first_img COA: Credit Union Did Not Have Property Right To Flow Of Traffic On US 31Olivia Covington for www.theindianalawyer.comA federal credit union with a branch located in northern Indiana did not have a cognizable property right to the flow of traffic on U.S. 31 past its property and, thus, cannot claim the Indiana Department of Transportation committed inverse condemnation by refiguring that stretch of road, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.In early 2006, AAA Federal Credit Union completed construction on a new branch building on a plot of land in South Bend, which had direct access to U.S. 31. However, after completion of a U.S. 31 improvement project between Plymouth and South Bend, the road became a divided highway, which required a “more or less circuitous” route to access the highway from AAA’s property.In 2014, AAA brought an action for inverse condemnation against the Indiana Department of Transportation. After a two-day bench trial, the St. Joseph Superior Court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment for INDOT, prompting the appeal in AAA Federal Credit Union v. Indiana Department of Transportation, 71A03-1609-PL-2091.The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, with Judge Paul Mathias noting there are two complementary rules for landowners abutting reconfigured highways. First, the right of the landowner to ingress and egress over public roads is a cognizable property right, and second, the landowner has no cognizable property right in the free flow of traffic past his property.“The traffic-flow rule denies recovery to landowners who complain that, as a result of highway improvement or reconfiguration, the landowner’s invitees must take a more circuitous or inconvenient route to the land, while the points of ingress and egress over the land remain unaffected,” Mathias wrote, noting the instant case is controlled by this rule.In support of its argument, AAA claimed the project deprived the property of its best use as a site for the branch, but Mathias said that argument “conflates the measure of damages for a compensable taking with the inquiry into whether such a taking happened at all… .”Further, the credit union argued it was entitled to “free-floating consideration” of its allegedly reduced property value under Biddle v. BAA Indianapolis, L.L.C., 860 N.e.2d 570, 575 (Ind. 2007), Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 544 U.S. 528, 537 (2005) and Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), but the appellate court also rejected that argument, noting findings and decisions in those cases do not support AAA’s position because there was no legal “taking.”“The trial court ruled, ‘The cases are rather clear. There has been no taking under Indiana and federal law,’” Mathias wrote. “’It is understandable that the property owner (is upset because it) has lost the very easy direct access from the very busy old US 31, but under Indiana eminent domain law, this situation does not involve a legal ‘taking.’”FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailSharelast_img read more

first_imgBut the two countries were on their way to having the highest number of coronavirus cases in the world, with nearly 100,000 deaths in the US and 24,000 in Brazil.Showing their disdain for medical experts, both presidents have flouted their advice.Trump refuses to wear a face mask in public and proudly played golf Saturday; Bolsonaro ditches his mask to greet and hug supporters at rallies, and has been hosting barbecues, hitting the shooting range and going out for hotdogs.The man called the “Tropical Trump” has also been criticized for a lack of empathy for victims and his quizzical remarks on the virus, once saying Brazilians’ immune systems were so strong they could swim in raw sewage and “not catch a thing.” Impeachment threat Both are facing backlash, too, not only on coronavirus.Trump survived impeachment in February; Bolsonaro is facing 35 different impeachment attempts in the lower house of Congress, some for his handling of the health crisis.But analysts say the risk he will be removed from office is small, for now.Brazil’s opposition is “almost inaudible,” and its system of checks and balances “less effective,” said Dumont.And Bolsonaro retains a hard-core base of far-right support, even if his disapproval rating has been rising.”Bolsonaro has a freer hand than Trump, who is constrained by institutions and has te be more presidential,” said Stuenkel. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is often compared to his US counterpart, Donald Trump, has followed in his footsteps on the coronavirus crisis — and gone even further.Known for their shared talent for vitriol, social media rants and riling up their conservative bases, Trump and Bolsonaro have followed the same script on the virus: downplay its severity, don’t sweat the facts, bet big on hydroxychloroquine, get the economy reopened.In February, Trump told Americans the virus could “miraculously” disappear with warmer weather; in March, Bolsonaro told Brazilians not to pay attention to the “hysteria” around it and compared it to a “little flu.” Like the US, Brazil is a federation of states, and like Trump, Bolsonaro has berated governors for imposing what he calls “the tyranny of total quarantine.”Bolsonaro even called the governors of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro “piece of shit” and “pile of manure” in a video-taped cabinet meeting that recently became public.”They both followed the same strategy, which is to distance themselves from the economic crisis which will come and to blame other political actors, like governors,” said Oliver Stuenkel, a professor of international relations at the Getulio Vargas Foundation.There is one important difference, though. Trump has softened his tone as the United States has emerged as the epicenter of the pandemic, and on Sunday banned travel from Brazil following the surge in cases there. Bolsonaro, meanwhile, continues to divide Brazilians by politicizing the outbreak.center_img Topics : ‘Poverty and hunger’ Beyond that, the parallels go on.Trump called it a “Chinese virus;” Bolsonaro’s foreign minister called it a “commie-virus.”Trump halted US funding to the World Health Organization; Bolsonaro attacked the WHO’s credibility and accused it of encouraging masturbation and homosexuality among children.”It is Trumpian, this necessity to find enemies, but a typical authoritarian populist tradition to look for scapegoats,” said Stuenkel.”Authoritarian leaders are quick to find those to blame.”Then there is the treatment debate.Both presidents have touted the drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as promising treatments for COVID-19.Trump even revealed last week he was taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure. He said Sunday he had finished his course of treatment.Bolsonaro’s government meanwhile recommended the drugs for anyone with coronavirus symptoms, even after the WHO discontinued clinical trials because of safety risks.While Trump says it’s “time to go back to work,” Bolsonaro says “Brazil can’t stop,” warning that the alternative is “poverty and hunger.”However, while the United States has passed a record $2-trillion economic rescue package, and is preparing to spend even more, Brazil has stuck to relatively modest emergency spending measures so far.”Bolsonaro, like Trump, doesn’t want to be held responsible for an economic crash,” said Juliette Dumont of the Institute of Latin American Studies in Paris.Both presidents were banking on a booming economy to help them win re-election — Trump in November, Bolsonaro in 2022.”There are striking similarities, there is total alignment with the United States that is unprecedented in Brazilian history, but there is one key difference,” said Dumont.”Trump had to change his tune, while Bolsonaro is still charging ahead.”last_img read more

first_imgENGLAND pace bowler Jofra Archer has been fined and given a written warning by England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) for breaching bio-secure protocols.The 25-year-old visited his home in Hove on Monday during his journey from Southampton, where the first Test against West Indies was played, to Manchester, the venue for the second.Archer was dropped from the squad for the ongoing second Test at Emirates Old Trafford, but can rejoin the squad on Tuesday and is available for the third Test, which starts on Friday.Archer’s return to the England team is dependent on his returning two negative tests for coronavirus during a five-day period of isolation which began on Thursday.The disciplinary hearing on Friday evening was chaired by England director of cricket Ashley Giles and attended by Archer’s agent and a representative from the Professional Cricketers’ Association.The size of the fine has not been disclosed.Giles said on Thursday that Archer’s trip home included meeting a person who has since tested negative for coronavirus.Sussex bowler Archer was due to be the only member of the England pace attack from the first-Test defeat who retained his place for the second.Although he is now clear to play in the third, which begins on Friday, England’s plans to rotate their fast bowlers during a schedule of six Tests in seven weeks may mean he misses out.Stuart Broad, Chris Woakes and Sam Curran are playing in the second Test, James Anderson and Mark Wood have been rested, and Ollie Robinson and Olly Stone are pushing for inclusion.After play on Friday, England vice-captain Ben Stokes said the team were mindful of Archer’s well-being during his period of isolation in a hotel room at the ground.“We understand that it can be a very vulnerable and lonely place for him right now,” Stokes told BBC Test Match Special.“Making sure that Jof is as happy as he possibly can be is the main thing for us. We need to do everything we can to make sure we keep him going.” (BBC Sport)last_img read more

first_imgThe Discovery Institute and the National Academy of Sciences have recently published books with butterflies prominently displayed on the cover.  The two books give opposite viewpoints on whether life was designed or a product of evolution.  Maybe a look at a real-world butterfly research project can shed light on the debate.    A paper in PLoS Biology studied the clock mechanism behind the migrating Monarch butterfly.1  A team from the University of Massachusetts Medical School, with an entomologist from the Czech Academy of Sciences, investigated the proteins that compose the butterfly’s circadian clock.  These proteins, called cryptochromes, are part of a feedback mechanism that takes input from the sun and acts as a time-compensated sun compass.  Remarkably, two of the proteins seem to come from different families: CRY1 is invertebrate-like, and CRY2 is vertebrate-like.  They summarized their findings as follows:Collectively, our results provide several lines of evidence suggesting that monarch CRY1 functions in vivo as a circadian photoreceptor, whereas CRY2 functions as a transcriptional repressor for the butterfly clockwork.  This novel clock mechanism has aspects of both the Drosophila and mouse circadian clocks rolled into one, as well as unique aspects of its own.The paper used the word novel quite a few times to describe this mechanism: i.e., “The results define a novel, CRY-centric clock mechanism in the monarch in which CRY1 likely functions as a blue-light photoreceptor for entrainment, whereas CRY2 functions within the clockwork as the transcriptional repressor of a negative transcriptional feedback loop.”    Did evolutionary theory provide any of the motivation behind this paper?  Did it offer explanatory power?  Only one instance of the word could be found:Further molecular evolutionary studies have shown that gene duplication and loss have led to three modes of cry gene expression in insects, giving rise to three types of circadian clocks: two derived clocks, in which only cry1 (e.g., Drosophila) or cry2 (e.g., the honey bee Apis mellifera and red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum) is expressed, and an ancestral clock in which both cry1 and cry2 are expressed (e.g., the monarch butterfly).  The expression of two functionally distinct crys in monarchs suggests that the butterfly clock may use a novel clockwork mechanism that is not yet fully described in any organism.Yet this refers to other papers, not this one.  It merely assumes that another research team got it right when they used circumstantial evidence to associate genes and transcription patterns with presumed gene-duplication events.  The authors did not find an evolutionary pattern themselves; instead, it is clear that what they found was a novel mechanism dissimilar to that in any other organism.  Functionally speaking, bees and beetles have different lifestyles.  They do not migrate thousands of miles to a particular spot in Mexico.    In short, the single reference to evolution seemed tacked-on.  It provided neither motivation nor an explanation of the question: how the monarch butterfly arrived at a novel solution to the problem of managing a time-compensated sun compass that allows it to migrate successfully over long distances.  Furthermore, an evolutionary conundrum was evident in the data: “The role of monarch CRY2 as a transcriptional repressor is similar to the role of the CRYs in the mouse clockwork.”  The authors did not begin to explain why the butterfly protein resembles that of a vertebrate with which it has no obvious evolutionary connection, except through some remote, imaginary common ancestor that neither migrated to Mexico nor explored kitchens at night looking for cheese.  Evolution did not explain how clockwork mechanisms arose in the first place, nor why two species with very different evolutionary trajectories would converge on similar designs.    Did intelligent design provide any input to this research?  The authors did not use that phrase, of course, but engineering language pervaded the paper.  “Clock mechanism” was one of the most common phrases in the paper – a term that raises the ghost of William Paley.  Consider also terms like autoregulatory transcription feedback loop, circadian photoreceptor, and transcriptional repressor.  These all related to engineering functions within a complex system.  Indeed function was another of the most common words in the paper.    As to motivation for this research, a desire to reverse-engineer a complex system seemed to be the driving force – not a desire to figure out how it evolved.  The “spectacular fall migration” of these insects is a present-day observational fact that drove these scientists to investigate, in detail, how it is accomplished.  “The monarch clock may be the prototype of a clock mechanism shared by other invertebrates that express both CRY proteins,” the Author’s Summary states, “and its elucidation will help crack the code of sun compass orientation.”    This paper was summarized on National Geographic News.  Here, too, evolution was only in the shadows.  The focus was on understanding a remarkable system.  The motivation is clear in a quote by Stephen M. Reppert, one of the team members: “A butterfly’s brain is no bigger than the head of a pin, and yet it has this incredible capability.  So we really want to understand that.”1.  Zhu, Sauman et al, “Cryptochromes Define a Novel Circadian Clock Mechanism in Monarch Butterflies That May Underlie Sun Compass Navigation,” Public Library of Science: Biology, Vol. 6, No. 1, e4 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060004.Discoveries like this are usually made by knocking out genes and watching what happens, or making proteins fluoresce green so they can be followed.  Imagine trying to study a car by knocking out parts to see what breaks.  Take out the oxygen sensor, or the PCV valve, or whatever; is this the best way to understand a system?  What is coming is systems biology in which each part is studied in relation to the whole.  Only by seeing the system in its functional entirety can you understand the contribution of the parts.    Even so, there is a gap in understanding still.  How can a protein molecule help a butterfly migrate thousands of miles, some of it over trackless ocean, and arrive at a precise mountain in Mexico it has never seen?  Something is missing even if we were to thoroughly understand how each part works.  If you were to step inside a human brain and see all the neurons firing and chemoreceptors operating, you would still be ignorant of what the person was thinking.  Can the spectacular flight of Monarch butterflies be reduced to the action of proteins and genes?  The question underscores the mind-body problem, a philosophical puzzle unsolveable by reductionist science.    In theory, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.  In practice, biology is the study of complex systems that give the appearance of intelligent design.  It gives you butterflies just thinking about all the wonders in nature that showcase design.  Evolutionary theory provides nothing but fluff after the work is done, fluttering about to satisfy the religion of certain people that everything in the world must have a materialist explanation.  Get real: science is an intelligently designed activity by intelligently designed humans studying intelligently designed phenomena.  What’s evol got to do with it?(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

first_imgSex could be the reason for the soccer teams powerful performances in the World Cup, as per a new survey by website Quartz. Pamela Supple, who’s a sex and relationship counselor from Sex Therapy Australia, explained that being intimate helps men connect and relax by letting loose a lot of “feel-good” hormones and chemicals, reported. But it should be kept to a half-hour or an hour time period, which is apt for a sportsperson body to rejuvenate and feel fresh, followed by 8-9 hours sleep, as overdoing the activity could leave one very tired, she added. It should be noted that while all the eight teams that remain in the battle of 2014 FIFA World Cup, have permitted intimate contact between players and their partners for some extent, the teams namely Russia, Chile, Mexico and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which have been eliminated had clearly banned sex.last_img read more

first_img(Mi’kmaq chiefs gather for Nova Scotia Treaty Day. Photo: Trina Roache/APTN) Trina RoacheAPTN National NewsA legal brief submitted on behalf of the province of Nova Scotia denies treaty rights and labels the Mi’kmaq as conquered peoples.“To suggest that we are ‘conquered’ is a racist taunt,” wrote Millbrook Chief Bob Gloade in a media release. “At its worst, it has been used against Indigenous Canadians to perpetuate or justify a state of inferior legal, social or socio-economic conditions.”The brief is part of a court case centred on consultation with the Sipekne’Katik Band over a natural gas storage project. The band asked for a judicial review of the provincial permits that approved the Alton Gas project.But a court case about whether the Crown meaningfully consulted with one band over a particular project, has brought up what many are calling offensive arguments about treaty rights that extend to all Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia.Alex Cameron, legal counsel for the province’s Department of Justice spent several pages of the submission arguing that the Treaty of 1752 is void, as it was “terminated by subsequent hostilities.” Cameron goes on to point out that the Supreme Court of Canada “wrongly decided” the Marshall Decision, which upheld the Mi’kmaq Treaty right to hunt, fish and gather.“Is this the best the Crown can offer? His position is a betrayal of the province’s commitment to reconciliation,” said Gloade.Cheryl Maloney, a former band councillor for Sipekne’Katik, led the fight against Alton Gas and sat in court, listening to Cameron’s arguments.“I think it’s dishonourable not only to Aboriginal people,” said Maloney, “but it’s a real dishonour to Nova Scotians when we’re in an era of trying to reconcile our past.”Every October 1, for 30 years, the Mi’kmaq have gathered with provincial leaders in Halifax to celebrate and honour the Treaty of 1752.Walking out of the courtroom on the Alton Gas case, however, Maloney was left wondering if the province even thinks the treaty exists.“We now know what kind of province, what kind of government we’re dealing with,” she said. “They showed their true colours.”In 2009 Cameron wrote a book, Power without Law, which was highly critical of the Marshall decision. At the time, the Nova Scotia chiefs asked the province to prohibit Cameron from working on cases tied to Mi’kmaq issues. That didn’t happen.Mi’kmaq lawyer Naiomi Metallic said Cameron is “clearly biased. He has a very particular agenda and this is the question I wonder; is it more him that’s driving this bus?”She pointed out that there had to be oversight on a document filed in a court of law on behalf of the attorney general of Nova Scotia. And that has her asking what it says about the province and what that might mean for relations with the Mi’kmaq.“Why is he making an argument about Mi’kmaq being conquered?” she asks. “No one is going to accept that and it just really shatters the relationship or has the potential to.”The Nova Scotia Chiefs have been at the negotiating table since 2002, working out how to implement the treaties in a modern context.Eric Zscheile is a lawyer for the Assembly of Nova Scotia Chief’s negotiating body, Mi’kmaq Rights Initiative, or as it’s called in Mi’kmaq, Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn. He was also the legal counsel for the Mi’kmaq when Donald Marshall was charged with catching and selling eels; the case that was victorious at the Supreme Court in 1999.Hearing Cameron’s arguments around treaty rights in 2016, Zscheile shakes his head.“How do you react to that? And do you get pulled down the rabbit hole of getting involved in that dynamic again? I argued with all of those things decades ago,” said Zscheile. “As far I’m concerned the Supreme Court has already answered it.”He said the legal argument seems at odds with the political point of view he sees at the negotiation and tripartite tables.“Unlike what Alex Cameron says, we have two governments that are willing to sit down and say yes, we need to recognize those treaties, we need to recognize them as valid. We need to recognize them as legal and constitutional,” said Zscheile.And the premier of Nova Scotia agrees.On Thursday, Stephen McNeil sat down for an interview with APTN wanting to clarify the government position.“Mi’kmaq have traditional rights in this province, determined by treaties and we have an obligation and a duty to consult,” said McNeil.The premier, who is also minister for Aboriginal Affairs, said he had not read the brief before it was presented in court, and then it was too late to take it back.McNeil called the arguments questioning the validity of treaty rights “unacceptable” and said he understands the angry reaction from Mi’kmaq.“I’m not happy, not just as the minister, but as the premier that that position was put forward in the court,” said McNeil.“Disappointed would be a huge understatement. To say that I was furious would probably be more accurate.”The premier is putting distance between Cameron’s take on the treaties and his own.But he acknowledges, “I’m going to wear this. We as a government are wearing this. No matter who put it forward, somebody in government should’ve been signing off on this.”McNeil is already looking into how that happened. In the meantime, he’s doing damage control.“My hope is that the chiefs and the Mi’kmaq community will understand it is not a reflection of who I am, and who our government is,” said McNeil.The premier said he has not read Cameron’s book. He can’t say whether Alex Cameron will be removed from cases involving the Mi’kmaq.“I take this issue very seriously and we will be looking into it to see what is the proper course of correction,” he [email protected]last_img read more