Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-28-2009, 09:09 PM  
memyselfI memyselfI is offline
CHANGEd your mind yet????
 
memyselfI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunatics Anonymous
Casino cash: $5077
Bush Lite strikes again: asks SC to continue W policy re:? supects w/o lawyer

Bush Lite once again continuing the policy of his predecessor and disappointing civil rights proponents. It's becoming an addiction with him. The SC gave him his wish.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...et_protection/

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agreed to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

The court's conservatives overturned that opinion, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned."

Under the Jackson opinion, police could not even ask a defendant who had been appointed a lawyer if he wanted to talk, Scalia said.

"It would be completely unjustified to presume that a defendant's consent to police-initiated interrogation was involuntary or coerced simply because he had previously been appointed a lawyer," Scalia said in the court's opinion.

Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said the decision will have "minimal" effects on criminal defendants because of the protections the court has provided in other decisions. "The considerable adverse effect of this rule upon society's ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice far outweighs its capacity to prevent a genuinely coerced agreement to speak without counsel present," Scalia said.

The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He and Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move Stevens read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."

The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.


The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

Eleven states also echoed the administration's call to overrule the 1986 case.

The decision comes in the case of Jesse Jay Montejo, who was found guilty in 2005 of the shooting death of Louis Ferrari in the victim's home on Sept. 5, 2002.

Montejo was appointed a public defender at his Sept. 10, 2002 hearing, but never indicated that he wanted the lawyer's help. Montejo then went with police detectives to help them look for the murder weapon. While in the car, Montejo wrote a letter to Ferrari's widow incriminating himself.

When they returned to the prison, a public defender was waiting for Montejo, irate that his client had been questioned in his absence. Police used the letter against Montejo at trial, and he was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed, but the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence.

The Supreme Court sent the case back for a determination of whether any of Montejo's other court-provided protections, like his Miranda rights, were violated.

The case is Montejo v. Louisiana, 07-1529.
Posts: 31,954
memyselfI has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:11 PM   #2
Discuss Thrower Discuss Thrower is online now
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3
 
Discuss Thrower's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No, where do YOU live?
Casino cash: $8771
Last I checked the president cannot ask the Supreme Court to do jack. Gotta love an independent judiciary.
__________________

- credit goes to BoneKrusher for the pic

Chiefs 2015 Opponents:
Home: CLE, PIT, CHI, DET, AFC East. Away: BAL, CIN, GB, MIN, AFC South
Chiefs 2016 Opponents:
Home: JAX, TEN, NO, TB, AFC East. Away: HOU, IND, ATL, CAR, AFC North
Chiefs 2017 Opponents:
Home: BUF, MIA, PHI, WSH, AFC North. Away: NE, NYJ, NYG, DAL, AFC South
Posts: 11,699
Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.Discuss Thrower threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:12 PM   #3
Gracie Dean Gracie Dean is offline
MVP
 
Gracie Dean's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $5000
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Posts: 12,974
Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Gracie Dean has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:15 PM   #4
KILLER_CLOWN KILLER_CLOWN is offline
Be HEALED!!!!!!!
 
KILLER_CLOWN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fascist State
Casino cash: $5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by noswad View Post
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
You no longer have the right to remain silent, talk or be tortured.
__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 24,195
KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:17 PM   #5
petegz28 petegz28 is offline
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $7205
Just because the Police can ask questions doesn't mean you have to answer. You ahve the Right to reamain silent.
Posts: 65,854
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:19 PM   #6
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $5540
I read this opinion. This author misunderstands the purpose and application of the decision in its entirety. A defendant who has requested counsel is still off limits to police interrogation, this opinion did not change that despite the author's misstatements.

It's just that defendants who didn't request counsel are allowed to waive counsel and talk to police.
__________________
Posts: 32,666
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:21 PM   #7
memyselfI memyselfI is offline
CHANGEd your mind yet????
 
memyselfI's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunatics Anonymous
Casino cash: $5077
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Town Fan 1988 View Post
Last I checked the president cannot ask the Supreme Court to do jack. Gotta love an independent judiciary.
Apparently Bush Lite asked them to rule in a manner consistent with what Bush Regular had been advocating.

It seems to me that the ruling would negatively affect a demographic of Bush Lite's supporters more than it would Regulars. As such, what is the benefit of supporting this?
__________________
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

BigChiefDave:"Anyone who thought we would only be in Iraq for a few years is either stoned or just stoopid."
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last 6 days, 6 wks. I doubt 6 mths." Rummy 2/7/03
Posts: 31,954
memyselfI has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:26 PM   #8
memyselfI memyselfI is offline
CHANGEd your mind yet????
 
memyselfI's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunatics Anonymous
Casino cash: $5077
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
I read this opinion. This author misunderstands the purpose and application of the decision in its entirety. A defendant who has requested counsel is still off limits to police interrogation, this opinion did not change that despite the author's misstatements.

It's just that defendants who didn't request counsel are allowed to waive counsel and talk to police.
Nice try.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...oning-law.html

Quote:
Barack Obama administration seeks to change police questioning law
The Obama administration is urging the US Supreme Court to overturn a landmark decision that stops police from questioning suspects unless they have a lawyer present.


By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 4:55PM BST 24 Apr 2009


The effort to sweep aside the 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson ruling is one of several moves by the new government to have dismayed civil rights groups.

President Barack Obama has already provoked controversy by backing the continued imprisonment without trial of enemy combatants in Afghanistan and by limiting the rights of prisoners to challenge evidence used to convict them.

The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.

Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.

However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.

The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be "represented by counsel", but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to "protect the adversary process" in a criminal trial.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meagre benefits".

The government said that suspects have the right to remain silent, and that officers must respect that decision. But it argued that there is no reason a defendant who wants to speak without a lawyer present should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

Critics argue that the 1986 decision is important to protect vulnerable defendants such as the mentally disabled, poor or juveniles who could be easily swayed by the police.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University.

Stephen Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Centre for Human Rights in Atlanta, described the administration's position as "disappointing - no question".

Nineteen former judges and prosecutors – including Larry Thompson, the ex-deputy attorney general, and Williams Sessions, a former FBI director – have urged the Supreme Court to leave the 1986 ruling intact.
__________________
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

BigChiefDave:"Anyone who thought we would only be in Iraq for a few years is either stoned or just stoopid."
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last 6 days, 6 wks. I doubt 6 mths." Rummy 2/7/03
Posts: 31,954
memyselfI has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:33 PM   #9
memyselfI memyselfI is offline
CHANGEd your mind yet????
 
memyselfI's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunatics Anonymous
Casino cash: $5077
And another. I'm anxious to see BRC, Penchiefs, and jAZ's spin on this one.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index....ng_suprem.html
Quote:
Obama legal team asking Supreme Court to overrule decision that stops police from questioning defendants without lawyer
by Mark Sherman | The Associated Press
Friday April 24, 2009, 2:50 PM


WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a 23-year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, one of several moves to limit rights that have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups.

Since taking office, President Barack Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning may not be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.

The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."

The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.

The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."

Bright said that poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.

Eleven states also are echoing the administration's call to overrule the 1986 case.

Justice Samuel Alito first raised the prospect of overruling the decision at arguments in January over the rights of Jesse Montejo, the Louisiana death row inmate.

Montejo's lawyer, Donald Verrilli, urged the court not to do it. Since then, Verrilli has joined the Justice Department, but played no role in the department's brief.
__________________
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

BigChiefDave:"Anyone who thought we would only be in Iraq for a few years is either stoned or just stoopid."
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last 6 days, 6 wks. I doubt 6 mths." Rummy 2/7/03
Posts: 31,954
memyselfI has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:39 PM   #10
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $5540
Quote:
Originally Posted by memyselfI View Post
gee some Brits misunderstood our legal rulings?

Let me try quoting the actual legal decision and see if that penetrates the fog:


“As a general matter . . . an accused who is admon-ished with the warnings prescribed by this Court in Miranda . . . has been sufficiently apprised of the na-ture of his Sixth Amendment rights, and of the conse-quences of abandoning those rights, so that his waiver on this basis will be considered a knowing and intelli-gent one.” Patterson, supra, at 296.
The only question raised by this case, and the only one addressed by the Jackson rule, is whether courts must presume that such a waiver is invalid under certain cir-cumstances...

...These three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. Under the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick line of cases (which is not in doubt), a defendant who does not want to speak to the police without counsel present need only say as much when he is first approached and given the Miranda warn-ings. At that point, not only must the immediate contactend, but “badgering” by later requests is prohibited. If that regime suffices to protect the integrity of “a suspect’svoluntary choice not to speak outside his lawyer’s pres-ence” before his arraignment, Cobb, 532 U. S., at 175 (KENNEDY, J., concurring), it is hard to see why it would not also suffice to protect that same choice after arraign-ment, when Sixth Amendment rights have attached. And if so, then Jackson is simply superfluous

...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/07-1529.pdf
__________________
Posts: 32,666
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:42 PM   #11
memyselfI memyselfI is offline
CHANGEd your mind yet????
 
memyselfI's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunatics Anonymous
Casino cash: $5077
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
gee some Brits misunderstood our legal rulings?
Ok, Robert Gibbs.
__________________
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

BigChiefDave:"Anyone who thought we would only be in Iraq for a few years is either stoned or just stoopid."
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last 6 days, 6 wks. I doubt 6 mths." Rummy 2/7/03
Posts: 31,954
memyselfI has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:43 PM   #12
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $5540
Quote:
Originally Posted by memyselfI View Post
Ok, Robert Gibbs.
Hey, good reply to the actual portions of the opinon I cited!


You're a total fraud.
__________________
Posts: 32,666
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:45 PM   #13
memyselfI memyselfI is offline
CHANGEd your mind yet????
 
memyselfI's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunatics Anonymous
Casino cash: $5077
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
Hey, good reply to the actual portions of the opinon I cited!


You're a total fraud.
Actually, Baghdad Bob Gibbs used the same BS type of response today in his press conference when asked about the British newspapers report of the rape photos. Lucky for him and his boss, he's probably just inspired and provoked the British media to jump into action. He'll be apologizing for any 'misunderstanding' of his words very soon. LOLOL

And honey, I wouldn't be calling anyone a fraud when you are defending the biggest one around.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/....html?wprss=44

Quote:
Gibbs also cautioned reporters against the reliability of the British press. "I want to speak generally about some of reports I've witnessed over the past few years in the British media and in some ways I'm surprised it filtered down," Gibbs said.

"Let's just say that if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a writeup today of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper," he continued.

"If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I'm not sure that would be the first stack of clips I picked up."
__________________
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

BigChiefDave:"Anyone who thought we would only be in Iraq for a few years is either stoned or just stoopid."
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last 6 days, 6 wks. I doubt 6 mths." Rummy 2/7/03
Posts: 31,954
memyselfI has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:47 PM   #14
banyon banyon is offline
Supporter
 
banyon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dodge City, Kansas
Casino cash: $5540
Quote:
Originally Posted by memyselfI View Post
Actually, he used the same BS type of response today in his press conference when asked about the British newspapers report of the rape photos.

And honey, I wouldn't be calling anyone a fraud when you are defending the biggest one around.
Yeah, what BS, really! Read the opinion and understand it? The nerve of the guy! You really got this nailed.


moron.
__________________
Posts: 32,666
banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.banyon wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:53 PM   #15
dirk digler dirk digler is offline
Please squeeze
 
dirk digler's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Clinton, MO
Casino cash: $6395
So Banyon if I am following this correctly because of Miranda they aren't really losing anything since suspects are already protected and can remain silent and request an attorney?
Posts: 48,502
dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.dirk digler 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.