This document discusses a case involving the disclosure of classified national defense information. It summarizes the lengthy pre-trial proceedings in the case that were caused in part by the defendant refusing a brief continuance and instead forcing an interlocutory appeal. It also questions the credibility of a defense witness, David Manners, who provided an unsworn letter supporting the defendant's claim that his disclosures caused little harm. Manners had previously testified under oath before a grand jury that the defendant was the source for a journalist's book, but later recanted his testimony just before trial. The document argues the trial evidence established harm from the defendant's actions and that Manners' late recantation and unsworn letter should be disreg
Court case, Darren Chaker provides, Stingrey warrant, requires search warrant, involves privacy, constitutional issues in obtaining phone records and data, Fourth Amendment issues are discussed in detail by the court and how the law looks at cutting edge technology.
This document provides an overview of attorney-client privilege and related issues under Florida law. It summarizes key cases and statutes governing when communications are considered privileged, who can assert or waive the privilege, exceptions, requirements for establishing a privilege when withholding documents, joint defense agreements, child hearsay rules and the confrontation clause, closed circuit testimony of vulnerable witnesses, and limitations of the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Contact information is provided for the SunTrust Bank Building in Clearwater and Tampa offices of an unnamed law firm.
FindLaw | Holocaust Museum Shooting Suspect's Murder ChargesLegalDocs
This criminal complaint charges James Wenneker Von Brunn with two counts related to a shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10, 2009. According to the affidavit, Von Brunn drove to the museum armed with a rifle and shot and killed a security guard when he entered. He was then shot by other security guards and taken into custody. The complaint charges Von Brunn with first degree murder and killing in the course of possessing a firearm in a federal facility based on evidence that he planned and carried out the shooting.
Federal court order from Nevada, Fourth Amendment issues, detailing illegal detention. Darren Chaker, writes frequently on such issues and was provided the order to help educate people on rights and judicial cases impacting every day life.
Darren Chaker, confidential informant guide for law enforcement, attorneys, in California, but also cites numerous federal and Supreme Court cases. Privilege is examined, how to keep confidential informants, and numerous court opinions.
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility (Dismas) as a transition from federal prison, and agreed to follow its rules. However, the plaintiff admitted driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, in violation of the rules. As a result, he was returned to federal prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The brief argues the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence and constitutional violations, as the plaintiff cannot prove the elements of these claims or that
Court case, Darren Chaker provides, Stingrey warrant, requires search warrant, involves privacy, constitutional issues in obtaining phone records and data, Fourth Amendment issues are discussed in detail by the court and how the law looks at cutting edge technology.
This document provides an overview of attorney-client privilege and related issues under Florida law. It summarizes key cases and statutes governing when communications are considered privileged, who can assert or waive the privilege, exceptions, requirements for establishing a privilege when withholding documents, joint defense agreements, child hearsay rules and the confrontation clause, closed circuit testimony of vulnerable witnesses, and limitations of the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Contact information is provided for the SunTrust Bank Building in Clearwater and Tampa offices of an unnamed law firm.
FindLaw | Holocaust Museum Shooting Suspect's Murder ChargesLegalDocs
This criminal complaint charges James Wenneker Von Brunn with two counts related to a shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10, 2009. According to the affidavit, Von Brunn drove to the museum armed with a rifle and shot and killed a security guard when he entered. He was then shot by other security guards and taken into custody. The complaint charges Von Brunn with first degree murder and killing in the course of possessing a firearm in a federal facility based on evidence that he planned and carried out the shooting.
Federal court order from Nevada, Fourth Amendment issues, detailing illegal detention. Darren Chaker, writes frequently on such issues and was provided the order to help educate people on rights and judicial cases impacting every day life.
Darren Chaker, confidential informant guide for law enforcement, attorneys, in California, but also cites numerous federal and Supreme Court cases. Privilege is examined, how to keep confidential informants, and numerous court opinions.
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility (Dismas) as a transition from federal prison, and agreed to follow its rules. However, the plaintiff admitted driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, in violation of the rules. As a result, he was returned to federal prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The brief argues the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence and constitutional violations, as the plaintiff cannot prove the elements of these claims or that
This document is a court opinion from the District Court of Appeal of Florida regarding Daniel Guevara-Vilca's appeal of his convictions for possession of child pornography. The court found that the State committed a discovery violation by failing to disclose a statement Guevara-Vilca made to police before receiving his Miranda rights. This violation prejudiced the defense because it prevented them from pursuing suppression of all of Guevara-Vilca's statements. As a result, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court also noted the sentencing issue of whether a life sentence in this case would constitute cruel and unusual punishment should be seriously considered if Guevara-Vilca is
1) The affiant, John M. O'Quinn, states that he hired Don Clark, a former highly trained FBI agent, to investigate the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel.
2) Clark conducted extensive daily investigations and informed O'Quinn of his findings, including that Howard Stern was criminally responsible for their deaths by providing inappropriate amounts of prescription drugs.
3) O'Quinn relied on Clark's findings and his own courtroom observations in making public statements about Stern, and believes the statements to be true.
This document discusses whether service of process on a non-resident journalist was valid when the journalist was induced to enter the forum state of Tennessee under false pretenses. It summarizes the standard for quashing service of process due to fraudulent inducement, and argues that the plaintiff in this case, Coburn, fraudulently induced the defendant, journalist Martinez, to come to Tennessee for settlement negotiations before serving him with process. The document analyzes previous cases where courts quashed service on non-residents who were induced to enter a state for settlement discussions but were then served without warning or time to leave. It contends Coburn took preliminary legal actions and never intended genuine negotiations, so Martinez's presence in Tennessee was invalid for service of
This document summarizes a court case regarding a same-sex couple challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The court granted California's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Proposition 8. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, or that their injury could be redressed by a favorable court decision, which are both requirements for standing. This was the second time the plaintiffs had brought similar challenges to the court regarding same-sex marriage bans.
Usa vs. arhndt judge says police need a warrant to view files on wireless n...Umesh Heendeniya
This document provides background on a case involving the suppression of evidence obtained without a warrant. John Henry Ahrndt was indicted on child pornography charges. His motion to suppress was initially denied but was later granted by the Ninth Circuit which remanded the case. At a second evidentiary hearing, testimony was provided that a neighbor had connected to Ahrndt's unsecured wireless network and viewed file names suggesting child pornography. Police were contacted and viewed one image before losing the connection. Ahrndt now moves again to suppress the evidence against him.
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarLegalDocs
This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case regarding the denial of a visa for Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar. The three organizational plaintiffs claimed the denial violated their First Amendment right to have Ramadan share his views in the US. The government denied the visa because Ramadan had contributed funds to a charity that supported Hamas, which the government deemed material support to a terrorist organization. The Court of Appeals concluded that the consular officer who denied the visa did not properly confront Ramadan with the allegations, which prevented Ramadan from demonstrating that he did not know the charity supported terrorism. The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This document is the transcript from an initial appearance hearing in federal court for Matthew Wade Beasley, who is charged with assaulting a federal officer. At the hearing, the judge advised Beasley of his rights and the charge against him. A detention hearing was also held, where the government argued Beasley should be detained as a flight risk and danger, citing the alleged assault and Beasley's statements during a standoff with police. Beasley's attorney argued for release, saying his actions were a one-time result of extreme emotional crisis and remorse, and that he posed no danger while in his home during the standoff. The judge took the arguments under advisement.
A blind mule is just that, but in the terms of criminal law, it is when a person asserts they did not know he was transporting contraband. This is where the defendant was charged when an FBI/DEA strike force arrested him. Darren Chaker
This document is an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant of a residence in Urbandale, Iowa as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The affidavit provides background details on the investigation, which involves allegations of ongoing criminal conduct, conspiracy, solicitation, extortion, and witness tampering against Tracey Richter. It outlines a complex set of events involving Richter, her ex-husbands Dr. John Pitman and Michael Roberts, and a man named Dustin Wehde who was shot and killed by Richter in 2001 during an alleged home invasion.
Crawford v Washington involved the admittance of a wife's statement to police against her husband at his trial for stabbing a man. The Supreme Court overruled prior precedent that allowed out-of-court statements if reliable, finding this violated the Confrontation Clause. Two later companion cases provided more guidance, finding a 911 call describing ongoing events was nontestimonial but a signed affidavit of past events was testimonial. However, the Court has still not provided a comprehensive definition of "testimonial" and what types of statements implicate the Confrontation Clause.
Three sentences:
Aniruddha Sherbow has been charged in the District of Columbia with transmitting threats in interstate commerce for leaving a threatening voicemail for Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and sending an email threatening to decapitate her. He was arrested in California based on these charges and is appearing for an initial appearance in federal court there. The documents provide details of the threatening communications and establish probable cause for the arrest.
This order grants the defendant's motion to revoke the magistrate judge's detention order and orders the defendant's pretrial release. The court conducted an independent review and found that there are conditions that can be imposed to address the risk of flight and safety concerns. The charges involve communicating national defense information and retaining classified documents. The government argued the defendant posed a flight risk and danger due to the sensitive information he had access to, while the defendant argued pretrial detention was not authorized based solely on danger to the community. The court considered the relevant factors and found pretrial release was appropriate with conditions.
State v. Jernigan- Order Denying Motion for New TrialBrett Adams
This order denies the defendant's motion for a new trial following his conviction of kidnapping, hijacking a motor vehicle, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and other charges. The court finds that the evidence presented at trial, including the victim's testimony that the defendant brandished a gun and forced her to withdraw money from an ATM before raping her, was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. The court finds no grounds to overturn the verdicts or grant a new trial.
Court dockets are typically public records that allow the public and press to be aware of cases and follow their progress through the legal system. However, some courts are keeping cases secret by omitting them from public dockets. These "secret dockets" threaten transparency and First Amendment rights. Recent examples involve terrorism cases, but secrecy is also used in other types of cases like divorces. Secret proceedings bypass public scrutiny and oversight of the judicial system.
This document summarizes a court case between R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Jan Grossman regarding Grossman's lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds over the death of his wife Laura Grossman from lung cancer. The court document discusses the background and history of the case, which went through multiple trials. It also summarizes R.J. Reynolds' arguments on appeal, including alleged errors during jury selection and issues with comments made by Grossman's attorney during closing arguments. The court ultimately affirmed the jury's verdict but ordered the compensatory damages award to be reduced proportionally based on the jury's comparative fault finding between Grossman's wife and R.J. Reynolds.
Federal court, excluding police report, Darren Chaker, provides law on keeping a police report away from the jury in a criminal case, which is important since are usually hearsay and unreliable.
Plaintiff Joan Silver was injured during a hypnotherapy session with Defendant Stanley Fine, a Baltimore County volunteer. Silver did not provide formal notice to the county of her potential lawsuit as required by law. Instead, some months later, she sent an informal email to her former boss, the County Executive, hinting at a possible lawsuit but not explicitly stating her intent. Defendant argues that Silver did not substantially comply with the notice requirement or show good cause for failing to comply. As such, Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
The document summarizes a majority opinion from an appeals court regarding the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction for making a false report to police. The majority opinion holds that the evidence is legally insufficient because the State did not prove the report was made in bad faith or for reasons other than a valid grievance. It provides background on the case, including that the defendant contacted various law enforcement agencies to report improper access of his credit report during a criminal investigation against him in another state.
The document summarizes a court case involving defendants Robert Martins and Antonio Guastella who were convicted of money laundering, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The defendants appealed their convictions, arguing that the admission of their co-conspirators' guilty plea allocutions violated their rights under the Confrontation Clause. The court found that (1) admitting the plea allocutions did violate the defendants' rights given they could not cross-examine the co-conspirators, but (2) the error was harmless because the evidence against the defendants, such as documentary evidence establishing they set up fake banks together, was overwhelming. The convictions were therefore upheld.
This document provides an overview and analysis of the Miranda Warning and its history and issues. It discusses key Supreme Court cases that established Miranda rights, including Miranda v. Arizona (1966) which required police to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning. The document examines criticisms of the Miranda Warning including concerns about comprehension, especially for non-native English speakers. It also explores police interrogation techniques and how Miranda aims to prevent coercive practices that could violate a suspect's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend ComplaintJRachelle
This document is a memorandum filed by Susan M. Brown and the Law Offices of Susan M. Brown in opposition to Howard K. Stern's motion to amend his complaint to join them as additional defendants. The memorandum argues that the motion to amend should be denied on the grounds of prejudice and futility. It asserts that Brown would be prejudiced by the late addition as a defendant since discovery is largely complete. It also argues that the attempts to apply California law are futile since South Carolina law applies, and that the complaint fails to properly plead causes of action under South Carolina law against Brown.
This document is a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss claims against defendants Susan Brown and The Law Offices of Susan Brown. It argues that (1) claims based on California procedural law cannot be brought in South Carolina court, (2) the relevant California statute only applies to acts occurring in California, and (3) the principle of res judicata bars re-litigating issues already decided in a prior motion for sanctions. The memorandum provides background on the representation of defendant Ben Thompson by Susan Brown and the limited allegations against Brown in the amended complaint.
This document is a court opinion from the District Court of Appeal of Florida regarding Daniel Guevara-Vilca's appeal of his convictions for possession of child pornography. The court found that the State committed a discovery violation by failing to disclose a statement Guevara-Vilca made to police before receiving his Miranda rights. This violation prejudiced the defense because it prevented them from pursuing suppression of all of Guevara-Vilca's statements. As a result, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court also noted the sentencing issue of whether a life sentence in this case would constitute cruel and unusual punishment should be seriously considered if Guevara-Vilca is
1) The affiant, John M. O'Quinn, states that he hired Don Clark, a former highly trained FBI agent, to investigate the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel.
2) Clark conducted extensive daily investigations and informed O'Quinn of his findings, including that Howard Stern was criminally responsible for their deaths by providing inappropriate amounts of prescription drugs.
3) O'Quinn relied on Clark's findings and his own courtroom observations in making public statements about Stern, and believes the statements to be true.
This document discusses whether service of process on a non-resident journalist was valid when the journalist was induced to enter the forum state of Tennessee under false pretenses. It summarizes the standard for quashing service of process due to fraudulent inducement, and argues that the plaintiff in this case, Coburn, fraudulently induced the defendant, journalist Martinez, to come to Tennessee for settlement negotiations before serving him with process. The document analyzes previous cases where courts quashed service on non-residents who were induced to enter a state for settlement discussions but were then served without warning or time to leave. It contends Coburn took preliminary legal actions and never intended genuine negotiations, so Martinez's presence in Tennessee was invalid for service of
This document summarizes a court case regarding a same-sex couple challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The court granted California's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Proposition 8. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, or that their injury could be redressed by a favorable court decision, which are both requirements for standing. This was the second time the plaintiffs had brought similar challenges to the court regarding same-sex marriage bans.
Usa vs. arhndt judge says police need a warrant to view files on wireless n...Umesh Heendeniya
This document provides background on a case involving the suppression of evidence obtained without a warrant. John Henry Ahrndt was indicted on child pornography charges. His motion to suppress was initially denied but was later granted by the Ninth Circuit which remanded the case. At a second evidentiary hearing, testimony was provided that a neighbor had connected to Ahrndt's unsecured wireless network and viewed file names suggesting child pornography. Police were contacted and viewed one image before losing the connection. Ahrndt now moves again to suppress the evidence against him.
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarLegalDocs
This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case regarding the denial of a visa for Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar. The three organizational plaintiffs claimed the denial violated their First Amendment right to have Ramadan share his views in the US. The government denied the visa because Ramadan had contributed funds to a charity that supported Hamas, which the government deemed material support to a terrorist organization. The Court of Appeals concluded that the consular officer who denied the visa did not properly confront Ramadan with the allegations, which prevented Ramadan from demonstrating that he did not know the charity supported terrorism. The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This document is the transcript from an initial appearance hearing in federal court for Matthew Wade Beasley, who is charged with assaulting a federal officer. At the hearing, the judge advised Beasley of his rights and the charge against him. A detention hearing was also held, where the government argued Beasley should be detained as a flight risk and danger, citing the alleged assault and Beasley's statements during a standoff with police. Beasley's attorney argued for release, saying his actions were a one-time result of extreme emotional crisis and remorse, and that he posed no danger while in his home during the standoff. The judge took the arguments under advisement.
A blind mule is just that, but in the terms of criminal law, it is when a person asserts they did not know he was transporting contraband. This is where the defendant was charged when an FBI/DEA strike force arrested him. Darren Chaker
This document is an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant of a residence in Urbandale, Iowa as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The affidavit provides background details on the investigation, which involves allegations of ongoing criminal conduct, conspiracy, solicitation, extortion, and witness tampering against Tracey Richter. It outlines a complex set of events involving Richter, her ex-husbands Dr. John Pitman and Michael Roberts, and a man named Dustin Wehde who was shot and killed by Richter in 2001 during an alleged home invasion.
Crawford v Washington involved the admittance of a wife's statement to police against her husband at his trial for stabbing a man. The Supreme Court overruled prior precedent that allowed out-of-court statements if reliable, finding this violated the Confrontation Clause. Two later companion cases provided more guidance, finding a 911 call describing ongoing events was nontestimonial but a signed affidavit of past events was testimonial. However, the Court has still not provided a comprehensive definition of "testimonial" and what types of statements implicate the Confrontation Clause.
Three sentences:
Aniruddha Sherbow has been charged in the District of Columbia with transmitting threats in interstate commerce for leaving a threatening voicemail for Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and sending an email threatening to decapitate her. He was arrested in California based on these charges and is appearing for an initial appearance in federal court there. The documents provide details of the threatening communications and establish probable cause for the arrest.
This order grants the defendant's motion to revoke the magistrate judge's detention order and orders the defendant's pretrial release. The court conducted an independent review and found that there are conditions that can be imposed to address the risk of flight and safety concerns. The charges involve communicating national defense information and retaining classified documents. The government argued the defendant posed a flight risk and danger due to the sensitive information he had access to, while the defendant argued pretrial detention was not authorized based solely on danger to the community. The court considered the relevant factors and found pretrial release was appropriate with conditions.
State v. Jernigan- Order Denying Motion for New TrialBrett Adams
This order denies the defendant's motion for a new trial following his conviction of kidnapping, hijacking a motor vehicle, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and other charges. The court finds that the evidence presented at trial, including the victim's testimony that the defendant brandished a gun and forced her to withdraw money from an ATM before raping her, was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. The court finds no grounds to overturn the verdicts or grant a new trial.
Court dockets are typically public records that allow the public and press to be aware of cases and follow their progress through the legal system. However, some courts are keeping cases secret by omitting them from public dockets. These "secret dockets" threaten transparency and First Amendment rights. Recent examples involve terrorism cases, but secrecy is also used in other types of cases like divorces. Secret proceedings bypass public scrutiny and oversight of the judicial system.
This document summarizes a court case between R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Jan Grossman regarding Grossman's lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds over the death of his wife Laura Grossman from lung cancer. The court document discusses the background and history of the case, which went through multiple trials. It also summarizes R.J. Reynolds' arguments on appeal, including alleged errors during jury selection and issues with comments made by Grossman's attorney during closing arguments. The court ultimately affirmed the jury's verdict but ordered the compensatory damages award to be reduced proportionally based on the jury's comparative fault finding between Grossman's wife and R.J. Reynolds.
Federal court, excluding police report, Darren Chaker, provides law on keeping a police report away from the jury in a criminal case, which is important since are usually hearsay and unreliable.
Plaintiff Joan Silver was injured during a hypnotherapy session with Defendant Stanley Fine, a Baltimore County volunteer. Silver did not provide formal notice to the county of her potential lawsuit as required by law. Instead, some months later, she sent an informal email to her former boss, the County Executive, hinting at a possible lawsuit but not explicitly stating her intent. Defendant argues that Silver did not substantially comply with the notice requirement or show good cause for failing to comply. As such, Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
The document summarizes a majority opinion from an appeals court regarding the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction for making a false report to police. The majority opinion holds that the evidence is legally insufficient because the State did not prove the report was made in bad faith or for reasons other than a valid grievance. It provides background on the case, including that the defendant contacted various law enforcement agencies to report improper access of his credit report during a criminal investigation against him in another state.
The document summarizes a court case involving defendants Robert Martins and Antonio Guastella who were convicted of money laundering, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The defendants appealed their convictions, arguing that the admission of their co-conspirators' guilty plea allocutions violated their rights under the Confrontation Clause. The court found that (1) admitting the plea allocutions did violate the defendants' rights given they could not cross-examine the co-conspirators, but (2) the error was harmless because the evidence against the defendants, such as documentary evidence establishing they set up fake banks together, was overwhelming. The convictions were therefore upheld.
This document provides an overview and analysis of the Miranda Warning and its history and issues. It discusses key Supreme Court cases that established Miranda rights, including Miranda v. Arizona (1966) which required police to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning. The document examines criticisms of the Miranda Warning including concerns about comprehension, especially for non-native English speakers. It also explores police interrogation techniques and how Miranda aims to prevent coercive practices that could violate a suspect's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend ComplaintJRachelle
This document is a memorandum filed by Susan M. Brown and the Law Offices of Susan M. Brown in opposition to Howard K. Stern's motion to amend his complaint to join them as additional defendants. The memorandum argues that the motion to amend should be denied on the grounds of prejudice and futility. It asserts that Brown would be prejudiced by the late addition as a defendant since discovery is largely complete. It also argues that the attempts to apply California law are futile since South Carolina law applies, and that the complaint fails to properly plead causes of action under South Carolina law against Brown.
This document is a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss claims against defendants Susan Brown and The Law Offices of Susan Brown. It argues that (1) claims based on California procedural law cannot be brought in South Carolina court, (2) the relevant California statute only applies to acts occurring in California, and (3) the principle of res judicata bars re-litigating issues already decided in a prior motion for sanctions. The memorandum provides background on the representation of defendant Ben Thompson by Susan Brown and the limited allegations against Brown in the amended complaint.
O Quinn Motion For Summary Judgment ExcerptsJRachelle
The document discusses the death of Ms. Smith and the legal issues surrounding it. It describes how her official cause of death was reported as drug intoxication over half a year after her death. Many people, including her mother, believed that Stern, who was widely seen as Ms. Smith's drug supplier, was responsible for her death. The document argues that Stern cannot prove the statements accusing him were known to be false, and therefore cannot meet the legal standard of "actual malice" required in defamation cases involving public figures.
Ex-NSA Contractor Stole at Least 500 Million Pages of Records and SecretsThe Hacker News
The government is seeking the continued pretrial detention of Harold T. Martin based on the danger his release would pose to national security and the risk of flight. The evidence against Martin is overwhelming, as he was found in possession of over 50 terabytes of highly classified documents and information spanning two decades, including some marked Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information. Martin held positions of trust providing him access to classified information, but violated that trust through the theft and retention of documents he was not authorized to possess. His crimes were extremely serious and endangered national security.
This document discusses 10 cases where courts have excluded prior bad acts or convictions from being entered as evidence. The cases establish that arrests without convictions cannot be used to impeach credibility, specific acts of misconduct not resulting in convictions are impermissible for impeachment, and extraneous evidence of misconduct only serves to prejudice juries. Prior convictions must have passed the appeal period and involve crimes of dishonesty or false statement to be admissible for impeachment purposes.
Case Brief 1Chapter Four Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (194.docxcowinhelen
Case Brief 1
Chapter Four: Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).
Since 9/11, the detention of suspected terrorists has been necessary to reduce the terrorist threat and guarantee the opportunity for interrogation. Detainees were often held without being charged of crimes, many were not informed why they were being held, and many did not have access to an attorney. Detainees challenged the U.S. Government's authority to detain them by filing a writ of habeas corpus. The Executive Branch, however, has maintained that detention is a military necessity, is essential to continuing the fight against terrorism, and that enemy combatants do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens in a federal court. Your assignment for this week is to brief -- ExParte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) a leading case in the area of habeas corpus. At the end of your brief, detail if you agree with the Court’s holding or not and why.
Submit Case Brief 1 by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday.
.
This document is a motion by the United States to disqualify defense attorneys Myles Breiner and Kevin Sumida from representing defendants Katherine and Louis Kealoha. The motion argues Breiner and Sumida have conflicts of interest that prevent them from providing competent representation due to their simultaneous representation of both Kealohas and other past representations. Specifically, Breiner previously represented plaintiffs suing Louis Kealoha for civil rights violations and a defendant prosecuted by Katherine Kealoha. Sumida may be a witness in the current case. The motion asks the court to disqualify both attorneys to avoid ethical issues and ensure the trial proceeds fairly.
This document discusses the admissibility of four audio calls intercepted by Honduran authorities in 2015 involving members of the MS-13 gang. It argues that portions of the calls are admissible as statements of co-conspirators under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The calls discuss: 1) Intercepted conversations about payments received by the defendant from drug traffickers; 2) The defendant's efforts to have a drug trafficker killed; 3) Drug routes provided by the defendant to the Cachiros drug trafficking organization; and 4) Methods for transporting contraband across the Honduran border with help from Tigre Bonilla. The document maintains that the calls
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As DefendantJRachelle
This order grants the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add new parties and factual allegations learned during discovery. The plaintiff seeks to add three individuals ("Doe defendants") identified during depositions as being involved in removing property from the estate. The plaintiff also seeks to add an attorney and her law firm who received estate property from one of the defendants. The only opposition comes from the attorney and law firm, but the court finds that allowing the amendments would not be prejudicial or futile. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to amend is granted.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota heard a case regarding when the statute of limitations begins for a legal malpractice claim stemming from a criminal trial. James Noske sued his former attorney Joseph Friedberg for legal malpractice, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during his 1990 criminal trial where he was convicted. Friedberg argued the suit was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. The Court held that Noske's malpractice claim did not accrue until 1999 when he was granted habeas corpus relief overturning his conviction, and Friedberg could still litigate the elements of malpractice.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the district court's judgment that Lori Handrahan had not proven abuse allegations against her ex-husband Igor Malenko by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court heard testimony from two experts involved in evaluating the alleged abuse of Handrahan and Malenko's child. Though the experts concluded there was moderate evidence of abuse, the district court was not compelled to accept their opinions and appropriately considered witness credibility and other evidence in making its factual determination. The Supreme Court found no clear error in the district court's evaluation of the evidence and application of the legal standard.
- Congressman James Sensenbrenner, author of the Patriot Act, filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs challenging the NSA's mass telephone metadata collection program.
- He argues that Congress intended to authorize collection of documents and records only upon a showing of relevance to an authorized investigation, not a blanket collection of all telephone call records.
- Sensenbrenner also asserts that Congress did not intend to authorize indiscriminate collection of data on every telephone call to or from the US, which violates the privacy of millions of innocent Americans.
Assignment 1 (Doesn’t have to be full page, citation is a MUST).docxtrippettjettie
Assignment 1 (Doesn’t have to be full page, citation is a MUST):
Kesha has invited her friend Carrie to go home with her over the school’s short holiday break. Kesha, like many African Americans, has a rich spiritual tradition that permeates most areas of her life. In addition, Kesha is close to her immediate and extended family. Carrie, on the other hand, comes from a predominantly Caucasian Presbyterian background, is an only child, and rarely sees any of her extended family.
During her visit, Carrie is noticeably uncomfortable with the vastly different dynamics of Kesha’s family. Carrie is rethinking her friendship with Kesha and wants to withdraw from her.
How will you help Carrie understand the cultural values inherent in the African American culture and how these might be affecting her?
Suggest ways in which Kesha could build a bridge to help Carrie understand the African American culture.
Assignment 2 (2 pages, CITATION IS A MUST):
Reflections on Racial Discrimination
Franklin hears about people being discriminated against at the workplace and in society but rarely experiences it first hand. Cortez, on the other hand, speaks English poorly and is often subject to derogatory comments from peers and coworkers.
Reflect on your experience with racial discrimination.
Identify examples of racial discrimination and provide examples you have personally witnessed or heard about firsthand from the following three realms:
· family
· work place
· community
Write a brief summary that includes the following:
· Describe a racial incident pertaining to each realm in detail. Explain why you believe this is racial discrimination.
· Explain how this situation could have been handled to avoid discrimination against those belonging to another race.
Your response should be at least two pages long. All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.
Supreme Court of Tennessee,
at Nashville.
STATE of Tennessee
v.
Eric FLEMMING.
April 3, 2000.
Defendant was convicted in the Criminal
Court, Davidson County, Seth Norman, J., of espe-
cially aggravated robbery, and defendant appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, Tipton, J., re-
versed. Upon granting state's petition for permis-
sion to appeal, the Supreme Court, Barker, J., held
that: (1) defendant's fists and feet were not deadly
weapons, and (2) evidence was sufficient to support
instruction on facilitation as lesser-included offense
of aggravated robbery.
Affirmed and remanded.
West Headnotes
[1] Statutes 361 1072
361 Statutes
361III Construction
361III(A) In General
361k1071 Intent
361k1072 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
(Formerly 361k181(1))
Supreme Court's role in construing statutes is
to give effect to legislative intent without unduly
restricting or expanding statute's coverage beyond
its intended scope.
[2] Statutes 361 1092
361 Statutes
361III Construction
361III(B) Plain Language; Plain, Ordinary,
or Common Meaning
361k1092 k. ...
Similar to Ex cia officer v do j on covert merlin agent (17)
3. 8
appeal and that he should get some sort of credit for the intervening years he’s remained free.7
The simple fact remains: national security cases are often complicated, and this case was
no exception. Even relatively simple matters, such as discovery, are made more difficult by
classification issues. In 2011, the defendant saw a strategic advantage in forcing the government
to seek an interlocutory appeal rather than agreeing to a brief continuance. That was his right, but
it was also a critical factor in causing the delay of which he now complains. Indeed, that is
another advantage to reaching a plea agreement in these types of cases – the avoidance of lengthy,
protracted litigation. The defendant certainly had a right to a jury trial, but the exercise of that
right had consequences, including, in this case, lengthy pre-trial proceedings.
IV. The Seriousness of the Offense
Finally, in his sentencing memorandum, the defendant attempts to undermine the evidence
introduced at trial as to the seriousness of his crimes through the submission of a letter from David
Manners, a defense expert witness and former CIA employee who has not worked at the agency in
approximately seventeen years. There is good reason to question Manners’s credibility and the
weight the defendant places on his unsworn opinion that the defendant’s disclosure of classified
national defense information caused little or no harm to the United States.
In his Sentencing Memorandum, the defendant notes that Mr. Manners was identified as a
government witness, but not called, and Mr. Manners alludes to this as well. Mr. Manners
suggests that he was not called as a witness by the government because he “could not confirm to
7
In hindsight, the defendant’s characterization of the importance of the potential Giglio material
produced by the government proved to be “overwrought hyperbole,” and the Court’s suggested
continuance of two weeks would certainly have resolved the disputed Giglio matters. Following
the remand from the Fourth Circuit, this Court reviewed the information produced by the
government and heard from three witnesses before ruling that the majority of the information was
not admissible. Moreover, as to the few areas of inquiry that the Court did permit, the defendant
ultimately elected to pursue none of them with the relevant witnesses.
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 470 Filed 05/10/15 Page 8 of 14 PageID# 4572
4. 9
the government that Risen had identified Sterling as the source of the information that appeared in
his book.” What Mr. Manners fails to say is that, on two occasions, he appeared before a federal
grand jury and testified, under oath, that Risen did, in fact, identify the defendant as the source of
the information that subsequently appeared in Chapter 9 of State of War, and that Mr. Manners
recanted his grand jury testimony only after his testimony became the subject of pre-trial litigation
in 2011. The government put Mr. Manners on its witness list as a precaution, just in case Risen
were to testify at trial and his conversations with Mr. Manners became an issue – certainly not
because we found Mr. Manners credible. The opposite is true.
By way of background, on December 14, 2007, Mr. Manners was interviewed by the FBI
about his relationship with James Risen and Manners’s knowledge that the defendant was Risen’s
source of information for the classified program at issue in this case. Manners appeared before a
federal grand jury on February 7, 2008, and testified under oath about these facts. During his
testimony, Manners stated that he and Risen had known each other since shortly after Manners
retired from the CIA in 1998. Risen, whom Manners considered a friend, often used Manners as a
sounding board, so to speak, about intelligence matters. According to Manners, he would only
discuss historical matters with Risen, i.e., events that had already occurred and where, in
Manners’s view, no harm would come from discussing them with Risen.
Manners testified that Risen had called him in 2004 or 2005 about the defendant,
identifying him by name. Risen told Manners that he had met the defendant, and the defendant
told Risen that he had worked briefly with Manners when the defendant was assigned to the CIA’s
Iran Task Force. According to Manners’s testimony, Risen told him about the defendant’s
difficult experience with the agency. Critically, Risen further told Manners that the defendant
had worked on a very important operation while in New York involving the Iranian nuclear
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 470 Filed 05/10/15 Page 9 of 14 PageID# 4573
5. 10
weapons program and played a key role in the recruitment of a source crucial to that operation.
During this conversation, which was by telephone, Risen asked Manners a number of questions
about the operation the defendant had previously discussed with Risen and tried to elicit from
Manners his opinion as to whether the CIA would conduct an operation as described. Manners
testified that it was clear to him at that time that the defendant was the source of Risen’s
information about the Iranian operation Risen described generically to Manners and that the
defendant wanted to get his story out through Risen because the defendant wanted to get back at
the CIA.
In December 2010, just prior to indictment, Manners was again interviewed by the FBI and
put before a federal grand jury. Manners testified that his prior interview in 2007 and grand jury
testimony in 2008 were “fully accurate.”8
He also acknowledged that Risen most likely used
Manners as an unidentified source of information in Chapter 9 of State of War.9
The Court is familiar with Manners’s grand jury testimony, having referred to that
testimony in its November 30, 2010 Memorandum Opinion regarding the Risen grand jury
subpoena, DE 118 at 9 and 20, and in its subsequent July 29, 2011 Memorandum Opinion
regarding the Risen trial subpoena, DE 148 at 24-27.10
The government moved for
reconsideration of that opinion, and in that motion discussed Manners’s grand jury testimony.
8
Copies of Manners’s grand jury transcripts and interview reports were provided to the
defendant prior to trial.
9
On page 211 of State of War, Risen states that “[s]everal former CIA officials” opined on the
theory behind MERLIN, and Manners stated that he believed that Risen most likely was referring
to him in that paragraph.
10
Manners’s grand jury testimony was relevant for two different reasons. The government
initially advocated during the grand jury process that Risen had waived any confidential source
privilege by telling Manners that Sterling was his source. The Court, however, subsequently
considered Manners’s grand jury testimony in its application of the LaRouche balancing test to the
government’s request for a trial subpoena.
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 470 Filed 05/10/15 Page 10 of 14 PageID# 4574
6. 11
DE 162 at 13. The Court addressed the Manners issue very briefly during the October 12, 2011
hearing on that and other motions. DE 269 at 4.
Just prior to trial, on August 25, 2011, the government met again with Mr. Manners. This
time he told a different story. In contrast to his prior sworn and unsworn statements, Manners
stated for the first time that the telephone conversation he had with Risen about the defendant was
not one, but two conversations. The first conversation was about the defendant and his troubles
with the agency in New York. The second conversation was about the operation discussed in
Chapter 9. During the second conversation, however, there was no discussion of the defendant or
his role in that operation. Manners’s last-minute recantation severely undermined his credibility
as a witness.
In light of Manners’s credibility issues, the Court should view the merits of his opinions –
and the propriety of submitting unsworn testimony in the form of a letter supporting the defendant
– with healthy skepticism. The time for this type of “evidence” was trial. The government
established at trial through several witnesses, who were placed under oath and subjected to
cross-examination, that the United States suffered both actual and potential damage as a result of
the defendant’s conduct. We summarized that testimony in detail in our sentencing
memorandum. DE 464 at 11-14. It is the only evidence before the Court on harm, potential or
otherwise. For his part, the defendant had provided notice that he would call two experts to rebut
the government’s evidence on the potential harm occasioned by these disclosures, including
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 470 Filed 05/10/15 Page 11 of 14 PageID# 4575
7. 12
Manners. DE 244.11
He called neither, and that was his choice. But he cannot subvert the trial
record through the last-ditch submission of a letter from someone who has not worked at the CIA
in nearly two decades, who did not testify at trial, who is friends with the person to whom the
defendant communicated national defense information, and whose eve-of-trial recantation calls
into question his veracity. The Court should disregard his letter for sentencing purposes.
11
Manners’s letter, DE 466-3, opines on matters that go well beyond the scope of his expert
notice, DE 244 at 26-27, specifically the discussion of Arzamas 16, the value of the information
provided by Merlin regarding Russian nuclear weapons capabilities, and the possibility that Russia
would retaliate against Merlin and his family as a result of Merlin’s work for the CIA.
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 470 Filed 05/10/15 Page 12 of 14 PageID# 4576