RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Limerick Artist ‘Willzee’ releases new Music Video – “A Dream of Peace” Vanishing Ireland podcast documenting interviews with people over 70’s, looking for volunteers to share their stories Facebook Email Limerick’s National Camogie League double header to be streamed live WhatsApp Predictions on the future of learning discussed at Limerick Lifelong Learning Festival Previous articleShannon figures soarNext articleWind weather alert downgraded John Keoghhttp://www.limerickpost.ie Print NewsScheme to reduce vacant property ratesBy John Keogh – January 15, 2015 690 TAGSbusinessCllr James Collinscommercial rateslimerickLimerick City and County Councilvacant properties Advertisement WATCH: “Everyone is fighting so hard to get on” – Pat Ryan on competitive camogie squads Linkedin Limerick County Council meet for the last time after 115 years in existence A NEW Business Incentive Scheme aimed at providing some financial relief for the owners of vacant properties was introduced as part of Limerick City and County Council’s 2015 budget.Rather than a universal bill of 50 per cent of the going annual commercial rate, as had already been the case in Limerick city, a sliding scale of charges will now be introduced.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up In a move that is aimed at softening the blow for the owners of smaller or rural commercial properties, charges will now be dependent on the rate that the property would be liable for if it was occupied.Properties that incur a commercial rate of less than €2,500 will now pay nothing, those liable for rates of €2,500 to €9,999 will pay 50 per cent, while those eligible for rates in excess of €10,000 will pay 75 per cent of the commercial rate.It is hoped that the scheme will be of benefit to the owners of small businesses that have ceased trading, who do not have the means to pay high commercial rates.Cllr James Collins, leader of the Fianna Fáil metropolitan group, told the Limerick Post: “The rationale behind this is there is a belief that there are people who own large commercial properties in the city centre, and they’re happy to sit on those properties and leave them vacant rather than allowing their competitors to move in.“So we asked if we could devise a sliding scale where the larger properties pay a higher percentage and smaller properties with a smaller rental value pay a lower percentage, if any.” Twitter Limerick Ladies National Football League opener to be streamed live
iStock/Thinkstock(PHEONIX) — A mother in Arizona is in trouble after allegedly getting too overzealous in waking her son for Easter church service.According to Phoenix ABC affiliate KNXV, the mother was arrested after she used a stun gun to wake her son for Sunday service.Phoenix police say 40-year-old Sharron Dobbins “contact tazed her teenage son on the leg” in order to wake him.“I said, ‘Get up! It’s Jesus’ Day!’” Dobbins told KNXV.Dobbins admits she was holding a Taser, but says she only flashed its lights and made it spark in order to warn her 16-year-old son.“I made the noise with the Taser, but I did not tase my son.”Phoenix police say they found two marks on the teen’s leg and took Dobbins into custody. Dobbins spent 12 hours in jail on Easter, KNXV reported.“He was like, ‘Mom, I’m calling the police.’ I said, ‘You can call the police, UPS, DPS, whoever you want to call,’” Dobbins told KNXV. “Police were on the phone and I told the dispatcher, I told her, ‘You need to be with Jesus right now.’”Police records show Dobbins was charged with one count of child abuse with intent to cause harm.“I don’t think I did anything wrong because you’re supposed to put God first and that’s all I was trying to do is tell my kids to put God first,” said Dobbins.Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Panel examines referral fees, disbursing disputed funds Panel examines referral fees, disbursing disputed funds Senior EditorWhether an attorney can refer a client to a financial adviser in exchange for a referral fee is a question still vexing the Professional Ethics Committee, but the panel has approved an opinion on disbursing disputed property or funds.The committee, at its September 5 meeting at the Tampa General Meeting, also voted to publish a draft proposed advisory opinion on buying a law firm from an attorney’s estate and addressed several other matters.On the referral issue, members generally agreed that it was wrong for an attorney to take a fee for referring a client to a financial advisor. But they hit a stumbling block on wording the opinion to recognize that some lawyers might set up ancillary businesses that do financial consulting.Attorney Ron Rhoades told the committee that’s exactly what he did. He said his practice does estate tax planning, and he set up an ancillary financial advising business to ensure his clients got independent financial advice.Other visitors to the committee expressed similar concerns.PEC members suggested two changes to the draft published in the July 15 Bar News, but other members still expressed dissatisfaction with the result. Several said they wanted a strong statement that “referral fees and kickbacks” are contrary to Bar rules, but also find a way to accommodate ancillary businesses.The panel voted 19-2 to defer action and appoint a subcommittee to redraft the proposed opinion.The PEC has been grappling with an opinion on a lawyer’s duties when a third party levies a claim on property or money held in trust for the client. The committee approved PAO 02-4 for publication (see page 16 in this News ), but some members still expressed reservations.The opinion “is compromised to the point of nothing,” committee member Mark Delegal said. “There is no answer. This is just an outline of things people ought to look at. Staff can tell them that. Unless we can answer a question, we ought not to be publishing opinions.”Committee member Karen Guito disagreed, saying the situation was too complex for a simple response.“In order to give a really pat answer, we would be nailing lawyers’ feet to the floor unnecessarily,” she said. “What this opinion does say is ‘Heads up! There may be a lot of issues involved here. You need to do your homework.’ The committee cannot answer all questions. They have to come to an appropriate decision based on considerations in the opinion.”After making some changes to the draft, the committee voted 16-6 to publish the opinion for member comment. It will come back to the PEC at its January meeting.The committee also voted to publish for comment draft PAO 03-1, dealing with the purchase of a law firm. The initial query came from a lawyer who asked if his purchase of a practice from a lawyer’s estate comported with Bar rules. The deal called for the lawyer to pay $300,000 in five $60,000 annual installments. However, an annual payment would be reduced if revenues from the old firm failed to reach $300,000 that year.The lawyer wanted to know if that violated the comment to Rule 4-1.17 which said divisions of fees after a sale must comply with Rule 4-1.5 on fee splitting.The PEC originally declined to address the matters, saying it could address prospective actions only. It then asked the Bar Board of Governors for guidance. The board agreed the question involved past conduct, and then, under new guidelines, asked the committee to address the issue since it was likely to affect many lawyers.The draft proposed opinion says that the arrangement does not violate Bar rules, citing Rule 4-5.4 as well as 4-1.17.On other matters, the committee:• Voted to uphold a staff opinion that a lawyer could not continue to represent a client when the lawyer and other attorneys he or she practices with were likely to be material witnesses in the case, and their testimony might be adverse to the client.• Heard that PAO 02-9 has been appealed to the Board of Governors and will be on the board’s December agenda. The opinion said it was ethical for a lawyer to include a provision requiring mandatory binding arbitration in client fee contracts.• Heard that PAO 02-6 had become final when no one appealed it to the Board of Governors. That opinion said the lawyer could not release a real estate down payment to the seller after the deal fell through, if the buyer still had a valid claim on the money, and the attorney might have to file an interpleader to clarify ownership. The attorney also could not require the seller to sign an indemnity agreement prior to releasing the funds.• Heard that PAO 02-5, which says attorneys can give second opinions to clients of other attorneys, has become final, as it was not appealed to the Board of Governors. October 1, 2003 Gary Blankenship Senior Editor Regular News
24SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr Twenty one credit unions were among the 195 Community Development Financial Institutions to receive a share of more than $202 million in grants from the U.S. Treasury Department’s CDFI Fund, the CDFI Fund announced.“Today’s awards highlight how much the CDFI program has contributed in its 20-year history toward building a strong network of CDFIs across the country,” CDFI Fund Director Annie Donovan said. “These important community partners are not only on the frontlines of economically distressed communities providing needed capital and credit, they are building a more inclusive economy which benefits the nation as a whole.” continue reading »
The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has arrested 11 former members of the North Sumatra Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) for allegedly accepting bribes from the province’s former governor, graft convict Gatot Pujo Nugroho.KPK deputy chairman Nurul Ghufron said the 11 suspects would be taken into custody for 20 days from Wednesday to Aug. 10.”After the initial investigation, the KPK has arrested 11 former North Sumatra council members during the council term of 2009 to 2014 and 2014 to 2019,” Nurul said in an online press conference on Wednesday.The 11 suspects are Sudirman Halawa, Rahmad Pardamean Hasibuan, Megalia Agustina, Ida Budiningsih, Syamsul Hilal, Robert Nainggolan, Ramli, Layani Sinukaban, Japorman Saragih, Jamaludin Hasibuan and Irwansyah Damanik.They are expected to be detained in two separate detention centers at the Jakarta Military Police (Pomdam Jaya) Guntur Jaya in South Jakarta and the KPK’s Merah Putih building, also in South Jakarta.In January, the KPK named 14 suspects in the bribery case, including the detainees. However, three other suspects, Nurhasanah, Ahmad Hosein Hutagalung, and Mulyani, failed to attend KPK questioning.Read also: 2019 sees fewer corruption cases but bigger state losses: ICWNurul accused the 14 suspects of having accepted bribes from Gatot to smoothen deliberation over the provincial budget and to drop their interpellation petition against the former governor in 2015.Interpellation is the right of councillors to request from the regional administration information concerning strategic governmental policies that widely affect the people.In 2017, Gatot was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and fined Rp 250 million for paying Rp 61.8 billion (US$ 4.23 million) in bribes to local councillors. It was Gatot’s third sentence, handed down while he was serving time for two sentences he received in 2016.He was sentenced to prison for two-and-a-half years for bribing three Medan State Administrative Court (PTUN) judges, a case that also saw his lawyer at the time, the prominent OC Kaligis, convicted. His second sentence gave him six years in prison for his role in the misuse of social aid funds.After Gatot’s arrest, the KPK detained 50 North Sumatra councillors serving the 2009-2014 and 2014-2019 terms.They are currently serving time after receiving four to six years’ imprisonment from the Medan Corruption Court.Topics :
After a trial which lasted more than one month at the Berbice Assizes, a woman and her friend were found guilty of murdering her husband, Abdool Shakeel Majid in 2012.Majid’s wife, Hemwattie Abdulla, also known as “Annie” and her friend, Seerojini Permaul known as “Usha”, 49, were accused of unlawfully killing Majid, a US citizen, whose battered body was discovered on the Number 63 Beach, CorentyneDead: Abdool Shakeel Majidon April 26, 2012.Special Prosecutor Ganesh Hira represented the State while Attorneys-at-Law Mursalin Bacchus and Arud Gossai represented Abdulla and Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes represented Permaul.Majid and his wife had arrived in Guyana in April 2012 for a two-week vacation. However, five days later, Majid’s battered body with the scalp missing was found on the Number 63 Beach. When the man’s body was found, Abdulla had already returned to the United States. When relatives enquired why he did not return, she told them that her husband was enjoying himself in Suriname and that he had urged her to return home as her daughter was ill. However, she was arrested after she returned to Guyana when her husband’s body was found.During the trial, the court heard that bloodstains and sand were found in the trunk of the car that the couple had rented. Detectives had also retrieved Abdulla’s driving permit from the car.The court found that Abdulla murdered her husband for the money which he had received after an accident in the US and got Permaul to assist her in executing the plot.The women were both found guilty as the trial concluded at the Berbice Assizes on Tuesday. Justice Sandil Kissoon will pass sentence on March 29, 2018 at the Berbice High Court.