Restraining order against sex offender provided by Darren Chaker. Policing sex offenders is important, but if the scope of defining who is a sex offender expands, the police/parole budget does not. As explained on www.darrenchaker.org, sex offenses cannot be typically expunged, in Nevada, even if arrested for a sex offense is later dismissed, it cannot be sealed, however California allows for record sealing if lack of probable cause exists under PC851.8.
Intervenor Opposition to DEQ motion for Entry of Consent JudgmentJ. Patrick Lucas
Filed with the court 2/21/2012 is our motion in opposition of the DEQ entry of a consent judgment regarding Frontier Leather and Ken Foster Farms in Sherwood, OR
The Alleged Debtors filed a motion requesting the court's permission to file an unredacted version of their Motion to Transfer Venue under seal. They argue the unredacted version contains sensitive commercial information regarding their financial condition and restructuring negotiations that could harm their business if disclosed publicly. The Alleged Debtors state they have publicly filed a redacted version, and the unredacted version would only be available to the court and specific receiving parties subject to confidentiality restrictions. They believe this balancing of interests appropriately protects their sensitive information while still allowing for consideration of the merits of their transfer motion.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to a lawsuit brought by a former inmate, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities and three employees. The defendants argue that Bujduveanu violated terms of his release from federal prison by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, transferred Bujduveanu back to prison to complete his sentence. The defendants provide 27 undisputed facts with supporting documentation showing Bujduveanu signed forms acknowledging he would abide by rules prohibiting unauthorized driving and cell phone possession. The defendants argue they were not legally responsible for Bu
This document provides the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It includes 11 disputed facts from the Plaintiff's motion. For each fact, the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's version and provide evidence from the affidavit of Ana Gispert supporting their denial. They assert that the Plaintiff violated the rules of his community corrections program by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Bureau of Prisons transferred the Plaintiff back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue, a five year litigation and court battle. When NECA board of directors, and community are jealous for driving right by a property that could have been purchased, but was inherited by Angela Kaaihue, who has turned the property she inherited into a Hawaiian Gold Mine.
Hawaii Appellant Court Supreme Court judge castegnetti, judge jeffrey crabtree, judge karen t. nakasone, judge katherine g. leonard, judge keith hiraoka, judge lisa m. ginoza, judge sonja mccullen, judge clyde j. wadsworth, judge karen holma, judge gary W.B. chang
Request for Entry of Default Judgment in favor for Angela KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
This document is a request for entry of default from Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer, who are pro se defendants and counter-claim plaintiffs, against Newtown Estates Community Association. It includes affidavits from Kaaihue and Fryer stating that the association failed to respond to their counter-claim within the required time period. It requests a default judgment of $43,450,000 including principal of $40 million, interest, costs and attorney's fees. Exhibits of the filed counter-claim and proofs of service are attached in support of the request.
This document is a motion filed in a US bankruptcy court requesting permission to file an unredacted version of a response under seal. It summarizes that the response contains sensitive commercial information about the debtors' financial condition and restructuring negotiations. The debtors argue the information could harm ongoing negotiations and business operations if disclosed publicly. They seek to file the unredacted version under seal and make it available only to specific parties.
Intervenor Opposition to DEQ motion for Entry of Consent JudgmentJ. Patrick Lucas
Filed with the court 2/21/2012 is our motion in opposition of the DEQ entry of a consent judgment regarding Frontier Leather and Ken Foster Farms in Sherwood, OR
The Alleged Debtors filed a motion requesting the court's permission to file an unredacted version of their Motion to Transfer Venue under seal. They argue the unredacted version contains sensitive commercial information regarding their financial condition and restructuring negotiations that could harm their business if disclosed publicly. The Alleged Debtors state they have publicly filed a redacted version, and the unredacted version would only be available to the court and specific receiving parties subject to confidentiality restrictions. They believe this balancing of interests appropriately protects their sensitive information while still allowing for consideration of the merits of their transfer motion.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to a lawsuit brought by a former inmate, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities and three employees. The defendants argue that Bujduveanu violated terms of his release from federal prison by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, transferred Bujduveanu back to prison to complete his sentence. The defendants provide 27 undisputed facts with supporting documentation showing Bujduveanu signed forms acknowledging he would abide by rules prohibiting unauthorized driving and cell phone possession. The defendants argue they were not legally responsible for Bu
This document provides the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It includes 11 disputed facts from the Plaintiff's motion. For each fact, the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's version and provide evidence from the affidavit of Ana Gispert supporting their denial. They assert that the Plaintiff violated the rules of his community corrections program by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Bureau of Prisons transferred the Plaintiff back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue, a five year litigation and court battle. When NECA board of directors, and community are jealous for driving right by a property that could have been purchased, but was inherited by Angela Kaaihue, who has turned the property she inherited into a Hawaiian Gold Mine.
Hawaii Appellant Court Supreme Court judge castegnetti, judge jeffrey crabtree, judge karen t. nakasone, judge katherine g. leonard, judge keith hiraoka, judge lisa m. ginoza, judge sonja mccullen, judge clyde j. wadsworth, judge karen holma, judge gary W.B. chang
Request for Entry of Default Judgment in favor for Angela KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
This document is a request for entry of default from Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer, who are pro se defendants and counter-claim plaintiffs, against Newtown Estates Community Association. It includes affidavits from Kaaihue and Fryer stating that the association failed to respond to their counter-claim within the required time period. It requests a default judgment of $43,450,000 including principal of $40 million, interest, costs and attorney's fees. Exhibits of the filed counter-claim and proofs of service are attached in support of the request.
This document is a motion filed in a US bankruptcy court requesting permission to file an unredacted version of a response under seal. It summarizes that the response contains sensitive commercial information about the debtors' financial condition and restructuring negotiations. The debtors argue the information could harm ongoing negotiations and business operations if disclosed publicly. They seek to file the unredacted version under seal and make it available only to specific parties.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence from the affidavit of the facility director and documents related to the conditions of the plaintiff's release and confinement.
3) Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff violated the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, leading to his transfer back to prison by the Bureau of Prisons.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
This document is a court opinion summarizing a case involving Thomas Temperly who was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The court addresses three issues: 1) whether sanctions under Indiana code requiring chemical testing violated Temperly's consent without probable cause; 2) whether blood test results obtained under the implied consent law were admissible in a criminal prosecution; and 3) whether sufficient evidence supported the OWI conviction. The court found that the implied consent law did not require probable cause for testing. It also found that Temperly voluntarily consented to testing and that the blood results were properly admitted. The court affirmed the OWI conviction.
1) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former federal inmate against a residential reentry center and its employees.
2) The plaintiff violated conditions of his release from federal prison by driving a car and possessing a cell phone. As a result, he was sent back to federal prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action against them because the federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, made the decision to return the plaintiff to prison for his violations of rules. Therefore, the defendants should be granted summary judgment.
This affidavit provides supporting details for a motion for summary judgment in a case involving Traian Bujduveanu and Dismas Charities. It describes that the plaintiff was residing at Dismas Charities as part of his sentence for conspiring to illegally export military parts. It asserts that he violated rules of Dismas Charities by driving without authorization and possessing an unauthorized cell phone, and that he acknowledged being informed of and agreeing to abide by the rules of Dismas Charities, which prohibited those actions. As a result of the violations, Dismas Charities reported the incident to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which then sent U.S. Marshals to return the plaintiff to prison to
This affidavit provides supporting details for a motion for summary judgment in a case involving Traian Bujduveanu and Dismas Charities. It describes that the plaintiff was residing at Dismas Charities as part of his sentence for conspiring to illegally export military parts. It asserts that he violated rules of Dismas Charities by driving without authorization and possessing an unauthorized cell phone, and that he acknowledged being informed of and agreeing to abide by the rules of Dismas Charities, which prohibited those actions. As a result of the violations, Dismas Charities reported the incident to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which then sent U.S. Marshals to return the plaintiff to prison to
This document is a subpoena issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado in the case of Cordillera Golf Club, LLC. It commands John L. Emmerling to appear for a deposition at the law offices of Ballard Spahr LLP in Denver on July 18, 2012 at 9:00am. It also commands him to produce certain requested documents by electronic transmission or delivery to Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP in Wilmington, Delaware by July 16, 2012 at 5:00pm. The subpoena is signed by Travis G. Buchanan as counsel for the debtor.
This document is a report and recommendation from a Magistrate Judge regarding a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in a civil case. The plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, filed suit against Dismas Charities and several employees alleging violations of his constitutional rights and various torts related to his confinement at a halfway house run by Dismas Charities. The report provides background on the plaintiff's claims and requested relief. It is recommended that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted.
This document is an objection filed by the United States Trustee to motions filed by Petitioning Creditors and Alleged Debtors to seal certain documents filed with the court. The U.S. Trustee does not oppose sealing documents pending a ruling on whether the bankruptcy cases will proceed, but argues that any sealing should end if the court finds cause to open bankruptcy cases, as the information would then become public. The U.S. Trustee asserts that bankruptcy law favors public disclosure of information relevant to creditors and parties in interest.
Establishing violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse ActDavid Sweigert
This document is a court opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding David Nosal's appeal of his criminal convictions. The court affirmed Nosal's convictions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for unauthorized access to his former employer's computer system after his credentials were revoked. It also affirmed his convictions for trade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act. However, the court vacated part of the restitution order and remanded for reconsideration of the attorneys' fees award.
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding cross-motions for summary judgment in a case involving a plaintiff who was imprisoned at a halfway house operated by the defendant. The court provides background on the case, including that the plaintiff sued over alleged unlawful seizure of his property and constitutional violations. The court evaluates the motions using the standard for summary judgment, granting the defendant's motion and denying the plaintiff's motion.
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
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.
Tyler, a homebuilder, failed to comply with orders to install proper septic and well systems. When Tyler violated a court order by selling units, he and his attorney Petty were held in contempt. Tyler and Petty now want to seal these records, arguing it will harm their reputations. However, courts found humiliation and reputation harm alone do not satisfy the "good cause" standard to seal records. As the violations involved public health, the matter was of strong public interest, so the motion to seal will likely be denied.
This document is a summary of a court case regarding a land registration dispute between Flordeliza and Honorio Valisno (petitioners) and Vicencio Cayaba (private respondent). The petitioners opposed Cayaba's application to register title to the land in question. The lower court dismissed the opposition based on res judicata, citing a previous court decision in favor of Cayaba. The petitioners appealed, arguing the lower court erred in several ways. The key issues discussed are whether res judicata can be invoked in a land registration case, and whether the elements of res judicata are met based on the previous court decision.
This document contains Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu's objections to a report and recommendations regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff objects on several grounds: (1) that the judge did not properly consider all documents submitted and failed to acknowledge admissions by Defendants; (2) that the Fourth Amendment protects third parties from searches of their property; (3) that requests for religious accommodation were denied; and (4) that conditions at the halfway house violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Plaintiff argues these objections demonstrate the complaint should not be dismissed.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in Harper v Muskingum Watershed Conse...Marcellus Drilling News
Anti-drilling landowners (backed by Food & Water Watch) claimed the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District had violated the deed to the land it owns by leasing that land for Utica Shale drilling. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the case. The anti-drillers lost.
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissJRachelle
This document is the Brown Defendants' reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss portions of Howard Stern's amended complaint. It argues that the motion to dismiss is not precluded by the court's prior ruling allowing the amended complaint. It also argues that California procedural law, including its probate code and publicity rights statute, does not apply in this South Carolina district court case. Finally, it asserts that the publicity rights statute is not applicable to the Brown Defendants' alleged actions of providing materials to another law firm.
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO: Motion To Strike Motion To DismissVogelDenise
This document is a motion to strike filed by plaintiff Vogel Denise Newsome in the case of Newsome v. Page Kruger & Holland P.A. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The motion seeks to strike responses filed by defendants in opposition to previous motions by Newsome. Newsome argues the defendants do not dispute her right to a jury trial under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 7th Amendment. Newsome also argues Judge Tom S. Lee must recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. Newsome cites statutes requiring recusal when a judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
This motion seeks to disqualify the law firm Wilson & Varner and attorney Rodney Varner from representing David Nance in litigation against the debtors Introgen Therapeutics, Inc. and Introgen Technical Services, Inc. Varner previously served as general counsel for the debtors from 1993 to 2009. The debtors have filed an adversary proceeding against Nance alleging fraudulent transfers and other claims. Wilson & Varner is now representing Nance in that proceeding and in related bankruptcy matters. The motion argues that Varner's prior representation of the debtors is substantially related to the current matters, and there is a risk that confidential information may be disclosed, in violation of ethical rules regarding conflicts of interest with former clients. The
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence from the affidavit of the facility director and documents related to the conditions of the plaintiff's release and confinement.
3) Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff violated the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, leading to his transfer back to prison by the Bureau of Prisons.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
This document is a court opinion summarizing a case involving Thomas Temperly who was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The court addresses three issues: 1) whether sanctions under Indiana code requiring chemical testing violated Temperly's consent without probable cause; 2) whether blood test results obtained under the implied consent law were admissible in a criminal prosecution; and 3) whether sufficient evidence supported the OWI conviction. The court found that the implied consent law did not require probable cause for testing. It also found that Temperly voluntarily consented to testing and that the blood results were properly admitted. The court affirmed the OWI conviction.
1) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former federal inmate against a residential reentry center and its employees.
2) The plaintiff violated conditions of his release from federal prison by driving a car and possessing a cell phone. As a result, he was sent back to federal prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action against them because the federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, made the decision to return the plaintiff to prison for his violations of rules. Therefore, the defendants should be granted summary judgment.
This affidavit provides supporting details for a motion for summary judgment in a case involving Traian Bujduveanu and Dismas Charities. It describes that the plaintiff was residing at Dismas Charities as part of his sentence for conspiring to illegally export military parts. It asserts that he violated rules of Dismas Charities by driving without authorization and possessing an unauthorized cell phone, and that he acknowledged being informed of and agreeing to abide by the rules of Dismas Charities, which prohibited those actions. As a result of the violations, Dismas Charities reported the incident to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which then sent U.S. Marshals to return the plaintiff to prison to
This affidavit provides supporting details for a motion for summary judgment in a case involving Traian Bujduveanu and Dismas Charities. It describes that the plaintiff was residing at Dismas Charities as part of his sentence for conspiring to illegally export military parts. It asserts that he violated rules of Dismas Charities by driving without authorization and possessing an unauthorized cell phone, and that he acknowledged being informed of and agreeing to abide by the rules of Dismas Charities, which prohibited those actions. As a result of the violations, Dismas Charities reported the incident to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which then sent U.S. Marshals to return the plaintiff to prison to
This document is a subpoena issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado in the case of Cordillera Golf Club, LLC. It commands John L. Emmerling to appear for a deposition at the law offices of Ballard Spahr LLP in Denver on July 18, 2012 at 9:00am. It also commands him to produce certain requested documents by electronic transmission or delivery to Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP in Wilmington, Delaware by July 16, 2012 at 5:00pm. The subpoena is signed by Travis G. Buchanan as counsel for the debtor.
This document is a report and recommendation from a Magistrate Judge regarding a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in a civil case. The plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, filed suit against Dismas Charities and several employees alleging violations of his constitutional rights and various torts related to his confinement at a halfway house run by Dismas Charities. The report provides background on the plaintiff's claims and requested relief. It is recommended that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted.
This document is an objection filed by the United States Trustee to motions filed by Petitioning Creditors and Alleged Debtors to seal certain documents filed with the court. The U.S. Trustee does not oppose sealing documents pending a ruling on whether the bankruptcy cases will proceed, but argues that any sealing should end if the court finds cause to open bankruptcy cases, as the information would then become public. The U.S. Trustee asserts that bankruptcy law favors public disclosure of information relevant to creditors and parties in interest.
Establishing violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse ActDavid Sweigert
This document is a court opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding David Nosal's appeal of his criminal convictions. The court affirmed Nosal's convictions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for unauthorized access to his former employer's computer system after his credentials were revoked. It also affirmed his convictions for trade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act. However, the court vacated part of the restitution order and remanded for reconsideration of the attorneys' fees award.
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding cross-motions for summary judgment in a case involving a plaintiff who was imprisoned at a halfway house operated by the defendant. The court provides background on the case, including that the plaintiff sued over alleged unlawful seizure of his property and constitutional violations. The court evaluates the motions using the standard for summary judgment, granting the defendant's motion and denying the plaintiff's motion.
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
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.
Tyler, a homebuilder, failed to comply with orders to install proper septic and well systems. When Tyler violated a court order by selling units, he and his attorney Petty were held in contempt. Tyler and Petty now want to seal these records, arguing it will harm their reputations. However, courts found humiliation and reputation harm alone do not satisfy the "good cause" standard to seal records. As the violations involved public health, the matter was of strong public interest, so the motion to seal will likely be denied.
This document is a summary of a court case regarding a land registration dispute between Flordeliza and Honorio Valisno (petitioners) and Vicencio Cayaba (private respondent). The petitioners opposed Cayaba's application to register title to the land in question. The lower court dismissed the opposition based on res judicata, citing a previous court decision in favor of Cayaba. The petitioners appealed, arguing the lower court erred in several ways. The key issues discussed are whether res judicata can be invoked in a land registration case, and whether the elements of res judicata are met based on the previous court decision.
This document contains Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu's objections to a report and recommendations regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff objects on several grounds: (1) that the judge did not properly consider all documents submitted and failed to acknowledge admissions by Defendants; (2) that the Fourth Amendment protects third parties from searches of their property; (3) that requests for religious accommodation were denied; and (4) that conditions at the halfway house violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Plaintiff argues these objections demonstrate the complaint should not be dismissed.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in Harper v Muskingum Watershed Conse...Marcellus Drilling News
Anti-drilling landowners (backed by Food & Water Watch) claimed the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District had violated the deed to the land it owns by leasing that land for Utica Shale drilling. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the case. The anti-drillers lost.
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissJRachelle
This document is the Brown Defendants' reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss portions of Howard Stern's amended complaint. It argues that the motion to dismiss is not precluded by the court's prior ruling allowing the amended complaint. It also argues that California procedural law, including its probate code and publicity rights statute, does not apply in this South Carolina district court case. Finally, it asserts that the publicity rights statute is not applicable to the Brown Defendants' alleged actions of providing materials to another law firm.
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO: Motion To Strike Motion To DismissVogelDenise
This document is a motion to strike filed by plaintiff Vogel Denise Newsome in the case of Newsome v. Page Kruger & Holland P.A. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The motion seeks to strike responses filed by defendants in opposition to previous motions by Newsome. Newsome argues the defendants do not dispute her right to a jury trial under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 7th Amendment. Newsome also argues Judge Tom S. Lee must recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. Newsome cites statutes requiring recusal when a judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
This motion seeks to disqualify the law firm Wilson & Varner and attorney Rodney Varner from representing David Nance in litigation against the debtors Introgen Therapeutics, Inc. and Introgen Technical Services, Inc. Varner previously served as general counsel for the debtors from 1993 to 2009. The debtors have filed an adversary proceeding against Nance alleging fraudulent transfers and other claims. Wilson & Varner is now representing Nance in that proceeding and in related bankruptcy matters. The motion argues that Varner's prior representation of the debtors is substantially related to the current matters, and there is a risk that confidential information may be disclosed, in violation of ethical rules regarding conflicts of interest with former clients. The
Decision by U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd on Force Majeure Case in New Yo...Marcellus Drilling News
A decision issued by Judge David Hurd in a case of landowners from Broome and Tioga Counties in New York State against Chesapeake Energy and Statoilhydro. Chesapeake is attempting to extend leases on property for gas drilling claiming that the moratorium in New York has stopped them from drilling. Landowners claim the leases were signed long before horizontal hydraulic fracturing of shale was done and that Chesapeake could have drilled, conventionally, any time they chose to.
This document is a report and recommendation from a magistrate judge regarding a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in a civil case. The plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, filed suit against Dismas Charities and several employees alleging constitutional violations related to the seizure of his property and his removal from a halfway house program. The report provides background on the plaintiff's claims and allegations, including that staff searched his car, took his phone and other items, changed his confinement status, and had him incarcerated. Over the defendants' motion to dismiss, the judge recommends allowing the case to proceed on some claims but dismissing others.
This document is a report and recommendation from a magistrate judge regarding a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in a civil case. The plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, filed suit against Dismas Charities and several employees alleging constitutional violations related to the seizure of his property and his removal from a halfway house program. The report provides background on the plaintiff's claims and allegations, including that staff searched his car, took his phone and other items, changed his confinement status, and had him incarcerated. Over the defendants' motion to dismiss, the judge recommends allowing the case to proceed on some claims but dismissing others.
This document is a report and recommendation from a Magistrate Judge regarding a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in a civil case. The plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, filed suit against Dismas Charities and several employees alleging violations of his constitutional rights and various torts related to his imprisonment at Dismas Charities. The report provides background on the plaintiff's claims and requested relief. It is recommended that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted.
This document is a report and recommendation from a magistrate judge regarding a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in a civil case. The plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, filed suit against Dismas Charities and several employees alleging violations of his constitutional rights while completing his sentence at a halfway house operated by Dismas. The magistrate judge provides background on the plaintiff's claims, which include unlawful seizure of property, false imprisonment, and retaliation. The judge also summarizes the key factual allegations, such as the search of the plaintiff's car, confiscation of his belongings, disciplinary actions taken against him, and his transfer to a detention center. The magistrate ultimately recommends that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted
The official motion filed with the New York State Court of Appeals, NY's highest court, to hear the case of Norse Energy v Town of Dryden over the town's vote to ban all fracking and drilling throughout the township.
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.
Letter brief, Darren Chaker, concerning prior restraint, First Amendment, by Reporters Committee, in pending court case, in front of court of appeal in California.
Dance Moms star, bby Lee Miller, indicted for bankruptcy fraud. Provided by Darren-Chaker, http://darrenchaker.us/ Bankruptcy fraud has been on the rise by the elite.
This document is an amicus brief filed in support of Darren Chaker in an appeal of conditions imposed on his supervised release. It argues that several conditions are overly broad and violate the First Amendment by restricting protected speech, including criticism of public officials. Specifically, it argues that conditions prohibiting "defamatory" or "disparaging" speech are vague and chill speech, and that a condition against anonymous emails violates the right to anonymous political speech. It also argues the district court failed to apply the proper standard for proving defamation of a public official.
- 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.
Darren Chaker, https://plus.google.com/+DarrenChaker/ provides this lawsuit seeking an injunction against NSA spying due to constitutional limitations. Of course, the brief is authored by some of the leading attorneys in the industry. It cites cutting edge constitutional law from multiple courts and Supreme Court decisions dating back decades. Very useful law is cited and can referenced to where an expectation of privacy and electronic communications are encountered.
Fourth Amendment privacy, Darren Chaker, uploads this brief concerning GPS tracking, expectation of privacy, and relevant law cited by Electronic Frontier Foundation. The legal challenges continue to be decided in the courts about the new technology that is readily available. Constitutional law and specifically the Fourth Amendment relate to GPS technology are defined here and the brief is a great primer on such. Not only police, but private people and companies also use such technology to monitor employees, cargo, loved ones, and children.
Darren Chaker provides this ACLU handout to promote police accountability and increase awareness of the public's rights. Your right to videotape and photograph police in public are significant rights. If you witness police misconduct, photograph it, make a complaint, and post it online! See http://darrenchaker.us/ for additional information concerning Fifth Amendment and Encryption.
Arbitration law update, Darren-Chaker, written by leading law firm, citing case law, statute and other legal resources about recent arbitration developments.
Unclean hands doctrine, Darren-Chaker, provides this legal article with a focus on perjury by plaintiffs. Great resource and provides several appellate cases.
Provided by Darren Chaker, this is an excellent publication concerning obtaining police records. Booking photographs to police report for all 50 states.
San Diego - federal indictment for human trafficking alleging pimping by a street gang, that spanned nationwide. Underage girls and adults females were branded, beat, and used as sex slaves to turn a profit for a street gang that will not be on the street anytime soon.
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.
Darren Chaker provides the search warrant for Crystal Palace, which was a major federal investigation into methamphetamine trafficking in San Diego. The search warrant provides details and connects the dots in support of issuance of the warrant.
Bankruptcy Spendthrift Trust darren chakerDarren Chaker
Nevada article, provided by Darren Chaker, concerning asset protection and bankruptcy. The Nevada Spendthrift Trust divests legal and equitable interest in former assets to protect them from creditors and is excluded from bankruptcy. 541(c)(2).
Restraining order preventing police enforcing California Penal Code sections
290.014(b) and 290.015(a)(4)-(6) that would require sex offenders to disclose all user names for social media accounts. Darren Chaker obtained the order and provides it for your use.
Evidence Code 1101b allows conduct of uncharged acts to be admitted as evidence. This article provides case law and how California Court of Appeal decisions address what requirements must be met to allow the admission of uncharged conduct to be admitted. Courtesy of Darren Chaker
What should have been filed under seal, was filed unsealed. Darren Chaker notes the great detail the agent used while drafting the affidavit for the smart phone. Search warrants are common for smart phones like the iPhone and Android phones often due to the storage capacity and ability to do everything on a home computer can be done on a smart phone. The upside is the availability of counter-forensic technology to keep what you want private, private. Encrypted phone conversations, to encrypting files, and wiping slack space are all important to those who want to keep sensitive information from prying eyes and is commonly used for high net worth individuals to corporate executives.
Texas expunction aka expungement allows for record destruction. Darren Chaker goes into detail about Texas record sealing and destruction, www.DarrenChaker.org, and it serves a legitimate purpose: deducting the stigma of being charged with a crime. Texas record sealing is available for sealing traffic tickets to felony cases.
1. Case3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document36 Filed11/07/12 Page1 of 4
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5 JOHN DOE, et al., NO. C12-5713 TEH
6 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
7 v. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AS TO WHY A
8 KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al., PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SHOULD NOT ISSUE
9 Defendants.
10
United States District Court
11 This matter came before the Court on November 7, 2012, for a telephonic hearing1 on
For the Northern District of California
12 Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). For the reasons set forth
13 below, the motion is GRANTED.
14 Plaintiffs John Doe, Jack Roe,2 and the non-profit organization California Reform Sex
15 Offender Laws bring this action on behalf of present and future California sex offender
16 registrants. Plaintiffs move to enjoin the implementation of several sections of the
17 Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act (“CASE Act”), which was enacted yesterday
18 by Proposition 35 and takes effect today. See Cal. Const. art. II, § 10(a). In particular,
19 Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the newly enacted California Penal Code sections
20 290.014(b) and 290.015(a)(4)-(6), which require registered sex offenders to “immediately”
21 provide the police with lists of “any and all Internet service providers” and “any and all
22 Internet identifiers established or used” by the registrant. Plaintiffs maintain that they will
23 suffer irreparable harm if these online information reporting requirements are enforced,
24 including violation of their rights to free speech and association under the First Amendment,
25
26
1
The hearing was recorded by a court reporter.
27
2
The two individual plaintiffs’ motion to proceed anonymously is currently pending
28 before the Court.
2. Case3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document36 Filed11/07/12 Page2 of 4
1 and due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. They now seek a
2 TRO while the Court considers whether to grant a preliminary injunction.
3 To obtain a TRO, plaintiffs must establish that (1) they are likely to succeed on the
4 merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the TRO; (3) the
5 balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) the issuance of the TRO is in the public
6 interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (setting forth
7 standard for preliminary injunction); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft
8 Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“The standard for issuing a temporary
9 restraining order is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.”). A
10 stronger showing on one of these four elements may offset a weaker showing on another.
United States District Court
11 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). “‘[S]erious
For the Northern District of California
12 questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the
13 plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows
14 that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.”
15 Id. at 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
16 In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have raised serious questions about whether
17 the challenged sections of the CASE Act violate their First Amendment right to free speech
18 and other constitutional rights. In addition, the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of
19 issuing a TRO. Defendant Harris’s counsel represented to the Court that the State would be
20 in no position to enforce the law until March 20, 2013. The harm to Defendants of a TRO
21 therefore appears to be minimal. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir.
22 2012) (“The Defendants cannot be harmed by an order enjoining an action they will not
23 take.”). Plaintiffs, by contrast, would suffer the potential loss of their “ability to speak
24 anonymously on the Internet,” which is protected by the First Amendment. In re Anonymous
25 Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2011). Such “loss of First Amendment
26 freedoms . . . unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,
27 373 (1976); see also Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207 (9th Cir. 2009).
28 Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has “consistently recognized the ‘significant public interest’
2
3. Case3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document36 Filed11/07/12 Page3 of 4
1 in upholding free speech principles,” Klein, 584 F.3d at 1208 (9th Cir. 2009), and that “it is
2 always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights,”
3 Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court
4 therefore finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the standard for a TRO.3
5 Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pending a
6 hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should issue, Defendant Kamala Harris and her
7 officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
8 participation with her, are HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from implementing
9 or enforcing California Penal Code sections 290.014(b) and 290.015(a)(4)-(6), as enacted by
10 Proposition 35, or from otherwise requiring registrants to provide identifying information
United States District Court
11 about their online speech to the government. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, as
For the Northern District of California
12 represented by counsel at the telephonic hearing, this order applies to all California state and
13 local law enforcement officers and to all members of the putative class, i.e., to all persons
14 who are required to register under California Penal Code section 290, including those whose
15 duty to register arises after the date of this order.4
16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Harris shall show cause as to why a
17 preliminary injunction should not issue enjoining her and her agents from implementing and
18 enforcing California Penal Code sections 290.014(b) and 290.015(a)(4)-(6) or from
19 otherwise requiring registrants to provide identifying information about their online speech to
20 the government. The Court will construe Plaintiffs’ moving papers for a TRO as a motion
21 for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs shall file a proof of service of their moving papers and
22 this order on or before November 8, 2012. Defendants’ opposition papers shall be filed on
23 or before November 13, 2012, and Plaintiffs’ reply shall be filed on or before November 16,
24
3
The Court recognizes that Defendants have not had an opportunity to be fully heard
25 on these issues, and the Court’s grant of a TRO shall not be considered any indication of the
Court’s views of the merits of the issues raised by Plaintiffs or whether, after further briefing,
26 the Court will grant preliminary injunctive relief.
27 4
The Court therefore need not reach the question of whether to certify the Plaintiff
class at this time. Plaintiffs may, if they wish, renew their motion for class certification as a
28 regularly noticed motion in accordance with the Court’s Civil Local Rules.
3
4. Case3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document36 Filed11/07/12 Page4 of 4
1 2012. The hearing shall be held on November 20, 2012, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom No. 2,
2 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA.
3 Counsel for Defendant Harris represented to the Court at today’s hearing that the
4 proponents of Proposition 35 may seek to intervene in this lawsuit. If they successfully
5 move to intervene, then their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction
6 shall also be due on November 13, 2012.
7 The Court sets this expedited briefing schedule based on the requirements of Federal
8 Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), which provides that a TRO shall expire within fourteen
9 days of the date of entry “unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a
10 like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension.” The Court encourages the
United States District Court
11 parties to meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement on an extension of the briefing and
For the Northern District of California
12 hearing schedule. The Court will entertain a stipulation and proposed order to do so,
13 provided that the parties agree that the TRO shall remain in effect until at least seven days
14 after the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Given Defendant
15 Harris’s counsel’s representation that the State of California will not be in a position to
16 enforce the law until March 20, 2013, it appears that such an extension would result in no
17 harm to Defendants while having the benefit of allowing the parties and this Court additional
18 time to consider the important issues raised in this case.
19 Finally, the Civil Local Rules shall govern consideration of Plaintiffs’ administrative
20 motion to proceed anonymously. Any opposition or statement of non-opposition shall be
21 filed on or before November 13, 2012. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). The motion will then be
22 deemed submitted on the papers unless otherwise ordered.
23
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26 Dated: 11/07/12
THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
28
4