ReportWire

Tag: Transfer

  • L.A. teen is moved to ICE detention center out of state without parents’ knowledge

    Benjamin Guerrero-Cruz’s family was stunned and heartbroken when the 18-year-old was grabbed by immigration agents while walking his dog in Van Nuys just days before he was set to start his senior year at Reseda Charter High School.

    This week, his family was caught off-guard once again when they learned that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had transferred him to Arizona without notifying any relatives, according to the office of U.S. Rep. Luz Rivas (D-North Hollywood), which spoke to his family and reviewed ICE detention records.

    Guerrero-Cruz was moved out of the Adelanto Detention Facility in San Bernardino County late Monday night and taken to a holding facility in Arizona in the middle of the desert, according to the congresswoman’s office.

    On Tuesday night, he was scheduled to be transferred to Louisiana, a major hub for deportation flights, but at the last minute he was taken off the plane and sent back to Adelanto, where he is currently being held.

    “Benjamin and his family deserve answers behind ICE’s inconsistent and chaotic decision-making process, including why Benjamin was initially transferred to Arizona, why he was slated to be transferred to Louisiana afterward, and why his family wasn’t notified of his whereabouts by ICE throughout this process,” Rivas said in a statement.

    On Tuesday, Rivas introduced a bill that would require ICE to notify an immediate family member of a detainee within 24 hours of a detainee’s transfer. Currently, ICE is required to notify a family member only in the case of a detainee’s death.

    “Benjamin’s story of being detained and sent across state lines without warning or notification is like many other detainees in Los Angeles and across the country,” Rivas said. “Many immigrant families in my district do not know the whereabouts of their loved ones after they are detained by ICE.”

    The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The agency previously stated that Guerrero-Cruz was awaiting deportation to Chile after overstaying his visa, which required him to depart the United States on March 15, 2023.

    Benjamin Guerrero-Cruz, shown at school, is an avid soccer player and loving older brother, according to his family.

    (Rita Silva)

    Guerrero-Cruz was arrested Aug. 8 and held in downtown L.A. for a week, during which time he was briefly taken on an unexplained trip to a detention center in Santa Ana before being transferred to Adelanto on Aug. 15, according to a former teacher who visited him in custody.

    His experience of being pingponged around different facilities is common among those being detained in what the Trump administration is billing as the largest deportation effort in American history.

    This trend is also reflected in ICE’s flight data. The agency conducted 2,022 domestic transfer flights from May through July — representing a 90% increase from the same period last year, according to a widely cited database of flights created by immigrant rights advocate Tom Cartwright.

    Cartwright posited in his July report that this uptick could be related to a “need to optimize bed space as detention numbers have ballooned from 39,152 on 29 December to 56,945 on 26 July.”

    Jorge-Mario Cabrera, spokesperson for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights L.A., called the Trump administration’s detention policies cruel, saying it appears that they are detaining people for as long as possible and “moving them from place to place for no reason other than because they can.”

    “The fact that these dumbfounding transfers in the middle of the night cause chaos, confusion, and minimizes access to legal representation does not seem to bother them one bit,” he said in a statement.

    Susham M. Modi, an immigration attorney based in Houston, said he had witnessed an uptick in the frequency of transfers among those recently detained by ICE.

    “[Detainees are] also being often transferred to where there’s less lawyers,” he said. “I’ve seen consults where they’ve been transferred to Oklahoma, where it is very hard to find an attorney that might do, for example, federal court litigation.”

    Although families can use ICE’s Online Detainee Locator to search for loved ones, it isn’t always up to date, and some families do not know how to use it, Modi said. When detainees are transferred, they often can’t make outgoing calls from the detention facility until someone has deposited money into their account — another hurdle for keeping family members updated on their whereabouts, he added.

    Clara Harter

    Source link

  • Trump backs huge Arizona copper mine as Apache win late reprieve to halt it

    President Trump this week threw his full support behind a massive project to turn a sacred Apache site outside Phoenix into one of the world’s largest copper mines, meeting with mining executives at the White House and ridiculing a recent court decision that temporarily halted the transfer of federal lands to their companies.

    Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum met in the White House on Tuesday with several executives from Rio Tinto and BHP, the two multinational mining companies behind the planned Resolution Copper mine. As proposed, the mine would turn Oak Flat — a long-preserved site of rocky outcroppings and desert waterways on the edge of the Tonto National Forest — into a nearly two-mile-wide, 1,000-foot-deep industrial crater.

    Trump also posted about the project on his Truth Social site, calling the three-judge U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel that blocked the transfer a “Radical Left Court” and saying it was “sad” that “Radical Left Activists” could stall such a project.

    “3,800 Jobs are affected, and our Country, quite simply, needs Copper — AND NOW!” Trump wrote.

    He also wrote, without evidence, that those fighting the mine are “Anti-American” and working on behalf of “other Copper competitive Countries.”

    The San Carlos Apache Tribe, which is among the plaintiffs suing to block the mine, called the court’s decision a “last minute victory” in its ongoing battle to save the land.

    “The Apache people will never stop fighting for Chí’chil Biłdagoteel,” tribe Chairman Terry Rambler said in a statement, using the traditional Apache name for Oak Flat. “We thank the court for stopping this horrific land exchange and allowing us to argue the merits of our pending lawsuit in court.”

    Trump’s decision to directly weigh in further elevates the already large profile of a monumental legal battle. It has aligned environmental activists and religious liberty proponents, and has major implications for the nation’s ability to meet its rapidly growing demand for copper, which is an essential element in telecommunications networks, electric vehicles and other growing technologies.

    Oak Flat was federally protected land for decades. Members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe describe it as sacred land home to spiritual guardians akin to angels, and say it has been used for coming-of-age and other tribal ceremonies for generations.

    In 2004, prospectors discovered that one of the world’s largest copper ore deposits, estimated to hold enough copper to supply up to a quarter of U.S. demand, sat somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 feet below the surface.

    The battle to extract the deposit has raged ever since, but particularly since 2014, when former Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake inserted language mandating the land transfer into a last-minute defense appropriations bill.

    A lawsuit brought by the group Apache Stronghold and led by Apache elder Wendsler Nosie Sr. resulted in a split 9th Circuit ruling against the Apache and in favor of the mining companies in March 2024.

    In May, the Supreme Court declined to hear an Apache appeal of that decision, clearing the way for the U.S. Forest Service to issue a final environmental impact report and hear a last round of public comment before handing the land over to Resolution Copper.

    The decision marked a major loss to the mine opponents, but it did not end other lawsuits filed to stop it — including one filed by the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and another by a group called the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition.

    On Aug. 15, a district court judge in Arizona issued an order clearing the way for the land transfer to move forward on Tuesday.

    The groups appealed, and the three-judge 9th Circuit panel put the district court decision on hold Monday, pending its own hearing of arguments over the transfer — one of which is that the federal government bypassed a required step in the environmental review process.

    The panel — composed of two Clinton appointees and one Trump appointee — said it was not taking a position on the merits of those arguments, and would “expedite” the case, with all briefs due by Oct. 14.

    The court’s reprieve, if only temporary, was cheered by Apache groups and other organizations whose members use the Oak Flat land for rock climbing and other recreation. Some also spoke out against Trump’s remarks, calling them anti-American.

    Rambler, the San Carlos tribe chairman, said the mine’s opponents “are working to save the U.S. from making a disastrous decision that would give up American resources to foreign interests,” and that Trump had been “misinformed” to think otherwise by the mine’s supporters.

    Rambler said BHP and Rio Tinto are foreign companies with ties to Chinese state-owned companies, and will be exporting the copper taken from Oak Flat — “likely to China.”

    Rambler said he looks forward “to sitting down with the administration and providing factual information to protect American assets.”

    Nosie, in a statement provided to the The Times, also accused Trump of siding with foreign interests over those of indigenous Americans.

    “Our nation cannot survive if we sacrifice what is sacred in pursuit of temporary profits,” he said.

    Wendsler Nosie Sr., a longtime opponent of the proposed Resolution Copper mine, gathers with other opponents to the mine at Oak Flat in 2023.

    (Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times)

    He said the Apache people are grateful for all of the support they have received from people of all political stripes and religious backgrounds, who he said have recognized the fight for what it is — a “moral one.”

    “If we destroy our sacred land and poison our environment, we are betraying our children and grandchildren and hurting ourselves,” he said. “The future of the entire human race is at stake.”

    A Resolution Copper spokesperson said they are confident the 9th Circuit will “ultimately affirm” the district court’s “well-reasoned” ruling in favor of the land transfer.

    “Over the past 11 years, the Resolution Copper project has undergone a rigorous, independent review under the National Environmental Policy Act, led by the U.S. Forest Service. This review has included extensive consultation with numerous Native American Tribes with ancestral ties to this land, local communities, civil society organizations, and a dozen federal, state, and county agencies,” the spokesperson said. “The collaborative process has directly led to major changes to the mining plan to preserve and reduce potential impacts on Tribal, social, environmental, and cultural interests.”

    The spokesperson said the project has other local support and “the potential to become one of America’s biggest copper mines, contributing $1 billion annually to Arizona’s economy and creating thousands of local jobs in a region where mining has played an important role for more than a century.”

    Tuesday’s meeting at the White House included Trump and Burgum, as well as current Rio Tinto chief executive Jakob Stausholm, incoming Rio Tinto chief executive Simon Trott and BHP chief executive Mike Henry, as well as other White House officials.

    The Resolution Copper spokesperson said the discussion centered on “the mining industry’s capacity to deliver long-term domestic supplies of copper and other critical minerals” from the Oak Flat deposit.

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Jose Martinez is on the Move – Philadelphia Sports Nation

    Jose Martinez is on the Move – Philadelphia Sports Nation

    This has been a tumultuous season for the Philadelphia Union. With every high moment, there seems to be an equal low moment. Now, with the team on fire through Leagues Cup, a massive blow is dealt to the team.

    The Union just had their best win of the season. A 4-2 win on the road against their rival Cincinnati. With the win, the Union moves to the Leagues Cup quarterfinals. In the midst of a rough 2024 season, it seemed things were finally turning around.

    That is until a massive blow was sent through the roster.

    The heart of the Team Is Leaving

    Just shortly after the Union win, news broke that Union midfielder Jose Martinez is on the move. Martinez will be transferred to The Corinthians. The heart, soul, and the most passionate player in the Union, is heading out.

    Jose Martinez and Philly fans fell in love at first sight. Making his debut in 2020, Martinez showed that his passion and effort made Philly the perfect place for him. Not to mention his best ability, to get under anybody’s skin without fail.

    Martinez became a fan favorite immediately. It is not a coincidence the Union entered its best era with him at the forefront. He was a pivotal piece of a record-setting Union defense and set the tone when the Union needed it most. It is just unfortunate timing that this move comes when the team finally gains some footing.

    It is the Best Move for Business

    This move should not come as a surprise at all. Martinez was at the top of the list of players that would likely be transferred. Last week, the Union finalized a deal to bring in a promising defensive midfielder, Danley Jean Jacques. A move that was likely the last hurdle in getting a deal for Martinez done.

    The financials of the deal are not set yet. However, for a 30-year-old midfielder, if the Union can get more than they spent on Jacques, it is great business.

    Martinez shined not only for the Union but for his national team, Venezuela, as well. Coming off an impressive showing at Copa America, Martinez’s value would not be as high as it is now.

    Martinez was one of Ernst Tanner’s first diamonds in the rough finds. Martinez joined the Union from Zulia FC for just a $295,000 transfer fee. Now, the Union will likely earn at least four times that amount for him.

    Very Rough Timing

    This move was going to hurt no matter what. Jose Martinez is a fan favorite right behind Ale Bedoya and Andre Blake. However, the timing of the move makes things even more unfortunate.

    The Union are in their best stretch of play in 2024. They are tearing through the Leagues Cup. Considering the club currently sits outside the MLS Playoffs, this is likely their last chance at a trophy this season. Now, they will have to figure out how to adjust to life without Martinez.

    Danley Jean Jacques is a very promising player that fans should be excited about. However, the Union has a history of being on the wrong side of slow paperwork to get deals completed. There will likely be a period that the Union will need to hang on without a defensive anchor in the midfield.

    Look for Leon Flach to slide into Martinez’s spot for the time being. While Flach brings a similar defensive intensity, he just doesn’t have the offensive game to truly replace Martinez.

    Jose Martinez became a fan favorite for the Union. While their time together appears to be over, Union fans will be happy to welcome him back in the future. Perhaps even to have his name raised in the Union Ring of Honor.

     

    Featured Image: Wes Shephered/PHLSportsNation

    Ryan Hall

    Source link

  • Football (Sky Sports)

    Football (Sky Sports)



    Aveley


    P


    P


    15:00



    Welling United




    Bath City


    P


    P


    15:00



    Yeovil Town




    Farnborough


    0


    0


    15:00



    St Albans




    Hampton & Richmond


    0


    0


    15:00



    Dartford




    Hampton & Richmond


    P


    P


    15:00



    Braintree Town




    Hemel Hempstead


    P


    P


    15:00



    Chippenham Town




    Maidstone Utd


    P


    P


    15:00



    Havant and Waterlooville




    Truro City


    P


    P


    15:00



    Dover




    Weymouth


    0


    0


    15:00



    Tonbridge Angels




    Blyth Spartans


    0


    0


    13:00



    Bishops Stortford




    Brackley Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    Spennymoor Town




    Chorley


    P


    P


    15:00



    Alfreton Town




    Darlington


    0


    0


    15:00



    Kings Lynn Town




    Farsley


    P


    P


    15:00



    Curzon Ashton




    Hereford FC


    P


    P


    15:00



    Scarborough Athletic




    Peterborough Sports


    0


    0


    15:00



    Banbury




    Rushall Olympic


    P


    P


    15:00



    Chester FC




    Southport


    0


    0


    15:00



    Gloucester




    Warrington Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    South Shields




    AFC Totton


    P


    P


    15:00



    Hayes & Yeading




    Basingstoke Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    Poole Town




    Beaconsfield


    0


    0


    15:00



    Didcot Town




    Dorchester


    P


    P


    15:00



    Bracknell Town




    Hanwell Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    Winchester City




    Harrow Borough


    0


    0


    15:00



    Swindon Supermarine




    Hungerford Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    Hendon




    Merthyr Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    Plymouth Parkway




    Salisbury FC


    0


    0


    15:00



    Gosport Borough




    Tiverton Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    Walton & Hersham




    Bamber Bridge


    P


    P


    15:00



    Worksop




    Bradford P A


    0


    0


    15:00



    Hyde




    FC United of Manchester


    0


    0


    15:00



    Morpeth Town




    Guiseley


    0


    0


    15:00



    Stafford Rangers




    Hyde


    P


    P


    15:00



    Whitby Town




    Marske Utd


    0


    0


    15:00



    Basford United




    Matlock Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    Workington




    Bognor Regis Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    Concord Rangers




    Chatham Town


    0


    0


    15:00



    Carshalton Athletic




    Dulwich Hamlet


    0


    0


    15:00



    Kingstonian




    Folkestone Invicta


    0


    0


    15:00



    Cheshunt




    Haringey Borough


    0


    0


    15:00



    Potters Bar Town




    Hastings United


    0


    0


    15:00



    Wingate & Finchley




    Whitehawk


    0


    0


    15:00



    Hashtag United




    Finn Harps


    0


    0


    14:30



    Athlone




    Treaty United


    0


    0


    15:00



    Galway United FC




    Longford Town


    0


    0


    16:00



    Bray Wanderers




    Kerry


    0


    0


    17:30



    Waterford United


    Source link

  • Football (Sky Sports)

    Football (Sky Sports)



    Korona Kielce


    0


    0


    14:00



    Zaglebie Lubin




    Jagiellonia Bialystok


    0


    0


    16:30



    Gornik Zabrze




    RWDM


    P


    P


    00:00



    Union Saint-Gilloise




    Club Brugge


    P


    P


    12:30



    Genk




    Sint-Truidense VV


    0


    0


    15:00



    Cercle Brugge KSV




    Anderlecht


    0


    0


    17:30



    Charleroi




    Boavista


    0


    0


    15:30



    Casa Pia AC




    Vitoria de Guimaraes


    0


    0


    18:00



    Vizela




    Sporting Lisbon


    0


    0


    20:30



    FC Famalicao




    Brommapojkarna


    0


    0


    14:00



    Kalmar FF




    IFK Gothenburg


    0


    0


    16:30



    Hacken




    Sandefjord


    0


    0


    16:00



    Haugesund




    Valerenga


    0


    0


    16:00



    Odd Grenland




    Rosenborg


    0


    0


    18:15



    Aalesund




    Debreceni Vasutas Sport Club


    0


    0


    14:30



    MTK Budapest




    Ferencvaros


    0


    0


    16:30



    Paksi SE




    Fehervar FC


    0


    0


    18:30



    Mezokovesd Zsory




    Catanzaro


    0


    0


    19:30



    Ternana U




    Lamia


    0


    0


    17:15



    Aris Salonika




    Olympiakos FC


    0


    0


    19:30



    Atromitos Athens




    FC Haka


    0


    0


    14:00



    KuPS Kuopio




    AGF Aarhus


    0


    0


    13:00



    Lyngby BK




    FC Nordsjaelland


    0


    0


    17:00



    FC Midtjylland


    Source link

  • Football (Sky Sports)

    Football (Sky Sports)



    Ashton Utd


    0


    0


    19:45



    Marske Utd




    Marine


    0


    0


    19:45



    Stafford Rangers




    Nantwich Town


    0


    0


    19:45



    FC United of Manchester




    Radcliffe


    0


    0


    19:45



    Lancaster City




    Banbury


    P


    P


    19:45



    Alfreton Town




    Blyth Spartans


    0


    0


    19:45



    Southport




    Curzon Ashton


    0


    0


    19:45



    Kidderminster Harriers




    Hereford FC


    P


    P


    19:45



    Chester FC




    Kings Lynn Town


    P


    P


    19:45



    AFC Fylde




    Dorchester


    0


    0


    19:45



    Beaconsfield




    Metropolitan Police


    P


    P


    19:45



    Swindon Supermarine




    Plymouth Parkway


    P


    P


    19:45



    Winchester City




    Salisbury FC


    P


    P


    19:45



    Hayes & Yeading




    Weston-s-Mare


    0


    0


    19:45



    Hendon




    Chippenham Town


    P


    P


    19:45



    Farnborough




    Concord Rangers


    P


    P


    19:45



    Hungerford Town




    Dulwich Hamlet


    0


    0


    19:45



    Ebbsfleet United




    St Albans


    P


    P


    19:45



    Havant and Waterlooville




    Tonbridge Angels


    0


    0


    19:45



    Dover




    Weymouth


    0


    0


    19:45



    Hampton & Richmond




    Brightlingsea Regent


    P


    P


    19:45



    Horsham




    Enfield Town


    0


    0


    19:45



    Billericay Town




    Margate


    0


    0


    19:45



    Bowers & Pitsea




    Wingate & Finchley


    0


    0


    19:45



    Kingstonian




    Zalaegerszegi TE


    1


    2


    17:30



    Ferencvaros


    FT

    Source link

  • What’s Missing From This Real Estate Contract?

    What’s Missing From This Real Estate Contract?

    When participants in real estate and other business transactions negotiate their contracts, they think about what might happen later and what legal consequences should arise from those events or circumstances. For example, a contract might prohibit a party from doing something. It might also say that if a party wants to do something, then the other party has certain rights, such as a consent right.

    Those provisions often focus on whatever the parties have on their mind, but they sometimes don’t go as far as they should. The net result of this failure is a gap that allows one party or the other to do something that, if the parties had thought to address it in their contract, would likely not have been allowed. This deficiency seems to arise most often in contract language relating to transfers.

    As one very common example, many leases and other contracts restrict the right of a party to assign the contract, or in other words bring in someone else who would take over that party’s rights and obligations under the contract. Sometimes a contract or lease assignment requires the other party’s consent. Other times no consent is needed if the assignment meets certain tests.

    In one recent Delaware case, a contract said that a party could not transfer its rights or obligations under the contract “by assignment, … merger, consolidation, … [or] change in management or control” of that party. The party subject to that assignment restriction was owned by a holding company, which was in turn by owned by another holding company, which was in turn owned by a second holding company—essentially a great-grandparent company.

    That last company, the great-grandparent, was the subject of a corporate merger that resulted in a change of control and a replacement of managers at all levels throughout the enterprise.

    The other party to the contract argued that the corporate merger of the great-grandparent amounted to a prohibited transfer of the contract. The court disagreed, concluding that the merger happened at the great-grandparent company level. The contract itself wasn’t transferred by merger or any other way. The contracting party remained as the exact same entity owned by the exact same holding company.

    That’s perhaps not what the parties (or at least one of them) had in mind when they wrote their anti-transfer language. When they referred to a “merger” or “change in management or control” they might have been thinking about possible corporate transactions anywhere in the ownership structure. But that’s not what they said. They just referred to a “transfer” of the contract by various possible means. One of those possible means of “transferring” the contract was a merger, which would have captured the case where just the specific contracting party merged into another entity and transferred the contract as part of the merger. Technically, though, that’s not what actually happened. What actually happened was something else, beyond the scope of the restriction that the parties had negotiated.

    The transfer prohibition in the contract sounded quite fierce and extensive in theory. In practice, though, it didn’t accomplish whatever the parties may have wanted it to accomplish. This happens with astonishing frequency, creating openings for contracting parties to do things that the other party might perceive as being inconsistent with the “spirit” of the deal.

    When attorneys and their clients negotiate contracts, they need to watch for these sorts of gaps and openings. Perhaps they’re intentional, but perhaps not. In contract negotiations, it can help to go beyond the words in the document and think about the wide range of possible events that might happen, and then make sure that the words capture everything they should capture.

    Joshua Stein, Contributor

    Source link