Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ozziera

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/29/1942

Recent Profile Visitors

671 profile views
  1. ozziera


    thank you for your response. I have read and understand the bylaws. She has attempted to contact the board but they don't respond. We will go on from here and continue to pay the money owned. Thank you for responding.........
  2. A friend of mine owns a condominium and because of circumstances beyond her control she was not able to make her condominium maintenance fee which is $200 a month. The bylaw agreement states that the condominium will maintain the common areas like trimming the bushes and trees and cutting the lawn. They have not done any of those since she stopped making the maintenance fee payment. So she has been doing all of that herself. She is 76 years old and this is hard on her. The director told her that she could not go onto any common areas until the arrears are paid. That includes the swimming pool. The issue is, part of the common area is the ground that she mows. I helped her trim the arborvitae trees and I fixed the common area sprinkler system as a line was busted and shooting water everywhere. I have read through the bylaw which were created in 1977, and it does says that a lien could be put on the property in the event that the maintenance fees are not kept up to date but does not say that she cannot go on the common area’s like the swimming pool and cutting of the grass on the common area by her house. She has now filed for bankruptcy and has money freed up to pay the maintenance fees. She is paying the $200.00 monthly fee plus another $400.00 toward the past due monies owed, every month. It will take her about 19 months to get caught up. Here is my question: 1. Since she was ordered to cease and desist going into the common areas. Does she need to stop mowing the grass in the area that is common but is on her property? She only started because they won’t do it. She just wants to do the right thing so she has stopped going into the common areas but is concerned about the grass that is growing. Thank you, Ron
  3. In the state of Washington, a friend of mine belongs to a home owners association. She did not pay her dues for about 6 months because of income issues. She is now paying her dues but is in arrears. There was a meeting recently of members and a new director was appointed by the previous director. She was not notified of the meeting they said because she still owed money. She is requesting a copy of the current bylaw and the minutes of the last meeting. As of this writing she has not received a response. My question is can they exclude her because she is in arrears? Thank you, Ron
  4. thank you for your help. I was successful........ron
  5. In the state of Washington, how can I find the parole officer of a certain person on parole.........Thank you, Ron
  6. There is a person I know that is divorced has 2 children and has joint custody. She resides in the state of Washington. She wants to move back to Oregon in the town where she grew up and graduated from high school. She has acquired employment at the school district. They are holding that position for her. Her ex husband is protesting the move. RCW 26.09.520 states in part that there is a rebuttable presumption that the intended relocation of the children will be permitted. There is more to this RCW than space allows here. It appears in this county in Washington most judges are not allowing moves like this. Does anyone have an opinion on this subject or any citations/outcomes of judgments. Thank you, Ron
  7. I understand that jurisdictional claims may be raised at any time. Could someone please post published Nevada authority on this subject? The state failed to follow certain statutory requirements in responding to a habeas petition. (Link to original post).
  8. I understand that jurisdictional claims may be raised at any time. Could someone please post published Nevada authority on this subject? Thank you, Ron
  9. I am trying to find a case that was decided in the Nevada Supreme Court between 2008 and possibly 2014. I have a partial page of the case but i have no case number or name. Part of the words in this case are as follows "appellant asserted that a claim involving double jeopardy is a jurisdictional claim and jurisdictional clams can be raised at any time". I have attempted to find this on Google scholar and I get nine hits but none of them are from the Nevada Supreme Court. I have checked the Nevada supreme Courts site but could not find a way to access the case with the limited information i have. Any suggestions. Thank you Ron
  10. . What does “factual innocence” actually mean in the context of federal habeas corpus for a Nevada state prisoner facing successive and timeliness defaults when challenging the constitutionality of the criminal stature that their conviction is based on? To establish a colorable claim of “actual innocence,” one must demonstrate that in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. Bousley v. United Stated, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998); Kuhlman v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 454 n. 17 (1986). “Actual innocence” means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency. Bousley, supra. So what good is any evidence at all if the prisoner discovers a substantive defect in the part of the criminal statute that distorts deciding guilt from innocence based on the evidence used to convict? Can’t you just make an actual innocence claim on the constitutionality of the part of the statute that placed the evidence/facts in the wrong light causing the conviction? What good is any evidence (new, old, or otherwise) when it is measured through the unconstitutional lens of a suspect criminal statute? Does anyone see this paradox? How does one get through defaults in these circumstances? The Bousley case is the only opinion and resource I can find that remotely comes close to addressing this question. While Bousley’s habeas was pending before the Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court in Baily v. United States clarified the term “use” in 18 U.S.C. § 924©(1) which placed the evidence and facts of Bousley’s conduct beyond the reach of prohibited conduct for his conviction under that statute. On certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the legal rational of the Baily case to Bousley without the introduction of any new evidence or facts about his crime. In other words, the case was decided in Bousley’s favor purely on questions of law. Interestingly this was considered “factual innocence” rather than “legal innocence” by the Bousley Court. In Baily v. United States, there was no habeas corpus implicated with procedural bars or defects. What if Baily v. United State was never decided and Bousley simply made the same legal argument as made in Baily to demonstrate “factual innocence?” Would that also overcome his procedural defaults? It would appear that such a claim would be consistent with the doctrinal underpinning of habeas corpus where refusing to consider such a claim would carry a “significant risk that a defendant stands convicted of an act that the law does not make criminal.” Bousley, 523 U.S. at 620-21. See also Wilson, 477 U.S. at 455 (observing that a colorable claim of factual innocence is meritorious if it will “raise any question as to his quilt or innocence.”) (emphasis added); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478. 495-96 (1986) (“the principles of comity and finality that inform the concepts of cause and prejudice must yield to the imperative of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration” especially when the claim “call into question the reliability of an adjudication of legal guilt.”) (emphasis added). To simply wait around until another case is eventually decided, if ever, by another prisoner’s procedurally sound habeas corpus or timely direct appeal addressing the same issue so that other prisoners sitting in default for needless decades can take advantage of the new ruling seems fundamentally unjust. I cannot find any opinions, law articles, or treatises on point with this issue anywhere. The Bousley case is the closest I have found. Everything I have read discuss the discovery of new, overlooked, or wrongly excluded evidence/facts. Does anyone out there have any references they can share with me that squarely and possibly authoritatively address this topic? If you need additional details, then read the Bousley opinion and put yourself in his place. How would you overcome his procedural defaults if the Baily opinion did not exist? Procedural defaults should not be used as tools to convert an unlawful restriction of liberty into a lawful one. You can’t just let a manifestly unjust conviction ride out when the Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction to convict. Thank you
  11. I have a general question. What is the law in Nevada in regards to the purchase of products and their warranties. In the case of a defective product can the item be replaced or a refund issued. Does state law dictate an avenue for the comsumer? Can you provide a statue so I can document my findings. Thank you, Ron
  12. What are the prudential standing requirement to bring a per-enforcement challenge to a Nevada criminal statute in a Nevada state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the criminal statute interferes with my Federal First Amendment rights? Is it more effective to simply bring this sort of challenge in a Federal court? Please consider the following before answering: Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court, one does not have to risk prosecution to challenge a criminal statute. Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979). To hold otherwise would turn respect for the law on its head. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1061 (9th Cir. 2010). I cannot find any authority from the Nevada Supreme Court that has adopted the rational of United Farm Workers. In fact, I can find nothing on the subject of per-enforcement challenges at all under Nevada law. Is it safe to use United Farm Workers to establish standing in a Nevada State Court in a challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983? Would it be more effective to simply make the § 1983 challenge in Federal court? I am concerned with lengthy abstention procedures under Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). I guess questions going to the constitutionality of the Nevada criminal statute antecedent to the Federal First Amendment issue could be certified directly to the Nevada Supreme Court. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 75-76 (1979). Not sure how that works or even if the case would be handled that way. Thank you for your time in addressing questions #1 and #2. Ron
  13. Is the Prison Litigation Reform Act applicable in the state courts of Nevada? Has the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the issue before? If so, please cite the authority. Thank you
  • Create New...