into drugs at the time travelled to Morocco to smoke hash or find areas where they could get hold of amphetamines.

It was at this time the police found they were beginning to have problems containing the importation and taking of drugs and their efforts weren’t helped by various powerful international cartels.

And as we all know, this problem is still rife today – it seems the governments and law enforcement agencies are fighting an ever losing battle to get this deadly crime under control and I suspect that despite their increased efforts to stamp out illegal drugs, sadly there’ll always be a criminal out there who can find a way of outwitting them.