Yes, it is the law both in New Jersey and at the federal level that individuals who have restraining orders in place against them may not own, use, possess, purchase, or sell firearms during the term of the restraining order. You’ll be ordered to surrender your firearms, weapons permits, and ID cards, and if you […]The post I Was Charged With Domestic Violence And Ordered To Surrender My Handgun In The Restraining Order. Is That Legal? appeared first on New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney - Matthew Reisig.
I Was Charged With Domestic Violence And Ordered To Surrender My Handgun In The Restraining Order. Is That Legal?
↧
↧
The Police Say I Resisted Arrest But I Didn’t. How Do I Fight The Charge?
The strategy will vary depending on the degree of the charge, but at its base, to prove a charge of resisting arrest, prosecutors have to prove several elements in the case: A police officer attempted to make the arrest The accused attempted to or actually prevented the arrest The police officer was acting under color […]The post The Police Say I Resisted Arrest But I Didn’t. How Do I Fight The Charge? appeared first on New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney - Matthew Reisig.
↧
Ocala Drug Manufacturing Defense Lawyer :: Marion County Sheriff’s Office Allegedly uncovers 212 Grams of Meth from Ocala Home
Marion County sheriff’s deputies allegedly removed 212 grams of methamphetamine Thursday from a house in the 100 block of Southwest 87th Place south of Ocala. The discovery was apparently made when the caretaker of the home arrived to drop off some mail, according to a MCSO report. The owner of the house does not live […]
↧
Dubber & Hoernle on a Comparative Approach to Mens Rea
Markus D. Dubber and Tatjana Hoernle (University of Toronto - Faculty of Law and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Law Faculty) have posted Mens Rea: A Comparative Approach (Markus D. Dubber & Tatjana Hörnle, Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach (Oxford University...
↧
Pistorius Testimony Over, Back to Expert Witnesses
Oscar Pistorius has completed his testimony. The prosecutor picked apart every little detail hoping to show his version of events was not possible. The state is pushing an alternate theory, however, it sounds like it's nothing more than "it...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
↧
↧
Law enforcement officers should not be restrained...cont
In the abstract, the propositions of law which criminal defendant advances are correct. Ordinarily a search is invalid unless made pursuant to a warrant. There are, however, limited exceptions to this rule, such as where the search is incident...
↧
Radio discussion of Texas' Driver Responsibility surcharge
In the wake of Monday's public hearing on the topic, I was interviewed this afternoon on Texas Public Radio's KSTX out of San Antonio along with Ana Yañez Correa of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition and John Hawkins from the Texas Hospital Association about Texas' Driver Responsibility surcharge. Go here to listen to the 21.5 minute segment which included several callers critical of the program, some of whom had personal experience struggling to pay or even understand the surcharges levied against them. For more background, see TCJC's website devoted to abolishing the program.
↧
Most DUI Accidents Caused By First-Time Offenders
Though 2nd and 3rd time DUI offenders create a high risk of accidents when back on the road, research indicates that the majority of fatal DUI accidents are actually caused by first-time offenders. MADD is one organization speaking out to increase penalties for first-time offenders, a movement that could potentially have legislative consequences in Alabama and nationwide. Our Birmingham drunk driving defense attorneys are dedicated to staying abreast of legislative trends and advocacy that may impact our clients.
First-time DUI offenders may not realize how intoxicated they are before getting behind the wheel. If they have no prior record, first-time offenders may also be more likely to take greater risks, including driving on the freeway, or traveling at high speeds. According to an analysis of a Wisconsin Department of Transportation report, the majority of drunk driving deaths and injuries are caused by offenders who have no prior convictions. For all motorists, this reality is a warning. The decision to get behind the wheel while intoxicated is never predictable. For other motorists on the road, becoming a victim may not be preventable.
↧
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ...cont
Through cross-examination at the hearing it became apparent that e-tickets differ in a number of important respects from UTTs. First, with e-tickets there is only one document: the simplified traffic information. Everyone receives a duplicate original of the e-ticket...
↧
↧
Pursuant to the foregoing undisputed facts...cont
Pursuant to the foregoing undisputed facts, the plaintiff has cross moved for summary judgment. A party moving or summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to...
↧
Tampa Bay DUI Lawyer :: Lightning’s Ryan Malone Charged with DUI, Cocaine Possession
Tampa Bay Lightning left winger Ryan Malone was arrested early Saturday morning on charges of cocaine possession and driving under the influence. A Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office incident report indicates that Malone was arrested at 3:23 a.m. near Platt Street West and Rome Avenue South in Tampa. Tampa police claim Malone was driving a 2014 Chevrolet Suburban when […]
↧
For Underaged Drivers in Florida, the Legal Limit for a DUI is Much Lower
In Florida, the law establishes what it considers a legal limit for a driver's blood alcohol content. Most people know that the legal limit in Florida in DUI cases is 0.08. If a person blows a 0.08 or higher on the breathalyzer, that does not necessarily mean he/she will be convicted of DUI, but it is certainly evidence that state can use to try and prove a DUI case in court. How many drinks it takes to get to 0.08 depends on various factors including body weight, metabolism, food intake and other factors.
Most people are also well aware that the drinking age in Florida is 21. The rules in Florida regarding DUI's are different for a driver under the age of 21. For one example, the legal limit is much lower. In Florida, it is illegal for a person under the age of 21 to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.02 or higher. It does not take much alcohol to get to a 0.02 blood alcohol content.
Many adults go out to dinner and have a drink or two and drive home assuming they are under the 0.08 legal limit. They certainly may be right. However, for people under 21, that will not help. The legal limit is such that just about any alcohol may subject them to a DUI charge. The idea of course, is that since people under 21 are not legally allowed to drink, they are not given the same leeway when it comes to a DUI charge. For adults over the age of 21, drinking and driving is not illegal as long as the driver is not impaired. For people under 21 years of age, any drinking and driving can easily subject them to a DUI conviction. Since the penalties for DUI convictions get increasingly worse as a person gets more than one, and much more expensive, it is important to avoid DUI's, particularly for younger drivers.
↧
Mother and Daughter Arrested for Scamming Homeowners
Anna S. Lee, 54, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and her daughter, Jennifer H. Lee, 25, New York City, New York, were arrested on Monday, April 14, 2014, in connection with an alleged real estate loan scam wherein the defendants fraudulently obtained over $300,000 in payments from victims for loan modifications services. The investigation revealed that […]
↧
↧
Judge Revokes Bond For Accused Ponzi Schemer After Contact With Victims
A federal judge has revoked bail for a Florida man accused of orchestrating a $70.9 million Ponzi scheme, siding with prosecutors' allegations of "brazen" violations of a "no-contact" condition of his bail. Joseph Signore, previously free on $100,000 bail after being charged with twelve counts of mail fraud and wire fraud, was "regretfully" remanded into custody by U.S. Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon. In revoking Signore's bail, Judge Bannon found that Signore's contact with several investors violated the terms of his release, but also conceded that some responsibility for the violations lay with the attorneys that crafted the terms. Unless Signore is able to obtain new bail terms, it is possible he could remain incarcerated until the case goes to trial.
Background
According to authorities, Signore and Paul Schumack solicited potential investors to participate in JCS Enterprises' ("JCS") Virtual Concierge program, which involved the purchase of a virtual concierge machines ("VCM") through a one-time fee ranging from $2,600 to $4,500 per VCM. The VCM, which resembles an ATM, is a free-standing or wall-mounted machine placed in various businesses that purportedly allowed the advertisement of products or services and even the ability to print tickets or coupons. Potential investors were told that the VCMs generated substantial returns, which in turn would allow the payment of annual returns to investors ranging from 80% to 120%. In addition, investors were provided with the location of the VCMs they had purportedly purchased, and even given the ability to track the VCM activity online.
Investors were solicited in several ways, including several websites controlled by the entities and through videos posted on popular video-sharing website Youtube. The videos promised that the VCM would "generate income for years," and promised that a $3,500 investment could produce "huge returns." Potential investors also received emails from Schumack, who touted his graduation from West Point Military Academy in 1979 and whose email signature also featured a Bible passage intended to create a false sense of security for investors.
However, authorities allege that the outsized returns touted by the defendants were the result of a Ponzi scheme. According to the SEC, the production of VCMs was not close to the amount of VCMs purportedly sold to investors, and the guaranteed returns were "a farce." Instead, investor funds were commingled and used for a variety of unauthorized purposes, including the unauthorized transfer of more than $2 million to Signore and his family. An additional $56,000 in investor funds were used for expenses including restaurants, stores, and a tanning salon. Finally, approximately $4 million in investor funds were transferred to an unrelated account from which Schumack and others allegedly made more than 100 cash withdrawals of nearly $5 million.
Signore's Release and My Gee Bo
Following the pair's arrest last Tuesday, Judge Brannon set bond for each at $100,000. As part of the conditions of release, Signore was permitted, to no objection, to continue operating My Gee Bo ("My Gee Bo"), another company Signore operated from his same address. However, it soon emerged that Gee Bo had been operated in tandem with JCS, and the receiver subsequently filed an emergency motion seeking to include Gee Bo as part of the entities placed in receivership. In that motion, the receiver detailed Gee Bo's ties to JCS, disclosing that Gee Bo had received at least $770,000 in transfers from JCS or for Gee Bo's benefit - including the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars in JCS funds for a celebrity sponsorship from Shark Tank's Barbara Corcoran. The Court granted the motion to include Gee Bo.
In addition to the close ties between Gee Bo and JCS, Judge Brannon was also informed by prosecutors that Signore had engaged in contact with several individuals, including scheme victims and Gee Bo employees, in violation of a "no-contact" condition of his release. This included communications with a JCS shareholder, Gee Bo investors, and the JCS records custodian. According to Judge Brannon, these "evidence gathering" activities were sufficient cause to revoke Signore's bail.
A copy of Signore's motion opposing the government's motion to revoke bond is below:
Defense Response to Govt's Motion to Revoke Bond (1)
↧
Memorandum in Support
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the New York State recently enacted an amendment to its Criminal Procedure Law granting victims of certain sex crimes the right to require the convicted defendant to submit to HIV related testing and...
↧
When will Georgia get medical marijuana?
Governor Deal has been touched by the plight of epileptic and other chronically ill children in Georgia, and is waging a valiant war to get marijuana THC oil approved for their use. Despite getting a bill permitting medical use of THC through both houses, he failed to successfully usher it all the way through the final approval process, and it didn’t become law. But he isn’t stopping there; no, our governor is now proposing to have one of our state universities conduct clinical studies of THC.
↧
So Much To Rant At, So Little Time
There was a time when I blogged almost every day. Then, with a new job in an unfamiliar field requiring more of my energy and focus, I took a break. Over the last year, I've slowly waded back in, and sporadically posted when I've felt the compulsion to do so. While I don't have time to write anything in depth at the moment, there are a few issues that I just can't let go by without saying something.I've written frequently about the Senate Republicans' use of the filibuster to thwart democracy judicial nominations, most recently here. Their tactics became so obstructionist that even the timid Democrats in the Senate agreed to change the rules and preclude the filibuster for judicial nominations. But this hasn't stopped Republicans from continuing to prevent President Obama from appointing federal judges, using an arcane procedure that essentially gives home-state Senators veto power by withholding "blue slips" that allow a nominee to proceed to a confirmation hearing. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, can abandon this custom just as Republican Orrin Hatch did when he was committee chair. For some unfathomable reason, Leahy has been unwilling to end the blue slip requirement, but you can sign this petition to urge him to do so before Obama runs out of time to fill judicial vacancies.Which brings me to the related topic of who President Obama is nominating to the federal bench when he does get the opportunity. First, there are the unacceptably conservative nominations put forward to fill two Georgia district court seats. These were part of a misguided attempt by Obama -- prior to the filibuster rule change -- to cut a deal to get the intransigent Georgia Republican Senators to move an 11th Circuit nomination forward. Civil rights and abortion rights advocates strongly oppose these nominations. Obama's judicial nominations, generally, have been disappointing, with a large majority coming from the corporate sector or the prosecutor's office and rarely from public interest firms or public defenders' offices. These are lifetime appointments. Given the zeal with which both Bush Administrations pushed young, right wing judges to fill the federal judiciary, it is critical that a Democratic Administration, particularly with what may prove to be a short-lived Senate majority, not let pass the opportunity to elevate progressive-minded lawyers to the bench.Donald Rumsfeld proudly writes to the IRS every year when he files his return, complaining about the complexity of the tax code and professing not to know whether his return is accurate. Rumsfeld's absent-minded government stooge routine has worn remarkably thin. Rumsfeld revealed to documentary filmmaker Errol Morris in The Unknown Known, that he never read the so-called Torture Memos and professes to have no second thoughts -- or very many thoughts at all -- about his role in the "War on Terror" and the War on Iraq. Two things. First, Rumsfeld should be immediately audited given his admission about not submitting knowingly accurate tax returns. Second, should it be determined upon a thorough audit that Rumsfeld has overpaid his taxes, it wouldn't come close to paying what he owes this Country for the damage he has wrought.Oliver North, a self-professed "right wing goon," is a television consultant on the FX series, The Americans. Relied on for his so-called expertise, he received a story credit for an episode in which KGB spies living in the U.S. infiltrate a contra training camp. Recall that North was involved in one of the more shameful episodes in American history, when, as a member of the National Security Council, he played a central role in selling arms to Iran and funneling the profits to the Nicaraguan contras, at a time when Congress had banned such funding due to the contra's human rights abuses. North admitted he had lied to Congress, shredded critical documents and altered key records. Because of issues revolving around a grant of immunity for his Congressional testimony, North's felony convictions for obstructing a Congessional inquiry were eventually vacated, and he has remained for all these years an unrepentant, vindicated hero to the far right. The fact that he is now peddling his "expertise" for mainstream consumption is unsettling to say the least.The joy of the new baseball season has been marred not just by the usual spate of Met injuries, bizarre personnel moves and erratic play, but by new Major League rules involving instant replay. I understood the need for the original instant replay rule, which was designed to review home runs. New fangled ballparks with unusual angles and idiosyncratic seating make it much more difficult to discern with the naked eye when a ball was actually hit out of the park. But the success of the original rule has led to the inevitable slipperly slope -- new rules which have expanded replay into many more areas of the game. Although only weeks old, expanded replay is proving to be a disaster. These rules which try to eliminate human error are applied by human beings, resulting in ... plenty of human error. Instant reply is causing delay, uncertainty and more bad calls. Baseball managment needs to stop trying to remove the human element and accept that baseball is a game of imperfection. Thanks for listening.
↧
↧
Hetero Couple Divorce in Order to Remarry as Same-Sex Spouses
Are you as confused as I am between sexual orientation and gender? Are you clear on what the difference is between transvestites, transsexuals, transgendered, or cross-dressers? Me too, I can’t figure it all out, but perhaps the story of Andrew and Kate Ratcliffe will help us out. Andrew and Helen married when he was 22 […]
↧
The Future Of Our "Rights": Punishment For Exercising The Right To Withhold Consent From Warrantless Searches?
Attorney serving Oak Harbor, Bellingham, Mt. Vernon, and Burlington discusses withholding consent from warrantless searches and seizures.
A Minnesota appellate court recently appears to have claimed that the state may criminalize a person's refusal to consent to a warrantless search if the officer could have hypothetically obtained a warrant. You can read the opinion here. This is dangerous. It is another sign of courts abandoning the fundamental law of the land.
It has long been recognized that persons can without consent from warrantless searches and seizures. It has also been held that persons cannot be punished for withholding consent or that withholding consent cannot be used as evidence of guilty knowledge because it would burden assertion of a fundamental right. For example, recently Division One of the Court of Appeals of Washington recently reached the correct result in a well reasoned opinion.
In State v. Guathier, the court of appeals held that a prosecutor's use of a person's invocation of his constitutional right to refuse consent to a warrantless search as substantive evidence of guilt was a manifest constitutional error. State v. Gauthier concerned a rape suspect's refusal to submit to DNA testing when he was not under arrest. However, this opinion has raised issues about the validity of utilizing refusals to submit to breath tests as substantive evidence of guilt in the DUI context in light of Missouri v. McNeely where the United States Supreme Court recently made clear that nonconsensual, warrantless blood testing is unconstitutional absent exigent circumstances.
Now it appears the Minnesota court of appeals has heard this issue and has decided that because an officer can get a warrant--the state can penalize the person for not giving consent to warrantless breath testing? This is odd. It basically opens the door for outrageous conduct.
For example, let's say a state passes a law that state's everyone who owns property impliedly consents to a search of their home for illegal drugs if they are suspected of drug use. If the person refuses consent he or she may be charged with the crime of refusal. This arrangement essentially erodes the fundamental right to be free of nonconsensual warrantless searches--you can exercise your right, but if you do you will be punished. It seems the Minnesota appellate court thinks this is okay because an officer can hypothetically obtain a warrant.
Let's hope our appellate court judges in Washington state will be wiser than the authors of the opinion issued in State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard. Fundamental rights are not rights at all if you can be punished for exercising them. We will see how this area of law develops in Washington state and around our nation.
↧
Two New Defendants Added to Chicago Sinaloa Indictment
A sixth Superseding Indictment in the Illinois case charging Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman and Ismael Zambada-Garcia has been unsealed. Two new defendants are named, Edgar Manuel Valencia Ortega and Heriberto Zazueto Godoy.
Valencia Ortega was...
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
