The Grand Berry Theater hopes to become a staple of Fort Worth cinema

first_imgFacebook Twitter Linkedin Kai Gradyhttps://www.tcu360.com/author/kai-grady/ Open House Episode 14: Delaina Bellows Kai Grady printFort Worth’s newest art-house theater has a dual purpose: showcase independent cinema and provide a safe place for people to engage in civil discourse. Jimmy Sweeney, the founder of The Grand Berry Theater, said the idea came to him during his time at TCU.“I came out to Fort Worth and just didn’t have the avenue to keep seeing the movies that I was accustomed to seeing,” he said. “We want to be a safe place where people who think differently, look differently, act differently can come and watch the same thing.”Jimmy Sweeney standing in front of the unique art direction and showtimes. Photo by Jack WallaceSweeney designed an art-house theater that highlights independent films because of their ability to actively engage the viewer.“Fort Worth hasn’t had an art house in a long time, and art houses are really important voices in communities where they’re thriving; they have the opportunity to display films and events that are fun but also challenging,” said Sweeney.“The Grand Berry Theater was built with the idea in mind of bringing people together with cinema. I believe they’re doing that judging from my experience.”Craig Borders, a frequent moviegoerVideo by Kai Grady and photos by Jack Wallace The theater hosts a number of events through its Film Club membership.“The goal of it is to get a consistent group of people coming and watching and talking about movies together,” Sweeney said. “It’s something I’ve really enjoyed getting to be a part of, and it’s cool to see the film community growing that way.”Sweeney said art houses can become an epicenter of culture as well as be a place where the entire community gathers. He also said he wants the theater to serve as a safe place where people can engage in civil discourse. “It says a lot about people being able to come regardless of race, gender, orientation and feel safe and comfortable and engage with someone else,” said Sweeney. “It’s really important to have that voice in the community.”The entrance to the Grand Berry Theater. Photo by Jack WallaceHis wife, Brooke Sweeney, designed and created the interior aesthetic to promote inclusion and instill a sense of familiarity with moviegoers.“The city is very segregated still in a lot of ways … we just wanted to feel like we could represent blending those different cultures together,” Jimmy said. “A lot of it was driven out of the desire to have an aesthetic that felt very homey and comfortable.”Jimmy Sweeney said the experience at The Grand Berry Theater differs from other movie theaters in that its goal is to intentionally foster discussion between the audience and the staff.Trey Edwards, a member of the Film Club, said it has been his favorite part about the theater. “It’s been great to hear other people’s opinions and views of the films we watch,” Edwards said.The theater is located at 2712 Weisenberger St. More information on showtimes and special events can be found on Instagram and Facebook. + posts Kai Gradyhttps://www.tcu360.com/author/kai-grady/ Previous articleTexas primary: what to expectNext articleHoroscope: February 22, 2020 Kai Grady RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Open House: Finale Kai Gradyhttps://www.tcu360.com/author/kai-grady/ Open House Episode 15: Alexis Berrycenter_img Open House Episode 13: Liliana Ogden Grains to grocery: One bread maker brings together farmers and artisans at locally-sourced store Facebook ReddIt Kai Grady is an FTDM and Journalism double-major from Arlington, Texas. He currently works at KTCU as a Hip-Hop DJ. After graduating, he hopes to pursue a career in both sports and popular culture writing. Twitter Abortion access threatened as restrictive bills make their way through Texas Legislature Kai Gradyhttps://www.tcu360.com/author/kai-grady/ ReddIt Linkedin Fort Worth set to elect first new mayor in 10 years Saturdaylast_img read more

[Sedition Case] SC Adjourns Journalist Vinod Dua’s Plea To Quash FIR On Request Of SG Tushar Mehta

first_imgTop Stories[Sedition Case] SC Adjourns Journalist Vinod Dua’s Plea To Quash FIR On Request Of SG Tushar Mehta Radhika Roy20 July 2020 2:40 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court adjourned the plea seeking for the quashing of an FIR alleging the offence of sedition filed against Journalist Vinod Dua, at the request of Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Himachal Pradesh police. A Bench headed by Justice UU Lalit heard the matter. The SG had sought for an adjournment of “1 or 2 days”. However, the Bench, noting…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court adjourned the plea seeking for the quashing of an FIR alleging the offence of sedition filed against Journalist Vinod Dua, at the request of Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Himachal Pradesh police. A Bench headed by Justice UU Lalit heard the matter. The SG had sought for an adjournment of “1 or 2 days”. However, the Bench, noting that another important matter had been listed for day after, adjourned the same to next Monday. On 7th July, the Supreme Court had directed the Himachal Pradesh police to file a status report in a sealed cover with requisite details within a week in the ongoing investigation against Dua on charges of sedition. The Bench had also taken note of the questionnaires which Dua was being made to answer by the authorities, and stated that the Dua was under no obligation to answer the same. The Bench had further orally observed that once the details of the investigation had been placed before the Court, and if the Court was satisfied with Dua’s contentions, the FIR would be quashed “straight away”. Today, the SG’s request for an adjournment was opposed by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of Dua, who also brought forth the submission that Dua was still being subjected to multiple questionnaires. “This is not fair, my Lords. Questionnaire after Questionnaire is being sent to me. Further, if the Solicitor wants an Adjournment, I am seeking a stay. My Lords have stayed many matters. I don’t understand why this cannot be stayed, when all others are. What are they getting by keeping this Sword of Damocles hanging over me?” The Bench reiterated that Dua did not have to reply to any of the questionnaires, and the SG responded that no questionnaire had been sent by the police. Consequently, the matter will now be heard next Monday. Dua is facing FIRs from multiple states, with the most recent ones being filed in Maharashtra and West Bengal. An FIR had been registered against Dua in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, by local BJP leader Ajay Shyam, pursuant to which he had been summoned by the Shimla Police. On June 14, following Directions were passed by the Bench; “a) Pending further orders, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the present crime; (b) However, the petitioner in terms of the offer made by him in his communication dated 12.06.2020, shall extend full cooperation through Video Conferencing or Online mode; and (c) The Himachal Pradesh Police shall be entitled to carry on the investigation including interrogation of the petitioner at his residence after giving him prior notice of 24 hours and complying with the Social Distancing norms prescribed during Covid-19 Pandemic.” The Bench had then refused to stay the investigation, despite fervent pleas by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who appeared for Dua. Singh had submitted that the FIR was a “harassment” as it was filed for airing views unpalatable to the government. “If what Dua said is sedition, then only two channels can function in the country”, he submitted. The summons by Shimla police came two days after the Delhi High Court stayed an FIR filed against Dua for allegedly spreading fake news through his YouTube show on communal violence in Delhi in February. The FIR filed in Shimla is also related to the show. Next Storylast_img read more

[Divorce] Both Parties Educated & Thus, Presumed To Know Their Best Interests: P & H HC Orders Waiver Of 6 Month Cooling-Off Period [Read Order]

first_imgNews Updates[Divorce] Both Parties Educated & Thus, Presumed To Know Their Best Interests: P & H HC Orders Waiver Of 6 Month Cooling-Off Period [Read Order] Mehal Jain8 Sep 2020 11:43 PMShare This – xNoting that both parties to the marriage are over the age of 30 and are educated and that they would therefore be presumed to know as to what would be in their best interest, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered waiver of the compulsory six-month cooling off period before their divorce by mutual consent. The petitioners before Justice Sanjan Kumar in this revision sought dissolution…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginNoting that both parties to the marriage are over the age of 30 and are educated and that they would therefore be presumed to know as to what would be in their best interest, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered waiver of the compulsory six-month cooling off period before their divorce by mutual consent. The petitioners before Justice Sanjan Kumar in this revision sought dissolution of their marriage by way of a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of mutual consent. This divorce petition was filed in June, 2020. They filed an application therein to waive the statutory waiting period of six months prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955. By the order dated 06.08.2020, the Additional District Judge, Mohali, dismissed the said application. “Broadly, such waiver can be considered if : (i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13-B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year of separation of parties under Section 13-B(1) is already over before the first motion itself; (ii) All efforts for mediation/conciliation to re-unite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by further efforts; (iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences, including alimony, child custody or other pending issues and; (iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony”, reiterated the Single Judge, relying on the 2017 SC authority in Amardeep Singh’s case. The bench noted that the petitioners got married in November, 2010 but they have been living separately since January, 2018. According to them, there is no possibility of re-conciliation and they are firm in their resolve to get divorced. Further, the petitioners have executed a memorandum of understanding on 10.06.2020 settling all issues and there is no dispute even with regard to the custody of their minor daughter. “Given the aforestated circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this was a fit case for the learned Additional District Judge to exercise his discretion in their favour, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, referred to supra, and waive the waiting period”, ruled the bench, setting aside the order dated 06.08.2020 refusing to waive the statutory waiting period. Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Next Storylast_img read more