#Lawyer fees for Writ of Prohibition | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

brightquang · 6 years

Text

https://medium.com/@quangbright/proposal-for-enforcing-constitutional-and-law-69130e2b7cac > > Redwood City, March..4...2019 > > From: Bright Quang > > 217 5th Ave # 8 > > Redwood City, CA 94063 > > www.brightquang.com > > email: [email protected] > > Telephone: (650) 278-9542 > > > > To: Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters > > 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW > > Washington D.C 20535-0001 > > (202) 324-3000 > > > > PROPOSAL FOR ENFORCING CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAW > > > > To Whom It May Concern: > > > > I would like to submit my statement of the case of litigation's Civil Settlement of the prisoner of war of the Vietnam war of the United States of America to you in order to enforce not only the United States Constitution but also ought to carry out the exact American law,because my refugee to the United States of America in November 22, 1993, which is no corresponded with my prisoner of war's case which is why I have been spending for more than tens years in order to petition to the Government of the United States of America. Let me take the art of struggle for my prisoner of war. > > In case, I would like to follow with the American law that I have taken an oath loyalist for our United States Constitution to consider a full proposal for my proposed start-up for Exactly. > > > > Introduction > > Exactly provides comprehensive best of a Vietnamese American citizen respecting the United States Constitution and our super values of the American laws when my meaningful prisoner of war of the Vietnam War is most lost by imprisoned benefit insurance, real property, and small business but also human dignity is entirely lost by a mental case, which destroyed all of my intellectual property again. Premised on the belief that substantive, petition American citizen can be powerful catalysts for performing justice to pursuant Constitutional saying, "All Men are created equal.{1}" Since it's saying, Distort justice as treason. Its mission is to equip adequate of erudition laws in order to suitable citizen of our super nation for following with formal principle of justice; and then, Americana citizens will not be violated American Constitution or to be criminals along the spectrum of our justice has declared about Human Rights involvement Declaration of human rights. The risk of our justice should seem for able to destroy all of super values of our super nation when its best citizen will be seemed neglected by your higher rank; and therefore, my exalt with an honest, experiences and trust to take concrete steps towards becoming self-reliant, self-fulfilled , and self- study law on petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of appeals for the 50 U.SC§ 4105- Prisoner of War -June 24, 1970 and 50 U.S.C§ 4101- Foreign Clams Settlement Commission of the United States; July 3, 1948. In condition, the American law has had Federal Tort Claims Act I House.gov because I have strongly been trained for protecting and respecting Constitutional and the American law by the low court in the state of California for some times in the past. Therefore, my statement case of prisoner of war ought to carry out within our American Constitution and law that my attachment would like to submit to you within in order to provide my best of Vietnamese American citizen has highly following exact with American Constitution and law. > > Exactly, after many years of petitioning for my human dignity of intellectual property in some low courts in the state of California in order to recapture my honor, human dignity and a treasure of arts and literature in which were lost by an hat of label mental case is put on my head by Department of Motor Vehicles , but my right case was denied by the low courts. These courts were prejudiced me by national origin and under color skin - therefore, those always returned my document's case when they did not carry out 5 U.S.Code § 702 Right of review .Sep.6, 1966. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action,and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers(by name or by title), and their successors in office,... > > > > Ironically, it seemed to borrow to the police's hand in order to assassinate me by its mental case. Exactly I have no had any mental case. When those put the mental ill on my head, those did not only prohibited me find any jobs but also I did not dare appear in the publicans not dare relation with my neighbors because I always do worrying to the public and my neighbors that they ought to call to police and then, the police should kill me because the mental person always makes damage to everybody because 42 U.S. Code § 12101. Findings and purpose (a) Findings > > The Congress finds that— > > (1) > > physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination; others who have a record of a disability or are regarded as having a disability also have been subjected to discrimination; > > (2) > > historically,society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and,despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem; > > (3) > > discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation,communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services,voting, and access to public services; > > (4) > > unlike individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of race, color,sex, national origin, religion, or age, individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of disability have often had no legal recourse to redress such discrimination; > > (5) > > individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural,transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies,failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices,exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to less services,programs, activities,benefits, jobs, or other opportunities; > > (6) > > census data, national polls, and other studies have documented that people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society, and are severely disadvantaged socially,vocationally, economically, and educationally; > > (7) > > the Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals; and > > (8) > > the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and non productively. > > (b) Purpose It is the purpose of this chapter— > > (1) > > to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities; > > (2) > > to provide clear, strong, consistent,enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; > > (3) > > to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and > > (4) > > to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce,in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities. > > (Pub. L. 101–336,§ 2, July26, 1990, 104 Stat. 328;Pub. L.110–325, § 3, Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3554.) > > > > In conclusion, the ten years I have respectfully been found the American attorneys, Association Bars, and many Law firm companies in order to need help, but, no of them ought to help for my Prisoner of war case.Because they do think about my prisoner of war, which, should be touched to the political action case. Therefore, they did not only discriminate me but also prejudiced my national origin and under color skin when almost of the American lawyers have come from for many famous college schools and to be famous International public lawyers, but they are silent which is why I would like to proposal to you in order to enforce the American Constitution and law in equality because unmitigated punishment for offenders. Obviously, the Congress finds that's 28 U.S.C. § 2678 - Attorney fees;penalty > > No attorney shall charge, demand, receive,or collect for services rendered, fees in excess of 25 per centum of any judgment rendered pursuant to section 1346 (b) of this title or any settlement made pursuant to section 2677 of this title, or in excess of 20 per centum of any award, compromise, or settlement made pursuant to section 2672 of this title. Any attorney who charges,demands, receives, or collects for services rendered in connection with such claim any amount in excess of that allowed under this section, if recovery behead, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than one year,or both. > > > > Respectfully Yours > > > > > > > > > > Bright Quang > > > > ___________________ > > ¹ We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent ... > > > > Terms to Know -Center for Civic Education > > > www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/911-and-the-constitution/terms-to-know > > https://medium.com/@quangbright/proposal-for-enforcing-constitutional-and-law-69130e2b7cac > > > What does he somehow understand about to Rule of law or Rule by law of the government of the United States of America because Distort justice is national traitor? >

1 note · View note

thomsenmelendez0-blog · 6 years

Text

Details Regarding Eviction Procedure That Will Save Tenants Time.

If the tenant does not willingly, after the required notification has actually been correctly given by the landlord to the occupant, leave, the landlord might force out the tenant. In order to evict the occupant, the property manager should file an eviction claim, or unlawful detainer claim, in exceptional court. An unlawful detainer is the appropriate court proceeding submitted by a landlord to legally force out an occupant. In a civil suit, consisting of eviction matches, the proprietor Is known as the "plaintiff" and the renter is referred to as the "defendant.". In San Bernardino, an unlawful detainer case is a "summary" case or court process. This generally implies that the court actions progress and that the time provided the renter is extremely brief. Usually, after being served with a copy of the property manager's eviction complaint, the renter has just five days to file a written reaction. The reaction must be submitted at court and served on the property manager. Generally, a judge will hear and decide the case at trial after a response is submitted. The court's eviction procedure guarantees the occupant of their right to their constitutional right to due procedure, and a trial, in the event the tenant believes that the landlord has no right to kick out the renter. The property owner should use this courtroom procedure to force out the renter; the landlord can not make use of self-help steps to cause the occupant to vacate. These are called "self-help" expulsions. Self-help evictions are prohibited, a landlord may not physically remove, deny access, or lock out the occupant, effort to cut off energies, such as electrical energy, gas or water, remove or lock windows or doors, or take an occupant's personal effects. The property owner needs to use the courtroom treatments. If the proprietor uses criminal or illegal methods to kick out a tenant, the property owner may be subject to and responsible for the occupant's damages, along with legal charges of approximately $100 each day that the prohibited actions were used by the property manager. The court holds a hearing (trial) where the celebrations explain their case and can present their own proof. If the court discovers that the occupant has a defense, the court will not evict the occupant. If the court decides in favor of the tenant, the renter won't have to continue, and the proprietor might be purchased to pay court charges (by method of example, the tenant's filing charges). get The property manager likewise might have to pay the renter's lawyer's charges, even if the lease agreement includes a lawyer's cost clause and if an attorney represented the renter. If the court decides in favor of the property owner, the court provides a writ of belongings that orders the constable to eliminate the renter in the residential or commercial property, but offers the tenant five days from the date which the writ is served to leave. In the occasion the renter doesn't leave by the end of the fifth day, the writ of ownership authorizes the sheriff to physically remove and lock out the tenant, and seize (take) the tenant's possessions which have been left in the rental. authority The property manager is not entitled to belongings of the rental unit prior to after the renter has been gotten rid of by the plaintiff. If the eviction is based on the renter's failure to pay rent, the court also might award the proprietor Any outstanding rent. The court may award the property owner damages, court expenses, and lawyer's fees (if the lease contract or lease consists of a lawyer's fee provision and if the property owner Was represented by an attorney). Instead of quiting the rental unit, maliciously, the court might award the property manager Approximately $600 as a penalty. The judgment against the occupant will be reported on the renter's credit report for 7 years.

1 note · View note

melissawalker01 · 4 years

Text

Utah Eviction Process

In Utah, the legal term for an eviction is an ‘unlawful detainer suit.’ Landlords wishing to evict a tenant must go through a formal process and obtain a court order before they can have a tenant evicted. Any attempts to evict a tenant without a court order are illegal. Actions like turning off utilities or changing the locks without a court order are known as “self-help” evictions, and they could result in a lawsuit being successfully filed against you. Generally, the eviction process in Utah takes just a matter of days or weeks from the time the landlord files the lawsuit to the time the tenant is out of the property. 11 to 28 days is common, provided that the process has been followed correctly. If the tenant contests the eviction, it could take longer. Utah is among the more landlord-friendly states. Courts in Utah normally award triple damages (minus attorney’s fees) to landlords in the event of an eviction especially for past-due rent payments. However, it can be very difficult to actually collect on a judgment from an evicted tenant if they have few assets in their name to collect against. Common reasons for evictions in Utah include non-payment of rent and material violation of lease terms. Landlords can also file nuisance evictions due to suspected criminal activity on the premises, loud parties, rowdy behavior, gambling, and the like.

youtube

The landlord must sufficiently demonstrate to the courts that the tenant has been causing a nuisance. You cannot evict unless you have a court order authorizing you to take possession of the property. You can’t evict if you are illegally discriminating against a protected class. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and pregnancy. In addition, Utah state law prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of color or source of income. Before you can file for an eviction, you must provide a formal written notice to the tenant to pay rent, correct the lease violation, or vacate the premises. If you’re evicting because of a violation of the lease, then you would present the tenant with a 3-Day Notice to Quit or Perform Covenant. Utah law allows you to present this notice in person to the tenant; to mail it to the tenant’s residence via registered or certified mail; or to leave the notice with a person of suitable age and discretion at the residence. If you cannot find anyone suitable at the residence, then you may post the notice in a conspicuous place on the property. Court officials will deliver a summons to the tenant alerting them of the lawsuit, as well as the time and location of the hearing. If the defendant wants to contest the eviction, they can state their case at the hearing.

Utah law allows landlords to recover attorney’s fees if they win the lawsuit, provided that a provision stating such is in the lease signed by the tenant. Once you win your eviction hearing, you can apply for a writ of restitution from the court. The writ of restitution generally directs the tenant to vacate the premises within 3 days (though occasionally the timeline could be shorter—especially where vandalism or property damage is threatened or suspected). You can serve or post this notice on the property, but you must also provide a blank request for a hearing along with the notice to vacate. (You must provide proof of service to the court). If you receive an eviction notice, you should first try talking to your landlord. You may be able to come to an agreement without going to court. An eviction will cost both of you money (as well as time), and your landlord may be willing to stop the eviction if you agree to certain terms, such as paying rent you owe or stopping behavior that violates the lease. If you can’t come to an agreement that prevents you from moving out, perhaps you can agree on a certain date and time for when you will move out of the rental unit.

youtube

If you are being evicted for not paying rent or violating the lease, then your eviction notice will state the reason for the eviction. If you comply with the eviction notice by either paying all the rent due and owing or correcting the lease violation, then, in Utah, the landlord must not proceed with the eviction (Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-802). If you are not able to comply with the eviction notice within the time period stated in the notice, then you should talk to your landlord. For example, if you are being evicted for failure to pay rent, you will receive a three-day notice to remedy. If you can’t pay the rent in full within three days but you could by the end of the week, you should talk to your landlord to see if you can arrange to pay later. If your landlord agrees to terms that are different from the eviction notice, then you should get the agreement in writing. If you do not comply with the eviction notice and you and your landlord are not able to reach an agreement, then your landlord can file the eviction lawsuit with the court. You will receive a copy of the paperwork after your landlord files, and you will then be required to file an answer in response to your landlord’s complaint. An answer is a document that allows you to state the reasons why you should not be evicted. This is where you need to put any defences to the eviction, such as the landlord evicting you based on discrimination.

In Utah, it is illegal for a landlord to discriminate against a tenant based on source of income, race, or religion, among other things. If your landlord is evicting you based on one of these protected classes, then you can use that as a defense against the eviction (see the federal Fair Housing Act and the Utah Fair Housing Act). For more ideas on possible defenses against an eviction, see Tenant Defenses to Evictions in Utah. You should also contact a lawyer to ensure you are using the best defenses available to you. If you do file an answer, then a hearing will be scheduled. You must attend this hearing. At the hearing, the judge will consider both sides of the argument and make a decision regarding the eviction. Even if you don’t have any defenses against the eviction, you should still attend the hearing and talk to the judge. Depending on your circumstances (such as if you have minor children living at home or health issues), the judge might not schedule the eviction right away. The judge might give you a little extra time to prepare and move out of the rental unit before ordering a sheriff to perform the eviction. Keep in mind, though, that you will still owe your landlord rent until you move out of the rental unit.

youtube

The eviction process begins with serving an eviction notice. Along with the eviction notice, we will personally serve an eviction demand letter letting your tenants know that they must comply with the eviction notices or face an eviction lawsuit. Selecting the correct eviction notice is critical because it forms the foundation of the eviction. If the tenants have caused multiple violations, the landlord should serve multiple notices that apply to the situation. This provides the landlord with a stronger eviction case because it provides multiple grounds for eviction (we don’t have to prove all of the notices, we only have to prove one notice to justify the eviction). Failing to provide proper notice to a tenant can easily result in a judge dismissing your entire eviction. If the tenant fails to comply with the eviction notices, the landlord must file an eviction lawsuit with the court. Most evictions are filed the same day and completed 2-3 weeks later with the locks being changed. Once the eviction case is filed we work through the case until the sheriff or constable is able to change the locks. Lawsuits can be complex and there are multiple reasons you should hire an attorney.

If not done properly, your case may be delayed or you may have to start the entire process over. Civil lawsuits in Utah’s District Court often take months or years before a judge renders a decision. If forced to wait through the regular timelines, landlords would often face default on their mortgage which may result in foreclosure. In order to avoid this result, and to provide landlords with relief from dead-beat tenants, Utah law provides landlords several significant opportunities to speed up the eviction process and have a judge review the case. If done properly, evictions can typically be resolved within days or weeks as opposed to months or years. Even though you may think that it will be easier to simply evict tenants without going through the necessary steps, it is illegal in all states to do a self-help eviction. You must follow the rules and regulations in your state. If you do have a situation that meets one of those categories and you have proof of it, then you can officially start the eviction process.

To do that, the first thing you will have to do is provide the tenants with a formal eviction notice. In most states, this is the first part of the legal eviction procedure. You will need to look at your local laws to determine how many days’ notice you need to provide to the tenants. This formal eviction notice is usually a document that is fairly simple in nature. It will provide the tenants with an ultimatum that will require them to fix the issue in order to avoid the eviction. For example, if they are behind on rent, the notice would detail that you need to receive the full rental amount in a set amount of days in order to avoid eviction. When you are creating your eviction notice, these are a few things to keep in mind:

• Include a specific date for them to either remedy the situation or vacate the property before you file for an eviction. • Detail how much they owe you (if the issue is failure to pay rent) including any fees. • Make sure you post this notice within the set amount of days to go along with the ultimatum date so you meet your local legal requirements. • Put the notice on their front door. You should also send it to them through certified mail with a return receipt requested through USPS so you can verify that it was received by them. You may even want to check with your state laws to see if a specialized service company is required for this step. If so, you will have to pay them a small fee to deliver the notice. • Consider using an eviction notice document to ensure that you fulfill all of the necessary aspects and can add in components that you require.

Once you have sent the eviction notice, the ball is in their court. In some cases, this may be enough for them to take care of the issue or move out. In fact, there are many evictions that never have to move past this point because they are fixed by the tenant after the notice has been delivered. However, this is not always the case. If nothing has changed since the eviction notice was sent and the deadline provided to the tenants has come and gone, then your next step is to file the eviction with your local courts. If you do have to move forward with the eviction process, you will need to go to your local courthouse to file. Typically, you will have to pay a fee to file the eviction; the amount for the fee will depend on your local courthouse. Once you have filed, the clerk may or may not immediately give you a court date. You may have to wait for the court notice to be mailed to you directly.

The court will also notify the tenant for you in the form of a summons. Evictions can be very stressful for all parties involved. Once you go through it for the first time as a landlord, you will want to take extra steps in order to prevent it from happening again in the future. While there is no way you can completely eliminate the possibility of eviction for one of your tenants, you can greatly reduce the probability of it happening by conducting background checks and credit checks for all applicants and thoroughly checking references. While it may cost you a little bit more in the beginning, it will save you a lot of time and money from pursuing an eviction later. A landlord can’t begin an eviction lawsuit without first legally terminating the tenancy. This means giving the tenant written notice, as specified in the state’s termination statute. If the tenant doesn’t move (or reform—for example, by paying the rent or finding a new home for the dog), you can then file a lawsuit to evict. (Technically, this is called an unlawful detainer, or UD, lawsuit.)

youtube

State laws set out detailed requirements to end a tenancy. Different types of termination notices are required for different types of situations, and each state has its own procedures as to how termination notices and eviction papers must be written and delivered (“served”). An eviction notice is meant to inform tenants that a legal process of eviction is about to begin if the landlord grievance cannot be resolved. If the eviction is not based on a particular grievance, there is generally a much longer deadline to respond – up to 30-60 days (as opposed to 3-5 days for many issue-specific notices in some jurisdictions).

If the issue is confronted and legal requirements are adhered to quickly and competently, a tenant may be able to delay the process for weeks or even months, or even prevent the eviction from happening altogether. In any jurisdiction, an eviction notice must provide all the information a tenant may need to understand the landlord’s reason for eviction, and all the information needed to respond within required time frames, in order to be valid. Legal eviction processes begin only if a tenant doesn’t use that information and respond appropriately before the deadline. Courts determine what kind of information is necessary and how it must be presented. In most states, a landlord can give an eviction notice for a tenant to move without giving any reason. The time allowed under state law for such a notice is usually 30 or 60 days, but it may be as short as 20 days or as long as 90 days. There may be different time periods if the tenant has lived in the unit for a long time, is a senior citizen or is disabled. The requirements also vary if the tenant is receiving federal housing assistance, or if the reason for the eviction is a condo conversion. Some states or cities require landlords to pay relocation expenses to senior citizens or disabled tenants or for units that are being converted to condos. Despite your best efforts to build a good relationship with your tenant, sometimes the relationship goes sour. Even if you’re a good landlord, you’ll probably have to go through the eviction process at least once in your career. Maybe a tenant didn’t pay the rent, maybe he’s disrupting the other tenants, or maybe she’s damaged your rental property. If you wish to evict a renter before the expiry of the Utah landlord-tenant lease agreement, you must have a cause.

In Utah, you may legally evict a renter for any of the following reasons: • Expiration of a lease • Wastage or nuisance • Violations of the lease agreement, and; • Non-payment of rent

Also, you cannot evict if you’re legally discriminating against a protected class. The protected classes are on the basis of pregnancy, familial status, national origin, sex, religion, and race. Again, Utah’s evictions law prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of source of income or color. Remember, the renter will also be given a chance to present their case during the eviction proceedings. As such, if you’re in violation of any of the lease terms, the case could be ruled against you.

Free Initial Consultation with Lawyer

It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. Legal problems come to everyone. Whether it’s your son who gets in a car wreck, your uncle who loses his job and needs to file for bankruptcy, your sister’s brother who’s getting divorced, or a grandparent that passes away without a will -all of us have legal issues and questions that arise. So when you have a law question, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you!

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Helpful Articles

Utah Divorce Code 30-3-11.2

Best Attorney 84084

Parental Kidnapping

Timeshare Law

Domestic Partnership Law

Rule 15c2-11 Interdealer Quoatation

{ "@context": "http://schema.org/", "@type": "Product", "name": "ascentlawfirm", "description": "Ascent <a href="https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-law/" >Law helps you in divorce, bankruptcy, probate, business or criminal cases in Utah, call 801-676-5506 for a free consultation today. We want to help you. ", "brand": { "@type": "Thing", "name": "ascentlawfirm" }, "aggregateRating": { "@type": "AggregateRating", "ratingValue": "4.9", "ratingCount": "118" }, "offers": { "@type": "Offer", "priceCurrency": "USD" } }

The post Utah Eviction Process first appeared on Michael Anderson.

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/utah-eviction-process/ from Divorce Lawyer Nelson Farms Utah https://divorcelawyernelsonfarmsutah.tumblr.com/post/630049305587220480

0 notes

mayarosa47 · 4 years

Text

Utah Eviction Process

In Utah, you may legally evict a renter for any of the following reasons: • Expiration of a lease • Wastage or nuisance • Violations of the lease agreement, and; • Non-payment of rent

Free Initial Consultation with Lawyer

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Helpful Articles

Utah Divorce Code 30-3-11.2

Best Attorney 84084

Parental Kidnapping

Timeshare Law

Domestic Partnership Law

Rule 15c2-11 Interdealer Quoatation

The post Utah Eviction Process first appeared on Michael Anderson.

from https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/utah-eviction-process/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah - Blog http://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.weebly.com/blog/utah-eviction-process

0 notes

coming-from-hell · 4 years

Text

Utah Eviction Process

youtube

In Utah, you may legally evict a renter for any of the following reasons: • Expiration of a lease • Wastage or nuisance • Violations of the lease agreement, and; • Non-payment of rent

Free Initial Consultation with Lawyer

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Helpful Articles

Utah Divorce Code 30-3-11.2

Best Attorney 84084

Parental Kidnapping

Timeshare Law

Domestic Partnership Law

Rule 15c2-11 Interdealer Quoatation

The post Utah Eviction Process first appeared on Michael Anderson.

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/utah-eviction-process/

0 notes

divorcelawyergunnisonutah · 4 years

Text

Utah Eviction Process

youtube

In Utah, you may legally evict a renter for any of the following reasons: • Expiration of a lease • Wastage or nuisance • Violations of the lease agreement, and; • Non-payment of rent

Free Initial Consultation with Lawyer

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Helpful Articles

Utah Divorce Code 30-3-11.2

Best Attorney 84084

Parental Kidnapping

Timeshare Law

Domestic Partnership Law

Rule 15c2-11 Interdealer Quoatation

The post Utah Eviction Process first appeared on Michael Anderson.

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/utah-eviction-process/

0 notes

ericfruits · 4 years

Text

Judge Reprimanded

The Indiana Lawyer reports on a judicial sanction

The judge of the Adams County Drug Court has received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court after being found in violation of four judicial ethics rules related to his dispute with other county officials on behalf of his drug court coordinator.

Adams Superior Judge Patrick R. Miller received the reprimand Thursday after the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications instituted formal proceedings against him in March.

The discipline traces back to 2015, when drug court coordinator Kelly Sickafoose – identified only as “Coordinator” in the Supreme Court’s disciplinary order but identified by name in other public court documents – was hired as a contractor who reported directly to Miller.

The dispute arose the following year when Adams County Auditor Mary Beery, at the request of the county council and board of commissioners, declined to pay Sickafoose county benefits only available to full-time employees, not contractors. As the county continued to withhold public benefits through March 2017, Sickafoose’s attorney, J. Michael Loomis, was negotiating with the county attorney to reach a settlement on a tort claim Sickafoose had filed against Beery.

The following June, Miller issued an order requiring Beery to provide proof of payment to Sickafoose within 48 hours on threat of contempt. The case was then stayed on an emergency writ of mandamus and prohibition sought by Beery, but when the stay was lifted a few days later, a special county attorney told Miller the disputed claims had been paid.

The county attorney also requested a special judge, and now-retired Judge Thomas Hakes of Huntington County took over the case. Miller sent a letter to Hakes – on Adams County letterhead, the Supreme Court noted – asking that Beery be held in contempt.

Meanwhile, Loomis continued communicating with the special Adams County attorney, “giving the impression that he had strategized with Judge Miller on Coordinator’s claims. Judge Miller was aware of these emails but took no steps to correct the impression that Loomis was speaking on his behalf.”

Then in October 2017, Miller told the county attorney that he had drafted a contempt complaint against the auditor, but he suggested he would not file it if he was offered a settlement. County officials rejected Miller’s offer, and another special judge – Kenton Kiracofe of Wells County – entered judgment in favor of Beery.

In the judgment, Sickafoose was ordered to pay Beery $16,463.50 in attorney fees. Sicakfoose appealed, but a divided Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

In the Thursday order approving the statement of circumstances and conditional agreement of discipline, the Supreme Court agreed with the parties that Miller violated four provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, including:

Rule 1.1, requiring a judge to comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct;

Rule 1.2, requiring a judge to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary,” and to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety”;

Rule 1.3, providing that judges “shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so”; and

Rule 3.10, prohibiting a judge from practicing law.

Miller’s act of committing misconduct in his official capacity was cited as an aggravating factor against him, but his cooperation and remorse were counted as mitigators. The Supreme Court also pointed to the public benefit of the Adams County Drug Court.

“Here, though Judge Miller disqualified himself from the dispute between Coordinator and the Auditor, he continued to negotiate on Coordinator’s behalf – both in his capacity as judge and behind the scenes with Coordinator’s attorney,” the Supreme Court wrote. “These discussions concluded with an ultimatum in which Judge Miller threatened the Auditor with contempt unless Coordinator was offered a substantial settlement from public funds. Such blatant abuses of judicial power ‘diminish[] public confidence in the judiciary’ and ‘erode the public’s perception of the courts as dispensers of impartial justice.’ In Re Van Rider, 715 N.E.2d 402, 404 (Ind. 1999).”

Miller was also given credit for his negotiations with the JQC.

The public reprimand ends the disciplinary proceeding against the judge. All justices concurred in In the Matter of the Honorable Patrick R. Miller, Judge of the Adams Superior Court, 20S-JD-108.

According to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, Miller was admitted to the practice of law in Indiana in 1991 and has no prior disciplinary history.

Indiana Lawyer has reached out to Miller’s counsel for comment on the reprimand.

(Mike Frisch)

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2020/05/the-indiana-lawyer-reports-on-a-judicial-sanction-the-judge-of-the-adams-county-drug-court-has-received-a-public-reprimand-f.html

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes

jacobhinkley · 6 years

Text

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Petitions Today but RBI Ban Stays

India’s Supreme Court heard the petitions against the crypto banking ban by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) today. After hearing some arguments from both sides, the court decided to set another hearing date, allowing some of the regulators involved to respond to the petitions.

Also read: Yahoo! Japan Confirms Entrance Into the Crypto Space

Supreme Court Hearing on July 20

The long-awaited hearing at which the Supreme Court of India was scheduled to address all of the petitions against the crypto banking ban by the country’s central bank has finally taken place.

Today’s hearing follows the hearing on July 3 of the petition by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI). The court did not grant a stay against the ban at that time. Last week, the central bank responded to a representation by the association but did not change its stance on crypto.

The latest chapter of the courtroom saga did not see an overturn of the ban. The court also did not hear all arguments by both sides. Crypto Kanoon, a platform engaged in crypto regulatory analysis, legal awareness and news, detailed:

Limited arguments were advanced on behalf of IAMAI and RBI today.

Another Hearing Date Set

There are at least five writ petitions filed against the RBI ban. However, according to Crypto Kanoon, “SEBI [the Securities and Exchange Board of India] and few others have not filed their response to the petition seeking regulation…All (remaining) parties to file their reply within 4 weeks.”

Sohail Merchant, CEO of crypto exchange Pocketbits, commented on the outcome of today’s hearing:

Final hearing [is] slated for 11th of September. Now that is the Judgement Day.

According to lawyers familiar with the case, the central bank has been challenged on two grounds. They concern article 19(1) (g) and article 14 of the Indian constitution. The former “allows citizens to enjoy the right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business,” Quartz explained, adding that the latter “prohibits discrimination and mandates equal protection under the law for all.”

P2P Services Live

In response to the RBI banking ban, a number of crypto exchanges in the country have set up peer-to-peer (P2P) services.

Koinex launched its P2P platform called Loop on July 17. “Loop is a peer-to-peer fiat to crypto trading platform where registered users can trade in cryptos with other registered users in INR,” the exchange described.

“To ensure user safety, a built-in escrow system is employed which releases the cryptocurrency only after the seller double confirms the exact payment of the trade.” According to its website, the service currently offers the buying and selling of BTC, ETH, and XRP without network or transaction fees.

Last week, Wazirx launched its P2P service, also without network or transaction fees. The exchange recently claimed to have 125,000 users on its main platform after operating for four months. Meanwhile, Coindelta is also preparing to launch a P2P service called Flux.

What do you think of the Supreme Court hearing today? Do you think RBI’s ban will eventually be lifted? Let us know in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

The post Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Petitions Today but RBI Ban Stays appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Petitions Today but RBI Ban Stays published first on https://medium.com/@smartoptions

0 notes

bowsetter · 6 years

Text

Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Petitions Today but RBI Ban Stays

Also read: Yahoo! Japan Confirms Entrance Into the Crypto Space

Supreme Court Hearing on July 20

The long-awaited hearing at which the Supreme Court of India was scheduled to address all of the petitions against the crypto banking ban by the country’s central bank has finally taken place.

Limited arguments were advanced on behalf of IAMAI and RBI today.

Another Hearing Date Set

Sohail Merchant, CEO of crypto exchange Pocketbits, commented on the outcome of today’s hearing:

Final hearing [is] slated for 11th of September. Now that is the Judgement Day.

P2P Services Live

In response to the RBI banking ban, a number of crypto exchanges in the country have set up peer-to-peer (P2P) services.

What do you think of the Supreme Court hearing today? Do you think RBI’s ban will eventually be lifted? Let us know in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

The post Indian Supreme Court Heard Crypto Petitions Today but RBI Ban Stays appeared first on Bitcoin News.

READ MORE http://bit.ly/2uNir0r

#cryptocurrency #cryptocurrency news #bitcoin #cryptocurrency market #crypto #blockchain #best cryptocurren

0 notes

simonconsultancypage · 4 years

Text

Is There an Alternative to the Status Quo on Merger Objection Lawsuits?

These days just about every public company merger transaction draws at least one merger objection lawsuit. These lawsuits formerly were filed in Delaware state court alleging violations of Delaware law, but since the 2016 Delaware Chancery Court decision in the Trulia case, in which the court expressed its distaste for this type of litigation, the lawsuits have been filed in federal court based on alleged violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These cases, through frequently filed, are rarely litigated. They typically are resolved by the defendants’ voluntary insertion of supplemental proxy disclosures and agreement to pay the plaintiff a “mootness” fee.

However, in a recent case a corporate defendant refused to update the proxy and succeeded in getting the case dismissed. As discussed in a recent law firm memo about the dismissal ruling, the “usual playbook” for these kinds of cases – making supplemental disclosures and paying a mootness fee – may not be the best approach, and the ruling itself may provide ammunition for companies that want to try an “alternative to the status quo.”

District of Connecticut Judge Michael P. Shea’s April 16, 2020 ruling on the company’s motion to dismiss in the SI Financial case can be found here. The Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton memo appeared as a July 12, 2020 post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance entitled “Doubt on Merger Disclosure Claims in a Rare Federal Court Decision” (here).

Background

In December 2018, SI Financial Group, a New England financial services company, announced that it was going to merger into Berkshire Hills Bancorp. SI filed its preliminary proxy on February 4, 2019, after which a shareholder plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court in Connecticut alleging that material information had been omitted from the proxy.

Among other things, the plaintiff alleged that the proxy omitted information about an alternative bid the SI board had rejected; background information about SI’s financial advisors fairness opinion and analysis; and details about SI insiders’ interests in the merger. The plaintiff alleged that in making these omissions the defendants had violated Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Contrary to the usual pattern of events, SI refused to make any supplemental disclosures. The plaintiff failed to make any move to seek a preliminary injunction blocking the merger and the merger closed on May 17, 2019. Following the merger, the litigation continued in the form of a damages lawsuit. SI filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim under Section 14.

The April 16, 2020 Ruling

In his April 16, 2020 order, Judge Shea granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In making this ruling, Judge Shea contrasted the pleading standard under Section 14 with the duty of disclosure under Delaware law. Delaware law, Judge Shea said, “includes a general prohibition on the omission of material facts” when a board of directors is seeking shareholder action.

By contrast, he said, an alleged omission in a proxy statement violates Section 14 (and applicable rules) only if “the SEC regulations specifically require disclosure of the omitted information in a proxy statement, or the omission makes other statements in the proxy statement materially false and misleading.” Thus, while it may be sufficient under Delaware law to plead the omission of a material fact, that is not enough to plead a claim under Section 14.

Judge Shea concluded that the plaintiff had essentially alleged that the omitted information would have been helpful to shareholders; however, this was insufficient. He said, “As helpful as this information might have been to investors, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting that its absence made any statement in the Proxy misleading. And he certainly does not specify any statement that was made misleading as a result of these omissions, let along provide ‘the reason or reasons why the statement was misleading.” He added that the plaintiff did not allege “except in a conclusory fashion” how the disclosure of the omitted information “would have changed the overall picture of the transaction presented by the Proxy.”

Discussion

On the one hand, Judge Shea’s ruling in the SI Financial case suggests that many defendants who want to fight merger objection suits have substantial grounds on which to rely. As the authors of the law firm memo put it, the SI Financial case “demonstrates that it is very difficult for stockholder plaintiffs to plead a viable Section 14 claim in a strike suit merger case. The typical Section 14 case, the memo’s authors note, “does not come close to meeting the standard articulated in SI Financial” – which, the authors note, is hardly surprising as in most cases the plaintiffs have no idea what the omitted facts are, and no means of discovery or for a books and records inspection.

So does that mean more defendants will be fighting these cases rather than just paying the plaintiffs’ lawyer to go away? Unfortunately, it may not. The usual process for disposing of these cases – making a few meaningless changes to the proxy and paying the plaintiffs’ lawyers a modest sum – costs so little for most defendants that the alternative seems less than compelling. The participants to the merger deal also don’t want to risk delaying the transaction or face other litigation risks. Also, most merger transaction participants (particularly the target companies) are not likely to be repeat participants in this type of litigation, so they may feel little incentive to trouble themselves to try to address a systemic problem.

But does that mean, the memo’s authors ask, that the “proliferation” of Section 14 merger objection lawsuits is “inevitable”? The authors suggest that there are several ways that the pace of these cases might be slowed, or even ended. There are, the authors suggest, a number of considerations that “highlight the fact that defendants have options” and that “should give ammunition to companies and boards that want to consider … an alternative to the status quo.”

First, even though defendants may lack the incentives, if more defendants refused to make supplemental disclosures and pay mootness fees, these cases would quickly become both more expensive and less lucrative for the small number of plaintiffs’ firms that file most of these lawsuits – which would, in turn, “likely discourage such cases from being filed in the first place.

Second, while most merger participants are not repeat players, there are a number of other companies that are serial acquirers and that may want “to pursue a public strategy of refusing to settle these cases as a way of discouraging the plaintiffs’ bar.”

Third, there is an important case pending in the Seventh Circuit that could have a substantial impact on these cases. As I noted at the time (here), in June 2019, Northern District of Illinois Judge Thomas Durkin abrogated the settlement of a merger objection lawsuit and ordered the plaintiffs’ counsel to disgorge the $322,000 mootness fee that the defendants had agreed to pay. Judge Durkin expressly found that the additional disclosures the defendants had made were “worthless to shareholders” and concluded that the mootness fee was not justified. (He also had a lot of choice words about this type of litigation.) As discussed here, Judge Durkin’s mootness fee ruling is on appeal to the Seventh Circuit. If Judge Durkin’s ruling were to be affirmed, it could have a substantial impact on the filing of merger objection lawsuits, at least in the Seventh Circuit.

Fourth, there are other arguments defendants may raise as well; among other things, defendants could argue that the PSLRA bars attorneys’ fees when plaintiffs achieve only a non-monetary recovery. Also, in light of the fact that most Section 14 actions have little chance of surviving a motion to dismiss, courts could enforce the PSLRA’s mandatory sanctions provision for violations of Rule 11.

Finally, another defendant could try to raise the argument that there is no private right of action under 14(e) (relating to tender offers), as had been argued in the case that was before the U.S. Supreme Court in Varjabedian v. Emulex Corporation. As discussed here, in January 2019, the Court had granted a writ of certiorari in the case to take up the question about the existence of a private right of action for misrepresentations in connection with a tender offer. However, the court did not reach the merits of the case, as it dismissed the writ as having been improvidently granted before ruling on the case. Another defendant could take up this argument, but, as the memo’s authors’ note, the impact of the case would be limited to tender offer cases and “would not likely have an immediate impact on cases involving traditional mergers, in which the company issues a proxy statement governed by Section 14(a).”

Judge Shea’s ruling in the SI Financial case and the authors’ suggestions of other ways that companies might try to fight merger objection suits are heartening. I have long argued, along with numerous other observers, that the merger objection lawsuit “racket” is a curse on the system the effectively imposes a process tax (to be paid the plaintiffs’ lawyers) on the parties to merger transactions in the U.S.

Unfortunately any progress toward overcoming this litigation curse depends on defendant companies sidestepping the usual, low-friction means of getting rid of these cases, in order to fight a systemic problem. Because they are unlikely to be repeat litigants, most companies may feel there is little incentive for them to get involved in trying to fight this curse. While the memo’s authors optimistically point to the ways defendants might fight these cases, the reality is that few defendants will actually fight. That is why the plaintiffs’ lawyers continue to cynically file these kinds of cases, they know they can score a small fee without much bother or fight.

It also is important to note that while other defendants might be heartened by Judge Shea’s ruling in the SI Financial case, the plaintiff in the case has filed a notice of appeal, so there could be more of this story to be heard.

The appeal in the Seventh Circuit may have some promise, at least with respect to cases within the Seventh Circuit. However, while I find Judge Durkin’s district court opinion in the Akorn case compelling, on appeal the plaintiffs’ lawyers fighting to retain their mootness fee have raised important questions about the district court’s ability to abrogate the settlement and order the disgorgement of the fees. It remains to be seen how this case will fare on appeal.

The surest remedy could be legislative; Congress could, for example, specify that there is no private right of action at all under Section 14. That would force the plaintiffs’ back on their state court remedies. Alternatively, Congress could require court approval of the payment of mootness fees in Section 14 cases, or otherwise require Court supervision of the resolution of Section 14 cases, as was suggested in a recent guest post on this site. Unfortunately, the likelihood of this type of reform seems remote given our current divided and distracted Congress.

In the end, it does seem like the only thing that is really going to help here is for more defendants to fight these cases rather than just rolling over. The more the plaintiffs’ lawyers have to fight these kinds of cases, the fewer of them they will file. As the law firm memo’s authors note, settlement is “not inevitably the best course” for merger objection lawsuit defendants”; defendants “should seriously consider whether the usual playbook is still the best approach.”

Is There an Alternative to the Status Quo on Merger Objection Lawsuits? published first on http://simonconsultancypage.tumblr.com/

0 notes

brightquang · 6 years

Link

Dear Former speaker House Newt Gingrich sir,

I have all reading for your emails and all of my leaderships have been sending emails to me. However, this time I have busily been doing for my case of the Vietnam War when my ballot will carefully vote for the excellent one. As you do understand about to my ballot already.By the way, I would like to share me case of the Vietnam War to you when I have been seeking the American Justice for the Vietnam War because I do think that my services war which seemed unfairness to according to the United States law.Respectfully Yours

Home - Bright Quang

Within American society, Bright Quang sees the social ill called modern slavery in capitalism and posits ways to...

______________P.S.

Table of Contents

If you are a lawyer of International law, you may review the case of the Vietnam War. If you are a law of Divorce, family or traffic law , you can’t review to my case of the Vietnam War . Because the American Court did not allow lawyers to helping for International law when they did not have International Law license. The case of the Vietnam war is complex, which is just belongs to International Law- and in fact, the Paris Peace Accords, 22 U.S.C§§1571_1604.December 23, 1950 Pub. L 329–81st Congress, 63 Stat 714, and 50 U.S.C. §4105- Prisoners of War-June 24, 1970 are belongs to the International Law because the United States Congress were approved.

According to 28 U.S.C § 1346. June 25,1948, which is belongs to American President. In fact, the President Kennedy has had orders to murder president Ngo Dinh Diem. But the American lawyers have used to 28 U.S.C. § 1346.b-June 25, 1948, which is belongs to public agency. So, almost of the American lawyers have using this chapter, which is belongs to the Kissinger- however, the American Court did not allow to Federal Tort Clam Act if the petitioner is against to Public Agency without true evidences.

Because my case of the Vietnam was is belongs to International law- and therefore, I use Self help code when I do exactly prove the United States statutory of the Vietnam War.

If you are unable to review to the case of the Vietnam War, you should review to Table of Contents below. because the government of the United States of America could not deceive us “Republic of Vietnam” by its injustice power without law.

Finally, If you are patriotic Republic of Vietnam, you should review to Table of Contents when I carry out the Rule of law.

No._____________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

________________________________

CIV: 538988

Confidential Document: 532272

_________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

________________________________

BRIGHT QUANG

Petitioner

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent.

_________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORRARI TO

THE UNITED STATES OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

_______________________

Self Help: Bright Quang

217 5th Ave # 8

Redwood City, CA 94063

(TEL) 650–278–9542

(Email) [email protected]

CAPITAL CASE

QUESTION/PRESENTED

I. How does he make a claim for Federal Tort Claims Act l House.gov for his lost fortune of investment, his Republic of Vietnam, and imprisoned benefits Insurance of the Vietnam War- whether his personal injuries, his father who was death without governments duties, which were not give any Death Certificate when Republic of Vietnam and the United States of America were partnerships each other.

II. What did his family and he grant for livelihood during they were left on the battlefield of the Vietnam War without regrets by Foreign Assistance Act of the United States of America in 1963, because of Socialism Republic of Vietnam did not have any international relations with the government of the US and Republic of Vietnam.

III. Would somehow can the defendant’s statutory 28 U.S.C § 1346. June 25,1948 understand about to burden sufferings and unluckiness of the family plaintiff. During, his human dignity was humiliated by his allied partnership and to should he do for defendant’s US that’s self confessed wrongful actions of his litigation.

IV. Whether the United States of America exactly expressed the righteousness, the human rights, the ethics, and the equality by the United States Constitution, if not, the Justice of arrogance of negligence of undisciplined-soldier of bankruptcy was the United States of America of the Vietnam War.

TABLE OF PARTIES

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

...................................................................................................................Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED……………………………………………………………………….. i

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA……………………………………………. i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………. …………………. vii

OPINIONS BELOW …………………………… …………………………………… 1

JURISDICTION ……………………………………………………………………….. 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….. 1

BACKGROUND………………………………………………………………………..2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND………………………………. 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………………………..1..to..55

APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………57 to 308

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………iv to vii

S. 484 BRING THEM HOME ALIVE………………………………………………..2

9.11 PARTICULAR RIGHTS — FIRST AMENDMENT — “CITIZEN” PLAINTIFF 42 U.S.C.§1983……………………………………………………………………….3

22 U.S.C § 2451 — Pub. L 87–256§ 101, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat.527…………4

22 U.S.C. § 7103. Pub. L. 106–386, div. A, § 105.

Oct. 28, 2000–114 Stat. 1473………………………………………………………….5

22. U.S.C§ 2403.Pub. L. 87–195, pt. III, § 644, Sept. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 461…….5

18 U.S.C§ 2381, June 25,1948,Ch.645, 62 Stat 807; Pub L 103–322……………6

10 U.S.C § 2733.[a] Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 153;

Pub. L. 85–729………………………………………………………………. ……….. 6

22 U.S.C§§1571_1604. Pub. L 329–81st Congress, 63 Stat 714

December 23, 1950…………………………………………………………………….7

H.R.5490 Foreign Assistance Act of 1963…………………………………………… 7

H.R.7885- Pub. L, 88–205. Approved. December 16, 1963…��…………………..8

22 USC§ 2151 Pub. L. 87–195, pt. I, § 101, formerly § 102, Sept 4,1961……10

22 USC§ 2151n- Human Rights and development Assistance

December 20, 1975…………………………………………………………………..10

5 U.S.C. §702 -Right of Review .Sep. 6,1966………………………………………..11

18 U.S.C. § 227-Wrongfully influencing.Sep.14,2007…………………………….11

26 U.S.C. § 7701.Definition Aug.16,1954…………………………………………….12

28 U.S.C. § 1621-Perjury general-June 25, 1948……………………………………12

21 USC§ 848- Oct. 27 1970…………………………………………………………..13

1 USC§ 112a United States Treaties.- Sept. 23, 1950…………………………….14

1 USC§ 112-General Provision-July 30, 1947……………………………………….15

1 USC§ 112b. United States International agreement-Aug. 22, 1972……….16

37 U.S.C§ 552; Sep. 6,1966…………………………………………………………..16

5 U.S.C. § 552a-December 31,1974………………………………………………. 17

38 U.S.C. § 101-Definitions. Sep.2, 1958…………………………………………..18

38 U.S.C. §§ 1116–1311-Feb. 6, 1991-……………………………………………18

1 U.S.C. § 113 -July 30,1947……………………………………………………….. 18

22 U.S.C. § 7108. — Sep.22, 1961………………………………………………..19

35 U.S.C. § 183 Right to compensation. April 2, 1982………………………….20

Civil Rights Action-42 U.S.C. § 1983………………………………………………….22

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims against individuals………………………………………..22

Title VI CRA of 1964–42 U.S.C. § 2000D…………………………………………..22

28 U.S.C. § 4101-Definitions; Aug. 10, 2010……………………………………..23

California Vehicle Code Section 14103,14105, and 13953……………………24

18 U.S.C. §1705 — Destruction of letter boxes or mail; June 25, 1948……25

California Civil Code§§§ 44,45a, and 46-Defamation, Libel, Slander……25

§46 Division1. person [38–86]………………………………………………..26

42 U.S.C. § 1395- Prohibition against any Federal interference;

Aug. 14, 1935……………………………………………………………………..26

17 U.S.C. § 1203 Civil remedies; Oct. 28, 1998………………………………..27

17 U.S.C. § 411-Registration and Civil infringement action;

Oct. 19, 1976……………………………………………………………………..29

42 U.S.C. §12101- Findings and purpose; July 26, 1990……………………31

CACI Nos. 3940–3949-DAMAGES-……………………………………………….33

CACI №3949.Punitive Damages_ Individual………………………………….33

28 U.S.C. § 1871 Fees; June 25, 1948………………………………………..34

44 U.S.C. § 3507- Public information collection activities;

May 22, 1995………………………………………..36

5 U.S.C. § 3579-Student loan repayments-……………………………………….37

S 2040 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism …………………………………39

50 U.S.C. §4105- Prisoners of War-June 24, 1970;…………………………..40

50 U.S.C. §4101 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the

United States; July 3, 1948-…………………………………………………………..44

28 U.S.C. § 1346b-June 25, 1948-…………………………………………………45

28 U.S.C. §2671- Definitions-June 25, 1948;………………………………….46

28 U.S.C. §2672- Administrative adjustment of Claims;

June 25, 1948………………………………………………………………………..46

28 U.S.C. §2673- Report to Congress-June 25, 1948……………………….47

28 U.S.C. §2674 Liability of United States-June 25, 1948……………….47

28 U.S.C. §2677- Compromise-June 25, 1948………………………………..48

Amendment XIV………………………………………………………………………..49

22 U.S.C. § 1622 a-U.S. Code — Unannotated Title 22. Transfer of

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States

to Department of Justice………………………………………………………………49

22 U.S.C. § 1622 b- Transfer of functions………………………………………49

22 U.S.C. § 1622c- Membership of Foreign Claims………………………..50

22 U.S.C. § 1622d- Appointment and compensation……………………….51

22 U.S.C. § 1622e- Vesting of all non-adjudicatory………………………..52

22 U.S.C. § 1622f-Foreign Relations and Intercourse- March 14, 1980……..52

22 U.S.C. § 1622 g-Independence of Foreign Claims Settlement ………………..52

18 U.S.C. § 2340A- Torture…………………………………………………………53

What does he somehow understand about to Rule of law or Rule by law of the government of the United States of America because Distort justice is national traitor?

0 notes

ericfruits · 5 years

Text

Stalingrad

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded a judgment against a debt-collecting law firm

A lawyer sued two lawyers, and each side hired more lawyers. Five years later, after “Stalingrad litigation” tactics, discovery sanctions, and dueling allegations of professional misconduct, we are left with $3,662 in damages and roughly $180,000 in attorney’s fees. We vacate and remand.

Maureen Van Hoven, a Michigan attorney, defaulted on a credit card debt with Discover several years ago. Discover hired Buckles & Buckles, a law firm, to collect the debt. The law firm filed a debt collection lawsuit in state court and won. Van Hoven didn’t pay.

Faced with a recalcitrant debtor, a creditor may use garnishment to intercept the debtor’s income at its source (say from the debtor’s employer) rather than trying to collect from the debtor herself. Post-judgment garnishment usually comes easily because the debtor already had her day in court and lost. That’s true in Michigan, where the Michigan Court Rules offer a simplified post-judgment garnishment procedure. To collect, the creditor gives the court clerk a verified statement that describes the debt and the parties. MCR 3.101(D). If everything “appears to be correct,” the clerk issues a writ of garnishment and the creditor serves it on the third party, the garnishee. MCR 3.101(D)–(E). Unless the garnishee or debtor objects, that’s usually it: The garnishee gives the money to the creditor rather than the debtor. MCR 3.101(J)(1).

Buckles & Buckles invoked the procedure to collect this debt, filing four requests for a writ of garnishment over the course of a year. Van Hoven says those requests violated the Michigan Court Rules in two ways. In each request, Buckles tacked on the costs of the request (a $15 filing fee) to the amount due. And in later garnishment requests, Buckles added the costs of prior failed garnishments, those that didn’t result in any money changing hands. Van Hoven didn’t object to the law firm’s garnishment requests in Michigan state court, as the Rules permit. MCR 3.101(K). She instead filed a class action lawsuit in federal court under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from making false statements in their dunning demands. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

More twists and turns later, Van Hoven won her class action. The court found that Buckles & Buckles owed 168 class members $3,662 in damages—$22 per person on average. Her attorneys sought $186,680 in attorney’s fees, and the court granted their request in full.

Buckles & Buckles appealed the merits ruling and the attorney’s fee award.

Plaintiff's case

Van Hoven claims that Buckles & Buckles made two types of “false, deceptive, or misleading representation[s]” under the Act when they presented their garnishment requests to the state court clerk: (1) they sought the costs of each garnishment request under Michigan law, and (2) they sought the costs of prior failed garnishments under Michigan law.

The court

All in all, when Buckles & Buckles asked for all total costs, including those of any garnishment request to date, it did not make a “false, deceptive, or misleading representation” and therefore did not violate the Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. It was a reasonable request at the time—and thus not false at the time—and by our lights reflected the best interpretation of the Rules anyway.

But

The decision of Buckles & Buckles to include the cost of prior failed garnishments is another matter. In these instances, the law firm included the costs of garnishments that failed because the garnishee did not owe the debtor any money, did not hold any property subject to garnishment, or was not the debtor’s employer. MCR 3.101(R)(2) (2014). At the time of this lawsuit, the Rules made clear that creditors were “not entitled to recover the costs of [the] garnishment” when that happened. Id.; Amendments at 6. That makes including them a false representation under the Act.

But the Act does not punish every factual and legal misrepresentation, only culpable ones. Debt collectors are protected from liability if they can show that their “violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c). Buckles & Buckles claims to have just such a procedure for potential factual misrepresentations. The law firm by the way does not argue that this defense applies to these legal misrepresentations. For good reason: It’s difficult to see how they could be “bona fide” mistakes. Instead, it argues that it included many prior failed garnishment costs by mistake. By mistakes of fact, that is: In other words, it tried and failed to prevent the costs of prior failed garnishments from being included.

The remand provides the law firm with an opportunity to make that case.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

The majority opinion concludes that Buckles & Buckles did not violate the FDCPA when it taxed consumers with court costs before those costs came due under Michigan Court Rules. It arrives at this conclusion, however, by asking the wrong question—whether the practice of Buckles & Buckles was reasonable, rather than whether it was lawful. The district court appropriately framed the question and correctly answered it under our published precedent. I would affirm its judgment holding Buckles & Buckles liable for making misleading representations in violation of the FDCPA...

The district court properly determined that Buckles & Buckles’ efforts to tax consumers with current court costs before those costs came due or with unrecoverable past costs were misleading representations in violation of the FDCPA. It also correctly granted Van Hoven’s motion in limine. These rulings relied on Supreme Court precedent, our published authority, the applicable Michigan Court Rules, and the discretion granted to a trial court. Because I would affirm the decisions below, I respectfully dissent.

(Mike Frisch)

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2020/01/the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-sixth-circuit-a-lawyer-sued-two-lawyers-and-each-side-hired-more-lawyers-five-y.html

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes