NSW Law Society reprimands previous Wyong Mayor for conflict of interest

FORMER Wyong Mayor Doug Eaton has copped a put on the wrist for unacceptable expert conduct as a solicitor in helping one of his family s companies win a six-figure payment versus the ratepayers he was serving.

26s2More than a year after a problem was made against Mr. Eaton; the NSW Law Society has reprimanded the previous long-serving councilor for breaching guidelines which state a lawyer must not act for a client in any dealing in between that customer and a regional council, of which the specialist is a member. Mr. Eaton served as solicitor for his family company, A Van Stappen, in a legal dispute with Wyong Council while he was likewise a councilor between 2007 and 2010.

Files reveal Mr. Eaton fulfilled former basic manager Kerry Yates on May 7, 2010, when it is understood a $330,000 settlement was agreed on. A Van Stappen Pty Ltd had looked for near $1 million from the council in the final procedures.

The Law Society said in its findings: The taking of action is justified, having regard to all the scenarios of the case including the severity of the conduct worried.

In an interview with the Express Advocate on June 23 in 2014, Mr. Eaton rubbished speculation he was set to be examined over the conflict-of-interest accusations.

I contact the NSW Law Society to reveal me paperwork that I’m being examined, and the reasons why, because I’ll show them it is total bullshit, an angry Mr. Eaton stated.

The Law Society kept in mind in its findings versus Mr. Eaton that he denied breaching Rule 36 of the Revised Professional Conduct and Practice Rules (1995).

(Mr. Eaton) recommends that at a meeting with the president or CEO of the Law Society in 1993 or 1994 he was provided the authorization of the Law Society to act for his household business in handling the council.

The committee does not accept this submission.

Mr. Eaton did not respond to an e-mail about whether he would appeal versus the Law Society’s decision.


One of the two plaintiffs has already requested a review of the judgment with the Legal Services Commissioner.

Both plaintiffs believe the more severe punishment of expert misbehavior need to be made against Mr. Eaton.

SCIA Passes Barrasso Bill to Reauthorize the Tribal Law and Order Act

Today, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA) Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) praised the committee’s passage of S. 2920, the Tribal Law and Order Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2016. The act is cosponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

The act reauthorizes several provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) of 2010. It deals with the needs of public safety in Indian Country by focusing on access to data sharing, coordination, and juvenile justice. The expense will now go to the complete Senate for factor to consider.

Reauthorizing and improving the Tribal Law and Order Act is an essential action toward empowering tribal courts and police, stated Chairman Barrasso. Our committee has actually heard testimony at a number of hearings that these actions are required. I wish to thank the members of the committee for passing the expense and will work to see it pass the complete Senate quickly.

S. 2920 will attend to public safety in Indian neighborhoods by:

Reauthorizing the Bureau of Prisons pilot program that allows particular tribally convicted persons to be held in the bureau’s facilities;

Improve interagency partnership by requiring the Departments of Justice, Interior, Health and Human Services collaborate to reduce recidivism and for the Department of Justice to discover incentives for intergovernmental cooperation;

Reauthorizing police and judicial training for investigation and prosecution of unlawful narcotics and the prevention and treatment of alcohol and drug abuse;

Needing the attorney general to share reports from the federal criminal info database with the affected Indian tribe;

Making it possible for tribes to have access to federal background-check info, in addition to information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics;

26s3Making permanent the Shadow Wolves drug-trafficking-prevention program within the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Directing the administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to consult with Indian tribes biannually on strengthening government-to-government relationships and improving justice for Indian youth; Directing the comptroller basic to submit a baseline report to Congress on Indian youth in juvenile justice systems, centers for Indian youth, federal company coordination, and existing programs;

Improving justice for Indian youth by needing notification to people when a member youth enters a state or regional justice system, needing tribal participation on advisory groups, collaborating services for tribal youth, and including tribal standard or cultural programs which decrease recidivism as licensed activities for federal financing; and.

Developing tribal liaisons and special assistant federal public protectors, similar to the intermediaries and special assistant U.S lawyers in the United States attorney’s workplaces.


In 2010, Congress passed the Tribal Law and Order Act. It was included into the Indian Arts and Crafts Act Amendments, and became law that year. It was a primary step towards enhancing the performance and effectiveness of criminal justice systems in Indian Country.


On March 31, 2015, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a field oversight hearing on “Addressing the Harmful Effects of Dangerous Drugs in Native Communities.” The hearing was held in Ethete, Wyo., on the Wind River Indian Reservation.

On July 15, 2015, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on “Juvenile Justice in Indian Country: Challenges and Promising Strategies.”

On July 29, 2015, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on “Examining the True Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Native Communities.”

On Dec. 2, 2015, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the Tribal Law and Order Act 5 Years Later: How have the justice systems in Indian Country improved?

On Feb. 25, 2016, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a public roundtable on the Tribal Law and Order Act 5 Years Later: Next Steps to Improving Justice Systems in Indian Communities.

Supreme Court Will Evaluation Unusual Citizenship Law

The Supreme Court concurred Tuesday to referee a dispute about an odd piece of U.S. citizenship law that deals with males and females in a different way.

The justices said they will hear a case about a law that uses just to children born outside the United States to one parent who is an American and one who is not. The law makes it simpler for children whose mom is a person to become people themselves. Even after reform legislation in 1986, children of American dads deal with greater difficulties asserting citizenship on their own.


The federal appeals court in New York overruled the law in the case of Luis Ramon Morales-Santana. He challenged the law and asserted he is a U.S. resident after U.S. authorities looked for to deport him after convictions for break-in and tried murder.

Morales-Santana is the child a of a Dominican mother and an American father, who left Puerto Rico for the Dominican Republic 20 days prior to his 19th birthday.

For people born prior to 1986 to moms and dads who are not married, their U.S. citizen dads needed to have actually lived in the U.S. for 10 years, at least five of them after the age of 14. Morales-Santana’s dad missed meeting the second part of that requirement by 20 days.

American moms require just have resided in the United States constantly for a year before the birth of a child.

26s1Modifications to migration law made in 1986 decreased the overall residency time for fathers to five years, only two of which had to be after the age of 14. By contrast, a kid born in the United States, regardless of the moms and dads’ nationality, is a U.S. resident, as is a child born abroad to two American citizens if one of them has actually ever lived in the United States. For more information visit http://www.mahanyertl.com/. The justices attempted to address this question in 2011, but divided 4-4 with Justice Elena Kagan out of the case because she dealt with while serving in the Justice Department.

This time around, the case will again be heard by 8 justices, however with Kagan participating.

The case, Lynch v. Morales-Santana, 15-1191, will be said in the fall.