: Claim No: KB-2026-002571 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division 29 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Fordham Between: HXS -v- Daniel Ryan Kane Robert Samms Dylan Nelson The person or persons unknown (a) who have communicated with the Claimant by email from the email address dannyryan_94@hotmail.co.uk; or (b) who have communicated with the Claimant by ordinary text message from +1 917 722 9086; or (c) who has communicated with the Claimant by WhatsApp numbers +1 940 601 2821 and +44 7423 436872; or (d) who have communicated with the Claimant by Telegram accounts @edm2181 and @dg96dg; or (e) who have communicated with the Claimant via the Seeking dating website; or (f) who use or have used a Revolut account under the name Daniel Ryan with the GB IBAN GB76 REVO 2301 2083 5150 68 and the BIC/SWIFT code REVOGB21; or (g) who use or have used the Wise bank account under the name Kane Robert Sams with IBAN: GB76 REVO 2301 2083 5150 68 and BIC/SWIFT: REVOGB21 The post HXS -v- persons unknown and others appeare[...]
: Claim No: KB-2026-002571 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division 29 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Fordham Between: HSX -v- Daniel Ryan Kane Robert Samms Dylan Nelson The person or persons unknown (a) who have communicated with the Claimant by email from the email address dannyryan_94@hotmail.co.uk; or (b) who have communicated with the Claimant by ordinary text message from +1 917 722 9086; or (c) who has communicated with the Claimant by WhatsApp numbers +1 940 601 2821 and +44 7423 436872; or (d) who have communicated with the Claimant by Telegram accounts @edm2181 and @dg96dg; or (e) who have communicated with the Claimant via the Seeking dating website; or (f) who use or have used a Revolut account under the name Daniel Ryan with the GB IBAN GB76 REVO 2301 2083 5150 68 and the BIC/SWIFT code REVOGB21; or (g) who use or have used the Wise bank account under the name Kane Robert Sams with IBAN: GB76 REVO 2301 2083 5150 68 and BIC/SWIFT: REVOGB21 The post HSX -v- persons unknown and others appeare[...]
: Police use of force continues to be a significant problem in American law and society. Recent discussions have focused on doctrinal issues such as what type of force is considered “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment and the propriety of qualified immunity as a defense that can shield law enforcement from civil litigation. However, there has been little commentary on how these and other legal questions might be informed by medicine — specifically, victim diagnoses that might effectively absolve officers from criminal prosecution or civil liability. The post Excited Delirium, Policing, and the Law of Evidence appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: UT ref: UA-2026-000083-PIP In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber 28 October 2026 Before: Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anonymity Order Appellant: LC Respondents: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Tribunal venue: Scarborough Tribunal Case Nos: SC231/24/00181 Tribunal decision date: 29 August 2025 NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It is ordered , under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish [...]