GCA fraud case: Ex-president quizzed by police

first_imgPanaji, June 19 (PTI) Former president of Goa Cricket Association (GCA) Shekhar Salkar was today questioned by the state police, who are investigating the alleged misappropriation of over Rs three crore belonging to the organisation.”Salkar was questioned by the investigating officer this afternoon. We are trying to trace the minutes of meeting books of GCA of the financial years 2006-08, which have gone missing,” police Inspector Shivram Vaingankar said.In his statement, Salkar has revealed several details which will help in the probe, he said.While Vaingankar refused to divulge the details, a senior police official said Salkar has refused having any knowledge about the minutes of meeting books of the GCA.”In fact, Salkar has informed the investigating agency that the minutes of meeting books of the year 2015, when he took over as the president, have also been missing from the office,” the official said.The bail plea of GCA president Chetan Dessai, secretary Vinod Phadke and treasurer Mulla Akbar, who were recently arrested by the Economic Offences Cell (EOC) of Goa Police for the alleged misappropriation of Rs 3.13 crore, would be heard tomorrow.The EOW had filed an FIR against the trio on June 3 after GCA life member Vilas Desai filed a complaint accusing them of forging signatures and opening bank accounts to siphon off the associations money.They allegedly opened accounts between October 23, 2006, and May 23, 2008, when GCA was headed by Dayanand Narvekar. Dessai was its secretary and Phadke the treasurer.They prepared forged documents as well as a resolution of the GCA and submitted it to the Development Credit Bank to open an account and then encashed a cheque of Rs 2.87 crore given by BCCI to the GCA, the complaint says.advertisementThe accused also allegedly forged signatures and withdrew Rs 26 lakh from the Federal Bank on the pretext of making payment to a sports goods company called Hako Enterprise. PTI RPS NP NSD JMFlast_img read more

Judge bars US from enforcing Trump asylum ban

first_img Posted: November 20, 2018 AP November 20, 2018 Updated: 5:16 PM AP, center_img 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek  . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsHOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge barred the Trump administration from refusing asylum to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally.President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on Nov. 9 that said anyone who crossed the southern border between official ports of entry would be ineligible for asylum. As the first of several caravans of migrants have started arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump said an asylum ban was necessary to stop what he’s attacked as a national security threat.But in his ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar agreed with legal groups that immediately sued, arguing that U.S. immigration law clearly allows someone to seek asylum even if they enter the country between official ports of entry.“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” said Tigar, a nominee of former President Barack Obama.The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately comment on the ruling, which will remain in effect for one month barring an appeal. In issuing the ban, Trump used the same powers he used last year to impose a travel ban that was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.If enforced, the ban would potentially make it harder for thousands of people to avoid deportation. DHS estimates around 70,000 people a year claim asylum between official ports of entry. But Tigar’s ruling notes that federal law says someone may seek asylum if they have arrived in the United States, “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.”“Individuals are entitled to asylum if they cross between ports of entry,” said Baher Azmy, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which sued the government alongside the American Civil Liberties Union. “It couldn’t be clearer.”RELATED STORY: DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to visit Border Field State ParkAround 3,000 people from the first of the caravans have arrived in Tijuana, Mexico, across the border from San Diego, California. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Monday that it closed off northbound traffic for several hours at the San Ysidro crossing. It has also installed movable, wire-topped barriers, apparently to stop a potential mass rush of people.As of Monday, 107 people detained between official crossings have sought asylum since Trump’s order went into effect, according to DHS, which oversees Customs and Border Protection. Officials didn’t say whether those people’s cases were still progressing through other, more difficult avenues left to them after the proclamation.DHS has said it wants asylum seekers at the southern border to appear at an official border crossing. But many border crossings such as San Ysidro already have long wait times. People are often forced to wait in shelters or outdoor camps on the Mexican side, sometimes for weeks.ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said that some people seeking asylum cross between official ports because “they’re in real danger,” either in their countries of origin or in Mexico.“We don’t condone people entering between ports of entry, but Congress has made the decision that if they do, they still need to be allowed to apply for asylum,” he said.___Associated Press journalists Jill Colvin and Colleen Long in Washington contributed to this report. Categories: California News, Local San Diego News, National & International News FacebookTwitter Judge bars US from enforcing Trump asylum banlast_img read more

How is DOD Assessing the Risks Posed by Turbines Panel Asks

first_img Dan Cohen AUTHOR With the number of wind farm projects with the potential to interfere with military training and testing activities on the rise, the House Armed Services’ Readiness Subcommittee is eager to learn how the Defense Department assesses the risk to military missions posed by wind energy development.Defense officials have reached agreements over mitigation measures in a number of instances in which proposed wind farms were located close to installations, training ranges or low-level training routes, according to report language attached to the subcommittee’s portion of the fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill.The panel said it is concerned, however, that some of those mitigations were negotiated before studies to determine the effect of the turbines on aircraft’s main and terrain-following radar were completed. In turn, the subcommittee directs DOD to report on the following:the science, standards, assumptions and criteria the department uses to assess the risks to military missions from wind farms;the proposed parameters and distances from training routes and ranges that are considered an acceptable risk;a review of the success of mitigation measures from past agreements, including their cost; andan analysis of feedback from installation commanders about the effectiveness of mitigation measures.On Wednesday, the Readiness Subcommittee approved its part of the annual defense policy legislation by voice vote in less than three minutes. Floor votes precluded Chairman Rob Wittman (R-Va.) from making opening remarks, but in a written statement he highlighted some of the issues addressed in the draft legislation, including language related to a future base closure round.“We have as a subcommittee prohibited the department from pursuing an additional BRAC round or any other effort aimed at locking in unwise force structure reductions during a time of accelerated transition and uncertainty over future troop presence in the Middle East,” Wittman wrote.“However, we do include a provision that tasks the department to conduct an assessment of where we may be overcapitalized in facilities so Congress can make informed decisions going forward,” he stated.last_img read more

Arkansas Legislature Endorses Incentive Package for Lockheed Martin

first_imgArkansas lawmakers on Wednesday approved an $87 million bond issue to allow Lockheed Martin to build joint light tactical vehicles for the Army and Marine Corps at its facility in Camden.The Maryland-based defense contractor would only receive the incentive package if it wins a DOD contract, which is expected to be awarded this summer. The company is competing against Indiana-based AM General and Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Defense. The joint light tactical vehicle would replace the Humvee made by AM General.With the incentive package, Lockheed has said it would create 589 jobs and retain 556 at its plant in southern Arkansas.“It’s the best of the Legislature in action. They acted quickly and strongly,” Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) said, reported the Star Tribune. “I think it sends a good message to the federal government that the state of Arkansas is really a good partner with Lockheed Martin.”Arkansas’ incentive package would provide a $16.3 million net benefit to the state over a 25-year period after the bonds and interest are paid off, a consultant hired by the Legislature concluded. Dan Cohen AUTHORlast_img read more