For decades, the agency Congress charged with administering the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act has construed that statute as prohibiting a lender from accepting a charge for a real estate settlement service it didn't provide, whether it accepts that charge directly from a consumer or indirectly through another service provider, and whether it shares that fee with another provider or keeps it all for itself. That interpretation is eminently reasonable and is entitled to deference.

In Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether translating written documents is enough to be considered an "interpreter" under 28 USC § 1920 [text] for matters of compensation. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined [opinion, PDF] that translating documents is acting as an interpreter under the law. Counsel for the petitioner presented "six categories of authority demonstrating that the work of an interpreter under 28 USC § 1920(6) is limited to spoken communication. Counsel for respondent argued for a broad definition of the word "interpreter."

The language of [the statute] is clear. Anyone who is convicted of an offense that "involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000" has committed an aggravated felony and is subject to deportation pursuant to 8 USC § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The elements of willfully making and subscribing a false corporate tax return, in violation of 26 USC § 7206(1), and of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return, in violation of 26 USC § 7206(2), establish that those crimes are deportable offenses because they necessarily entail deceit.

During oral arguments [JURIST report], lawyers for the petitioners argued that filing a false tax return does meet the definition of "fraud or deceit" because the US government does not have to prove any intent to deceive in order to establish that a false tax return has been filed. Several justices were skeptical of petitioners' position that an intentional lie does not necessarily mean an intent to deceive.

In November, an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan indicted seven people [JURIST report] in assassination of former prime minister. Among the indicted people were two senior police officers who allegedly were negligent in providing adequate security [Al Jazeera report] to Bhutto. The other five men were charged with criminal conspiracy. At that time, Musharraf was not charged despite allegation that he did play a part of the assassination. However, his property was seized [JURIST report] by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) [official website] after an order rendered by Pakistani Judge Shahid Raffique due to Musharraf's failure to respond to multiple subpoenas. Those documents were issued because the FIA accused [JURIST report] Musharraf in the assassination of Bhutto. In 2010, an independent UN commission blamed [JURIST report] Pakistani government and police forces for the assassination because they "lacked a comprehensive security plan."

The growing unrest in Syria has drawn copious international attention recently. Last week, both UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon [JURIST reports] called for an end to the violence in Syria, with Pillay asking the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Pillay urged an investigation of Syrian government and military officials for possible crimes against humanity. The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) claimed earlier in February that the past 11 months of violence in Syria have led to the deaths of hundreds of children [JURIST report]. In January, Ban demanded [JURIST report] that the Syrian government end violence against civilians. The OHCHR reports that more than 5,000 people have died since anti-government protests began last March.

The Montecristo was seized on October 10 about 620 miles off the east coast of Somalia while en route to Yemen. Though the nine Somalis took 23 prisoners in the Gulf of Aden, all 23 were rescued [BBC report] approximately 24 hours later by US and British troops in a NATO Ocean Shield [official website] operation. Similarly, six accused Somali pirates went on trial in Paris [JURIST report] last November. There, the men were accused [CNN report] of capturing the Carre-d'As IV in the Gulf of Aden in 2008 and holding a French couple hostage for two weeks. This was also France's first piracy trial, with three additional trials excepted to follow. With increasing threats of international maritime piracy [JURIST news archive], UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Taye-Brook Zerihoun [official profile] urged the international community last October to increase efforts to combat Somali piracy [JURIST report] after the UN Security Council adopted [JURIST report] a resolution [text] aimed at making piracy a crime and establishing anti-piracy courts [webcast]. Italy is among a limited number of countries that have recently tried to prosecute piracy, including France, Germany, Seychelles, the Netherlands, Mauritius, Yemen, Somalia, Spain and the US [JURIST reports].

In short, standard conditions of confinement and associated restrictions on freedom will not necessarily implicate the same interests that the Court sought to protect when it afforded special safeguards to persons subjected to custodial interrogation. Thus, service of a term of imprisonment, without more, is not enough to constitute Miranda custody.

During oral arguments, attorneys representing the state of Michigan argued [JURIST report] that since Fields invoked his right to return to his cell, despite being confined in jail, a reasonable person in jail being taken to an interrogation room would have understood it was an interrogation and Miranda was unnecessary. They further argued against the per se rule that was created by the Sixth Circuit rather than applying the traditional "all the circumstances" test for Miranda. Fields' attorney contended that he felt no freedom to leave and that in a prison or jail situation, a reasonable person would not feel a freedom to leave without being read Miranda rights in that situation.

It is apparent ... that once the City's legitimate interest in knowing the immigration status of its residents is satisfied, the revocation of occupancy permits does nothing to further that legitimate interest. Accordingly, the "viable alternative means" available to the City to achieve its legitimate policy objectives without discriminatory effects is to stop short of revoking occupancy permits if the immigration status of a resident is verified, whether that status is lawful or unlawful. Accordingly, the Court finds that the enforcement ... of the Ordinance, prohibiting the harboring of illegal aliens, providing for the revocation of occupancy licenses, and providing for certain penalties following the revocation of occupancy licenses, violates the Fair Housing Act.

The city of Fremont suspended enactment of the ordinance [JURIST report] until the district court decided the issue. In November 2010, the Nebraska Supreme Court [official website] declined to rule on the ordinance [JURIST report]. In August 2010, Camp ruled [JURIST report] that the Nebraska Supreme Court should be the first forum to address the ordinance. In July 2010, the first lawsuits challenging the ordinance were filed [JURIST report] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) [advocacy websites]. Fremont voters originally passed the ordinance [JURIST report] in June 2010.

Children have nowhere to hide. Al-Shabaab has abducted them wherever they congregate: schools, playgrounds, football fields, and homes. Schools in particular have been attractive targets—14 of the 21 child escapees from al-Shabaab whom Human Rights Watch interviewed were taken from schools or on their way to school.

Somalia [DOS backgrounder; JURIST news archive] on Friday reached an agreement [JURIST report] at the Garowe II Constitutional Conference [Garowe Online report] to organize diplomats and establish a federal constitution. However, Somalia has been under heavy criticism for human rights violations. In August HRW accused [JURIST report] parties in the Somalia conflict to be involved in abuses of citizens and urged them to cease all of such activities immediately. In July, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] release [JURIST report] a report which alleged that children continued to be victims of the conflict. In the 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [materials] however, noted [JURIST report] progress in Somalia for human rights. In 2009, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] said [JURIST report] that human rights violations committed during Somalian conflicts may amount to war crimes [press release].

Mubarak's trial started [JURIST report] in August 2011 and has been making slow progress. The trial resumed in December in the Egyptian court after a two-month adjournment [JURIST reports] allowing the court time to rule on a motion made by lawyers representing the victims' families to have the three-judge panel in the case removed. The victims' families argued that they were not given enough time to question the Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi [GlobalSecurity profile], head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) [NYT backgrounder], who testified against Mubarak [JURIST report] in a closed session in September 2011, but left early and refused to be cross-examined by counsel of the victims. In December 2011 the court also rejected the prosecution's motion [JURIST report] for a new judge and fined the prosecution for making the request. The motion was based on the allegation that Refaat was showing bias in favor of Mubarak [AFP report].

Also Tuesday the court agreed to hear Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to determine whether a floating structure that is indefinitely moored, receives power and other utilities from shore and is not intended to be used in maritime transportation or commerce constitutes a "vessel" under 1 USC § 3 [text], thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction [DOJ backgrounder]. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it was a vessel.

The court also allocated time for oral arguments in the health care appeal [JURIST report] as follows:

On the Anti-Injunction Act issue (No. 11-398), the Court-appointed amicus curiae is allotted 40 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 30 minutes, and the respondents are allotted 20 minutes.

On the Minimum Coverage Provision issue (No. 11-398), the Solicitor General is allotted 60 minutes, respondents Florida, et al. are allotted 30 minutes, and respondents National Federation of Independent Business, et al. are allotted 30 minutes.

On the Severability issue (Nos. 11-393 and 11-400), the petitioners are allotted 30 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 30 minutes, and the Court-appointed amicus curiae is allotted 30 minutes.

On the Medicaid issue (No. 11-400), the petitioners are allotted 30 minutes, and the Solicitor General is allotted 30 minutes.

[A] system of fundamental principles that enshrines independence, sovereignty and the rule of the people based on election, political and party pluralism and the protection of national unity, cultural diversity, public freedoms, human rights, social justice, equality, equal opportunities, citizenship and the rule of law, where the society and the citizen are the objective and purpose for which every national effort is dedicated.

The growing unrest in Syria has drawn abundant international attention. The UN General Assembly [official website] voted last week to condemn Syria through a non-binding resolution [JURIST report]. The resolution supported a plan [text, PDF, in Arabic] advanced by the Arab League [official website] that aims to bring the situation in the country to a close as quickly as possible by encouraging al-Assad to step down. The same day, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile] called on Syria to end to violence against civilians and possible crimes against humanity [JURIST report]. Ban said that estimates show over 5,000 people have been killed since violence started 11 months ago. Earlier last week, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] called for the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Syria [JURIST report] to the International Criminal Court.

Protests and demonstrations in Bahrain [BBC backgrounder] have been ongoing since February 2011 [JURIST report]. In response to the BICI report, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa [official profile] swore that reforms would be made. Al Khalifa promised to amend the nation's constitution [text] earlier this month, to allow the National Assembly [official profile] more oversight of ministers and cabinet members. Earlier this month, a Bahraini court on overturned the death sentences for two protesters convicted of killing two police officers during the demonstrations that took place in the country last year. The original conviction was rendered by a special security court set up as part of the emergency law in place while the country's Sunni rulers attempted to silence a Shiite-led to effort bolster civil and political rights in the country. In December, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said that the Bahrain government should release prisoners detained during peaceful protests [JURIST reports] and focus on rebuilding national trust in the government. Pillay's statement followed a visit by a team of human rights officials to Bahrain at the invitation of the Bahrain government.

Damages were initially awarded last February by the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios, which found that Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, polluted large areas of the country's rain forest and the Amazon river. Chevron has argued that the damages award violates Ecuador's constitution because the court failed to correct or punish alleged fraud and corruption committed by plaintiffs' lawyers. Also, Chevron contended that because it inherited the case from its takeover of Texaco, an oil company who was released from such liability by Ecuador in the 1990s, it too should be released from liability. The judgment was upheld in January [JURIST report] by a three-judge panel of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios. Though the fine was initially set at $8.6 billion [JURIST report], it was more than doubled for Chevron's refusal to pay "moral reparations" to the Ecuadorian government, as required by the original ruling. The Amazon Defense Coalition [advocacy website], the Ecuadorian plaintiffs, have said that the first judgment was a reaffirmation of how Chevron's greed and criminal misconduct in polluting the region has led to death and disease.