#Explain Writ of Mandamus | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

arpov-blog-blog · 6 months

Text

Jack Smith Torches Judge Cannon in Late-Night Filing, Could Seek Appeal

Smith is threatening a writ of mandamus over Cannon's latest order.

Brett Meiselas Meidas Touch Network

youtube

Special Counsel Jack Smith issued a scorching response to a request made by Judge Aileen Cannon, who demanded that Government and Donald Trump submit a set of hypothetical jury instructions to two completely erroneous premises that lacked a fundamental understanding of the issues at center of the stolen documents case. Smith's response, in no uncertain terms, challenges the legal premises underlying the request, asserting that they are fundamentally flawed and could distort the trial.

The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and its relevance to the charges faced by Donald Trump. The Government argues that the distinction between "personal" and "Presidential" records under the PRA should not determine whether the former President's possession of highly classified documents is authorized under the Espionage Act. Smith explains that the PRA should play no role in the jury instructions regarding the elements of the Espionage Act.

Importantly, Smith emphasizes the urgency of the Court's decision on this matter. He asserts that if the Court wrongly concludes that the legal premise represents a correct formulation of the law, it must inform the parties well in advance of the trial. This is crucial to allow the Government the opportunity to consider appellate review before jeopardy attaches, laying the groundwork to seek mandamus against Judge Cannon, which could ultimately end in Cannon getting booted from the case.

Smith warns that presenting to the jury a factual determination based on incorrect legal premises could lead to a "high probability of failure of a prosecution." Therefore, the Government insists on the importance of seeking prompt appellate review if necessary.

Smith explains that Trump's invocation of the PRA is not grounded in any decisions he made during his presidency. Instead, it is portrayed as a post hoc justification concocted after leaving the White House. Smith contends that there is no basis in law or fact for this legal presumption and urges the Court to reject Trump's efforts to inject the PRA into the case.

Smith provides a detailed account of Trump's actions following his departure from office, demonstrating a consistent acknowledgment that the documents were presidential records. Even as late as May 2022, Trump's attorney accepted a grand jury subpoena related to the classified documents without contesting their presidential status.

Furthermore, Smith refutes the notion that Trump's alleged designation of the documents as personal, if it ever occurred, would shield him from prosecution under Section 793(e). He argues that authorization to possess classified information is governed by Executive Order 13526, not the PRA, and that Trump's purported designation holds no legal weight in the context of unauthorized possession.

Smith asserts that the proposed jury instructions would lead to confusion and potential miscarriages of justice. By directing the jury to determine the classification of documents under the PRA, the instructions conflate a factual determination with a legal one, thereby muddying the waters of the case.

In response to Judge Cannon's request, Smith provides alternative jury instructions that adhere to the correct legal framework. These instructions clarify that unauthorized possession of classified information is determined by whether an individual holds a security clearance, has a need-to-know basis, and complies with safeguarding regulations outlined in Executive Order 13526. In both hypothetical scenarios, the Special Counsel makes clear that the instructions, as defined by Judge Cannon, would be incorrect. In his conclusion, Smith once again emphasizes that he will be forced to take action should Judge Cannon not reject Trump's erroneous legal premise, which should have never been considered in the first place.

Smith concludes: "If, however, the Court does not reject that erroneous legal premise, it should make that decision clear now, long before jeopardy attaches, to allow the Government the opportunity to seek appellate review. "

#Youtube

0 notes

kp777 · 8 months

Text

By Brett Wilkins

Common Dreams

Feb. 2, 2024

"These youth have been politically targeted and persecuted, for over eight years, as the enormous power and machine of the Department of Justice singles them out among tens of thousands of other plaintiffs."

As the Biden administration seeks to derail a historic youth-led climate lawsuit against the U.S. government, plaintiffs in the suit—some of them now in their mid-to-late 20s—on Thursday moved to block the Department of Justice from further delaying the case.

Plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a challenge to the Biden administration's bid for a stay in the case, calling the Justice Department's latest petition for a writ of mandamus "nothing short of shocking."

The DOJ's Justice Manual "provides that a writ of mandamus is an 'extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance,' the plaintiffs' filing notes. "The only emergency in this case is the climate emergency that defendants created and the Department of Justice prolongs with further delays."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018."

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz—a longtime backer of the plaintiffs—filed a declaration supporting their motion. Lambasting the DOJ's claim that the agency is "irreparably harmed" by having to dedicate human and financial resources to the trial, Stiglitz wrote that "to suggest the harm to children's health and homes and constitutional rights is worth less than the money the government has to spend to litigate a case is to suggest every case could be stayed only because it cost taxpayer dollars to litigate."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018 and through the end of 2023, along with any projections of the range of harm going forward," Stiglitz added, "as well as the amount the U.S. has spent (and continues to spend) subsidizing the fossil fuel industry."

Originally filed in 2015 when the plaintiffs were between 8 and 19 years old, Juliana v. United States accuses the federal government of violating young people's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and argues that its actions contributing to the planetary emergency constitute a failure to protect essential public trust resources.

The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all worked to kill the case, delaying trial by years. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the case from going to trial days before it was set to begin. On December 29, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed to trial, which was set to begin January 19. However, on January 18 the DOJ said it would file for a writ of mandamus.

The incessant delays have been accompanied by what the plaintiffs describe as "the most aggressive and discriminatory legal tactics" used against them by the government.

As the plaintiffs' latest filing explains:

These youth have been politically targeted and persecuted, for over eight years, as the enormous power and machine of the Department of Justice singles them out among tens of thousands of other plaintiffs, in an effort to stop our nation's youth from taking the witness stand, when every court to review the Juliana plaintiffs' claims has said that there is life and death at stake, the survival of the nation is at stake, and there is merit to their constitutional claims. All they seek after trial is a declaratory judgment of their rights and the government's wrongs, just as the students in Brown v. Board of Education did 70 years ago.

As Stiglitz concluded in his motion, "The federal government has expended taxpayer money taking the case up on appeal, rather than allowing it to go to trial."

"The amount of time and money spent over the past six years seeking early appeals and mandamus has been large," he added. "We have already laid out the magnitude of the damages to the youth plaintiffs, their generation, and the public. In economic terms, and for the health of the nation, the balancing of potential harms is clear: This case should finally be decided at trial without further delay."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018."

The incessant delays have been accompanied by what the plaintiffs describe as "the most aggressive and discriminatory legal tactics" used against them by the government.

As the plaintiffs' latest filing explains:

As Stiglitz concluded in his motion, "The federal government has expended taxpayer money taking the case up on appeal, rather than allowing it to go to trial."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018."

The incessant delays have been accompanied by what the plaintiffs describe as "the most aggressive and discriminatory legal tactics" used against them by the government.

As the plaintiffs' latest filing explains:

As Stiglitz concluded in his motion, "The federal government has expended taxpayer money taking the case up on appeal, rather than allowing it to go to trial."

#juliana v. united states #climate change #u.s. department of justice #biden administration #joseph stiglitz

1 note · View note

ailtrahq · 1 year

Text

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit against Ripple filed in December 2020 has deprived the XRP token of nearly three years of adoption in the United States, said pro-XRP lawyer John E Deaton in a recent post on X (formerly Twitter).Deaton’s comments came amid Coinbase's announcement that they have acquired a minority stake in USD Coin (USDC) issuer Circle and will be working to “unlock additional utilities and grow the USDC ecosystem.” The lawyer reflected on how Ripple and XRP were on a trajectory of great adoption in cross-border payment and if not for the SEC lawsuit, the likes of Coinbase might have shown similar interest in Ripple.You could NEVER underestimate the damage the SEC’s lawsuit has caused - NOT ONLY AGAINST RIPPLE - BUT #XRP. THREE YEARS OF ADOPTION - that’s what it’s caused. Just how long is 3 yrs - in crypto years? People seem to forget how much Coinbase promoted #XRP before the lawsuit.… pic.twitter.com/GLu4kFUU38— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) August 22, 2023 The pro-XRP lawyer reminded the community that Coinbase was one of the major promoters of XRP before the lawsuit forced the crypto exchange to delist the token.Deaton noted that Coinbase did its due diligence and even reached out to the SEC to check the regulatory status of XRP before listing it. Coinbase in its meeting in January 2019, explained to the SEC that it evaluated XRP based on its stringent regulatory framework for digital assets, the same framework a senior staff at the SEC had publicly complimented Coinbase on. The SEC at the time didn’t share any objection to the Coinbase listing proposal followed by the crypto exchange listing the XRP token in Feb 2019. Similarly, MoneyGram, a payment processor giant and a key Ripple remittance partner also filed a form with the SEC, disclosing how they plan to use XRP. MoneyGram faced no objection from the SEC either.Related: Ripple Labs bites back against SEC's request to file appealDeaton said that clearly, the lawyers at “MoneyGram also determined, just like Coinbase’s lawyers, and just like the SEC enforcement lawyers in June 2018, that XRP was NOT a security.” However, despite all the necessary measures taken by Ripple partners, SEC filed a lawsuit against Ripple in Dec 2020. We know the rest. It is so clear the lawsuit was used as a weapon. I said it only 9 days after the Ripple lawsuit in a federal pleading, when I filed the Writ of Mandamus against the SEC, and all the evidence uncovered during the last 3 years proves it to be true.— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) August 22, 2023 The pro-XRP lawyer claimed that Ripple's lawsuit was used as a weapon. and said “all the evidence uncovered during the last 3 years proves it to be true.” He concluded that despite Ripple’s continued and impressive success outside the U.S., the lawsuit definitely hurt XRP’s adoption. On July 13, a New York District Court judge Analisa Torres ruled partially in favor of Ripple Labs, ruling that XRP sales on digital asset exchanges is not a security.Magazine: Crypto regulation — Does SEC Chair Gary Gensler have the final say? Source

0 notes

etiennekissborlase · 1 year

Text

Heres How Coinbase Suing The SEC Helps Ripple In Its Case

Here’s How Coinbase Suing The SEC Helps Ripple In Its Case https://bitcoinist.com/heres-how-coinbase-suing-sec-helps-ripple/ Coinbase filed a lawsuit against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US Circuit Court today, which will also be of paramount importance to Ripple Labs and its legal battle against the agency. In a blog post, the largest US crypto exchange shared that the lawsuit is about a decision on a July 2022 petition. Coinbase wants to force the SEC to respond with a “yes” or “no” to the petition, in which they ask the SEC to use its formal rulemaking process to provide guidance for the crypto industry. The agency is required by law to respond to the petition within a timely manner. To date, however, the SEC has not met with a response – as Coinbase alleges, intentionally. Coinbase claims that the SEC has already made up its mind, but does not want to communicate a decision, as was evident during chairman Gary Gensler’s hearing before the US Congress last week. By refusing to answer, however, the SEC is depriving Coinbase of the possibility of a judicial review: If the SEC says no to our rulemaking petition, which it has the right to do, then Coinbase would be allowed to challenge that decision in court […] So it’s important for the SEC and any other agency petitioned for rulemaking to respond to the petition […] – otherwise the public can never exercise its right to ask a court if the agency’s decision was proper. The lawsuit filed by Coinbase therefore simply asks the court to require the SEC to communicate its decision. “We are simply requesting that the Court order the SEC to respond at all, which they are legally obligated to do,” Paul Grewal (chief legal officer of Coinbase) wrote in the blog post. The Significance For Ripple Vs. The SEC In addition to the regulatory clarity that Coinbase’s lawsuit could provide, it may also have a direct impact on the legal battle between Ripple and the SEC. As XRP community attorney John E. Deaton explained via Twitter, it’s the second Writ of Mandamus filed in relation to crypto. “I love the petition because I filed crypto’s 1st Writ of Mandamus when I sued the SEC asking a judge to order the SEC to do its job and amend the Ripple Complaint to include only direct sales by Ripple,” Deaton remarked. Beyond that, Coinbase’s lawsuit against the SEC has yet another significance for Ripple. Attorney Bill Morgan argues that Coinbase, like Ripple, relied on the Hinman speech, in which he made a purported ruling for the second-largest cryptocurrency, Ether (ETH). Whether the argument is powerful, remains to be seen. As Morgan explains, the SEC claims that the Hinman speech was about personal views of the former department head. To date, no court has found that Hinman’s speech was an official SEC statement. However, an opinion by SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, which Coinbase cites, could be helpful because it shows that market participants who attempted to act in good faith were subject to enforcement actions. The assertion of Hester Pierce is all so not an official SEC position but is more helpful to Coinbase because it shows that those market participants who are trying to act in good faith are being subjected to enforcement actions. /3 pic.twitter.com/oEjRqykCKI — bill morgan (@Belisarius2020) April 25, 2023 Morgan’s conclusion is: Whatever you say about whether or not cryptos are securities and assuming the registration process is not suitable for cryptos this paints the SEC in a bad light and acting with an agenda. Coinbase’s lawsuit should thus provide another compelling argument for Ripple and its fair notice defense. As Bitcoinist reported, a ruling from Judge Torres of the U.S. District Court of Southern New York could come any day now. At press time, the XRP price was at $0.4563. via Bitcoinist.com https://bitcoinist.com April 25, 2023 at 01:00PM

#Bitcoinist.com

0 notes

californiaprelawland · 2 years

Text

FlyersRights Encounters A Setback With Most Recent US Court Of Appeals Decision

By Stephan Yegorov, Chapman University Class of 2023

March 12, 2023

FlyersRights is a nonprofit company based in the United States that advocates for the rights of airline passengers. [2] As a part of their mission to protect airline passengers, on January 19, 2022, they sued the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) via mandamus petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They claimed that the court should mandate the FAA to comply with the seat requirements deadline imposed by Congress in 2018 by setting a new deadline since the FAA is three years past the original. [3] In 2018 Congress passed a bipartisan bill that gave the FAA until 2019 to create commercial airline seat dimension regulations that ensured passenger safety. [4] This bill came as a result of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General report elucidating the problems with FAA evacuation policies due to a refusal of the FAA to address seat size.

On September 12, 2022, they presented their case to a three-judge panel. FlyersRight alleges that the FAA is required to adhere to Section 577 of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act, which is part of the bill mentioned above. They respond to the FAA’s claims that the deadline is optional by stating that Congress’ issuance of this bill exhibits Congress’ and the public’s concern about passenger safety due to a lack of seat size regulations. They bolster their claim with data indicating that passengers have gotten bigger while airline seats have gotten smaller. Furthermore, they argue that the FAA’s claims that seat size has no impact on passenger safety during emergency evacuations are ungrounded. Instead, they contend that smaller seat sizes result in slower evacuations and medical issues like blood clots. To support this, they cite the D.C. Circuit court faulting the FAA for using undisclosed data for its conclusions in 2017. And the 2021 DOT Inspector General report that reveals the FAA falsely claimed the testing of shrunken seats by airplane manufacturers when only one test contained shrunken seats. [5]

They believe that without the court's intervention, the FAA will continue to dismiss the deadline. From FlyersRights’ perspective, this endangers the public’s safety since passengers will continue to fly even with a lack of FAA regulations. [6]

Despite what FlyersRights believed was a compelling case, on March 3, 2023, the court ruled in favor of the FAA by denying the petition for a writ of mandamus. The opinion of the court was written and filed by Judge Walker. Using the precedent in In re Cheney 2005, a writ of mandamus requires the petitioner to illustrate “a clear and indisputable right to relief.” FlyersRights relies upon Section 577 of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act to do this, and this is where the court found an issue. This section relies upon two criteria to be satisfied to require the FAA to pass regulations: 1) establish regulations and 2) regulations that are necessary for passenger safety. The court explains that through this interpretation FlyersRights must prove that “any seat-size regulations are necessary for passenger safety.”. The court concedes that FlyersRights attempts to do that; however, they do not do so in a manner that is “clear and indisputable”.

The court then establishes the lack of meeting this criteria in both FlyersRights’ claims. Starting with the claim that seat sizes have an impact on evacuation times. The court reasons that the FAA is not refusing to acknowledge evidence of this, but FlyersRight has not presented any. Moreover, they cite the FAA's evidence against the claim. The 300 real-world exits that the FAA has analyzed illustrate that the time it takes to get out of a seat is less than the time to open the emergency doors and the subsequent clearing of the line in the aisle. The varying sizes of seats amongst the 300 cases had a marginal impact on this difference in time.

In addressing the second claim about the connection between seat sizes and blood clots, the court follows similar reasoning to that above. FlyersRights has not provided conclusive evidence of this correlation. The court then goes on to disprove this statement based on current evidence. They cite Flyers Rights Education Fund Inc. v. FAA (2017), where the FAA proved that blood clots on flights are rare and seat sizes do not impact their occurrence. The court defines the soreness and stiffness resulting from small seats as commonplace, temporary, and non-life-threatening discomforts.” By this definition, they establish that airline seats are uncomfortably small, but that does not make them dangerously small. Moreover, they evidence consumers’ right to purchase greater legroom and seat sizes to combat uncomfortably small seats. [7]

Even though the court did not find FlyersRights’ claim for a writ of mandamus sufficient, all hope is not lost for FlyersRights. The court concluded its reasoning with the qualification “evidence might one day show that seat-size regulations are necessary for the safety of passengers.” [7] This qualification is essential for FlyersRights. It means that they may pursue their case against the FAA in the future if they can provide evidence that meets the criteria set by the court. While the FAA currently does not have to provide seat size regulations, this is not definitive of the future. Only time will tell whether or not the FAA will eventually meet the Congress-imposed deadline of 2019.

______________________________________________________________

Stephan Yegorov is a Chapman University student graduating in the fall of 2023. He is pursuing a Business Administration major and Law and Liberal Arts minor with plans to attend law school in 2024.

______________________________________________________________

[1]Stoller, Gary. “Consumer Group Demands FAA Act on Seat Comfort, Safety.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 17 Oct. 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/garystoller/2022/10/15/consumer-group- demands-faa-act-on-seat-comfort-safety/?sh=6aec3da36336.

[2]FlyersRights.org. “Flyersrights.org.” FlyersRights.org, https://flyersrights.org/.

[3]FlyersRights.org. “FlyersRights Sues FAA for Failure to Establish Minimum...” FlyersRights.org, https://flyersrights.org/press-releases/f/flyersrights-sues-faa-for-failure-to-establish-minimum.

[4]Silk, Robert. “Congress Mandates Airline SEAT Regulation in FAA Bill.” Travel Weekly, Travel Weekly, 24 Sept. 2018, https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/-Congress-mandates-airline-seat-regulation-in-FAA-bill.

[5]FlyersRights.org. “FlyersRights Argues 'Minimum Seat Size' in Federal Appeals Court.” FlyersRights.org, https://flyersrights.org/f/flyersrights-argues-minimum-seat-size-in-federal-appeals-court.

[6]Habeshian, Sareen. “U.S. Appeals Court Hears Argument on Airline Seat Size Rules.” Axios, 13 Sept. 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/09/13/airplane-seat-size-rules-challenge-appeals-court.

[7]United States Court of Appeals for The District of Columbia. IN RE: FLYERS RIGHTS EDUCATION FUND, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS FLYERSRIGHTS.ORG AND PAUL HUDSON, PETITIONERS. 3 Mar. 2023.

0 notes

feelingbluepolitics · 4 years

Text

"A much-anticipated explanation from the federal judge presiding over Michael Flynn’s criminal case was submitted on Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"The D.C. Circuit previously ordered U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to explain, within 10 days, why he didn’t immediately grant the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case. That order came down after Flynn’s lawyers filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus with the D.C. Circuit, asking the appellate court to direct Sullivan to dismiss the case."

In short, they are asking for an extreme remedy to cut short fact-finding, but fact-finding is clearly called for.

41 notes · View notes

immigrationlawyerkc1 · 3 years

Text

The Law Office of Micki Buschart

Micki Buschart opened her practice with the aim of providing high-quality immigration know-how to individuals seeking legal representation that is affordable, accessible, and reliable. Our firm recognizes that receiving a positive result in an immigration matter is not simply about winning a case, but about empowering the individual going through the process to pursue employment opportunities, a new or more stable life, or peace of mind. I am committed to providing open and honest communication, unwavering advocacy, and quality representation to each client. We take the time to explain the process so that my clients have a better understanding of their cases, the law involved and their rights.

Micki Buschart practices solely immigration law. She is currently a practitioner in Kansas City, Missouri. She represents clients in a wide variety of family-based immigrant and nonimmigrant visa petitions. She focuses on waivers and other forms of relief. She obtained Writs of Mandamus and other injunctive relief for clients with long-pending naturalization and adjustment of status cases.

She has made community service a priority and frequently volunteers legal services to indigent clients on a low-cost or pro bono basis.

She worked as the lead attorney for the DACA Pro Bono Clinic at El Centro, Inc. located in Kansas City, Kansas which serves the community in the Kansas City Metro Area. She served on the Board at El Centro, Inc. From 2007 to 2011, Micki worked as an Associate Attorney at the McCrummen Immigration Law Group, LLC. She gained her law degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 2007. Micki previously clerked for Catholic Charities Immigration and Refugee Services in Orlando, Florida. Micki has been invited to speak at various community events and national legal conferences regarding immigration law. She speaks Spanish.

Website: kansas city immigration lawyer

Our Social Pages:

Facebook

Twitter

1 note · View note

fidelandrada · 4 years

Text

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

The Supreme Court’s Power of Judicial Review

By Fidel Andrada

★★★★★★★ Background of the Case ★★★★★★★

The election of 1800 transferred power in the federal government from the Federalist Party to the Republican Party. In the closing days of President John Adams’s administration, the Federalists created many new government offices, appointing Federalists to fill them. One of the last-minute or “midnight” appointments was that of William Marbury. Marbury was named a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. President Adams had signed the papers, but his secretary of state, John Marshall, somehow neglected to deliver the papers necessary to finalize the appointment.

The new president, Thomas Jefferson, was angry at the defeated Federalists’ attempt to “keep a dead clutch on the patronage” and ordered his new secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver Marbury’s commission papers. Marbury took his case to the Supreme Court, of which John Marshall was now the Chief Justice, for a writ of mandamus—an order from a court that some action be performed—commanding Madison to deliver the commission papers in accordance with the Judiciary Act of 1789.

★★★★★★★ Constitutional Issue ★★★★★★★★

Article III of the Constitution sets up the Supreme Court as the head of the federal judicial system. Historians believe that the Founders meant the Court to have the power of judicial review, that is, the power to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to invalidate those that it determines to be unconstitutional. The Constitution, however, does not specifically give the Court this right.

Chief Justice John Marshall, as a Federalist, believed strongly that the Supreme Court should have the power of judicial review. When the Marbury case presented the perfect opportunity to clearly establish that power, Marshall laid out several points which the Court believed supported the right of judicial review. At the time, the decision was viewed as a curtailment of the power of the president, but people today recognize that the case established, once and for all, the importance of the Supreme Court in American government.

★★★★★★ The Supreme Court’s Decision ★★★★★★

Justice Marshall reviewed the case on the basis of three questions: Did Marbury have a right to the commission? If so, was he entitled to some remedy under United States law? Was that remedy a writ from the Supreme Court? Marshall decided the first question by holding that an appointment is effective once a commission has been signed and the U.S. seal affixed, as Marbury’s commission had been. Therefore, Marbury had been legally appointed, and Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission violated Marbury’s right to the appointment. In response to the second question, Marshall held that Marbury was entitled to some remedy under United States law. The final question examined whether the Court had the power to issue the writ. Marshall explained that the right to issue writs like the one Marbury was requesting had been granted the Court by the Judiciary Act of 1789. This law, however, was unconstitutional and void because the Constitution did not grant Congress the right to make such a law. In his written opinion, Marshall defended the right of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is . . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” The Supreme Court thus became the final judge of constitutionality, thus establishing the principle of judicial review. At the time, observers were much more interested in the practical result of the ruling— that the Court could not issue the writ, and could not, therefore, force the appointment of Marbury. Congress could not expand the Court’s original jurisdiction, and the Constitution does not give the Court the authority to issue a writ. They paid much less attention to the long-term implications of the decision. Here is how a constitutional scholar evaluates the Marbury decision: “Over the passage of time [the] Marbury [decision] came to stand for the monumental principle, so distinctive and dominant a feature of our constitutional system, that the Court may bind the coordinate branches of the national government to its rulings on what is the supreme law of the land. That principle stands out from Marbury like the grin on a Cheshire cat; all else, which preoccupied national attention in 1803, disappeared in our constitutional law.” Not until fifty years after rendering the Marbury decision did the Court again declare a law unconstitutional, but by then the idea of judicial review had become a time-honored principle.

#Fidel Andrada #Supreme Court #Fidel #Andrada #Miranda v Arizona

1 note · View note

legalfirmindia · 4 years

Text

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

WRIT OF MANDAMUS: Best Lawyers for Writ of Mandamus filing in Chennai Tamil Nadu India. Choose Top Advocates for Legal Consultation and Guidance to understand and process the case. Advocate Saravvanan Rajendran Law Chamber [askadvocates.com]

Best Lawyers for Writ of Mandamus

Find and identify the Best Lawyers for Writ of Mandamus filing in Chennai Tamil Nadu India. Choose Top Advocates for Legal Consultation and Guidance to understand and process the case. Advocate Saravvanan Rajendran Law Chamber [askadvocates.com] is one of the Best Law Firm for Writ of Mandamus.

Right writs in the custom-based law

Introduction: A writ of…

View On WordPress

#A Writ of Mandamus Can Be Issued on the Ground of #A Writ of Mandamus Definition #A Writ of Mandamus in India #A Writ of Mandamus May Be Issued by #Are Writ of Mandamus #Article 12 Writ of Mandamus #Article 78 Writ of Mandamus #Best Rated Lawyers for Writ of Mandamus #Can a Writ of Mandamus Be Appealed #Can I File Writ of Mandamus #Can You Appeal a Writ of Mandamus #Can You File a Writ of Mandamus #Do I Capitalize Writ of Mandamus #Does Writ of Mandamus Mean #Draft Writ of Mandamus #Drafting of Writ of Mandamus #Explain What Writ of Mandamus Means #Explain Writ of Mandamus #Filing a Writ of Mandamus #Get a Writ of Mandamus #How Does Writ of Mandamus Work #How to Draft Writ of Mandamus #How to File Writ of Mandamus #How to File Writ of Mandamus in India #How to Pronounce Writ of Mandamus #How to Write Writ of Mandamus #I File a Writ of Mandamus #Is a Writ of Mandamus Constitutional #Is Writ of Mandamus #Is Writ of Mandamus a Law

0 notes

pennsylvaniaprelawland-blog · 4 years

Text

A Brief History Of The Electoral College And Faithless Electors

By Grace White, Villanova University Class of 2023

July 15, 2020

The presidential election waits for no pandemic – the 2020 election is well underway. Primaries, caucuses, and campaigns have begun, despite facing delays in certain states. Given the quickly approaching general election, interest has once again landed on the process. While many Americans look forward to voting, there is a fairly common area of interest: the Electoral College. The Electoral College feels like a well-established method; yet, there are plenty of questions and criticisms. This is a breakdown of some of the most influential events regarding the Electoral College that every voter should understand: its creation, relevant additions, court decisions, and more.

1787: The Electoral College is established.

When the Constitution was written, the Electoral College was created as an “eleventh hour compromise” [1]after significant disagreement on how the election process should run in the new democracy. When the government was formed, the Electoral College served as a compromise to two agendas: the framers who wanted a popular election by the people and those who wanted the congressional selection of the executive branch. The Electoral College balanced these conflicting ideas –high-population states would not overpower smaller states and the presidency was insulated from local voters who supposedly lacked sufficient information about the candidates [3]. At that point time, this was a major concern, considering much of the U.S. was agrarian with limited communication. It is described by the following [2]:

This section created the Electoral College:a voting body composed of qualified electors chosen by the state legislature.Representation was a major point of contention because states varied largely in population, an issue complicated by slavery [3]. The structure of the Electoral College intended to give every state relatively fair representation, satisfying this concern.The popular vote at this point voted for the electors, rather than the presidential candidates.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 also explains that electors were to cast two votes – both for president. The candidate with the most votes became president, and the runner-up vice president. Section 1 of the Constitution goes on to establish other stipulations, such as proceedings for elections with a tie, contingency plans in case a president elect died, and other expectations for the role of the president. One of the most relevant would be that in the event of an election with a tie, the House of Representatives chooses the president and the Senate chooses the vice president [2]. The Electoral College did not exist long as it was originally written, being changed shortly after its conception.

1804: The 12th Amendment is passed.

The election of 1800 was the fourth U.S. presidential election and resulted in some of the most significant changes to the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, two of the presidential nominees, earned the same number of votes in the college [5]. The House of Representatives chose Jefferson as president, and Burr become vice president. This presented a structural problem, particularly due to the rise of political parties– if all of the electors cast their votes for their party’s candidates, there would be a tie. As a result, the 12th Amendment was passed.

The 12th Amendment maintained that each electorwould vote twice, but it required that one vote be explicitly for the presidency and the other must be a candidate from a state besides the elector’s home. In the event of a tie, the House would choose, each state having one vote, but also required that the president be chosen from the top three candidates [4]. This amendment decreased the likelihood that an election would have to be decided by the House [6].

The 1804 election was the first time that these guidelines were used. The rise of political parties necessitated a change to the Electoral College, which the 12th Amendment brought. These alterations created a plan that better fit the political climate.

1952: Ray v. Blair

Leading up to the 1952 presidential election, Edmund Blair, a member of the Democratic Party in Alabama was chosen as a qualified elector but refused to take an oath committing his support to "the nominees of the National Convention of the Democratic Party for President and Vice-President of the United States." [8]. As a result, Ben Ray, the chairman of Alabama’s Executive Committee of the Democratic Party, chose not to present him as a candidate [8].Blair responded by filing a writ of mandamus, which the Alabama Supreme Court upheld. The case was appealed and brought to the Supreme Court, where that decision was overturned.

The Supreme Court determined that the oath, which essentially pledged the electors’ loyalty to the party, was permissible. Their argument relied heavily on the two texts already mentioned. Part of the opinion of the court goes as follows [9]:

On that ground, the Democratic Party of Alabama (and other parties in other states) would be allowed to require their nominated electors to pledge to cast their votes in that party’s favor – which would cut down on “faithless voting” [9]. This would set the precedent that electors do not have absolute freedom, a decision that drastically changed the role of the Electoral College. If they are bound to their party’s nominee, then electors are figureheads rather than active voters. This case marked the beginning of frequent debate on this topic, so the court has continued to revisit the role of electors and the constraints that can be placed on them.

1961: The 23rd Amendment is passed.

The 23rd Amendment did not make significant changes to the Electoral College; rather, it allowed the DC to vote in presidential elections. Residents gained the right to vote in DC and it was given representation in the Electoral College, with no more electors than the least populous state, which is three [4].

2016: The 58th Presidential election

The 2016 election saw Hillary Clinton (D) oppose Donald Trump (R). This was an important election because it was the fifth time in U.S. history that the winner of the electoral vote did not win the popular vote [7]. Clinton earned more of the popular vote, beating Trump by a margin of about 2.1% [10]. Despite this, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Clinton’s 227, thus becoming president.There were also ten faithless voters, eight Democratic and two Republican (three disallowed), though this fact did not change the outcome of the election [11]; it would, however, lead to Colorado Department of State v. Baca and Chiafalo et al v. Washington.

2020: Colorado Department of State v. Bacaand Chiafalo et al v. Washington

These two cases both involve 2016 electors and were decided on the same day, July 6th, 2020 by the Supreme Court [13].

Colorado Department of State v. Baca involved Michael Baca, Polly Baca, and Robert Nemanich, Democratic electors for the state of Colorado. Michael Baca voted for John Kasich and was removed for faithless voting. Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich then decided to vote for Clinton, but the three started a lawsuit against the state, claiming the law violated their Constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment [12]. The case was initially dismissed for lack of standing for Polly Baca and Nemanich, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Michael Baca’s standing and found the law unconstitutional.In the Supreme Court, the decision was reversed, finding the Colorado state law permissible [12].

Chiafalo et al v. Washington was a case brought by three Washington Democratic electors, who broke their pledge to vote for Hillary Clinton [13]. As a result, they were each fined by the state, which they challenged under the premise that the Constitution gave electors the right to “vote by ballot” which they argued implied the use of discretion [1]. The Supreme Court rejected this notion, leaning on Ray v. Blair, the Constitutional language, and the 12th Amendment. In the opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court argued that the Constitution gives the right to elect rather than cast independent votes, which is explained further in the following passage [1]:

These two decisions were made together because of the similarities within them.The Supreme Court used the cases to answer two questions related to the Electoral College: electors are bound to the nominee of the party that chose them, and states have the power to enforce that by law or through adverse actions like fines. Because the description of the Electoral College was vague in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions have significant influence on its function in the election process.

The Electoral College has seen change since it was established in 1787 and will undoubtedly see more in the future. Though many critiques can be made, it has played an influential role in the U.S. government throughout this country’s history. The 2020 election brings another opportunity to evaluate the Electoral College as a governmental body and remains a product of its past.

________________________________________________________________

Grace White is a sophomore in the Villanova University School of Business, studying Economics and Accounting. She is interested in tax law and economic policy, with plans to attend law school after graduation in May 2023.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf Chiafalo v. Washington. 591 U.S. 19-465.

[2] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-iiExecutive Branch. (n.d.). National Constitution Center.

[3] https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/Akhil Reed Amar. (November 26, 2018). The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists. Time

[4], including image https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992United States of America Constitution (1789). (n.d.). Constitute Project.

[5] https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1800#ref299626United States presidential election of 1800. (July 19, 2018). Encyclopedia Britannica.

[6] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twelfth-AmendmentBrian P. Smentkowski. (July 23, 2013). Twelfth Amendment. Encyclopedia Britannica.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_voteList of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote, (n.d.). Wikipedia.

[8] https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-ray-v-blairLaw School Case Brief: Ray v. Blair. (n.d.). LexisNexis.

[9] including image http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep343/usrep343214/usrep343214.pdf Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 649 (1952)

[10] https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/2016 Presidential Election. (n.d.). 270toWin.

[11] https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electorsFaithless Electors, (July 6, 2020).FairVote.

[12] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-518Colorado Department of State v. Baca. (n.d.). Oyez.

[13] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-465Chiafalo v. Washington. (n.d.). Oyez.

0 notes

go-redgirl · 4 years

Photo

U.S. appeals court orders judge to dismiss case against former Trump national security advisor Michael FlynnPUBLISHED WED, JUN 24 202010:20 AM EDTUPDATED WED, JUN 24 20203:20 PM EDT

The ruling came in response to a request for a so-called writ of mandamus, or judicial directive, from Flynn’s lawyers.

KEY POINTS

A federal appeals court ordered a judge to dismiss the criminal case against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s first national security advisor.

The ruling came in response to a request from Flynn’s lawyers, after Judge Emmet Sullivan did not promptly grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case.

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with Russia’s ambassador in the weeks before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017.

Appeals court Judge Neomi Rao, in the decision for the majority Wednesday, wrote that the case is about whether a trial court judge can prolong a criminal case and appoint a so-called friend of the court such as Gleeson as a legal advisor after prosecutors have “explained why a prosecution is no longer in the public interest.”

“On that, both the Constitution and [prior legal] cases are clear: he may not,” wrote Rao, who was appointed by Trump.

It is not clear whether the ruling will be the last word in the case. A judge on the appeals court could ask for a review by all the court’s judges. Such an review, known as an en banc hearing, is not usually granted in the D.C. circuit unless a case “involves a question of exceptional importance,” or is needed to “maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions,”

Beth Wilkinson, an attorney representing Sullivan in the appeals court proceedings, declined CNBC’s request for comment.

Like the Justice Department’s dismissal request, Sullivan’s lack of immediate agreement with it and Flynn’s request that an appeals court force Sullivan to comply were extremely unusual. An en banc review would add to the already odd nature of Flynn’s case.

Trump praised Wednesday’s appeals court ruling, tweeting that it was “Great!”

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump✔Great! Appeals Court Upholds Justice Departments Request To Drop Criminal Case Against General Michael Flynn!180K10:40 AM - Jun 24, 2020

Trump in an Oval Office meeting later Wednesday said he was very happy with the decision.

The White House✔@WhiteHouse

"What happened to General Flynn should never happen again in our country."

The president has been highly critical of the prosecution of Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who pleaded guilty in late 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States in the weeks before Trump’s inauguration.

“We are delighted to see the D.C. Circuit apply the Rule of Law and appreciate the professionalism of the Department of Justice in producing the exculpatory evidence and moving to dismiss a case that should never have been brought,” Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell said in an email to CNBC.

Powell, who replaced Flynn’s previous attorneys, had sought to retract his plea since last year, claiming that prosecutors improperly withheld evidence from Flynn and his earlier defense team.

The Justice Department until last month had strongly fought that effort. It sought to have Flynn sentenced after more than a year of postponements related to his cooperation with then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. It also opposed Flynn’s subsequent attempts to withdraw his plea.

But in May, the Justice Department asked Sullivan to dismiss the case.

0 notes

buddylistsocial · 4 years

Text

DC Circuit Court Orders Judge Sullivan to Explain Why He’s REFUSING to Drop Flynn Case

The DC Circuit Court has ordered Clinton-appointed Judge Emmet Sullivan to explain why he is refusing to drop the case against General Flynn, even though the US government dropped all charges against him.

On Thursday, the DC Circuit Court ordered Judge Sullivan to respond to General Flynn’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus by June 1, 2020.

The Justice Department dropped its case…

View On WordPress

0 notes

edisonashley · 4 years

Text

Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court

Sex trafficking victims sued Facebook and Instagram in Texas state court for their alleged roles in the victimization. The victims’ claims are not FOSTA-based, even though the cases were filed after FOSTA became law. In May 2019, the trial court rejected Facebook’s motion to dismiss based on Section 230, in an opinion that will not win any awards for exposition by a judge. The opinion briefly recited various precedent cases on both sides, and then tersely concluded: “In reviewing the statute and the cases cited by the parties, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have plead causes of action that would not be barred by the immunity granted under the Act.”

Facebook challenged this ruling by seeking mandamus. (The Instagram case is on the same trajectory, and the appeals court uses identical opinions for both cases). I don’t understand Texas state court procedures, so I’m not clear why Facebook couldn’t make a “normal” appeal or how the mandamus review standards differ from normal appellate review standards.

In a split opinion, the appeals court rejects Facebook’s mandamus request. The “per curiam” opinion in its entirety:

Each plaintiff in the underlying cases is a minor who connected on Facebook or Instagram (collectively, “Facebook”) with individuals who forced them into human trafficking. The plaintiffs seek to hold Facebook liable for damages resulting from being victimized by trafficking. Facebook filed a Rule 91a1 motion to dismiss each plaintiff’s case against Facebook based on an immunity provision under a Federal statute known as the Communications Decency Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 230.

Facebook filed two petitions for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the first petition filed in our case numbers 14-19-00845-CV and 14-19-00847-CV, Facebook asks this court to compel the Honorable Steven Kirkland, presiding judge of the 334th District Court of Harris County, to set aside his May 23, 2019 orders denying Facebook’s Rule 91a motions to dismiss.

In the second petition filed in our case number 14-19-00886-CV, Facebook asks this court to compel the Honorable Mike Engelhart, presiding judge of the 151st District Court of Harris County, to set aside his October 4, 2019 order denying Facebook’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss.

Facebook has not established that it is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny Facebook’s petitions for writ of mandamus. We also lift our stays issued on November 14, 2019, and November 19, 2019.

In case you missed it, I’m going to replay the court’s substantive “analysis” of the mandamus request: “Facebook has not established that it is entitled to mandamus relief.” So both the trial court and the appeals court basically said “no” to Facebook in opinions that provided no insight into the judges’ actual thinking. I’m not sure how or why laconic opinion-writing became a thing in the Texas state court system, but it has to be frustrating to the litigants (or at least the litigants on the losing end of the decision).

One of the three appellate judges on the panel, Justice Tracy Christopher, dissented. Unlike her peers, she actually wrote an opinion explaining her thinking. The entirety of her dissent:

I respectfully dissent from these denials of mandamus and I urge the Texas Supreme Court to review these cases. Federal law grants Facebook immunity from suits such as these. See 47 U.S.C. § 230. Because Facebook has immunity, these suits have no basis in law, and dismissal under Texas Rule of Procedure 91a is proper.

The Real Parties in Interest urge our court to adopt a construction of Section 230 that has been adopted by only a few courts. The vast majority of the courts reviewing this law have adopted the arguments made by Facebook. The artful pleading by the Real Parties in Interest should not prevail over the statute.

Fewer cases discuss the 2018 amendments to Section 230 known as the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (“FOSTA”). However, this exception to immunity—on its face—does not apply to a civil action in state court.

Because Facebook has federal statutory immunity from these suits, I respectfully dissent

Now, that’s an opinion. It may be short, but it’s entirely clear and legally correct. Unfortunately, it didn’t sway the other two judges on the appellate panel.

I could see Facebook appealing to the Texas Supreme Court, and it will be interesting to see if they listen to Justice Christopher’s recommendation.

This litigation resembles the M.L. v. Craigslist case, where the trial court also deferred to dubious allegations in the complaint when adjudicating the motion to dismiss; whereas the facts would get more rigorous scrutiny in response to a summary judgment motion. Thus, like the ML case, this case could provide another data point in support of a litigator’s decision to defer Section 230 to an early summary judgment motion rather than spending the time and money on a motion to dismiss. FWIW, I’m not a litigator by training, but I think Facebook’s Section 230 motion to dismiss was the right move in this case–and I would have made the same decision–given the defense-favorable Section 230 precedents in Texas state court.

Finally, as I mentioned in my prior blog post, I cannot ignore the irony that Facebook can’t exit a sex trafficking lawsuit even though Facebook supported FOSTA–a move that was ill-considered at the time and made FOSTA’s passage inevitable, but also a move ensuring that Facebook would need to litigate against sex trafficking victims in court. (However, a reminder that this isn’t a FOSTA case).

Case citation: In re Facebook Inc., 2020 WL 2037193 (Tex. Ct. App. April 28, 2020)

More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts:

* Craigslist Denied Section 230 Immunity for Classified Ads from 2008–ML v. Craigslist * 2H 2019 and Q1 2020 Quick Links, Part 3 (FOSTA/Backpage) * New Paper Explains How FOSTA Devastated Male Sex Workers * FOSTA Constitutional Challenge Revived–Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. US * New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post) * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v. Salesforce * Latest Linkwrap on FOSTA’s Aftermath * Section 230 Doesn’t End Lawsuit Claiming Facebook Facilitated Sex Trafficking–Doe v. Facebook * New Essay: The Complicated Story of FOSTA and Section 230 * Who Benefited from FOSTA? (Spoiler: Probably No One) * FOSTA’s Political Curse * FOSTA Doesn’t Help Pro Se Litigant’s Defamation Claim Against Facebook * Constitutional Challenge to FOSTA Dismissed for Lack of Standing (Guest Blog Post) * An Update on the Constitutional Court Challenge to FOSTA–Woodhull Freedom v. US (Guest Blog Post) * Indianapolis Police Have Been “Blinded Lately Because They Shut Backpage Down” * Constitutional Challenge Against FOSTA Filed–Woodhull v. US (Guest Blog Post) * Catching Up on FOSTA Since Its Enactment (A Linkwrap) * More Aftermath from the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ * ‘Worst of Both Worlds’ FOSTA Signed Into Law, Completing Section 230’s Evisceration * Backpage Loses Another Section 230 Motion (Again Without SESTA/FOSTA)–Florida Abolitionists v. Backpage * District Court Ruling Highlights Congress’ Hastiness To Pass ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’– Doe 1 v. Backpage * More on the Unconstitutional Retroactivity of ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Guest Blog Post) * Senate Passes ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Linkwrap) * Why FOSTA’s Restriction on Prostitution Promotion Violates the First Amendment (Guest Blog Post) * SESTA’s Sponsors Still Don’t Understand Section 230 (As They Are About to Eviscerate It) * Can the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ Be Salvaged? Perhaps…and You Can Help (URGENT CALL TO ACTION) * Congress Probably Will Ruin Section 230 This Week (SESTA/FOSTA Updates) * What’s New With SESTA/FOSTA (January 17, 2018 edition) * New House Bill (Substitute FOSTA) Has More Promising Approach to Regulating Online Sex Trafficking * My testimony at the House Energy & Commerce Committee: Balancing Section 230 and Anti-Sex Trafficking Initiatives * How SESTA Undermines Section 230’s Good Samaritan Provisions * Manager’s Amendment for SESTA Slightly Improves a Still-Terrible Bill * Another Human Trafficking Expert Raises Concerns About SESTA (Guest Blog Post) * Another SESTA Linkwrap (Week of October 30) * Recent SESTA Developments (A Linkwrap) * Section 230’s Applicability to ‘Inconsistent’ State Laws (Guest Blog Post) * An Overview of Congress’ Pending Legislation on Sex Trafficking (Guest Blog Post) * The DOJ’s Busts of MyRedbook & Rentboy Show How Backpage Might Be Prosecuted (Guest Blog Post) * Problems With SESTA’s Retroactivity Provision (Guest Blog Post) * My Senate Testimony on SESTA + SESTA Hearing Linkwrap * Debunking Some Myths About Section 230 and Sex Trafficking (Guest Blog Post) * Congress Is About To Ruin Its Online Free Speech Masterpiece (Cross-Post) * Backpage Executives Must Face Money Laundering Charges Despite Section 230–People v. Ferrer * How Section 230 Helps Sex Trafficking Victims (and SESTA Would Hurt Them) (guest blog post) * Sen. Portman Says SESTA Doesn’t Affect the Good Samaritan Defense. He’s Wrong * Senate’s “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017”–and Section 230’s Imminent Evisceration * The “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” Bill Would Be Bad News for Section 230 * WARNING: Draft “No Immunity for Sex Traffickers Online Act” Bill Poses Major Threat to Section 230 * The Implications of Excluding State Crimes from 47 U.S.C. § 230’s Immunity

The post Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.weebly.com/

0 notes

pearlpiineda · 4 years

Text

Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court

In a split opinion, the appeals court rejects Facebook’s mandamus request. The “per curiam” opinion in its entirety:

One of the three appellate judges on the panel, Justice Tracy Christopher, dissented. Unlike her peers, she actually wrote an opinion explaining her thinking. The entirety of her dissent:

Because Facebook has federal statutory immunity from these suits, I respectfully dissent

Now, that’s an opinion. It may be short, but it’s entirely clear and legally correct. Unfortunately, it didn’t sway the other two judges on the appellate panel.

I could see Facebook appealing to the Texas Supreme Court, and it will be interesting to see if they listen to Justice Christopher’s recommendation.

Case citation: In re Facebook Inc., 2020 WL 2037193 (Tex. Ct. App. April 28, 2020)

More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts:

The post Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court published first on https://immigrationlawyerfirm.weebly.com/

0 notes

dcmarticles · 5 years

Text

What can an immigration lawyer do for you?

Our immigration lawyers in Boston, Massachusetts are experienced in handling all types of immigration cases. We take great time and care to understand our client’s goals and situations, in order to craft the best immigration strategy to help them obtain the results they are looking for and to achieve their immigration goals. There can be different ways of approaching one situation and the best alternative may not be the same for everyone, as each alternative can have different risks, timing and potential outcomes. Our immigration attorneys will go above and beyond to make the process as stress-free as possible, by explaining what you can expect and need to do, walking you through the entire process and providing the best possible immigration legal services in the area.

Immigration Legal Services

Our team of legal experts can help clients with a variety of immigration-related issues and cases:

1. U.S. Permanent Residency / U.S. Green Card: A U.S. Green Card holder / legal permanent resident is an individual who has been granted permission to live and work in the United States permanently. While there are numerous ways in which a person may acquire a Green Card, two of the most common ways by being sponsored by an immediate family member or an employer. Other ways individuals can apply for permanent resident status include after being present in the US for at least 1 year with asylum status; after being present in the U.S. for 3 years with a U visa (for victims of crime); and being granted cancellation of removal, among others.

2. Non-immigrant U.S. Visas: There are many ways to obtain a non-immigrant U.S. visa that may grant someone the right to live and work in the United States. Our legal team can offer help with E-1 & E-2 visas for investors and traders, L-1 visas for intra-company employee transfers, H-1B visas for professional employees, K-1 visas for alien finances, U visas for victims of crime, O visas for foreigners with outstanding ability, TN visas for certain professionals from Mexico and Canada, R visas for religious workers, and others.

3. U.S. Citizenship Applications / Naturalization: A person is usually eligible to apply to become a U.S. citizen, after being a legal permanent resident for at least 5 years (or 3 years if you are married to a U.S. citizen). Read more about the eligibility requirements for US citizenship and the documents needed.

4. Cancellation of removal / deportation (also known as the 10 year law) is a process by which certain non-permanent residents who are in removal / deportation proceedings before an immigration judge, may be granted legal permanent residency, if they have been in the U.S. continuously for the last ten years, are of good moral character, and can demonstrate that their removal will cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

5. Renewal of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals): Individuals who came into the United States as young children (under the age of 16), and meet the eligibility criteria, may be granted Deferred Action or relief from removal / deportation from the US. And under certain circumstances be granted work authorization. Currently the government is not accepting new applications for DACA, but it is allowing renewals.

6. Temporary Protected Status (TPS). A procedure by which Congress allows the Attorney General of the United States to provide TPS to foreigners in the United States who are temporarily unable to return to their countries because of armed conflicts, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.

7. Asylum / Political Asylum: Asylum status may be granted to a person who has a reasonable fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, if forced to return to their country of last residence.

8. Writ of Mandamus / Law suits against the USCIS: A complaint, or Writ of Mandamus, may be filed in the U.S. District Court if the USCIS has failed to issue a decision after a “reasonable” period of time, on a properly filed immigration application.

9. I-601 Waivers: For certain immigrants who have committed an immigration violation such as overstaying their permission to remain in the US under their visa and providing false or misleading information; if they can show evidence that their US citizen or legal permanent resident spouse or parent will suffer an extreme hardship, if they are not allowed to remain in the U.S.

These are just some of the many immigration legal services we can provide clients. We have the experience, skills and resources to help individuals in a variety of different immigration situations. We also can represent immigrants facing criminal charges and deportation, as we are also experienced criminal defense lawyers.

Schedule a Legal Consultation with an Immigration Attorney Today

At FitzGerald Law Company, our legal team has years of experience representing those seeking to legalize their immigration status or facing complicated immigration situations in Massachusetts. We have a deep and thorough understanding of immigration law and can devise the best immigration strategy for our clients. We serve clients in Boston, Cambridge, Quincy, Malden, Somerville, Everett, Revere, Chelsea, East Boston, Waltham, Framingham, Jamaica Plain, Lowell, Lawrence, and surrounding communities. To schedule a legal consultation today to discuss immigrating to the United States, obtaining U.S. citizenship or legalizing your immigration status with one of our experienced immigration attorneys, call us at 617-303-2600.

#immigration #immigration attorney #immigration lawyer #DACA Attorney #DACA Lawyer

0 notes