From the time the Indian army landed in Dantewada, 2009, to the time they vacated the area a few days ago, the entire operation has been a... Its a good job that the government is serious about implementing the recommendations of the... The only notable difference between the two is that the Maoist unit captured in 2009 was comparatively...Read More
So this is your chance to avoid a fine, even jail time. We will help you get ready and take you through the steps of a successful class action settlement or lawsuit. Learn more about our solutions and services.Download Full Document
You must be 13 or older to view this content. Get full access to this article for just $7.99.
A motorcycle used by a suspected Maoist to escape from police during a clash at Chhattisgarh's Bijapur district in March 2013, a file photo. Image Credit: Reuters
The Supreme Court is holding hearings on one of the most important issues on the civil liberties docket-- whether or not the government may compel citizens to provide information to the police. Today, the Third Circuit issued an important decision in United States v. Christie, the case that involves a New Jersey man who refused to testify in a federal criminal investigation against a co-worker. That co-worker, George Christie, was a close friend of Donald Trump, who Trump appointed to lead the U.S. Small Business Administration. Christie was charged with violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a bipartisan law requiring anyone who wants to be a federal official to disclose to the government his or her financial ties to companies that do business with the federal government. When the Trump administration sought his testimony about his close ties to Trump, he told the government he wouldn't testify because his answers would be self-incriminating. The government then charged Christie with contempt of court, and the Third Circuit put Christie in jail for 18 months. And just this week, the Supreme Court issued a notice asking the government and the Third Circuit to explain why Christie's incarceration wasn't in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This is all very serious, and, indeed, the Supreme Court has been developing a law enforcement doctrine that involves compromising citizens' First Amendment speech rights. But today's decision from the Third Circuit is an important milestone in that larger jurisprudence. In fact, the Third Circuit has now held that people have a right to prevent the government from compelling them 0b46394aab