• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LegalwriterOne last won the day on September 29

LegalwriterOne had the most liked content!


About LegalwriterOne

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor
  1. All the judges in Tulare County have been sworn in just as have every other superior court judge in California.
  2. The DA is an elected official in CA and doesn't answer to the BOS. You can contact the AG's office directly if you want them to review the case. They may or may not do so but you can certainly ask. You are also free to file a civil lawsuit against the alleged perpetrators.
  3. You are responsible for your own choices. They didn't pour the beer down your throat and they didn't force you to order an expensive meal. You did that all by yourself. If you have diabetes, you shouldn't be drinking in the first place and it's solely your responsibility to care for your own health.
  4. Residential burglary carries a minimum sentence of 2 years, max of 6 years in CA per count. You can be charged with res burg for entering the attached garage of a home even if the door is wide open.
  5. Sure he can. Doesn't mean the court will agree with him but he has the right to contest it.
  6. Martin isn't anywhere close. The district court granted a partial summary judgment for him (984 F.Supp. 1320) and the defense by the PGA was that it was private non-profit establishment exempt from the ADA. The district court disagreed. They argued in the alternative that they weren't a "public accommodation" which the district court found to be incorrect. Martin argued as a third allegation in the district court that he was an employee but ruling on that was deferred by the district court pending trial. Martin did not raise it again so it fell by the wayside. It has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a person can be refused hiring as a police officer based upon being monocular.
  7. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 122 S.Ct. 2045, 13 A.D. Cases 97, 153 L.Ed.2d 82 (U.S. 06/10/2002) The Court stated "by separate provision, §12113(a), the Act creates an affirmative defense for action under a qualification standard "shown to be job-related for the position in question and ... consistent with business necessity." Such a standard may include "a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace," §12113(b), if the individual cannot perform the job safely with reasonable accommodation, §12113(a)." The Court in Echazabal upheld the EEOC additional interpretation which allows an employer to screen out a potential worker with a disability "not only for risks that he would pose to others in the workplace but for risks on the job to his own health or safety as well: "The term `qualification standard' may include a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of the individual or others in the workplace." 29 CFR §1630.15(b)(2) (2001)." Further, the job of a police officer as stated in most job recruitment postings, specifically requires good vision in both eyes in order to pass the physical and medical requirements for the job. In Albertsons Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S.Ct. 2162, 144 L.Ed.2d 518, 9 A.D. Cases 694 (U.S. 06/22/1999), a truck driver whose visual acuity made him basically blind in one eye was fired because DOT requires 20/40 vision in each eye for commercial truck drivers. Kirkingburg obtained a waiver from DOT but Albertson's refused to rehire him. He went to court and the district court granted Albertson's summary judgment. The 9th Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit saying the employer does not have to experiment where visual acuity is required by regulation.
  8. Yes, he could be sued BUT fraud can be a crime. If it involves interstate commerce, the feds could pick it up just as any state where an app is originating from could pursue charges.
  9. First, when contracting with an app to watch a video or play a game, you are likely representing that you are a person and that you will personally do the task for the cash. When you use a bot, that's not you and you aren't personally doing the task which would constitute fraud. Second, earning from whatever source should be reported as income to the IRS. Even gamblers and pot growers have to report their earnings. However, if you didn't pay taxes, it depends on how much you made. I suspect you made less than $5K so you would owe no taxes and wouldn't have to file.
  10. DSS HAS attorneys on staff. Certified mail is an option but it's not the only route. He can be personally served by the sheriff or marshal and if they know where he works, they can personally serve him there too.
  11. What you need to do is contact a local family law attorney. I suspect since the custody orders originated out of GA that you will have to proceed in GA but talking with a local attorney would verify that.
  12. Good luck with that. You're hanging your hate on the wrong part of the question-->if you fail drug diversion, the judge can sentence you to prison for more than a year. Your case is not over, it's still pending. The cases here that I was referring to they had completed diversion and the case was dismissed and DOJ hung their hat on the guilty plea to a felony. There aren't any cases that support what you want them to say. United States v. Chambers, 922 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 01/14/1991); Dickerson v. New Banner Inst. Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 103 S. Ct. 986, 74 L. Ed. 2d 845 (1983). Dixon v. U.S., 548 U.S. 1, 5 (2006) might help your attorneys formulate an argument but until your state case is over, as the feds are concerned, you're under indictment and you can still be sentenced to prison.
  13. Okay your issue is what are the feds considering a conviction. The DOJ generally doesn't consider a DEJ as a conviction so your attorneys just need to push back. It's generally understood that you are not "convicted" until formal sentenced is imposed. I don't know if there's caselaw on it or not. It's happened in my state and we just argue with them and they back off.
  14. You got an adjudication withheld. You aren't considered "under indictment" after you plead guilty. With a withheld adjudication after entry of a guilty plea, what you are is on "non-adjudicated probation" and technically pending sentencing. If you fulfill the terms the court set forth and complete the program, you won't be sentenced and the court will withdraw your plea and dismiss the case. If you don't fulfill the terms the court gave you, then you will just be sentenced.
  15. It's chain of evidence. The exonerations due to DNA is testing that was done by an outside, reputable lab, not a police lab. There's a big difference. Many cases have been recalled because of fraudulent results in the police labs. Houston's was a big one. Then there was the pathologist in Tennessee that filed bogus autopsy reports. There was another pathologist in Kansas too. There are actual scientists and then there are prosecution hacks. As to the Williams case, there was a lot more than just the rug fibers being consistent with that found on the bodies. There was also human hair and dog hair that the defense itself had tested at a CA lab. His problem is not that the killing stopped, because all we really know is that no more were reported. His problem is the DNA comparison database is light when it comes to the inclusion of DNA chains from African American's or those of mixed race. DNA is based on statistics and when your random sample isn't broad enough, your conclusion is faulty. A study released in 2009, by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers found that in 96 percent of cases where FBI hair analysis led to a conviction before 1999, the evidence was faulty. There is a book published by the National Research Council and others that you may find enlightening. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: You can download it for free.