Sample Form Camp Hospital Agreement For: Fill & Download for Free

The longest running civil court case has been led by James Martin (USA) since 14 December 1972, when the issue in the Martin v. Sample case was filed; it was then appealed to the US Supreme Court, Washington, DC, USA in October 1981, and docketed as case number 81-6884, on 14 June 1982. Following a summons by the Selective Service System (Pennsylvania, USA), Mr Martin attended a three-day pre-induction physical exam to assess his fitness for military service in the Vietnam War; he was subsequently classified as disabled. The original filed case (which remains active today), regards the subsequent academic and professional discrimination and interference experienced by Mr Martin following this detainment (11-13 December 1972) for medical testing - an issue that Mr Martin, the Office for Civil Rights and the US Department of Education, argues violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which forbids discrimination on the basis of alleged or of actual medical history. The original case, (Martin v Sample, 459 US 850, 74 L ed 2s 98, 103 S Ct 111) -where Mr Sample was the president of the college that Mr Martin was enrolled in at the time - remains active as of 11 December 2006 (when this record was approved).The above date (14 December 1972) is the date of the decision from the Selective Service, following their issuance of the summons to me, directing Mr Martin to appear at the pre-induction examination. (The case was filed with the issuance of the summons, which occurred before 14 December 1972).Landmarks in law: McLibel and the longest trial in British legal historyHelen Steel and David Morris took on the US fast food giant in a lengthy David v Goliath battle in courtHelen Steel and David Morris, after winning their case in the European Court of Human Rights. Photograph: Martin Argles/The GuardianPublic concern over the ethical practices of large corporates is growing: protestors have recently found themselves at the sharp end of the law, with Extinction Rebellion protestors arrested and other campaigners slapped with injunctions. But in the 1990s, the actions of a small group of environmentalists gave rise to what became the longest-running trial in British legal history.McDonald’s Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997], dubbed “McLibel”, followed a libel action brought by US fast food giant McDonald’s against Helen Steel, David Morris and three others over a leaflet they had distributed criticising the company’s practices. The three others apologised and were not sued, but Steel and Morris fought the case in a David v Goliath battle.In a 762-page judgment, Mr Justice Bell, who sat without a jury, rejected the claims in the leaflet that McDonald’s was to blame for starvation in developing countries or had used lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of rainforest. But he found that the company had “pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food did not match”, exploited children in its advertising, and helped to “depress wages in the catering trade”.Landmarks in law: Sally Bercow and the first major 'Twibel' caseThe judge ruled that the pair had libelled the corporation and ordered them to pay £60,000 damages, reduced on appeal to £40,000. They refused to pay, and McDonald’s has not pursued them for the money.The case was branded a PR disaster for McDonald’s, and became the subject of a documentary by Franny Armstrong and Ken Loach.Steele was a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week, and Morris was an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son, then aged four. At the time, McDonald’s had worldwide sales of about $30bn.Despite the huge economic disparity, Steel and Morris were denied legal aid and forced to fight the case by themselves with occasional unpaid help from lawyers. A fighting fund of around £40,000 from public donations paid for witness airfares, court costs and other expenses.In contrast, McDonald’s was represented by a huge team of leading lawyers and racked up legal bills estimated at £10m.The trial ran for two-and-a-half years. The transcripts ran to approximately 20,000 pages and there were about 40,000 pages of documentary evidence, while some 130 witnesses gave oral evidence – 59 for the defendants, 71 for McDonald’s.The pair sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords, which was then the country’s highest court. In September 2004, meanwhile, they launched an action against the UK government at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, claiming that the lack of legal aid breached their rights to a fair trial as guaranteed under article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.In Steel & Morris v United Kingdom, the court ruled unanimously that the pair had been denied a fair trial and awarded a judgement of £57,000 against the UK government.Steel remembers that at the start of the initial case they were given some basic legal advice. “That advice was ‘don’t do it – you’re on a hiding to nothing’, because even if we had plenty of resources, it was up to us to prove the truth of everything that was said in the leaflet,” she says.That was a huge task for Steel, who did not write any of the pamphlet and was not even in the group when it was written. “When all you are doing is handing out leaflets it’s a tall order to then have to become experts,” she says. “The case dominated our lives from 1993 until the verdict in 1996. It was a full-time job around the clock. When we got home from court we had to prepare for the next day.Landmarks in law: the case that shone a spotlight on domestic violence“It was exhausting, but there was an important principle at stake: wealthy companies should not be able to silence people and control what they say about their practices, which are then not subject to scrutiny.”Before their case, she says, McDonald’s had threatened to sue other organisations for libel, which had then all backed down and apologised. “The company created a climate of fear of a libel writ so its business practices went unchallenged, which is not healthy in a democratic society,” she says.But she adds: “If I’d have known then what was involved, I’m not sure that I’d have gone ahead.”Mark Stephens, now a partner at law firm Howard Kennedy, was one of the band of lawyers who helped the pair without charge throughout the case. He says the lack of legal aid resulted in a gross inequality of arms and was also a total false economy. A case that should have lasted three weeks went on for months, preventing other cases from being heard.The case, he says, was “an abject lesson in how not to do it” from the point of view of McDonald’s. “Bringing the case in the early days of the internet meant that many more people came to know what was in the leaflets. The whole thing was madness.”The case became the longest trial in English legal history, but according to Stephens it would not even be heard today. Instead, it would be struck for not meeting the “serious harm” threshold introduced in the Defamation Act 2013.The company would have to show that the statements complained about had caused or were likely to cause serious harm in the form of serious financial loss. And as Stephens says: “In the modern era, handing out around 60 leaflets outside one store wouldn’t serious cause harm.”Since you're here ...... we have a small favour to ask. Millions have turned to the Guardian for vital, independent, quality journalism throughout a turbulent, challenging and historic 2020. Readers in 180 countries around the world, including India, now support us financially. Will you join them?We believe everyone deserves access to information that’s grounded in science and truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity. That’s why we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This means more people can be better informed, united, and inspired to take meaningful action.In these perilous times, a truth-seeking global news organisation like the Guardian is essential. We have no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is free from commercial and political influence – this makes us different. When it’s never been more important, our independence allows us to fearlessly investigate, challenge and expose those in power.Amid the various intersecting crises of 2020 – from Covid-19 to police brutality – the Guardian has not, and will never, sideline the climate emergency. We are determined to uphold our reputation for producing urgent, powerful, high-impact reporting on the environment that’s read by millions around the world.We’ve made institutional progress too, working hard to live up to the climate promises we made in 2019. We no longer take advertising from fossil fuel companies, and we’re on course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Your funding powers our journalism, it protects our independence, and ensures we can remain open for all. You can support us through these challenging economic times and enable real-world impact.The Longest Trial in History: Court Refuses to Impose CounselBy Coalition for International Justice (CIJ)In a written decision dated April 4, 2003, the Trial Chamber in the Milosevic case held, '[I]n the present circumstances, the accused has the right to defend himself in person.' It then denied the prosecution's motion to impose counsel on Milosevic.With this ruling, the Court assured the trial will continue in the manner it has proceeded for the last 14 months. That includes an abbreviated schedule (half days and four-day weekends every two weeks) to reduce stress on the accused; unanticipated, extended adjournments for Milosevic's illnesses; often irrelevant and tendentious cross examination, necessarily requiring additional cross examination by the amici; cross examination of witnesses for the maximum time allowed by the Court, including cross examination of nearly all 92 bis witnesses (whose direct evidence is submitted in writing); lack of agreement on even the most noncontroversial facts, requiring the prosecution to prove everything. In other words, the longest trial in history.In making its ruling, the Trial Court found that the plain meaning of the ICTY statute gives the accused the right to defend himself. Article 21 (4) provides in pertinent part, 'The accused shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees . . . . (d) to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing. . . .'The Court recognized that civil law (inquisitorial) systems often require that criminal accused facing serious charges be represented by counsel, whether or not the accused agrees. The court, however, adopted the rule prevalent in common law (adversarial) systems, stating that the ICTY is 'essentially adversarial.' In doing so, the Court quoted extensively from a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that imposition of counsel without an accused's consent violates the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Faretta v. California, 422 US 806 (1975)). Even without a Sixth Amendment governing ICTY procedure, the Trial Court found Faretta's reasoning persuasive.In Faretta, Justice Stewart wrote for a divided Supreme Court: 'We confront here a nearly universal conviction, on the part of our people as well as our courts, that forcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so.' The Supreme Court found that '[t]he language and spirit of the Sixth Amendment contemplate that counsel, like the other defence tools guaranteed by the Amendment, shall be an aid to a willing defendant -- not an organ of the State interposed between an unwilling defendant and his right to defend himself personally. To thrust counsel upon the accused, against his considered wish, thus violates the logic of the Amendment. In such a case, counsel is not an assistant, but a master . . . .' 'To force a lawyer on a defendant can only lead him to believe that the law contrives against him.'In adopting this reasoning, the Trial Chamber did not analyze whether and to what extent the U.S. Constitutional guarantee anticipates and is based on an accused's right to trial by jury, and whether this undermines the reasoning when applied to non-jury proceedings, such as trials before the ICTY. Nor did the Trial Chamber address the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court based its holding on 'the inestimable worth of free choice' recognized in the U.S. Constitution and by the Court as higher than the defendant's right to a fair trial (which, arguably in most cases, requires the assistance of professional counsel). Given the extremity of the U.S. valuation of independence and free choice, the Trial Chamber might have considered whether that should be adopted by a system of international justice, particularly one concerned with criminal conduct under a formerly socialist and civil legal system.The Trial Chamber went on to mention a 'further, practical reason for the right to self-representation in common law.' In the adversarial system, the prosecution and defense present the case to the judge as opponents. This clash of opposites is supposed to reveal the truth to the decision-maker (most often a jury, though the Trial Chamber solely concerned itself with professional judges). In the inquisitorial system, the judge serves more of an investigative function, questioning the parties and witnesses in an attempt to find the truth.According to the Milosevic Trial Chamber, '[I]n an adversarial system, the imposition of defence counsel on an unwilling accused would effectively deprive that accused of the possibility of putting forward a defense.' The Court does not explain how this occurs, but goes on to discuss an accused's 'obligation of 'putting a case,' i.e. putting forward the defence version of events if it differs from that put forward by a witness . . . .' The Court said that 'obligation' could not be fulfilled where the accused doesn't tell counsel what defence to put forward.The Court's characterization of an adversarial system where the accused tells his counsel what defense to put forward does not reflect all adversarial systems. In the U.S., e.g., decisions involving strategy, including what witnesses to call, are generally considereed matters for counsel. S/he need not consult with their client and may make decisions the client disagrees with. Decisions which are solely the province of the accused including whether or not to plead guilty, to waive a jury trial and to testify on his own behalf. Moreover, in the U.S. the accused has no 'obligation' to defend himself. The obligation of putting forward a case is solely that of the prosecution.A reading of ICTY rules indicates an accused before the Tribunal has a similar right not to bring a defense, as well as to bring a bad one. Rules 84-86, describing the conduct of the trial including the accused's role, are permissive. For example, 'Each party is entitled to call witnesses and present evidence.' 'Each party may make an opening statement.' 'The accused shall not be compelled to make a solemn declaration. . . .' '[T]he defense may make a closing argument.' [emphases added]The Trial Chamber also rested its decision on guarantees provided to criminal defendants by certain international and regional conventions. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by 146 nations, provides that a criminal defendant has the right 'to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; . . .' The new International Criminal Court statute uses similar language: the accused has the right 'to be present at the trial, to conduct the defence in person or through legal assistance of the accused's choosing, [. . .],' subject, however, to limitations if the accused is disruptive in the courtroom.The Trial Chamber noted that the European Commission on Human Rights (ECHR) has held that the right to defend oneself is not absolute. 'The ECHR said that 'it is for the courts to decide whether the interests of justice require that the accused be defended by counsel appointed by them. When appointing defence counsel the national courts must certainly have regard to the defendant's wishes [. . .]. However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice.''The Milosevic Court nevertheless found the case in which the ECHR so held to be different on the facts (distinguishable) from the Milosevic case and, therefore, not controlling.* Instead, the Trial Chamber turned to a decision of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) of the United Nations, interpreting the ICCPR. Despite the brevity of its reasoning, the Trial Chamber found it 'highly relevant to the correct interpretation of Article 21 (4) (a) of the [ICTY] Statute, especially since this provision is identical to Article 14 (3) (d) of the ICCPR.' The Milosevic Court found that the HRC decision 'confirms the right to self-defence and rejects the imposition of defence counsel on an unwilling accused.'Again, the Court buttressed its finding on practical considerations. If counsel were imposed on Milosevic, the Court speculated, the accused could refuse to instruct the counsel as to the defence to adopt, thereby rendering counsel impotent, in the court's view. In the alternative, Judge May wrote for the Court, the Trial Chamber could allow Milosevic to 'make submissions and question witnesses, in which case, the defence counsel could do no more than the Amici Curiae.' As noted above, however, the degree to which counsel can decide what defense to adopt over the accused's objections or without his input has not been established by the Tribunal.Noting that Milosevic is competent to defend himself and that he had rejected the Court's advice that it was in his best interest to be assisted by counsel, the Court concluded he was 'entitled to defend himself in person.' Perhaps considering the practicalities once more, i.e. how Milosevic might react to its ruling, the Court added that the right to defend oneself is not absolute. It pointed to ICTY Rule 80 (B) which provides that a persistently disruptive accused can be removed from the courtroom, following a warning, and the proceedings can be continued without him. The Trial Chamber stressed, 'Clearly, an accused whose behaviour has resulted in his removal from the courtroom pursuant to Rule 80 (B) of the Rules, has also relinquished his right to defend himself in person.'While distinguishing the case on its facts, the Chamber also referred to a decision (Barayagwiza) in its sister institution, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), where a Trial Chamber held there may be circumstances 'where it is in the interests of justice to appoint counsel [against the accused's will].' Having left itself this 'out,' the Chamber declared, 'No such circumstances have, as yet, arisen in this trial.' The opinion continues, 'However, as the Trial Chamber has said, it will keep the position under review.'The Chamber did not discuss other limitations on the right of self-representation, including those regularly imposed at the ICTY. Perhaps the idea that rights are conditioned by wealth has become so second-nature that the lack of choice for those who cannot afford counsel remains invisible. It is true in common law jurisdictions, such as the United States, as well. While extending the right of counsel to the poor and recognizing the state has to pay for it if it is to be meaningful, the United States Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress nevertheless concluded that if the state is paying, the state gets to choose. The ICTY adheres to that distinction, despite its guarantee that accused shall be entitled to specified rights 'in full equality.' Article 21 (4).The Milosevic Trial Chamber's decision to deny the prosecution's request that it impose counsel on the accused is not entirely clear. It appears to follow the U.S. rule, despite the fact that rule is derived from the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, in seeking to preserve its options with an obstreperous accused, the Chamber holds out the possibility that the interests of justice might trump the rights of the accused under the right circumstances (which have yet to occur). Given that another accused awaiting trial insists on his right to defend himself (Vojislav Seselj), and that the prosecution in that case has applied to another Trial Chamber for counsel to be imposed on the accused, the issue is likely to end up before the Appeals Chamber at some point. In the meantime, the Milosevic case will proceed as it has for the last 14 months -- with the likelihood of having the distinction of being the longest trial in history.*Decisions of other international bodies are not controlling as such, but act as a guide for the ICTY in deciding questions of law.'Longest trial in history': Palestinian NGO worker's case resumes for 129th timeOver the past four years, Muhammed al-Halabi's family says Israeli authorities interrogated and tortured the father of five accused of funnelling money to HamasHalabi (C), was returning from a meeting in Jerusalem in June 2016 when he was arrested at the Erez border checkpoint (AFP)The former director of a charity in the Gaza Strip, accused of funnelling donations to Hamas and its military wing, attended his 129th hearing in Be’er Sheva District Court on Wednesday.Muhammed al-Halabi, 41, was working for the US-based organisation World Vision in Gaza when he was detained by Israeli intelligence and security in June 2016 at the Erez border checkpoint on his way home after a routine meeting in Jerusalem.'All the eyewitnesses and even the officials at World Vision gave proof that he was innocent. But this is not what the prosecution is looking for'- Hamed, Muhammed al-Halibi's brotherAccording to Halabi’s father, Khalil, Muhammed was picked up in a joint operation carried out by the Shin Bet security service, the Israeli army and Israeli police.Over the past four years, he has experienced interrogations and court hearings and according to the Palestinian Authority’s agency for detainees, has been subjected to the “longest trial in the history" of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli prisons.On Wednesday, his long-running case resumed again but ended quickly, Halabi's family told Middle East Eye.“Today’s hearing was cancelled shortly after it started because the witnesses were not present,” his brother, Hamed, said. “The prosecution then threatened that any witnesses who come from Gaza to give their testimony will be detained.”“They do not want anyone to prove them wrong. All the eyewitnesses and even the officials at World Vision gave proof that he was innocent. But this is not what the prosecution is looking for,” he said.His father said that in one of the court hearings, the judge threatened Halabi, saying that if he would not confess that he collaborated with Hamas, she would sentence him to “long-term imprisonment”.“She threatened him and tried to force him to confirm the accusations in front of everyone,” he said.Since his detention, Halabi, a father of five from the Jabalya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip, has refused to sign confessions that he used his position at World Vision to fund Hamas, according to his family.World Vision is the largest evangelical Christian charity in the world and has provided support to Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with local operations for more than 40 years.Following Halabi’s detention, the US-based charity denied the accusations, arguing that it had “no reason to believe” Israel’s claims that he had diverted funds.Ongoing torture, says familyDuring his detention, Halabi’s family said that he has undergone several interrogations and been subjected to “horrific torture” in which Israeli intelligence officers slapped him, hung him from the ceiling for prolonged periods of time, kicked him in his genitals, stripped him naked, and denied him sleep.“We can never call or contact him. None of us is allowed to see him except his mother who gets to meet him once in several months,” his father told MEE.Palestinian children hold posters of al-Halabi during a protest to support him in Rafah in August 2016 (AFP)“What do you expect his condition would be? He has been criminalised and subjected to humiliation and ill-treatment for years.”According to his father, the interrogation and torture of his son have never stopped since his detention in 2016.“The last time his mother saw him was last August. She said he had lost much of his weight and was in pain due to the torture,” his father said.“After several demands to be transferred to the hospital for having severe pain in the head and ears, Muhammed was moved in a vehicle for three days, only to meet the doctor who tore up his medical report and told him he was lying.”‘Delegitimising’ humanitarian workThe Israeli authorities have strictly tightened restrictions on human rights and aid organisations operating in the occupied Palestinian territories during the past five years, including by applying restrictive measures on financial transactions and deporting workers of international organisations.In a report published in January, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said that attempts to “delegitimise” humanitarian and human rights organisations have been increasing significantly with the apparent support of the Israeli government during the past few years.OCHA added that “targeted defamation and smear campaigns allege violations of counter-terrorism legislation and international law, or political action against Israel”.The Israeli authorities have also been trying to deport US citizen Omar Shakir, Israel-Palestine director at Human Rights Watch (HRW).The Israeli Ministry of Interior revoked Shakir’s work permit in May 2018, accusing him of supporting the Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement before he joined HRW.Will western governments push back against Israel's assault on civil society?Ben WhiteAccording to Shakir, the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which said he shared BDS content on social media, also cited his work at HRW to make their case.The attempt to deport Shakir is one of several cases in which Israeli authorities have deported human rights workers.In August 2016, Pam Bailey, director of We Are Not Numbers and former international secretary of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, was detained and interrogated by the Israeli Border Police at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport on her way to the Gaza Strip before being deported back to the United States.The American human rights activist was then given a 10-year ban, joining a growing number of international NGO workers who are denied permits to visit Israel and the Palestinian territory.A former employee at World Vision, who preferred to remain anonymous, told MEE that the accusations against Halabi were part of attempts to halt the organisation’s work in the Palestinian territory, including the Gaza Strip.“Following the detention of Halabi, an external audit was conducted by one of the Big Four auditors,” she said, referring to the nickname for the world’s largest accounting firms. “The firm’s report concluded that there was no diversion of funds.”“There was a political attack on the organisation given that one of its main offices is in the United States,” she continued. “The Israeli lobby in the US must have played a major role in impeding the work of the organisation.”Halabi’s family concurs. “They know very well that he is innocent, but they cannot release him after four years of interrogation and torture and prove themselves wrong,” his father concluded.