網頁

星期四, 4月 27, 2017

MA state police superintendent statement on police involved shooting

Colonel Richard D. McKeon, Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, today released the following statement in response to the findings of Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley in the June 19, 2015 police-involved shooting of Santos Laboy in Boston.


“Based upon our own understanding of the facts and circumstances of the officer-involved shooting on the Silber Way Footbridge on June 19, 2015, we were confident that Trooper Andrew Patterson acted appropriately, and in defense of himself and others, when confronted by a knife-wielding suspect who repeatedly ignored commands to drop his knife and kept advancing toward the trooper.

“The evidence, as affirmed by the Suffolk County District Attorney today, showed that Trooper Patterson took repeated steps to try to de-escalate the confrontation and showed remarkable restraint. He repeatedly commanded the suspect, Santos Laboy, to drop his weapon, to no avail. The trooper moved backward as far as possible. When the armed suspect continued to close in on Trooper Patterson, and with the trooper also concerned for the safety of a crowd of civilians behind him on the Esplanade, Trooper Patterson as a last resort fired his weapon and struck the suspect, ending the threat.

“As police officers, we never want to have to fire at a suspect. Nonetheless, in certain circumstances, when an advancing armed suspect does not comply with orders to drop his weapon, or if no other means of de-escalation are possible, doing so is necessary to protect officers and bystanders. Trooper Patterson acted in accordance with the law and his training as a Massachusetts State Trooper.”

--Colonel Richard D. McKeon
Massachusetts State Police

DA Releases Investigative File in Fatal Police-Involved Shooting

BOSTON, April 26, 2017—Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley today released hundreds of pages of interviews, reports, and other materials related to his independent investigation into the fatal shooting of Santos Laboy during an armed encounter with police on a narrow footbridge above Storrow Drive.
During a meeting this afternoon to discuss his findings that the shooting did not warrant criminal charges, Conley provided Mr. Laboy’s family with documentation including 273 pages of interviews with 11 civilian witnesses and nine police witnesses, 111 pages of documentary reports, more than 450 digital photo files, almost 50 minutes of dispatch recordings, multiple video clips, and additional materials gathered by Chief Trial Counsel John Pappas, who oversaw the investigation.
Under a policy of transparency Conley put in place more than a decade ago, he also made those materials available upon request to Boston’s media for an additional layer of review.
The DA’s investigation and legal analysis revealed that Massachusetts State Police Trooper Andrew Patterson acted in lawful self-defense and defense of others when he discharged his service weapon and struck Mr. Laboy, who was approaching him with a knife, on the Silber Way Footbridge on June 19, 2015. The investigation revealed that Trooper Patterson was retreating from Mr. Laboy when he fired, and that he fired only after Mr. Laboy refused numerous commands from multiple officers to stop and drop his weapon.
The investigation established that Mr. Laboy had been sought by the Boston University Police Department in connection with an earlier investigation. Boston University Police detectives observed Mr. Laboy on the Esplanade that afternoon and attempted to speak with him about their investigation when he fled on foot.
The foot chase that followed led BUPD officers from the area of the Esplanade onto Storrow Drive, where Mr. Laboy attempted to enter motorists’ vehicles, and back. Brandishing a lock-back folding knife with a three-inch, double-edged blade, Mr. Laboy resisted and evaded the officers’ repeated efforts to de-escalate the situation and detain him using nonlethal force until he made his way to the Silber Footbridge from the Esplanade side of Storrow Drive. In the course of his flight, he told various officers that he would “stick” them with his knife.
Trooper Patterson, who had been working a detail nearby, heard a radio call requesting assistance in apprehending a suspect and made his way to the footbridge from the Boston side. As he crossed the bridge toward the Esplanade, he observed Mr. Laboy attempt to enter a passing car on Storrow Drive, jump a wrought iron fence onto the Esplanade, and flee from a BUPD officer who deployed his pepper spray toward him.
As Trooper Patterson crossed the bridge to assist the officers on the Esplanade side of the bridge, Mr. Laboy made his way up the ramp toward him, knife in hand. Trooper Patterson drew his weapon and repeatedly ordered Mr. Laboy to drop his knife. When Mr. Laboy was within about 15 feet of him, Trooper Patterson began moving backward while keeping his weapon trained on Mr. Laboy. While ignoring more than a dozen commands to drop his weapon, Mr. Laboy took a crouching stance, uttered an expletive and began approaching Trooper Patterson, behind whom stood a growing crowd of civilian witnesses.
Armed with the knife, Mr. Laboy advanced on Trooper Patterson, who continued to move backward. Mr. Laboy closed to a distance of 20 to 25 feet when Trooper Patterson discharged his weapon four times, striking him. Officers at the scene called for medical assistance and attempted to provide first aid. Mr. Laboy was declared dead at the scene.
“After a careful consideration of the facts and the law, I have determined that, under the circumstances, Trooper Patterson’s use of force was a lawful and reasonable exercise of self-defense and defense of others,” Conley wrote, citing Massachusetts law related to the use of lethal force in self-defense and rulings by the US Supreme Court and Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Conley further noted that Mr. Laboy appeared to be twenty to twenty-five feet away from Trooper Patterson at the time of the discharge, a distance that the trooper had a reasonable belief could be crossed in less time than would allow him to defend himself, and that Trooper Patterson was aware of a potential risk to the crowd behind him were Mr. Laboy able to get past him and cross the bridge to Back Street.

Conley’s office investigated the incident under Ch. 38, Sect. 4, of the Massachusetts General Laws, which establishes that, in “cases of unnatural or suspicious death,” including police-involved deaths, “the district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation of the death and shall coordinate the investigation with the office of the chief medical examiner and the police department within whose jurisdiction the death occurred.”

星期三, 4月 26, 2017

第十屆全球華文網路教育研討會在臺灣

第十屆全球華文網路教育研討會在臺灣

為運用數位科技優勢,推動優質華語文及正體漢字網路教育,僑務委員會於19995月首次結合學術機構及相關產業舉辦「第一屆全球華文網路教育研討會(International Conference on Internet Chinese Education,簡稱ICICE)」,之後每兩年於臺北舉辦一次。為提升本研討會國際知名度,更分別於20132015年移師至美國洛杉磯及波士頓舉辦,並邀請美國華語文教學相關學會共同協辦,深化本研討會之國際規格。
經統計,本研討會辦理迄今已累計超過4,300位海內外華語文教育專家、學者、各級學校數位教學實務工作者、華語文數位科技產業人士共同參與,迄今已發表逾700篇學術論文,顯見本研討會已成為全球最具規模及最受矚目之華語文數位教學論壇之一。此外,透過研討會的舉辦,亦達到分享海外中文學校華語文數位教學成果、促進華語文數位學習產業蓬勃發展等多元功能。第十屆全球華文網路教育研討會特訂於201762425日在臺北舉辦,期待各界先進持續參與,分享更多創新、深入的研究與教學成果。

新興科技融入華語教學的創新展望
    回顧近年來,數位科技不斷推陳出新,資訊融入華語教學方式也因此有了很大的變革,如何善用資訊科技讓華語教學更多元化兼具實用性,並借重新興科技的便利,達到教學效益的最大化,為目前大家關注的議題。本屆研討會(ICICE 10)主題著重在「資訊科技融入華語文教學之創新與展望」,希望集結國內華語文專家及海外僑教人士的智慧與經驗,激盪出創新與創意的火花,建立臺灣華語文教學品牌。

研討會報名活動正式開放
    華文網路教育研討會為重要的華語網路教育論壇,是國內外華語教育界人士十分重視的盛會,每次舉辦皆吸引了世界各地的教學菁英踴躍參與,活動已於今年3月底正式開放線上報名,歡迎有興趣人士至ICICE10官方網站(http://ocac.go2school.com.tw/icice2017/index.html)報名。
第十屆全球華文網路教育研討會
時間:201762425
地點:張榮發基金會國際會議中心(臺北市中正區中山南路1111樓)
主題:資訊科技融入華語文教學之創新與展望
主辦單位:中華民國僑務委員會
承辦單位:學術組/臺灣華語文教學學會

                秘書組/財團法人華岡興業基金會

波士頓經文處和中華公所合作放電影 5到7月每月一場

【懷舊養生  牽手看臺灣電影】

駐波士頓臺北經濟文化辦事處與紐英崙中華公所共同於422日下午舉辦2017年第一場臺灣電影放映會,播放臺灣早期懷舊電影「今天不回家」,並在電影放映前播放「慈濟大愛醫生館」提供的醫療保健影片,吸引40餘位僑胞鄉親到場聆賞。
駐波士頓臺北經濟文化辦事處組長朱永昌、僑教中心主任歐宏偉、紐英崙中華公所主席陳家驊等人都到場參加;處長賴銘琪也特別提供零食及飲水,讓大家有在戲院中看電影的感覺,同時也能獲得養生保健的知識。
歐宏偉表示,今年5月至7月每個月都會在中華公所播映一場,之後,在牛頓市的僑教中心也會規劃舉行臺灣電影放映活動,歡迎大家一起參加。(波士頓僑教中心提供)




Governor Baker Nominates Attorneys Nielsen, Wendlandt to Courts

Governor Baker Nominates Attorneys Nielsen, Wendlandt to Courts

BOSTON – Today, Governor Charlie Baker nominated Arose W. Nielsen to the Juvenile Court in Western Massachusetts, and Dalila Argaez Wendlandt to the Appeals Court. Nielsen has extensive experience in family law, housing discrimination, and domestic violence cases, and Wendlandt is an expert in patent, and trade secret, and trademark misappropriation litigation.

“Arose Nielsen and Dalila Argaez Wendlandt are leaders in their respective law practices, and their experiences are bound to benefit the litigants and lawyers who appear before them,” said Governor Charlie Baker. “Their commitment to fairness and justice for Massachusetts citizens is commendable, and if confirmed, they will be valuable assets to the District and Appeals Courts.”  

“Attorneys Nielson and Wendlandt are both impressive litigators who are highly dedicated to the rule of law,” said Lt. Governor Karyn Polito. “I am pleased with their nominations and I look forward to their review by the Governor’s Council.”

Nielsen has been nominated for the Juvenile Court seat in Hampden County vacated by Judge James G. Collins who was appointed by Acting Governor Jane M. Swift in 2001. Judge Collins served as the First Justice of the Franklin/Hampshire Juvenile Court.

Wendlandt has been nominated to the Appeals Court seat vacated by Justice Elspeth B. Cypher who was originally appointed to the Appeals Court by Governor Paul Cellucci in 2000 and who was elevated to the Supreme Judicial Court by Governor Baker in March of this year.

The Juvenile Court Department is a statewide court with jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters including delinquencies, youthful offender cases, care and protections and children requiring assistance cases. The Juvenile Court has 41 judges, including the Chief Justice, in over 40 locations.

For more information about the Juvenile Court, please visit: http://www.mass.gov/courts/court-info/trial-court/juv/

The Appeals Court is the intermediate appellate court to which most appeals from the Massachusetts Trial Courts and a number of administrative bodies are made.  The Court has one Chief and 24 Associate Justices.

For more information about the Massachusetts Appeals Court, visithttp://www.mass.gov/courts/court-info/appealscourt/.

Judicial nominations are subject to the advice and consent of the Governor’s Council. Applicants for judicial openings are reviewed by the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) and recommended to the governor. Governor Baker established the JNC in February, 2015 pursuant to Executive Order 558, a non-partisan, non-political Commission composed of volunteers from a cross-section of the Commonwealth's diverse population to screen judicial applications. Twenty-one members were later appointed to the JNC in April, 2015.

About Arose W. Nielsen

Attorney Arose W. Nielsen has been Partner at Carvajal & Nielsen, P.C. since 2007, where she concentrates in family law and child welfare in the Springfield Juvenile Court and Hampden County Probate and Family Court.  Attorney Nielsen has been appointed guardian ad litem on several cases in the Juvenile Court. She served as a Staff Attorney for the Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Massachusetts from 2001-2007 and also has experience working with the Law Registry for the Day, Berry & Howard, LLP, the Center for Human Development and has volunteered at the Domestic Violence Unit of the Hampden County District Attorney's Office.  Attorney Nielsen received her B.A in Comparative Literature with a minor in Russian Language from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1993, and earned her J.D. at Western New England College School of Law in 2000. Attorney Nielsen has taught classes in American Politics at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and is the lead vocalist for The Annulments, a cover band composed of lawyers of the Worcester County Bar Association, proceeds from the group are used to support local communities. Attorney Nielsen and her husband, Brent, have raised a daughter and son and reside in Belchertown.


About Dalila Argaez Wendlandt

Dalila Argaez Wendlandt is currently a partner in the Intellectual Property Litigation Group at Ropes & Gray in Boston, where she focuses on counseling clients in industries ranging from life sciences to semiconductor manufacturing. She has worked on a wide variety of cases, including trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement litigation. Attorney Wendlandt has also provided various  pro bono activities including assisting clients with applications for political asylum and representation of a death row inmate. She also served as a Special Assistant District Attorney for Middlesex County. Prior to starting at Ropes & Gray, Ms. Wendlandt clerked for Judge John M. Walker, Jr., in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, based in New York. Ms. Wendlandt graduated from the University of Illinois in 1991 with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, and received her M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1993. She earned her J.D. from Stanford University Law School in 1996, where she served as Article Development Editor of the Stanford Law Review. She resides with her family in Newton. 

Commonwealth seminar

Commonwealth Seminar... Alumni Testimonials
April 26th, 2017
New MassCS Banner
Seminar Applications 
Due this Friday

Why apply to the Seminar?...
Some of our 1,200+ Alumni 
can fill you in.
---------------------------------

Some members of our Fall 2016 Seminar 
 after class, in the MA State House
"The Commonwealth Seminar provides an empowering learning experience that propels (one) to action. It inspires participants - like me -
to know that they have a fair chance in politics."
Winston Pierre,
Seminar Graduate: 
Winter 2015

***************

"I can't get enough of the Seminar... The skills I acquired are being used not just for leadership in Boston's refugee communities.  It's also been crucial for our work in restoring democracy in war ravaged West African country of Liberia." Torli Krua, Seminar Graduate: Spring 2016

***************

"The Commonwealth Seminar is for anyone who understands the power of knowledge and the impact of networking... I truly enjoyed talking to many brilliant people with different backgrounds and learning about how... government operates." 
Saman Abazari, Seminar Graduate: Winter 2017

Some of the State's best known, most experienced political experts offer their "insider knowledge" to our Seminar students.
Members of the Seminar's Winter Class of 2017 wishing a Vanny Huot's mother a Happy Birthday, after class

***************

"I feel duty bound to fight for those (including my
self) whose voices have been denied or undermined at decision making levels. The Seminar challenges me to step out of my comfort zone and empowers me to take on or assert my leadership skills in spaces that are traditionally exclusive."
Vanny Huot, Seminar Graduate: Winter 2017

***************

"The Commonwealth Seminar is a place to have a gleam of American political life."
Henry Yongho, Seminar Graduate: Fall 2016

***************

"The Commonwealth Seminar puts you in a room with some of the most intelligent, passionate, and socially-active community members from across the state, stimulating cross-dialogue... Essentially, (the Seminar) is an incubator for emerging civic leaders and an incubator for the diverse future of Massachusetts." 
Christian Arthur, Seminar Graduate: Fall 2016

***************

"I have gained knowledge that will help me effectively advocate for my community and develop my skills as a public servant."
Fatima Nambour Jallow, Seminar Alumnus: Winter 2017

***************
"The Seminar changed the way I viewed my role as a 'change maker.' It empowered me to realize that we all we have the power to create change and that there is room for me in our government. The Seminar inspired and validated my choice to study government and politics in college."
Lily Tang, Seminar Intern, and Graduate: Spring 2016


  As we head toward our 15th year, the Commonwealth Seminar remains steadfast in our Core Mission of 
"Opening the Doors of Government to Everyone"
Download the 
Seminar Application
-------------------------- 

If you would like to apply for the Seminar, but are having trouble meeting this Friday's deadline, please let us know ASAP. 

The six sessions are scheduled for:
  • Thursday, May 11th (5:30-8:15pm)
  • Wednesday, May 17th - (3:15-5:15pmThe State House)
  • Thursday, May 25th (5:30-8:15pm)
  • Thursday, June 1st (5:30-8:15pm)
  • Thursday, June 8th (5:30-8:15pm)
  • Thursday, June 15th - (3:15-5:15pmGraduation!


About the Commonwealth Seminar

The Commonwealth Seminar is a privately funded program with the mission of opening the doors of the State House. It is an intensive training program focused on teaching diverse leaders how the Massachusetts Legislature really works. Top state legislators, legislative staff, media members, and administration policymakers will introduce seminar participants to the Legislature and state government generally. By giving an insiders' view of the process, our goal is to encourage diverse leaders to become effective advocates and to pursue careers in public service.
Who Should Apply?

We are looking for leaders from communities of color and immigrant communities; and people working to directly benefit them. We place a high value on creating a seminar class that is diverse racially, ethnically, and geographically.
Successful candidates for the Commonwealth Seminar will have a basic understanding of state government and a clear desire to use the skills learned through the seminar to make positive change.
Acceptance to the seminar is decided through a competitive process. Commonwealth Seminar staff and advisers will make all final decisions about the makeup of the seminar.
More Information and Application 

Please be prepared to make a compelling argument in the application about how you fit into the Commonwealth Seminar's target student profile. For more information, and to download an application, please visit the Commonwealth Seminar website

In This Issue
Help Us Recruit! 
Dome Logo
Please forward this email to anyone who might be a good match for the Commonwealth Seminar! 
Quick Links

Commonwealth Seminar, P.O. Box 120064, Boston, MA 02112

Senator Harris Joins Colleagues to Urge Trump Administration to Continue Program that Reunites Filipino World War II Veterans with Their Families

Senator Harris Joins Colleagues to Urge Trump Administration to Continue Program that Reunites Filipino World War II Veterans with Their Families

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris joined Senators Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), to urge the President to continue the implementation of the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program (FWVP) program, which reunites Filipino veterans who fought for the United States during World War II with their families. The Senators wrote to the President in response to reports that the Administration is reviewing immigration parole programs.

“Today, there are less than six thousand surviving Filipino World War II veterans in the United States,” the Senators wrote. “Like most elderly Americans, these veterans are likely to become more reliant on family members for care as they grow older. However, because the current family-based immigrant visa backlog extends back more than 20 years, these family members have not been able to reunite with their relatives in the United States.

“We know you understand the contributions and sacrifices that these veterans and their families have made to our country. Therefore, we hope that USCIS will continue its full implementation of the FWVP policy uninterrupted and that you work to address the needs of these veterans.”

Filipino veterans were granted citizenship in recognition of their service to the United States during World War II. Many of their children, however, were not. Due to backlogs in the U.S. immigration system, it can take more than 20 years for a visa to become available. Under the FWVP program, families, some of whom have been waiting decades, can finally be together in the United States while they wait for a green card.  

The full letter is printed below:

Dear Mr. President:

We write today to reiterate our support for the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole (FWVP) Program, and to advocate for its continued implementation under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) humanitarian parole authority.

Your executive order of January 25, 2017 stated that “It is the policy of the executive branch to end the abuse of parole and asylum provisions currently used to prevent the lawful removal of removable aliens.” Related to parole provisions, the order directs the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security “to ensure that parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and in all circumstances only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit. Last week, the Washington Post reported that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had recently “taken several steps to review its exercise of parole authority” and had forwarded recommendations related to the “termination or modification” of its uses of parole consistent with your executive order.

We believe that the use of humanitarian parole to support elderly Filipino veterans and their family members meets the statutory requirements for humanitarian parole, and that the current policy does not constitute an abuse of parole authority as USCIS has established it would yield a “significant public benefit.” As recognized by USCIS, given “the advanced age of World War II Filipino veterans and their spouses, and their increased need for care and companionship, grants of parole under the FWVP policy would often address urgent humanitarian concerns.” In short, the FWVP policy “enhances the ability of such elderly veterans and their spouses to obtain care and support from their family members abroad.” Parole is granted on a case-by-case basis, and “parole applications for individuals who fall within the general criteria but whose cases present overriding adverse factors (e.g., criminal history) would not be approved.” Such case-by-case consideration and the bar on those with criminal backgrounds safeguards the program from abuse.

Furthermore, the stringent eligibility requirements of the program provide another backstop against abuse. USCIS only considers requests for parole on a case-by-case basis, and only considers requests for beneficiaries who have already received approved family-based immigrant visa petitions. USCIS also maintains its discretion to reject applications for individuals who meet these criteria, but present overriding adverse factors like criminal histories. Following the first four years of the Program, USCIS will conduct additional outreach and evaluate whether the volume of actual or potential requests would support maintaining the policy, or whether it should be phased out at the end of five years.

As you know, during the Second World War, an estimated 260,000 Filipino soldiers answered President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “call-to-arms” and supported the American war effort. Despite their service and the promise of naturalization, many of these veterans did not receive U.S. citizenship until after President George H. W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which included a provision that offered naturalized citizenship for Filipino World War II veterans—more than 40 years later. Only last year were these veterans honored for their contributions and sacrifices with the Congressional Gold Medal.

Today, there are less than six thousand surviving Filipino World War II veterans in the United States. Like most elderly Americans, these veterans are likely to become more reliant on family members for care as they grow older. However, because the current family-based immigrant visa backlog extends back more than 20 years, these family members have not been able to reunite with their relatives in the United States.

Under the FWVP policy, veterans whose service has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Defense, or their surviving spouses, may apply to request parole on behalf of their children, and, in some cases, certain other family members. Given that many of the surviving veterans are in their 80s and 90s, reunification with loved ones provides an opportunity for them to live more independently in the care of family members—an important humanitarian benefit that these veterans deserve as part of our nation’s repayment for their brave service. 

During the 113th Congress, the U.S. Senate adopted an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have allowed for the children of Filipino World War II Veterans to be reunited with their parents. Recognizing the contributions of these veterans and their families, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted this amendment unanimously and the bill later passed with a broad, bipartisan support on a 68-32 vote. We know you understand the contributions and sacrifices that these veterans and their families have made to our country. Therefore, we hope that USCIS will continue its full implementation of the FWVP policy uninterrupted and that you work to address the needs of these veterans.

According to the most recent data from USCIS, there are 282 pending applications to the FWVP program. These applications should be highly prioritized, as it is critical for family members to be reunited with their aging parents in need.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to your response.