Citizens' Issues
Dayanidhi Maran accuses CBI of fixing him

Maran, who is facing the CBI heat, alleged that the investigating agency was compelling the three arrested persons to complain against him and that they were even tortured to give 'false statement'

 

Dayanidhi Maran, former minister of telecom on Thursday charged the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with trying to fix him to please an RSS leader from Tamil Nadu. CBI on Wednesday arrested Maran's close aide and two others in the illegal telephone exchange case. 
 
“CBI should be a fact-finding machine and not a fixing one.... I am being singled out. CBI is fixing me to please an RSS ideologue from Tamil Nadu,” a combative Maran told reporters after briefing DMK chief M Karunanidhi on the developments. He, however, did not name anyone.
 
Maran, who is facing the CBI heat, alleged that the investigating agency was compelling the three arrested persons to complain against him and that they were even tortured to give “false statement”.
 
CBI had arrested V Gowthaman, then additional private secretary of Dayanidhi Maran, and two others in connection with alleged allotment of more than 300 high-speed telephone lines to the former minister’s residence in Chennai, which were extended to his brother’s TV channel.
 
CBI had named Maran and BSNL officials, including the then chief general manager K Bramhanathan and MP Veluswami in the FIR filed in October 2013.
 
“...after eight years, they are just fixing this case. They have arrested three people. Irony is they have been ill-treated and were forced to give false statement. When they refused, they were arrested. They were compelled to complain against me. Third degree treatment was meted out to them,” ” Maran alleged.
 
Asserting that he would fight out the case, Maran hit out at CBI, saying “Is CBI trying to impress the RSS ideologue from Tamil Nadu? The telephone line still functions in my residence....CBI wants to pass the buck, I have no choice but to fight it out.”
 
“CBI has filed FIR against me alleging when I was the telecom minister and there was excess use of telephone connection. I have explained. This investigation has been going on for eight years”, he said.
 
He said for the last 18 months the arrested people have been called by CBI and they cooperated in all the investigation procedures.
 

User

Stock manipulation: Nu-Tech Corporate Services

Nu-Tech Corporate Services has no source of business income, yet, its stock price has rallied 1208%

 

Earlier known as IIT Capital Services, Nu-Tech Corporate Services (NTCS) was in the business of leasing and hire purchase of plant & machinery and office equipment. In 2004, the Reserve Bank of India cancelled the certificate of registration of NTCS and ordered it to repay all public deposits. Since then, NTCS has not ventured into any new business, but has been in the process of recovering its non-performing assets to pay-off the loans taken from Federal Bank and Central Bank of India. NTCS had an outstanding loan of Rs19.16 crore with accrued interest amount amounting to Rs31.57 crore as on 31 March  2014. The only source of income for NTCS is through dividend income and rent; this amounts to approximately Rs23 lakh a year. This has been the only income for the defunct company over the past four to five years. Yet, over the past 15 months, its stock price has been ramped up by 1208%. Market operators are unconcerned due to lax rules and ineffective surveillance system of the market regulator.

User

US Supreme Court’s Latest Race Case: Housing Discrimination

Many fear that the Texas case before the court could gut the Fair Housing Act, the landmark 1968 law that was passed just days after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination

 

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up one of the most important civil rights cases of the last decade. If you’ve never heard of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, you have company. The issue of housing segregation has never captivated the nation’s attention like affirmative action or voting rights.
 
But today, two days after the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the court will hear arguments in the Texas case that many fear could gut the Fair Housing Act, the landmark 1968 law that was passed just days after King’s assassination.
 
“This case has as broad of a reach as anything the court has decided in the last 10 years,” said Myron Orfield, director of the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity at the University of Minnesota Law School, because housing segregation is the foundation of racial inequality in the United States.
 
The case concerns whether the Fair Housing Act, which sought to end the longstanding segregation of America’s neighborhoods, should be read to only bar intentional discrimination. For four decades, federal courts have held that the law should be interpreted more broadly, ruling again and again that if the policies of governmental agencies, banks or private real estate companies unjustifiably perpetuate segregation, regardless of their intent, they could be found in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
All 11 of the federal circuit courts that have considered the question have seen it that way. As well, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the agency charged with administering the act, issued a regulation enshrining the principle in 2013. 
 
The nation’s highest court does not typically intervene in cases unless there’s been disagreement in the lower courts. But this court has been determined to have its say on the housing issue and the legal theory that has come to be known as “disparate impact.”
 
The Texas case marks the third effort in as many years by the current justices to consider the intent and reach of the housing act. The other two cases were withdrawn or settled in deals reached before oral arguments, as fair housing advocates feared they would lose before the Roberts Court.
 
“It is unusual for the Court to agree to hear a case when the law is clearly settled. It’s even more unusual to agree to hear the issue three years in a row,” said Ian Haney López, a University of California, Berkeley law professor.
 
The Texas case involves a nonprofit organization that works to promote integrated communities and the Texas state housing authority. The nonprofit, Inclusive Communities, showed that nearly all the affordable housing tax credits approved by the Texas housing agency had been assigned to Dallas’ black neighbourhoods and almost none of it to white neighbourhoods. A federal judge did not find intentional discrimination on the part of Texas officials, but held that the outcome unacceptably increased housing segregation and that the housing agency could have taken steps to ensure that affordable housing units were allotted more equally.
 
Texas appealed the ruling, raising the stakes when it decided to challenge whether the Fair Housing Act allowed such “disparate impact” rulings at all.
 
For many, the Supreme Court’s persistence signals a determination to install intentional discrimination alone as the standard for such cases. The Roberts Court is considered by a host of scholars and others to be the most conservative since the 1930s, and so such an outcome would be consistent with its more narrow interpretations of laws governing voting rights and school segregation. 
 
“Those who care about eradicating housing discrimination have to be very concerned about the Supreme Court taking this case,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California School of Law, where he is a constitutional scholar.
Elizabeth Julian, president of the Inclusive Communities Project and the former Assistant Secretary of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at HUD, is among those who are worried.
 
“Reversing essentially four decades of case law would send a message that is very concerning,” Julian said. 
 
A few generations ago, most housing discrimination was overt. Banks openly refused to lend to black homebuyers. Public housing officials used to announce that certain developments were for white residents, others for Latinos. But the nature of housing segregation has evolved over the years, and the fight against it has had to change as well. Today, banks may well charge higher loan rates in certain communities, but they can also insist it has nothing to do with those neighborhoods being black or Latino. Local planning boards can concede that most affordable housing efforts have been placed in black neighborhoods, but maintain that it was not by malicious design.
 
The theory of disparate impact, then, has often been the only tool to address ongoing housing discrimination. Landlords or lenders who implement policies or practices that disproportionately impact racial minorities can be found in violation of civil rights law if they cannot justify those practices – even if no one can show they acted out of racial animus.
 
The U.S. Department of Justice has used disparate impact to win record settlements from banks that charged higher rates to black and Latino borrowers with similar credit histories as white borrowers, but could not justify the practice. 
 
A fair housing group used disparate impact to topple a “blood relative” ordinance passed by nearly all-white St. Bernard’s Parish in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The ordinance barred homeowners from renting to anyone who was not kin. Civil rights lawyers were convinced officials passed this law to keep out black renters, but could not prove racist motivations. But when St. Bernard’s Parish could not come up with a plausible justification for the ordinance, a court struck it down.
 
This tool, for the first time, is in real jeopardy.
 
The Supreme Court has been weakening many civil rights protections for decades. The Rehnquist Court, for instance, was known for getting the courts out of the business of addressing racial inequities. But the Roberts Court has gone a critical step further, severely curbing efforts undertaken by Congress and the executive branch to address our nation’s long history of discrimination.
 
In 2007, the Roberts Court came down against two school districts that were trying to maintain gains in integration. In 2009, the court ended the attempts of New Haven, Conn., officials to ensure that the city’s promotion practices were fair after no black firemen passed a promotion exam, saying the efforts discriminated against white firefighters. In 2013, it held that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act intended to address the disenfranchisement of black voters had expired. And last year, it upheld Michigan voter-approved ban on affirmative action.
 
“The Supreme Court is newly aggressive in the area of race,” said Haney López. It is targeting efforts by other branches of society to remedy segregation and is striking them down.”
 
Strikingly, if it ultimately rules against Inclusive Communities, in under a decade the Roberts Court will have limited pivotal protections in each of the three landmark civil rights laws passed in the 1960s: the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
 
 
Courtesy: ProPublica.org
 

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)