Wilmington Youth Hockey To Hold Try Hockey For Free Event On November 11

first_imgWILMINGTON, MA — Join Wilmington Youth Hockey this weekend for its “Try Hockey for Free Day” on Sunday, November 11, 2018, from 1:30pm to 3pm, at Ristuccia Memorial Arena (190 Main Street) in Wilmington.Has your child been wanting to try hockey? This is the event to learn more about youth hockey in Wilmington. Equipment will be available. You will need to bring your own skates.Register for this event HERE. Please share this announcement with family, friends & neighbors that you know may be interested in attending.(NOTE: The above announcement is from Wilmington Youth Hockey.)Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email wilmingtonapple@gmail.com.Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedWilmington Youth Hockey To Hold ‘Drop The Puck’ Street Hockey Tournament Fundraiser On August 25In “Community”QUESTION OF THE DAY: Got A Child Who Wants To Try Hockey? Here’s Their Chance!In “Question of the Day”5 Things To Do In Wilmington On Tuesday, August 20, 2019In “5 Things To Do Today”last_img read more

Who wrote the judgment from where Hasina

first_imgPM Sheikh Hasina speaks in parliament on Wednesday. Photo: PIDParliament on Wednesday unanimously adopted a resolution to take proper legal steps against the declaration of the 16th constitutional amendment as ‘ultra vires’ and cancelling unconstitutional, objectionable and irrelevant observations of the chief justice in the Appellate Division verdict.Jasod lawmaker Moin Uddin Khan Badal placed the resolution in the House under the provision 147 (1) of the Rules of Procedure around 6:00pm when speaker Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury was in the chair.The resolution was adopted by a voice vote following a marathon general discussion over it, which lasted for more than five hours.The resolution reads, “Appropriate legal steps should be taken for cancelling the declaration of the 16th constitution amendment as ‘ultra vires’ and scrapping unconstitutional, objectionable and irrelevant observations of the chief justice over Parliament and other important issues in the verdict of the 16th amendment case.”Joining the discussion, MPs across the board harshly criticised chief justice Surendra Kumar Sinha for his various remarks in the Supreme Court verdict that upheld the High Court judgment declaring ‘ultra vires’ the 16th amendment to the constitution – that is, in violation of it.Participating in the discussion, prime minister Sheikh Hasina said the judgment was full of contradictions which is not acceptable.”There are so many contradictions even self-contradictions in this judgment. This is not acceptable to us. Who wrote this judgment from where?” she said.The prime minister also said that the constitution did not provide the apex court with the authority to amend the constitution.She said the CJ’s remarks regarding Bangabadhu are similar with that of anti-liberation people. “He (CJ) dishonoured the role of father of the nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.”Sheikh Hasina said three organs of the country are complementary to each other. None shall undermine another. Everyone should run following the laws. Everybody should have accountability, she added.About the Supreme Judicial Council formulated during the martial law she said this whole judiciary has been put under his sole authority with the introduction of the council. “If the CJ becomes angry with anyone, he can remove him from his post,” she added.The prime minister said the CJ also undermined the president in this verdict.Noting that the CJ claimed the Supreme Judicial Council became aligned with the basic structures of the constitution, Sheikh Hasina questioned the motive of such claim.”This verdict did not get any acceptability from anyone of the country,” she said adding that only BNP became cheerful without going through the whole text of the verdict properly as the supreme judicial council was restored.Law minister Anisul Huq categorically said this judgment will not go without final legal challenge. “We’ve already start working in this regard.”He said the judgment was not delivered based on logics rather it was emotional and came out of hatred. “The verdict tarnished image of not only the judiciary, but also the whole country.”Commerce minister Tofail Ahmed said the chief justice termed MPs ‘immature’ in the verdict. “The justices appointed by the president, who is elected by us (MPs), are mature, but we are immature!” he said.He said the CJ tried to make BNP cheerful through this judgment in a time when the country was marching forward under the leadership of the Prime Minister.Noting that the CJ asked the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) not to conduct investigation against a judge, Tofail said, “The ACC can investigate graft charges of you (PM), me and all, but not justices. What a surprise!”Talking about the Supreme Judiciary Council introduced in 1977, the AL leader said The Council did not investigate charge even against a single justice in the last 40 years.Liberation war affairs minister AKM Mozzamel Huq said there are many corruption allegations against the incumbent chief justice and now the people fear whether they will get justice in graft allegations against the chief justice if he will remain in the post.It is not possible to get justice over the corrupt charges keeping SK Sinha in the post. So, it is essential to investigate the graft charges relieving him from the post, he said.Noting that the chief justice made many unnecessary and irrelevant remarks over Bangabandhu in the verdict the minister said, “It is natural that he does not know about Bangabandhu as he is self-declared peace committee member.”AL MP Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim said the sedition charge can be brought against the chief justice for violating several articles including 27, 94 and 116 of the constitution.”You broke your oath. The chief justice, you worked against parliament, people, MPs and the constitution. You [CJ] are hatching conspiracy against the country. So, you can be brought to the book on sedition charge.””It is you [CJ] who will have to cancel the judgment that delivered by yourself against the state and the constitution. If you don’t cancel it, please wait for what steps to be taken,” he warned.Selim urged the chief justice to seek apology to the nation confessing mistakes. “Admit that I [CJ] did mistake and say that I myself am correcting it. I’ll not do such mistake anymore… If you do exaggeration, please be prepared. You are not mightier than this parliament,” the AL MP said.Jatiya Party MP Fakhrul Imam said the president, the prime minister, ministers and justices take oath to protect the constitution, but there is no word ‘to protect the constitution’ in oath content for MPs as the lawmakers are creators of the constitution.In the resolution, Badal said chief justice Surendra Kumar Sinha termed Members of Parliament ‘immature’ alongside making unnecessary and unwanted remarks regarding many irrelevant issues in his observation in the verdict of the 16th amendment case. So, huge discussions and remours continue over it, which is not expected for the whole nation, he added.”This parliament wants end of the situation following massive discussion so that efforts of any evil and anti-people force to catch fish in trouble water would be thwarted,” he said.On 17 September 2014, the Jatiya Sangsad passed the 16th amendment to the constitution empowering parliament to remove justices of the Supreme Court on ground of incapacity and misbehaviour.On 3 July 2017, the Appellate Division passed down the verdict upholding the judgment of the High Court. And the full-text of the verdict was released on 1 August last.last_img read more

From Bae To Submarining The Lingo Of Online Dating

first_img Share Hanna Barczyk for NPRIn the lingo of online dating, submarining begins when someone with whom you have romantic involvement ghosts — or disappears from your life without notice — only to resurface with no apology.When it comes to meeting that special someone, we’ve gone from IRL to swiping right. Online dating has changed the way people meet and communicate — and as that old saying goes, when you’re trying to find bae, communication is key.With new ways to flirt, date and find love come new lingo to describe the adventures — or misadventures — of online dating.As part of Morning Edition‘s series, What Makes Us Click, here are some words and terms in the online dating lexicon.BaeTo call someone “bae” is to refer to them as your significant other. But bae can be used in other forms, often to say you like something. For example, to say “I love cats,” say “cats are bae.” Most likely bae is the shortened form of babe or baby, Dictionary.com says.But really, it can be used for anything, and the Internet has run wild with bae; like the bae says come over memes, Salt Bae or Woke Bae.BreadcrumbingSending flirty texts to keep someone around or string them along with little to no intention to seriously date them. It’s like ghosting but with some extra stab wounds.BotA “robot” or fictitious account made to look like a real person on a dating app. Easily identifiable by their way-too-perfect photos. CatfishingWhen an online profile assumes a false identity, and the user misrepresents himself or herself to other users. Sometimes catfishing is done as part of a con or a larger purpose. Generally, these users will only communicate online, never in person, in order to maintain the facade.In 2013, former Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te’o’ was at the center of what Deadspin reported as a “hoax,” in which the story of his girlfriend, and her death, was fabricated. Merriam-Webster officially added the term in 2014.Cuffing seasonThink “handcuffs.” It’s a loosely defined period of the year of mostly colder-weather months, during which users, who would otherwise want to be single, seek out a mate to snuggle and settle down with until the weather warms up.Deep likeWhen you scroll through your crush’s (or potential date’s) social media profiles and like very, very old photos, either intentionally or accidentally. A deep like risks letting someone know that you’re not only interested in them but that you also spent time researching them.DTRAn acronym for “define the relationship,” a reference to that important talk when two people decide how to label what’s going on between them. GhostingWhen someone you’ve been dating abruptly cuts off communication without explanation, thus turning into a ghost. You may text them but they will never text you back. Hello?HatfishingA specific form of catfishing in which a user, in an effort to hide their hair — or lack thereof — wears a hat in every picture on their online profile.IRLAn acronym for “in real life.” Often used in chats with matches on dating apps to signal you would like to hang out. For example, “I like your hat photo. Let’s meet up IRL.”MeetcuteThe unexpected, funny, adorable or otherwise charming backstory of how a couple met for the first time.Swipe rightThis phrase is associated with an action on many dating apps. To swipe right means to indicate interest or attraction in a person. On some dating apps, users are shown a photo and given two basic options; swipe right to like a user, swipe left to move on. While not all dating apps use the swipe function, most have a similar function allowing users to immediately say yes or no to a potential match.Sliding into DMsSliding into DMs has become a subtle way to flirt online. DM is the abbreviation for direct message — a way to privately reach someone you follow on social media. The phrase can be modified to match its use: Sliding into his DMs, into her DMs or sliding into the DMs.And then there’s “sliding into DMs like” which is the meme form of the term.SubmariningSubmarining, a newly named trend, begins when someone with whom you have romantic involvement, ghosts — or disappears from your life without notice — only to resurface, with no apology and acts as if no time had passed.Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.last_img read more

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part Of Immigration Law

first_img Share Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesPresident Trump has hailed his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but Gorsuch sided against the administration Tuesday in an immigration case.The U.S. Supreme Court declared a clause in federal law, requiring the deportation of immigrants convicted of a “crime of violence,” unconstitutionally vague Tuesday.It’s a blow to the Trump Justice Department and came at the hands, ironically, of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who sided with the court’s liberals in a 5-4 decision.In 2015, the court also held that a clause alluding to a “violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague.For background on the case, Sessions v. Dimaya, here’s Oyez‘s summary:“James Garcia Dimaya, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1992. In 2007 and 2009, Dimaya was convicted under the California Penal Code for first-degree residential burglary; both convictions resulted in two years’ imprisonment. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony is subject to deportation. The INA definition of  aggravated felony includes a ‘crime of violence,’ which is any offense that involves the use or substantial risk of physical force against another person or property.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently initiated deportation proceedings against Dimaya and claimed that his burglary convictions constituted crimes of violence under the Act. The Immigration Judge held that Dimaya was deportable and that burglary constitutes a crime of violence because it always involves a risk of physical violence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.“While Dimaya’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States, which held  that the definition of a ‘violent felony’ in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was unconstitutionally vague. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the INA’s crime of violence provision was unconstitutionally vague because it was largely similar to the violent felony provision in the ACCA that the Supreme Court struck down in Johnson. The appellate court found that both provisions denied fair notice to defendants and failed to make clear when a risk of violence could be considered substantial.”Overseas emails case vacatedAlso, given that President Trump signed the CLOUD Act, the court officially vacated the major U.S. v. Microsoft case dealing with whether email stored in servers abroad could be compelled to be turned over to law enforcement.That move was largely expected at some point.Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.last_img read more