Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'District of Columbia'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Bankruptcy, Debt, and Taxes
    • Bankruptcy, Debt, and Taxes
  • Consumer Issues
    • Car Purchases & Repairs
    • Retail Purchases
    • Consumer Services & Disputes
    • Medical Treatment & Insurance
    • Archive
  • Criminal Law
    • DUI & DWI
    • Crimes Defined
    • Investigation, Arrest, & Trial
    • After Sentencing
    • Archive
  • Employment
    • Hiring, Firing, and Discrimination
    • Wages & Hours
    • Workplace Safety & Injuries
    • Archive
  • Family Law
    • Child Custody & Support
    • Education
    • Guardianship & Adoption
    • Marriage & Divorce
    • Archive
  • Immigration
    • Immigration
  • Injuries, Accidents, and Torts
    • Auto Accidents
    • Other Accidents & Injuries
    • Defamation & Identity
    • Personal Property & Money Disputes
    • Professional Malpractice
    • Archive
  • Legal Research How-To
    • Legal Research How-To
  • Real Estate & Landlord-Tenant
    • Buying & Selling Homes
    • Landlord & Tenant
    • Neighbors
    • Property Law
    • Archive
  • Small Business
    • Business Organizations
    • Running a Business
    • Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents
    • Archive
  • Traffic Violations
    • Licensing Issues
    • Non-Injury Accidents
    • Traffic Infractions
    • Archive
  • Wills, Trusts, and Estates
    • Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Found 8 results

  1. Good Day, My father died testate Washington, DC in February 2014 and brother is the unsupervised personal rep. My dad did NOT have any debt nor were there claims made against the estate. The family home sold Spring 2015. The PR made partial distributions earlier this year to 3 of 4 named beneficiaries. There was a motion filed by the PR to have a joint account turned over to the estate and granted by the judge back in July of this year. To date there has been no movement or communication from the PR to the beneficiaries about an Accounting/Distribution. What should be my next move as the PR argued to the judge that he wanted to close this as quickly as possible.
  2. Dear Friends, i am looking for advice on: 1. what can i do in order to vindicate my innocence, whereas i have exhausted all legal remedies so far, e.g., i have appealed all the way to the supreme court but the court refused to review my case. 2. because of this unjust conviction, i was deported to china in 2010. will i be able to come back to the united states in person to fight this case? the constitution does not seem to be able to protect me, while everyone is trying to protect the real culprit , that perjuring FBI agent P****** . please read through my story. if you need to know about the case number, i will provide it. so please give me your suggestions. leave it to private message, i will check back often. thank you. Convict Me If You Can – A True Story of FBI Agent’s Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and Covering-up Forewords I am here to write about a dark story, my story. I am going to tell it without any emotions, because emotion is the least useful thing when dealing with a criminal charge. Before you read on, I ask you not to make any judgement. Wait till you read through the criminal complaint and the sole piece of evidence, the chat log. This is an ugly charge, and I am innocent of that charge. Again, hold your breath as you read. If a criminal charge in and by itself is sufficient to render a guilty verdict, then no court, no jury, no media, no democracy are needed in this world. Wait till you see the truth through your own eyes. The Case: Criminal Complaint and the Evidence On February 15, 2008, I was arrested by Timothy P******, an FBI agent, who charges me with US Code 2422(b) and 2423(b), traveling interstate to have sex with a decoy minor, a character that P****** himself played in a Yahoo chatroom. P****** prepared and signed the criminal complaint. The incriminating part of the complaint reads: “The undersigned began chatting with the defendant who uses the screen names, “Wei Chin” and “Juicy Pink”, in June of 2007, and has had several Instant Message conversations with the defendant since that time.” Then P****** provides the chat log that contains chat conversations from 6/6/2007 to 2/15/2008, between myself and the decoy character P****** played, Mandy. In the sworn and signed criminal complained, P****** explicitly and unequivocally indicates that the two parties in the chat log “began chatting” “in June of 2007”. Keep in mind of this important time point, June of 2007. Also keep in mind of this equally important “beginning” of the chat conversation. The opening conversation in the chat log P****** submitted to the court reads as follows: mandy poole (6/6/2007 4:48:52 PM): have we chattted before? juicy pink (6/6/2007 4:49:06 PM): yes we hv juicy pink (6/6/2007 4:49:12 PM): but probly just once mandy poole (6/6/2007 4:49:25 PM): ok ... juicy pink (6/6/2007 4:52:20 PM): nice pic...i think you gave it to me last time..i love see it ... mandy poole (6/6/2007 4:54:03 PM): i live with my aunt mandy poole (6/6/2007 4:54:08 PM): by catholic u juicy pink (6/6/2007 4:54:15 PM): oh i remember.... ... Here is the question: why would P****** be so careless and writes in the criminal complaint that the two “began chatting in June of 2007”, which directly contradicts chat log where both P****** and I agree that we indeed have chatted prior to June of 2007? Why? Did P****** make an absent-minded, innocent mistake? What happened between P****** and I prior to June of 2007? P****** did not make this mistake negligently. He did it on purpose. P****** claims that, in the chat log he presented to the court, his decoy claimed to be around 14 on 6/6/2007. I agree his decoy did make such age claim. However, P****** intentionally omitted the fact that his decoy had already claimed to be a 14- or 15-year-old long time prior to June of 2007, the time P****** claimed to be the “beginning” of the chat conversations of all times. P****** told the court later on, that he started posing as under-aged female since the year of 2000. I stated in an affidavit to the court, that P****** and I started chatting in the Yahoo chatrooms on-and-off since the Spring of 2002, when he claimed to be a 14- or 15-year-old back then. By the time of my arrest in February of 2008, had P****** presented the pre-June of 2007 chat log, my perceived age of his decoy would be much older than 16. This age – 16 years of age – is the age of consent for legal sex in Washington D.C. In other words, I would be walking free if he told the court the truth. Of course he did not. He lied then, and he has been lying since then. The criminal charge P****** eventually pressed against me, US Code 2423(b), has two necessary elements: age and sex. I admit I tried to meet with the decoy character to have sex, therefore, P****** needed to nail me down to the charged crime with a perceived age that is under 16 years. Upon my arrest, I perceived the decoy to be around 18, but absolutely not under 16. When I arrived the pre-arranged place for the meeting, I perceive P****** ’s decoy character based on all of the chat conversations, not just those starting from June of 2007, but also those took place at least 5 years earlier, where the decoy character claimed to be 14 or 15. What P****** has been doing is criminal. First, he concealed the exculpatory evidence upon my arrest, a constitutional violation of Brady Doctrine; second, he perjured in the criminal complaint that he and I “began chatting in June of 2007”, in order to confine the upon-the-arrest age perception to be under 16, a constitutional violation of Franks Doctrine. The Brady and Franks Doctrines What is Brady Doctrine? In the milestone ruling in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the Supreme Court held: “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” The Supreme Court further held: The prosecution has not only an obligation, but an absolute duty to disclose all exculpatory or favorable information to the defendant. Due process is violated under Brady when the defendant shows (1) government “suppression” of (2) evidence favorable to defendant, and (3) that the evidence is material. Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794-95, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 2568, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972); United States v. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200, 1208 (2d. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, – U.S. –, 116 S.Ct. 1056, 134 L.Ed.2d 201 (1996). In my case, the chat log that took place prior to the June of 2007 is missing, is suppressed by the government, and is material to the finding of the guilt. What is Franks Doctrine? In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the Supreme Court announced the importance of truthful affidavits in seeking warrants: [A] warrant affidavit must set forth the particular facts and circumstances underlying the existence of probable cause, so as to allow the magistrate to make an independent evaluation of the matter. Because it is the magistrate who must determine independently whether there is probable cause, it would be an unthinkable imposition upon his authority if a warrant affidavit, revealed after the fact to contain a deliberately or recklessly false statement, were to stand beyond impeachment. 438 U.S. at 165, 98 S.Ct. at 2681 (citations omitted). See also United States v. Crenshaw, 817 F.Supp. 755 (E.D. Wis. 1993). Consequently, the Court concluded that unless challenges to the veracity of warrant affidavits were permitted, the warrant clause of the fourth amendment “would be reduced to a nullity [once] a police officer was able to use deliberately falsified allegations to demonstrate probable cause, and, having misled the magistrate, then was able to remain confident that the ploy was worthwhile.” 438 U.S. at 168, 98 S.Ct. at 2682. In United States v. Dorfman, 542 F.Supp. 345 (1982), the ruling Court opined: If the government had unfettered power to pick and choose which facts to present to the magistrate regardless of how misleading the presentations were, the magistrate’s review of the affidavit would be rendered meaningless. The magistrate would not be provided with a fair opportunity to review the government’s evidence in making the probable cause determination. He would perform his crucial role at the whim, caprice or duplicity of the governmental agents involved in the case. Such a result cannot be squared with Franks’ demand that the government not frustrate the magistrate’s review of probable cause by deliberately or recklessly providing misleading information. Under the rationale of Franks, defendants must be permitted to challenge an affidavit on the basis of the intentional or reckless omission of material facts from the affidavit. Franks teaches when “failure is intentional the warrant must be invalidated. The fact that probable cause did exist and would have been established by a truthful affidavit does not cure the error.” United States v. Davis, 714 F.2d 896 (1983). In United States v. Crenshaw, 817 F.Supp. 755 (E.D.Wis. 1993), the ruling Court opined: no law enforcement officer, however well-intentioned, may subvert the constitutional requirement of a warrant supported by oath or affirmation by recklessly disregarding the truth. To borrow words of the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207, 1213 (7th Cir. 1980), when [the police officer] recklessly disregarded the truth in his sworn affidavit, he committed two offenses: one against the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches, and a second against the judicial system. In my case, P****** ’s constitutional violations meet all elements for the Franks Doctrine: 1. Falsehood; 2. intentional falsehood; and 3. the falsehood is material to the finding of guilt. First, P****** ’s claim, that the two parties “began chatting in June of 2007”, is false. Second, P****** must know or should have known that such claim to be false, because in the chat log, he either agrees or acquiesces to my numerous factual reminders of chat contents that took place prior to June of 2007. Third, P****** intentionally claims the chat began in June of 2007 for the purpose of confining my perceived age to be under the legal age of consent. Had he presented pre-June of 2007 chat log, the court would find that he and I had been chatting on-and-off since Spring of 2002, and he claimed to be a 14- or 15-year-old at that time. Had he truthfully presented the complete chat log, my perceived age upon arrest would be 21, an age well above and beyond the legal age of consent in Washington D.C. According to Franks, the intentional and material falsehood invalidates the arrest warrant. Therefore, P****** has not only invalidated my arrest, but also committed crimes of perjury, because he and his colleagues have been perjuring in the court multiple times in relation to the pre-June of 2007 chat log. How to tell a lie that fools nobody Common sense tells us, if you tell a lie, later you will have to tell a hundred more to cover-up the first. P****** fell to his own trap in the exact same manner. Confronted with the perjury allegation in the court, P****** insisted he had never chatted with me prior to June of 2007. To prove his point, he submitted to the court a print-out. This piece of paper shows he registered the decoy character’s Yahoo! user name in November of 2006, implying that my allegation, that the chat began in Spring of 2002, could not have happened. Is that so? He informed the court that he started to pose as decoy characters in year 2000. He also informed the court that he makes arrests out of such undercover operation once a week. As soon as he catches someone, the user name he uses to make the arrest becomes public, and then he registers a new one. The truth is simple. P****** used two similar user names to chat with me, one in Spring of 2002, another in June of 2007. These two user names are almost identical, and the identity he poses are consistent: the decoy character lives in Franklin Street, she lives with her aunt, she is Puerto Rican descent, and she is home alone. The most important point is, when P****** asks me “have we [chatted] before”, I said “Yes”, and he says “ok”. P****** thus admits through his own words that he and I have chatted prior to June of 2007. Nothing else matters. The Danger If P****** Escapes Justice The United States Constitution AMENDMENT V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. This case is not just about myself. This is case is about You. Yourself. Your Spouse. Your Children, Your Loved ones. When P****** lies about P****** ’s suppression of exculpatory evidence is a textbook violation of the Due Process.
  3. My landlord and I am are having a dispute as to when I need to move out. The termination clause in my lease states that: "TERMINATION CLAUSE. Tenant may, upon 30 days' written notice to Landlord, terminate this lease provided that the Tenant pays a termination equal to 1 months' rent or the maximum allowable by law, whichever is less. Termination will be effective as of the last day of the calendar month following the end of the 30 day notice period. Termination charge will be in addition to all rent due up to the termination day." I have sent in the written notice along with one months rent, and the end of the 30 day notice would be July 11. My landlord believes that he can take possession of the property on July 12, but I believe that I have until the end of July to vacate as the lease doesn't terminate until the end of July. Who is right?
  4. I’m compiling a list of all states’ seat belt laws. I know that D.C. has primary enforcement seat belt laws, meaning that the police can pull you over and issue a citation if they see or suspect that you’re not wearing a seat belt. However, I can’t find the specific section that refers to primary enforcement in any of the seat belt statutes [title 50, chapter 18 for regular seat belts, and title 50, chapter 17 for child restraints]. Most states specifically document primary enforcement in their seat belt laws—does D.C. state it somewhere else? E.g. is it a granted power from another traffic law or something? If so, where should I look? I've combed through almost all DC motor-vehicle-related statutes and I can't find it. I hope my question is clear—I’m not familiar with law at all so I don’t know what legal phrases to use. Thanks in advance!
  5. I was driving far right lane on R. I. Ave NE DC. I saw the Van coming out of parking lot about 10-15 Yards in front of me. I came to stop complete stop about about 3 Yards from parking lot exit. The other car (Van) that came from parking lot turn right on the road and stop about a Yard from exit and about 4-5 Yards from My car. Their was no traffic light on the road to stop. He also didn't put and emergency light on his van. I wait about a minute for his next move when He didn't move, I put my left blinker and proceed to go around his left side. All of sudden he back up and struck the right side of my car from front bumper to my back wheel. Done Extensive damage to my car.On his van there was few scratches on right side of back bumper the one that damaged my car. There was no witness. I called the police, Police didn't right any report since no body was hurt ( DC police policy) and they give any ticket to either party. I called my Ins. and report the accident. They called me back to inform me that his Ins. co. denied the claim because he told them It was my fault. I called his ins. co.and told them he is lying and ask them to come out and review the damage and determine based on Picture's i took and damage to our cars. They never came and still denied my claim. Here to point out that I have only liability and comper. Ins not a full coverage. How I go about to get my car fix. Thanks!
  6. A friend of mine got a DUI in DC recently, and although she is in contact with lawyers I wanted to pitch this question here. She smokes marijuana, which is legal in the District of Columbia, and she is concerned about a drug test that may occur on or near the date of one of her pretrial hearings. She has been told that DC has wavered on whether such drug tests, and more importantly drug tests during potential probation, will consider a positive for marijuana to be a failed test. The only information I have been able to find is an article from 2014 stating that DC's decrim law ensured that a positive for marijuana is no longer a probation violation nor is it considered a positive for a "controlled substance" in any context in DC. On the other hand, as I said, the lawyers she has talked to have seemed unable/unwilling to say for sure whether she will risk further drug tests by testing positive for marijuana before trial, or if she will fail probationary drug tests by testing positive for marijuana during probation. Some details about her arrest: she blew a .10, and the legal limit is .08. She was pulled over not for a mistake in her driving, but for an expired sticker on the license plate (my license plate, but I had a valid registration in the glove that they wouldn't allow her to show, not that it matters). She has never had a DUI in the past. Thank you for any input.
  7. What is the DC Law reqarding joint accounts? The bank states that my brother is the new owner of the account due to presumed right of survivorship and I'm challenging it with hopes that it will be turned over to our father's estate. Unlike Maryland, unable to find clear guidelline in DC. Keep hearing that DC law is "tricky".
  8. I have an issue with my wife’s employer; she works for a small contractor on a project for a Washington, DC agency. Her employer claims he cannot pay her until the agency pays him (a practice I believe is unethical and possibly illegal). Also, he is supposed to pay her on the 12th and 27th of each month; however, since she started working on-site at the Agency in early May, she has been paid only four times (and only once on the designated date). My question is this: Is the inability to meet payroll on the specified dates in violation of federal law (specifically, the Fair Standards Labor Act)?
  • Create New...