All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. The problem is that you are misunderstanding the changes that Congress made to the law in 1996 (and thus the provision you cited is only 21 years old, not 30). The changes did not weaken judicial immunity, but rather strengthened it by effectively reversing the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984). The Senate Report on Section 311 of the Federal Courts Improvement Act explains the legislation as follows: S. REP. 104-366, 36-37, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4202, 4216-17 (bolding added). The Act amended several sections in order to achieve the goals stated above, and the total effect of them, including the one you are focusing on, is summarized by the Senate in the last sentence that I put in bold. Thus, the purpose of the Act was shut the door on most suits for injunctive relief against a judge; they are only permitted where declaratory relief is inadequate. That's not going to be of much help in most cases since the courts have drawn a key distinction that such relief is only available when the judge is acting in a role other than as a neutral arbiter of a dispute: Brandon E. ex rel. Listenbee v. Reynolds, 201 F.3d 194, 197–98 (3d Cir. 2000)(Italics in original, second paragraph enclosed in quotes rather than indented due to limitations on formatting in this forum). As most of what judges do is act as the neutral arbiter/referee of cases before him/her the judge is not a proper party for such section 1983 claims. Rather, only in instances where the judge would act in an enforcement or administrative capacity might the judge be a proper party for such a claim. That significantly narrows the range of circumstances in which you might use the language from section 1983 that you raised. Note too that the court expressly rejects your argument that the statute authorized declaratory relief actions. It did not. It simply states that injunction may be available as a remedy if declaratory relief is not available. And even then, as the case goes on to say, that only works if the judge is a proper party in the first the place. This gets us back to appeals being the main method to correct a wrong judicial opinion or order in a case. And that is why you do not see many suits for injunction/declaratory relief against judges.
  3. Thank You Doucar. Appreciate it
  4. With the two commas, each one separating a department, followed by "or" simply, or maybe not so simply, defines the group to be subjected to, in this instance, the parameters of exemption to the otherwise required markings on the department vehicles. I'm fairly certain of that. You bring up an interesting point though pertaining to an assumption of crimes and traffic citatations being treated differently. I would argue that they are not to be treated the same since a citation must be specified either traffic or criminal. Furthermore the unmarked exemption states for undercover work and investigations. Undercover work is done to collect information to intercept a crime while an investigation is done to collect evidence of a crime that has been committed. A traffic citation is issued for a moving violation, not a crime. A traffic citation requires an officers statement of the violation along with anything used to observe the violation but it does not require an investigation. Based on that and a common mans reasonable understanding of RCW 46.08.065 it is my opinion traffic stops by unmarked vehicles are not legal and I feel pretty confident that the courts would agree and deem those stops illegal.
  5. Given how "RetiredinVA's" response was phrased, it seems pretty obvious that he was just spitballing. It's certainly possible that there are no published cases. Ascertaining whether there actually are or aren't any published cases would require case research, and I already told you no one here is going to do that. If you want to figure out the answer, go do the research or hire a lawyer to do it.
  6. Looking at this one again: I agree. Assuming the owner had a standard California auto liability policy, the owner's liability insurer should pay damages for bodily injury or property damage for which any "insured" becomes legally responsible because of an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. In this context, "insured" includes any person using the covered auto with the express or implied permission of the named insured, the named insured's spouse, or a family member of the named insured. Although the coverage for the OP's daughter may be limited to the minimum financial responsibility limits under California law, the dollar amount mentioned by the OP is well under the property damage limit.
  7. So why aren't there any? In 30 years, you're honestly telling me that not one person has lept at the opportunity to try and hold their judge accountable using this Congresionally-given opportunity?
  8. Yesterday
  9. Liability insurance should cover the claim. The owner of the vehicle should report the collision to his or her insurer. Your daughter is probably judgment proof since her disability payments cannot be garnished.
  10. I'm not sure if you're talking about damages to "the car behind her" or damages to the car that she foolishly chose to drive (or both). Rather obviously, she is liable for damages to "the car behind her." As for the car she was driving, she is at least partially liable. The question is whether anyone else can also be liable. You told us that she was "talked into driving" this car, but you didn't tell us who talked her into it. If it was the owner of the car or a person in possession of the car with the owner's permission, then that person may share liability with your daughter if he or she knew or had reason to know that your daughter had "never driven a car" and never had a driver's license. Your daughter can be sued, and a judgment could be entered against her. The judgment creditor can then seek to enforce the judgment in any of the many ways provided by the California Code of Civil Procedure. Levying on or garnishing an SSDI check is not among those ways. However, once that money gets into a bank account, the money is potentially at risk. As indicated above, the owner of the car may have some liability, but it's not because he/she only carried liability insurance
  11. 24 year old daughter. Disabled, receives SSDI total disability, has no assets, lives with parents who do not have conservatorship of her. She is talked into driving a car owned by someone else out of a parking lot and backs into the car behind her causing damage. Police are called and she is cited. She has never driven a car, has never obtained a drivers license. Insurance company for owner of other car is demanding payment for damages amounting to about $1,900. Is my daughter liable for the damages? Can they attached her SSDI disability for the damages? Is the owner of the car she was driving and only had liability insurance responsible for the loss?
  12. This post is more than a year old.
  13. If you don't make the trip the company will have to send someone else in your place. The airline tickets are undoubtedly locked in in your name (TSA). But I can't imagine why the car and hotel reservations couldn't be changed to someone else. So you might be risking getting sued for the cost of the airfare (which may be higher than the previous booking because of the late date). If you did make a deal with your boss, i.e. in return for letting you work from home x days you committed to going to Boston, that is probably enforceable. If you are available to make the Boston trip you might be able to negotiate a little more money instead of the $1000 offered. I don't know how that compares to your previous salary but it is worth a try.
  14. If I were going to go, I'd sure as hell want that money in advance. Beyond that, sounds like the guy is a scumbag. I can't tell you what to do but if it was me, I'd tell him to piss off and take my chances with the email. Unless I wanted a free trip to Boston to have a good time at his expense. But I'd still want the $1000 up front.
  15. Hearing from whom? The chances that someone with personal experience in your particular county will happen on your post are incredibly small (and, obviously, experiences in other counties or states won't have any relevance to you). You'd be better off discussing this with your probation officer or a local attorney.
  16. I guess you have to make a decision whether attending is worth your time and the risk (which is probably pretty small) that you get sued for not attending.
  17. Hi, I was sentenced to 2 years of probation for a first-time DUI in Jefferson County Colorado (no accident) in Sept 2016. I will have served 50% of probation by the end of this month (Sept 2017). I've completed all the terms of my probation with no failed UA tests. My PO and I have a good relationship and my PO is on board with me filing a motion for early termination. I've been hearing that Jefferson County doesn't let people off probation early regardless of if you've been 100% good and completed everything necessary. I plan on filing a motion for early termination of probation at the end of this month to at least try. Has anyone been/ or heard of someone in a similar situation and either been approved or denied to be let off probation early? Any help or answers is appreciated. Thank you.
  18. Hi, I was just wondering if you ended up transferring counties? If you didn't, did Jeff CO let you get off probation early? I've heard the same about Jeff CO and am trying to find someone who has tried to get off and either has or hasn't been allowed. Thank you so much for the help.
  19. I was an Office Manager for the company and did everything for them. The Trade Show does have a booth that I am supposed to man and promote the company. The owner was going to cover the office while I was gone. They would have covered my salary while on the trip since it was a work commitment. Since not employed anymore they have offered to pay me $1000 upon return of the trip. They are saying if I don't go they will lose about $2800 which I suppose could be considered harm to the company. I just don't understand why a company would want someone they let go to promote their business. Our written agreement was in the form of an email. From what I remember in the email it said I could work from home (for an undisclosed amount of time) and in exchange I would attend this Trade show for 3 days, fully paid for by the company. I no longer have access to the email so I cannot list exactly what it said.
  20. The way you are referring to this written agreement makes me think that maybe you're not sure it actually exists (otherwise, rather than saying, "He's indicated we had a written agreement," one would expect you to have said, "We had a written agreement"). Am I reading this correctly? Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It's obviously impossible to assess your former employer's chances of successfully suing without knowing exactly what this agreement says. That being said, it's more than a little baffling that an employer would want a former employee to attend a trade show. How would you attending the show benefit your former employer? Moreover, does your former employer intend to pay you for your time while you attend?
  21. What kind of work do you do? Your post is a little contradictory. For instance, if you are at a trade show in Boston (which I assume is not your home since you are flying there) how can you work from home? If your function is to man a booth or actively participate in promoting the company's interest at the trade show, I can see why your boss might be upset if they paid all the expenses and you didn't show. I assume they would pay your salary while you were at the trade show. If your function is to report on the activities at the trade show, for instance as a journalist, I can also understand why the company might also be insistent on your attendance. If you were scheduled to attend the show to acquire some knowledge which will not benefit the company in the future due to the termination of your employment, it would appear there would be no harm to the company if you did not attend. What it boils down to, in my mind, is whether your failing to attendd the trade show causes actual harm to the company.
  22. How about going down to the dealership and not leaving until the problem is resolved to your satisfaction?
  23. My employer let me go saying he couldn't afford my salary anymore and that he wouldn't fight unemployment. I was scheduled to attend a Trade Show in Boston in a few weeks he expects me to still attend. Its a non-refundable show, flights, hotel and car are booked and paid for in my name. All flights are non-refundable or non-transferrable. He's indicated we had a written agreement that if I went to the show I could work from home. I was working from home for 6 weeks before being let go. He's saying if I don't go he will come after me civilly for the cost of the Trade show since we had the agreement in writing. Labor dept in Denver is telling me its possible I could lose in civil court since our agreement was in writing, didn't indicate how long they had to allow me to work from home or that if I was no longer employed by them I wouldn't have to go. I don't have the money to hire an attorney. The trip wouldn't cost me any money just wondering if I really would have to go and if the employer could actually win in Civil court.
  24. I took my car in for a safety recall on airbags and door handles. They installed the one door handle wrong and had to take the car back in. Dealership lost my vehicle for a week. Finally had repair completed just to find out a screw was left out which scratched the paint down to the frame. I took the car back in and the car was repainted and had an oil change done at the same time. Now my car shakes and makes a terrible sound. Dealership has had the car since Friday. It is now Wednesday. I have heard nothing from them. I called to get a status update and the dealership refuses to talk to me. I asked to speak with a general manager because I have spoken with every single manager level in between attempting to fix the previous issues. There is no one left to speak with. I am told the GM only takes appointments and no one has his schedule so they cannot make an appointment. What do I do?
  25. I assume you're talking about this case. One would have to know all of the relevant details about this entity to answer this question reliably. This doesn't really make any sense. However, one would obviously need to read the consent decree to speak intelligently about its reach.
  26. Just so you know, this may have constituted the unlicensed practice of law. Not sure what "etc." means in this context. Why would you have the will notarized? As you described it, the will is not valid. Your mother's signature should have been witnessed by two witnesses who witnessed your mother signing and witnessed each others' signatures. The notary acknowledgment might suffice for one witness, but it doesn't matter without two witnesses. No. Not surprising since most notaries are not lawyers.
  27. What about them? You did read my prior response, right? Including the sentence that began with: "Non-marital property (e.g., property owned before the marriage). . . ."
  1. Load more activity