AFELL members posed shortly after the first presentation ended.-Says its intervention has helped to reduce court docketsThe Association of Female Lawyers of Liberia (AFELL) said it has resolved 545 cases through mediation.The Association’s president Attorney Vivian D. Neal made the disclosure over the weekend in Bentol City, Montserrado County, at the start of a two-day retreat and mediation training of female lawyers, indicating that they achieved success in covering the period of 2016-2017.According to Atty. Neal, based on the work members of AFELL have done over the years, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) jointly provided a grant to the Association, to undertake series of cases for women, children and indigents in need of legal redress.“Our members are encouraged to come to the office to assist with some of the mediation and legal representations in court,” Atty. Neal added.Atty. Neal makes remark at the retreatShe added that through the European Union, AFELL is seeking speedy trial for pre-trial detainees, including women and youth, particularly in Nimba, Bong and Lofa counties.AFELL is also spreading awareness on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in those counties.Additionally, Atty. Neal said between January and September, 2017, statistics recorded a total of 892 SGBV cases.Of that number, 506 are raped cases, while 475 included minors.“The public look to us as one of the leading organizations in the fight to minimize this unwholesome practice or bring it to an end, because our practice behooves us to help find remedy to those problems,” Neal said.The Bentol City retreat intends to review and reassess AFELL’s mandate so as to chart a new course in the future.Liberia’s former Chief Justice, Francis Johnson Morris challenged her colleagues not to be complacent, but to tap on the gains they have made over the years.Jamel Liverpool and Cllr. Abla G. Williams presented papers on issues surrounding mediation.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration’s rejection of state efforts to tighten rules on greenhouse gas emissions touched off a flurry of counterattacks Thursday. Democrats in Congress launched an investigation. Governors led by California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to sue, and environmental groups demanded to see the government’s rationale for its decision. Those were the opening moves in what is shaping up to be a fierce legal and political battle over the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to block California and at least 16 other states from regulating greenhouse gases that come from new cars and trucks. Environmental lawyers and congressional aides were focusing on whether EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson denied California’s waiver request without relying on the legal and technical documentation they said should accompany such a decision. His statement that his position was based on a legal analysis of the Clean Air Act appeared at odds with the way other government officials characterized the process. EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said it wasn’t unusual for the EPA chief to make a decision on a Clean Air Act waiver request and then ask staff to draft technical documentation to back it up. In this case Johnson provided early notification in order to meet his commitment to Schwarzenegger to issue the decision by the end of the year, Wood said. She said a decision document would be published in the federal register “as soon as possible,” but couldn’t say when that might be. “As a 26-year career scientist and EPA veteran, the administrator clearly values legal and technical expertise of his staff,” Wood said. “The Clean Air Act states the authority rests with administrator, and Administrator Johnson evaluated the waiver according to the criteria in the Clean Air Act and made his decision.” Schwarzenegger announced the state would file an appeal within three weeks. “I have no doubt that we will prevail because the law, science and the public’s demand for leadership are on our side,” said Schwarzenegger, as officials in Vermont, Washington and other states also announced lawsuit plans. It was the first time EPA had completely denied California a Clean Air Act waiver request, after granting more than 50. The tailpipe standards California adopted in 2004 would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, the state needed a federal waiver to implement the rules, and other states could then adopt them too.160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREWhicker: Clemson demonstrates that it’s tough to knock out the champJohnson’s decision overruled a consensus among EPA’s legal and technical staff that denying the waiver was unlikely to stand up in court, according to government officials familiar with the decision. Johnson’s advisers told him that granting California the waiver would put the agency in a much more defensible legal position should automakers take EPA to court. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter, confirmed a report in The Washington Post that a Power Point presentation prepared for Johnson included the prediction, “EPA likely to lose suit,” if taken to court for denying the waiver. Critics also pointed to a sentence in a letter Johnson sent Schwarzenegger on Wednesday: “I have decided that EPA will be denying the waiver and have instructed my staff to draft appropriate documents setting forth the rationale for this denial.” Environmental lawyers said such after-the-fact reasoning was unusual and predicted it would not stand in court. “Here they’ve decided to deny without figuring out what the proper reason for denial should be,” said Dan Galpern, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center in Oregon who is representing a coalition of environmental groups in the case.