internet lawyer labor attorney lafayette attorney law law enforcement
We’ve all heard a story about someone mistakenly thinking somebody is pregnant. The Juice will wager you haven’t heard of anything remotely similar to this. As reported by TCPalm.com:
A woman told police a dispute began after Jessie Mae Dorsey told her she was pregnant but she said she was “just getting fat.”
Awkward. But okay? Nope, not okay. Here’s how it went down:
“I’ve had five kids, I know how you walk when you’re pregnant,” Dorsey is quoted as saying.
The victim said she was “just getting fat,” and told police Dorsey walked toward her.
“Who the (expletive) are you catching an attitude with,” Dorsey is quoted as saying.
“You,” the victim said.
Dorsey is then accused of lobbing a cinder block chunk at the victim, hitting her head. Dorsey jumped on her, pulled her hair and bit her face.
The man walking with the victim pulled Dorsey off, and Dorsey beat feet.
Um, dude, think you could have jumped in a little sooner? And Ms. Dorsey, you bit her face! After you insulted her!
The victim had teeth marks on her face and bumps on her head.
Dorsey, 46, was arrested [for aggravated battery] March 16 on a warrant stemming from the … fracas … in Fort Pierce.
Go figure. Here’s the source, including a photo of Ms. Dorsey.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/MRRveCCmS3A/aa-2.html
divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/10/minnesota-high-court-upholds-dwi-implied-consent-law.php
The California Supreme Court heard arguments this week in the matter of Mr. Garcia, an illegal alien, though with proper credentials, not to be deported. His request: Grant him a license to practice law now that he has passed the bar.
Like a model prisoner, he has been a model citizen. But, does a model prisoner walk out of prison early? On occasion, yes. Can a model citizen attain a professional license? Though Mr. Garcia can stay in the U.S., can he be licensed where it's required to uphold all the laws of the country, including immigration laws of which he is clearly in violation? While, he had no say in coming to the country (only his parents did) and while he knows only the U.S. way of life, the answer to the question is not so clear.
In part, this issue is not about Mr. Garcia, but about states' rights. What is your opinion? Should an immigrant, staying here legally but not yet a citizen, be allowed to represent others as a lawyer?
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/S2lzd8tWM4M/
local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/10/23/privacy-concerns-nix-sale-of-online-dating-site/?mod=WSJBlog
legal counsel legal help legal information legal news legal services
If something bad happens to a candidate, some voters will feel sympathy for him/her, and will vote accordingly. Nevertheless, it’s crass to play the play the sympathy card even in the event of something serious. But this? Not cool. As reported at HighlineTimes.com (Burien, WA):
Campaign signs for Des Moines Municipal Court Judge Veronica Galvan were vandalized twice over the weekend. The signs, placed along Des Moines Memorial Drive, were cut off their stakes with a blade or sharp implement. Galvanʼs signs were initially vandalized sometime Friday evening. The culprit cut one side off each sign, so only half of each sign was left on the stake. A campaign volunteer replaced the damaged signs on Saturday. Then, on Saturday night, the signs were hit again. This time, both sides of the signs were cut off, leaving only the stakes.
Yeah, this is probably the only case of political signs being vandalized. But what you clearly fail to understand is that this was not any old vandalism. Take it away judge.
Galvan noted that the manner in which the signs were taken down feels threatening. “This is more than a mere knocking down of signs,” said Judge Galvan. “Someone went to extra effort to send a message.”
Really? You’re going there? The message is that they don’t like you! Maybe you put the person in jail. Who knows, but please, don’t pander for votes off of this. Here’s the source.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/j-enOujyizM/sfd.html
real estate lawyer solicitor solicitors statute law statutory law
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202624830046&rss=rss_nlj
criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-detectives/2013/06/e-discovery-why-you-should-go-native
immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys
immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys injury lawers
electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law
It stinks when your car breaks down. It really stinks when you borrow someone else’s car, and it breaks down. It really, really stinks when you steal someone else’s car, and it breaks down, and … Per the Colorado Springs Police Department:
Shortly after completing an unrelated call for service, officers pulled up behind a stalled vehicle on Nevada Avenue, just south of Arvada Street, to provide assistance to the motorist.
Protect and serve, right? Just trying to serve …
Two occupants exited the vehicle, with the male driver running away from officers
Now, time to protect …
A suspect description and direction of travel was immediately broadcast, as well as information that a computer check of the vehicle revealed it was reported stolen. Additional officers responded to assist contain the suspect within an area of a few city blocks. A search of the area was conducted with the assistance of our K-9 Unit, which forced the suspect out of hiding. The suspect was arrested without further incident. Further investigation led to the recovery of a second stolen vehicle.
Doh!
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/mSRmazpRJvY/ww.html
dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law employment law courses
Every trip is better when the seat next to you is open, whether you’re on a plane, a bus, or, as in this case, a train. Why was this gent a bad draw as a seatmate? Well, as reported atbrevardtimes.com:
A 33-year-old Florida man was charged Tuesday with lewd or lascivious exhibition for masturbating in plain view on a passenger train. The defendant, Daniel Michael of Marathon, FL, is accused of exposing himself in front of a young child during the incident.
Yikes.
The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to the Amtrak station just west of DeLand Tuesday morning after the conductor reported the alleged incident to Amtrak authorities. An Amtrak agent called the Sheriff’s Office, saying the train was due in the station in just a few minutes.
When deputies got to the station at 9:16 a.m., the train had arrived and they talked to a passenger in the coach section who alleged that while he was trying to sleep, Michael was masturbating in the seat next to him. The witness said Michael then got up while still exposed and walked down the aisle to the bathroom to finish the act, passing by a small child along the way who appeared to be around 3-years-old.
Think Mr. Michael had an explanation for this? Yup.
According to deputies, Michael’s explanation was that his covers were moving back and forth because his stomach was itchy. Deputies say that he later acknowledged to them that he might have accidentally ejaculated on the bathroom floor.
An accidental erection followed by accidental ejaculation? Really?
Michael was arrested for lewd or lascivious exhibition in the presence of a victim under the age of 16 and transported to the Volusia County Branch Jail in Daytona Beach.
You’ll find the source, including a mug shot, here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/S2bP2BQRwcQ/s.html
estate attorney family law family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer
To be blunt, one of the reasons I’m here is that I fear we may repeat some of the mistakes we made as a country in the years before September 11, 2001. In those years, a Democratic President serving his second term seemed to inspire deepening suspicion of government and a rebirth of enthusiasm for civil liberties not just on the left but also on the right. The Cato Institute criticized the Clinton Administration’s support of warrantless national security searches and expanded government wiretap authority as “dereliction of duty,” saying,“[i]f constitutional report cards were handed out to presidents, Bill Clinton would certainly receive an F–an appalling grade for any president–let alone a former professor of constitutional law.” The criticism rubbed off on the FISA court, whose chief judge felt obliged to give public interviews and speeches defending against the claim that the court was rubber-stamping the Clinton administration’s intercept requests.
This is where I should insert a joke about the movie “Groundhog Day.” But I don’t feel like joking, because I know how this movie ends.
Gratuitous slams at Democrats aside, given that a two-term Republican in the middle didn't do any better, can you guess where Baker is heading?
Rarely does a paragraph so grossly distort cause and effect, correlation and causation, while at the same time trivializing and blaming those darned "civil liberties advocates on both sides of the aisle." Maybe not Jefferson and Madison, but their elected descendants who, at least in Baker's mind, put us at risk for terrorism by the horrors of defending civil liberties, those things that make us who and what we are. And so, when a law enforcement task force of the FBI found out in August of 2001 that al Qaeda had sent two dangerous operatives to the United States, it did … nothing. It was told to stand down; it could not go looking for the two al Qaeda operatives because it was on the wrong side of the wall. I believe that FBI task force would have found the hijackers – who weren’t hiding – and that the attacks could have been stopped if not for a combination of bad judgment by the FISA court (whose minimization rules were later thrown out on appeal) and a climate in which national security concerns were discounted by civil liberties advocates on both sides of the aisle.
This is like a trick for fools, which makes it perfect for congressional testimony. As if the FBI having been on the wrong side of the "wall" before 9/11 was the cause of America's failure to stop the attacks. Because the FBI so effectively stopped others, say, Tsarnaev, when they had no wall to blame it on? Or that there was no other law enforcement apparatus in existence for the FBI to do its job, except to engage in a national secret colonoscopy but be forbidden from telling the patient the results.
There has never been any dispute that law enforcement would be both easier and more effective if we would just let them ignore all those nasty constitutional rights that the citizenry preserved for itself when deciding to let a government exist. Think about how much safer we would be if police could just enter our homes at will and search for whatever they want, or just for fun. You never know what they might stumble on.
That's what Baker considers the right way to go, because he believes that government can be trusted, that government is well-intended and would rarely abuse the vast power he would give it. Not that it would never abuse the power, but in those very rare instances where something went beyond his vision of propriety, government would also be fully capable of policing itself. Ronald Reagan, for all his faults, was elected on the platform that government was the problem. Baker disagrees.
I realize that this story is not widely told, perhaps because it’s not an especially welcome story, not in the mainstream media and not on the Internet. But it is true; the parts of my book that describe it are well-grounded in recently declassified government reports. More importantly, I lived it. And I never want to live through that particular Groundhog Day again. That’s why I’m here. The argument is reminiscent of the mother whose child was tragically killed, and goes before a legislative body to ask that no other child ever again be harmed. There is enormous sympathy for her loss, but whatever killed the child happens a million times without incident, and then once with a terrible outcome. What she is asking is that the million times be eliminated so that the one time never happen. It's understandable, as she speaks from personal grief, but it's an unsound basis to craft law. Baker plays the same cards.
Notice how he ties it to himself personally, as he was there in government service when the government failed to stop a tragic event. Of course, it wasn't the government's fault that it failed, but those "civil liberties advocates" who tied the government's hands from saving us. That's the claim, even though it relies on a logical fallacy that Baker, a smart guy, hopes no one on the committee will see.
Had there been no wall, and the FBI free to break into bedrooms and telephone calls at will, there is no correlation between their putative claim that they would have been able to stop 9/11. There is no basis to claim they would have done anything more than interrogate the two suspected terrorists and let them go. There is no basis to claim that the other terrorists, even if the two were held or expelled, wouldn't have flown planes into buildings. There is no line to be drawn from point A to point Z.
But Stewart Baker will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today and will tell them these things. And I won't. And you won't. And the wheels of government will grind on.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/17/the-butcher-the-baker-and-fisa.aspx?ref=rss
Aside: For those unaware, a "knock and talk" is a means of circumventing the warrant requirement by relying on submission to the shield, lies, fear and the possibility that the agents might either see or cause something to happen to give rise to an exception to the warrant requirement that would allow them to enter a home. And yes, it's been held to be perfectly lawful since anyone, cop or Fuller Brush salesman, can knock on your door and say "hi." Or scream "police", as the case may be.According to the testimony, Stephens heard "scurrying and shuffling" inside the apartment upon her knocking on the door, "which immediately caused us concern." A male voice asked who it was, and after he responded "police," there were "loud movements" and a "short delay" before Mongold opened the door. That's when the bad stuff happened.
After the delay, Mr. Mongold, who had been living in the home for several months, opened the door. Agent Stephens smelled marijuana and recognized what he believed were prison tattoos on Mr. Mongold. Agent Stephens asked for Ms. Moore. Mr. Mongold told him that he would go get her and turned to walk to the back of the house to find her. The officers followed him inside even though they did not have permission to enter the house.
Once inside, they saw ammunition. Knowing that Moore was a prior felon, possession of ammunition was a crime, and it went downhill from there. Mongold, Moore and her two adult children subsequently consented to a search of the place, which found drugs and guns.
The defendant moved to suppress before the district court, based on the initial warrantless entry. The government's argument below was that the smell of marijuana, combined with the "prison tats" on Mongold's arm, suggesting that he too was a felon, created a justifiable fear of officer safety, which allowed for Stephens to enter for a protective sweep. The court below also held the entry justified under exigent circumstances to preserve evidence.
The Circuit wasn't as impressed. While the court acknowledged that the smell of marijuana is accepted as a basis to believe there is pot inside, it merely gives rise to a belief that it's basic possession of marijuana.
But that wasn't the only argument. There remained their deep concern for the safety from the smell (yes, I'm being facetious calling it "second hand smoke," because it's unclear whether the smell is smoke or fresh pot, and the opinion really has nothing to do with the second-hand smoke aspect in any event).Based on the foregoing, if marijuana possession is the only crime for which the officers in this case had probable cause, the exigency exception for destruction of evidence should not apply because marijuana possession is not a serious crime.
Even the use of cool active verbs ("scurrying"), curious descriptors ("loud movements") and expressions of deep concern reflecting both the terrible, life-and-death dangers of conducting a "knock and talk" to circumvent the Constitution, didn't sway the court. Instead, the court reached the conclusion of remarkably wisdom: An idea so radical, so outlandish, that it never occurred to either the agents or the prosecutors: walk away. While this might make for good fodder to be chiseled into the lintels over courthouses everywhere, the bad news is that the opinion, while persuasive, is not precedential: At the suppression hearing, Agent Stephens argued that he feared for his and the other officers' safety because the home's owner, Ms. Moore, was a known felon, and he suspected Mr. Mongold was a felon as well, based on his "prison tattoos."
Officer safety is not an alternative ground to affirm because the first element of the test is dispositive. The Government presented no evidence that the officers had "reasonable grounds to believe that there [was] immediate need to protect their lives or others." Before entering the home, the officers had not seen a weapon or any other indication of heightened danger. They could most easily have protected the officers' safety by leaving Ms. Moore's home, not by entering it.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value.
This, of course, means that the next time a second-hand smoke case arises, the district judge may not be willing to adopt such a radical concept as expecting the agents to walk away rather than conduct a warrantless search of a home after smelling marijuana or seeing prison tats, because they're very scary to agents.
And don't discount the possibility that if the odor was of burning pot, the agents would be authorized to break down the door to protect themselves from the second hand smoke. Truth is, this opinion doesn't preclude such a holding at all. It could still happen.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/13/officer-safety-and-second-hand-smoke.aspx?ref=rss
employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney family law family lawyer
private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney
The California Supreme Court heard arguments this week in the matter of Mr. Garcia, an illegal alien, though with proper credentials, not to be deported. His request: Grant him a license to practice law now that he has passed the bar.
Like a model prisoner, he has been a model citizen. But, does a model prisoner walk out of prison early? On occasion, yes. Can a model citizen attain a professional license? Though Mr. Garcia can stay in the U.S., can he be licensed where it's required to uphold all the laws of the country, including immigration laws of which he is clearly in violation? While, he had no say in coming to the country (only his parents did) and while he knows only the U.S. way of life, the answer to the question is not so clear.
In part, this issue is not about Mr. Garcia, but about states' rights. What is your opinion? Should an immigrant, staying here legally but not yet a citizen, be allowed to represent others as a lawyer?
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/S2lzd8tWM4M/
criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/paralegal-voice/2013/09/top-apps-for-paralegals/
