Judicial Remand

This Article examines and evaluates the legal process method as a perspective from which to assess the law of federal courts. It then offers a modified approach to legal process that encompasses the full range of considerations that ought to inform modern judicial decision-making in this context. With that modified approach in mind, the article describes and critiques the Supreme Court's statutory arising-under jurisprudence, both as originally developed and as currently practiced. The article shows that while the Court's early "arising-under" jurisprudence was founded on durable principles and on the reasoned application of those principles, more recent decisions by the Court have strayed from that approach in service of a more mechanical jurisprudence. This approach seems to be premised more on case-management concerns than on the congressionally endorsed value of providing a federal forum for the interpretation and application of federal law. The article ends by examining the Court's decision in Gunn v. Minton. As the article explains, Gunn offered the Court an opportunity to redirect the arising-under analysis back toward a perspective that would more closely reflect the legitimate and enduring principles of federal question jurisdiction. The Court, however, missed that opportunity and instead endorsed a mechanical, four-part test as a substitute for reasoned analysis.

* The descriptions of the cases contained herein are taken from the court opinions (with the occasional media report), which often evaluate mere allegations, rather than established evidence. The author is not suggesting, one way or another, that any of the purported factual descriptions discussed are, in fact, true or false.

As per the first information report of crime (hereinafter FIR), the petitioner, a juvenile of approximately 13 years, is nominated allegedly for kidnapping 9 years old minor son of the complainant to a deserted place, whereafter, and on gun point, he made an attempt to commit unnatural offences with him. On hue and cry, witnesses attracted 1 Names of petitioner and victim are withheld in this order as both are minors/children under 18 years. 2 Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 defines a "Juvenile" to mean a child to be dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult. 3 See section 2(f) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 where the term guardian is defined for the purposes of this Act. 4 Section 2(a) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 defines that the "best interest of the child" means the basis for any decision taken regarding the child to ensure fulfillment of his basic rights and needs, identity, social well-being, physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing. This definition seems an 'overall' provision guiding and instructing all the legal actors dealing with a juvenile (police, investigators, probation officers, lawyers, Juvenile Justice Committee and the Juvenile Court etc) to always keep in mind the 'best interest of the child' whenever a decision is to be taken under this law. Therefore, Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) lens is required for all the above legal actors while dealing with a juvenile so that the intent of this definition is fulfilled.

This article explains the provisions of the inquest report, its main ingredients, and Implications along with the relevant provisions of the law and landmark judgments of the honorable apex courts. The expression 'inquest' has not been categorically defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The meaning of Inquest is to pursue legal or judicial inquiry to ascertain the facts. The literal meaning of the expression of 'inquest' is "a judicial inquiry to ascertain the facts relating to an incident". According to the Black's Law Dictionary, the term 'inquest' means an inquiry conducted by the medical officers or sometimes with the help of a jury into the manner of death of a person, who has died under suspicious circumstances or has died in prison. The provisions relating to the inquest report are covered under Part V, Chapter XIV of the Code. An inquest is a judicial inquiry in common law; mainly one held to determine the cause of a person's death, conducted by a judge, jury, or government official; an inquest may or may not require an autopsy carried out by a coroner or medical examiner. Generally, inquests are only conducted when deaths are sudden or unexplained.

How much longer must the People of this once great nation continue to suffer from that judicial corruption which allows the government to steal their homes on behalf of wealthy people and corporations??? The time to water the tree of liberty may now be at hand.

This complaint is the work of attorney Ron Freshman and paralegal Charles Wayne Cox.