The Librarian

No es posible por un Juez federal mantenerse neutral cuando ellos mismos interpretan las leyes y los ponen en vigor. "Neutral"??? Imposible por un Juez.... y muy difícil por un abogado.

???

B. Dwight Goains was a federal magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. He was appointed to this position on November 10, 2007, and he retired from the court on November 9, 2015. --------------------------------- Federal magistrate to retire March 19th, 2015 under Top Stories In conversation with the Honorable B. Dwight Goains By SASHA von OLDERSHAUSEN On November 9, the Honorable B. Dwight Goains will retire from an eight-year term serving as the U.S. Magistrate Judge in Alpine, Texas. At 66 years old, Goains has nearly 30 years of experience working within the U.S. legal system – first as a criminal defense attorney, then as a federal prosecutor, and finally in his current position as Magistrate Judge. The Big Bend Sentinel/The International sat down with the judge to discuss his career, his thoughts on the U.S. court system and his plans for retirement. See the interview below. The Honorable B. Dwight Goains How did you end up in this position? Well, when I started out, I was a criminal defense attorney in Waco for 13 years and did a lot of big cases—capital murders. I might have tried more capital murders than anybody in Texas. If you go back to the Waco Tribune, they had an article that said I represented the baddest of the bad. Why were you interested in criminal defense? When I went to law school, as soon as I took the criminal law class, I said, “I’m going to be a trial lawyer.” I just liked it. It’s like being a doctor and not seeing blood. If I was going to be a doctor, I was going to be a surgeon. I always wanted to be a trial lawyer and that’s what I did. After that I decided, I’m going to need some retirement and you never get it as a criminal defense attorney. So I went to the U.S. attorney’s office where I was a federal prosecutor. I started in 2001 and I was there for almost seven years before I got appointed to the bench. What sort of cases did you work on? I tried a ton of them, from aggravated sexual assault to murders and rapes. I like to say, I did so many capital murder cases that I really became an expert in CSI. It was fun but at the same time, you get burnt out. Are you a supporter of capital punishment? I think you need to go by whatever the law of the land is. If the state of Texas says you can get the death penalty, and you qualify, then you get the death penalty. That’s the law. Do you consider Alpine your home? No. Home is Waco. I was born in Clifton, which is close to Waco and I grew up in Robinson, which is five miles from Waco. I like [Alpine] but I’ve got nine grandkids in Central Texas and it’s just too far. We get to go back on the weekends. But seeing them is not the important part; it’s missing all the little things, like when they’re in school and they have a little play. We’re going back to Central Texas after I retire. What are your plans for retirement? My wife and I are both Jehovah’s Witnesses so we put a lot into our Kingdom Halls and have always promised Jehovah God that the day I’m eligible to retire, I’m going to retire. We’re both going to be full-time pioneers. We’ll be knocking on doors, starting bible studies, teaching people what the bible really teaches. Has your line of work ever been at odds with your religious beliefs? They don’t because one of the big things about the bible is that is says you pay Cesar’s things back to Caesar and God’s things back to God. Jehovah’s Witnesses obey the law, they pay their taxes, they respect the government, and they follow the laws of the government. If it’s against the law to run a red light, you don’t run a red light. Have you ever had felt any moral conflicts throughout your career, or as a defense attorney? No. When I was a criminal defense attorney, I never lied for a client, ever. I might argue that the state prosecutor or the federal prosecutor didn’t prove their case, but that’s a different situation. You’re not saying your client didn’t do it. I’m saying you didn’t prove it. How would you define your term as the magistrate judge? I think the biggest goal I’ve had is to be fair and to base things on the evidence. And I think I’ve been pretty good at that. Since I was a criminal defense attorney, and I was a federal prosecutor, I know where both sides are coming from. In fact, I can usually guess their defense and I know where the prosecutors are coming from. I also know what their weaknesses are. What are the most common cases you deal with here? Over here, all we really do are drugs and immigration. It’s just the same stuff over and over. Every morning, I get to work, I meet the agents – Border Patrol, DEA, DEA task force, Homeland Security, postal inspectors – who bring in their complaints. I ask them if it’s true and correct. Then we sign the charge. We do their initial appearance and tell them what they’re charged with. Does it ever get tedious? It can be. My counterpart Judge Counts over in Midland, sometimes I cover for him and he covers for me so we can get a day off every once in a while. I always liked going to Midland because they have different cases. Like, they’ll have someone stealing copper out of an oil field, or every once in a while someone might actually rob a bank or something. From a legal perspective, how do you see drugs and immigration affecting this area? That’s hard to say because that’s not my call. We just take in cases. We’re not the Congress that sets the laws and we’re not the Border Patrol or Homeland Security. They have all their rules. We just take one complaint at a time and I process it. Between immigration and drug cases, is it a pretty even split? I used to say it was 70 or 80 percent drugs but it may be closer to 50/50 now. Now, you have more people trying to come into the United States. So you’re saying it’s not that the drug cases haven’t lessened; it’s just that there are more people come into the U.S.? I think there’s just more people coming into the U.S., for whatever reason. Looking over your career, do you feel confident in the United States’ justice system? It’s not perfect but it’s the best in the world. Nothing is perfect. Sometimes I witness a case and wonder, should the defendant really be found guilty because the prosecutor has a better style of argument? How do you think it could be improved upon? You’re not going to ever be perfect when humans are involved. If you get one person on the jury who says, “They’re guilty – I don’t care what you say,” and you get another one who says, “They’re not guilty, no matter what you say,” then how do you square that?  Have there ever been moments in your career where you wished it were different? I don’t bicker with the laws. Our U.S. senators and congressmen make those laws. My district judge told me once that we’re a lot like Walmart greeters. We just greet everybody to the judicial system. But the big decisions, like whether there should be abortion or not—we don’t deal with that kind of stuff. That’s what the defense circuit and U.S. supreme court does. We don’t. We’re in the trenches. We’re not into the ideology and whether you should carry firearms or not carry firearms. Some of these states have passed laws where you can smoke marijuana in state. When the U.S. government says that you can smoke marijuana, prosecutors won’t be prosecuting them. So you don’t have any opinion of your own on the issue of marijuana? No. It is black and white. If they say it’s law, it’s law. What are your hopes for the judge who will replace you? I wish the next judge the best. I hope he has the same attitude. It’s going to have to be someone that’s humble. Have you ever met a haughty judge or prosecutor? I don’t think haughty people make good decisions. You’re not over here snapping a whip. It doesn’t work that way. My job is to hold court and to organize. It’s just like the president of the United States. He’s only as good as the people who surround him. You get the best people around you and everything else works out. It’s a real team effort. These staff people –the probation officers and pre trial officers – don’t get enough credit but they make you look good. And I honor them for what they do. When the Fort Davis government class comes in (we always give them a tour), I always ask them, “Who is the most powerful person in this court room?” Of course, they all say the judge, but that’s not true. The most powerful person in the courtroom is the prosecutor. He’s the one that can decide firstly whether he’s going to prosecute you. And if he decides to prosecute you; he’s the one that gets the complaint file. He’s the one who takes it to the federal grand jury; he’s the one that decides what you’re going to be indicted for and once that happens, I can’t dismiss that charge unless the government files a motion to dismiss. But then I also ask the government students, “Who is the most important person in here?” And they always want to come back and say, the judge. It’s not the judge. The most important person in there is the defendant. He’s the one that I’m there to protect his constitutional rights. Is there anything you’ll miss? I just appreciate my staff and all the people that work here. They’re the ones that do all the hard work and make it go easy. I consider them the bosses. They’re the ones that call the shots. They’re the ones that know what’s going on. I appreciate it and I wish them the best. http://bigbendnow.com/2015/03/federal-magistrate-to-retire/

A Great Jehovah's Witnesses Trial and Appellate Lawyer (1919-2008) By Essam Farag Talks by Glen HowMemorial Service for W Glen How given by ...Blood Transfusion - A Legal Religious and Medical IssueIn 1997, the American College of Trial Lawyers, granted Glen How its award for Courageous Advocacy, the first time a Canadian lawyer has received this distinction. The college said that he has through the course of his long career, demonstrated courage and commitment as a trial and appellate lawyer, and a human being.In 1998, he was awarded the Medal of the Law Society of Upper Canada. He also received a certificate of appreciation and recognition from the Bar of Montreal in the following year for being a member for 50 years. In 2000, he was named an Officer of the Order of Canada, for consistently and courageously fighting legal battles to advance civil liberties and helping pave the way for the Canadian Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Calling him, a "man of conscience," for working at minimal compensation to defend clients in every province of Canada, many U.S. states, Japan, and Singapore.How spent his entire professional career protecting and promoting the interests of Jehovah's Witnesses. He was not always successful, especially in defending the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions for their children during medical emergencies. But he did help to extend an adult's right to make personal decisions about his/her own health treatment.Jehovah's Witnesses believe that we live in a satanic world and live in anticipation for the end of this world, and the creation of a new one, in which we will be saved. Although they recognize that they must pay taxes, they have a disdain for state institutions, abhor patriotic demonstrations, abstain from military service, claim conscientious objector status in war time, and decline to salute the flag or sing the national anthem.Lawyer William Caplan, author of "State and Salvation: The Jehovah's Witnesses and Their Fight for Civil Rights", said that, "If Glen How got no in one court, he would just move the matter to another court. And if he got no there, he would move it further." And so he did all the way to the Supreme Court in 1950s, as counsellor in cases that established fundamental freedoms of religion, expression, and assembly more than two decades before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was promulgated. He was known as a hard worker and resilient lawyer.It was his ability to navigate between religious and legal worlds that made him such a powerhouse lawyer for Jehovah's Witnesses in winning freedoms for them, yet he helped establish implied rights for everyone. He influenced future politicians such as Pierre Trudeau, who went on to introduce the Charter legislation as prime minister in 1982.Glen How was born in Montreal just after the Great War, in March 1919, and he died at the age of 89 in December 2008 in Ontario of pneumonia as a result of complications from prostatic cancer. After graduating from the University of Toronto with a Bachelor's degree in 1940, he proceeded to Osgoode Hall Law School, and was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1943, subsequently qualifying in the Bars of Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Glen How was supposed to attend the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead in Patterson, New York, for training as a Jehovah's Witnesses minister in 1945. In the 1940s, How, Q.C. gained enormous litigation experience, primarily in Ontario and Quebec. His clientele, at one time, included about 22 per cent—some 1,600—of all Jehovah's Witnesses then living in Canada); who had been charged—mainly in Quebec—under the Criminal Code or provincial or municipal legislation, for practising their religious faith. Nonetheless, he then managed to author two influential articles for the prestigious Canadian Bar Review. The first, in 1947 (25 Can. Bar Rev. 573), recommended reforms of Supreme Court of Canada; incorporated by Parliament in 1949 legislation which facilitated How Q.C.’s Supreme Court litigation. The second, in 1948 (26 Can. Bar Rev. 759), materially contributed, 12 years later, to enactment of The Canadian Bill of Rights. In 1949, How Q.C. received the first of a series of Supreme Court of Canada judgments, in R. v. Boucher, one of a quintette of appeals—the others being Saumur, Chaput, Roncarelli, and Lamb—he brought (or assisted to bring) to the Court.In 1954, he married Margaret, a British Jehovah's Witness, who died in 1987 of cancer. The two had no children. In 1989, he was remarried to Linda Manning, a young American lawyer and Jehovah's Witness as well. He began working as general counsel for the still-illegal Witnesses. He defended the rights of the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse to sing the national anthem in school ceremonies. Some in Quebec considered the Witnesses a serious threat to the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church, because of their strident condemnation of the gospels, and the manner of their proselytizing - knocking the doors, preaching in people's homes, and assembling in large gatherings.During 65 years of lawyering - including a private Toronto law practise (1954-1984) - How served as counsel for Jehovah's Witnesses - always pro bono - in every Canadian province and in New York (Federal Court of Appeals [2nd Circuit]), New Jersey and Illinois (Supreme Court), Texas, Washington, and Nebraska, and as counsel or consultant counsel in Italy, Trinidad, Japan and Singapore. However, How will be remembered for a trio of cases involving civil liberties in the Duplessis era in Quebec: The Boucher, Saumur and Roncarelli cases went to the Supreme Court in the 1950s. (I)The Boucher case [Boucher v. the King, [1951] S.C.R. 265], which used truth as a defence, eliminated an archaic Quebec law defining sedition as criticism of the government and led to the dismissal of nearly 125 sedition charges. (II) The Saumur case [Saumur v. City Of Quebec [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299], which relied on a defence of freedom of expression and religion, established that issuing licences to restrict a person’s rights to practise his or her faith was beyond municipal or provincial authority and led to the dismissal of more than 1,000 bylaw charges. (III) And the Roncarelli case [Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121] established that publicly elected officials cannot arbitrarily invoke the law against individuals, as Mr. Duplessis had done. Incontestable is How Q.C.’s impact on recognition, development and growth of Canada's civil liberties. During Maurice Duplessis’s premiership of Quebec (1936-39 and 1944-59) opined former British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Thomas R. Berger, in Fragile Freedoms [:] Human Rights and Dissent in Canada, "Church and State joined in persecuting Jehovah's Witnesses, who carried their struggle for freedom of speech and freedom of religion to the Supreme Court of Canada again and again. …. The fervour of this small Protestant sect had more than a little to do with establishing the intellectual foundations for the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and Freedoms]." Principal public face of their legal struggle—in confirming, protecting and asserting civil liberties for themselves and, by extension, all Canadians—was W. Glen How. Related Items:History's Courtroom - with Glen How

??

Memorial Service for W Glen How given by Governing Body member David Splane in 2008Â Anyone have the audio? Â ---------------------------------------------- He's renowned for having successfully argued JW related cases that went before the Supreme Court of Canada starting back in the 40s/50s/60s. If you've heard anything about the Roncarelli case, that was his case. His legal wranglings were the foundation for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly with respect to freedom of worship and freedom of conscience. He received an Order of Canada award in 2001. ------------------------------------------ He was the top-dog for the Canadian Branch Office's Legal Department. His firm, W. Glen How & Associates, is the in-house counsel for WTS Canada. ----------------------------------------- Transcript of one of his famous speeches: http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/Archives/committees351/jula/evidence/174_95-10-17/jula-174-cover-e.html

Buenas noticias!! Gracias por avisarnos.

Students and teachers alike were impressed with the Bibles, Bible-based publications, and videos on display at the Gaudeamus bookfair in Romania. Source

Through the years, a father watches as his daughter grows up and makes the truth her own. Source

Quelles étapes doit-on franchir avant de se vouer à Dieu ? Quel effet ce choix a-t-il sur nos futures décisions ? la source

Étudiants et enseignants ont été impressionnés par les bibles, les publications bibliques et les vidéos exposées au Salon du livre Gaudeamus en Roumanie. la source

"Since 1919" ... brings to mind the "Birth of a Nation"...... Insinuating then that we have not changed the resurrection to heavenly life from (April) 1918. (I haven't seen a specific date in April 1918 ever mentioned anywhere yet)

NF - South Africa

These are the worldwide percentages of Jehovah´s Witnesses and where they live. A whopping 50% live in the Americas, and a whopping 35% live in the US, or Mexico, or Brazil. (The percentages shown on the right pie graph are of the worldwide total, so if it says 15% for the US it means that 15% of all JW´s worldwide live in the US, not 15% of the ones that live in the Americas). For example the data below is from the 2017 Year Book, pages 47 to 76 - "Preaching and Teaching Earth Wide" Learn more about Jehovah's Witnesses

Then I see this headline: I bet you can guess what I was thinking....

@Julie Bayley I just realized in that photo ..... that was her literature cart.....Â

One of them was a 23 year old sister at her witnessing cart, she was stabbed in the throat and died very soon thereafter :  Read more: Â

UPDATE!: One of the two victims was a Jehovah's Witness passing out leaflets, the newspaper Ila-Sanomat reported. Security was being stepped up across the Nordic country, Interior Minister Paula Risikko said at a press conference, where investigators did not say whether the attack was being looked at as terrorism. Video taken at the scene appears to show someone yelling "Allahu Akbar," but many people believe it is just a bystander imploring people in the Finnish language to get away from the scene. Â

I'm assuming they didn't live where they were easily found in the desert? Or maybe they didn't have the tools to exhume the fossils correctly?

How do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain the dinosaurs? SM - Dallas, TX

Can you post this in gallery section instead?