#Personal Injury Lawyer Hamilton Ohio

[thehometownlawyers]

A seasoned criminal defense attorney is able to guide individuals through the expungement process, which in some situations can help either remove a criminal charge or restrict access to who is able to find out about the offense. . Contact The Kruger & Hodges LLC Attorneys at law, 513-894-3333 today!

https://www.thehometownlawyers.com/expungement-and-sealing-of-records/

[krugerhodgesattorneys]

Kruger & Hodges Attorneys at Law

Hamilton Personal Injury Lawyer, a compassionate law practice committed to pursuing justice for our neighbors in Hamilton and the surrounding areas.

Website: https://thehometownlawyers.com/

Business email: office@thehometownlawyers.com

Ph no: (513) 894 - 3333

Service Areas: Middletown OH, Hamilton OH, Eaton OH These are our office locations but we serve all of southwest ohio inclding some larger cities so I don't know if we should limit

Social Media Links

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KrugerHodges/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/krugerhodges/

Linked-in: https://www.linkedin.com/company/kruger-hodges-llc-attorneys-at-law/

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeYcMaMaN2rb9jMlqt4EIdQ

[alexanderpetraglia]

Alexander Petraglia

Alexander Petraglia is a licensed criminal defense and family attorney who views his relationship with clients as a sacred bond. He passed his bar admissions in 2015 and has been vigorously defending his clients’ rights ever since. In a pursuit to perfect his trial skills and client care, he has graduated from Gideon’s Promise Trial Program for public defenders, one of the top trial training courses in the country. Mr. Petraglia got his B.A, J.D., and a Major in Sociology from Case Western Reserve University Law School in Cleveland, Ohio. He was a law clerk at Legal Aid Society in 2013 and spent two years at Cuyahoga County Public Defender’s Office. He also worked at Kurt Law Office and as a trial attorney as Hamilton County Public Defender. Mr. Petraglia currently works at Deters Law Office, where he has participated in medical malpractice trials, class action suits, and successful wrongful injury settlements. He is devoted to zealously protecting his clients’ health, wealth, and liberty. He has strong interpersonal skills and experience in investigating cases through interviews and site visits. When he’s not working, Alexander likes hiking with his dog and volunteering with stray animal adoption programs and local food pantries.

Elsewhere on the net: Alexander Petraglia 

https://ericdeters.com/summary-biography-of-alexander-petraglia-esq/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexander-petraglia-437b7190

https://ericdeters.com/summary-biography-of-alexander-petraglia-esq/

https://www.martindale.com/attorney/alexander-petraglia-169093644/

https://www.lawyers.com/ashtabula/ohio/alexander-petraglia-169093644-a/

https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/45238-oh-alexander-petraglia-4726273.html

https://usattorneys.com/lawyer/alexander-petraglia/

https://www.crunchbase.com/person/alexander-petraglia

[maxwellyjordan]

Argument preview: Justices to weigh constitutionality of “faithless elector” laws

2016 Electoral College map

Voters in the United States do not directly elect the president and the vice president. Instead, the Constitution instructs the states to appoint “electors,” who vote for the president and vice president. In Washington and Colorado, along with almost all other states, the electors are appointed from the same political party as the ticket that won the statewide popular vote, and they meet in early December to cast their ballots. Next week the Supreme Court will consider whether state laws that seek to control the electors’ votes violate the Constitution. It’s a fascinating legal question, but it’s also an issue that could have a significant effect on the outcome of presidential elections in the future.

The question comes to the court in two different cases, involving two different sets of electors. The first set of electors, Peter Bret Chiafalo and two others, were three of the 12 electors for the Washington Democratic Party in the 2016 presidential election. At the time, the state’s law imposed a $1,000 fine on “faithless” electors – that is, electors who do not comply with their pledge to vote for the candidate who wins the statewide vote. The second set of electors – Micheal Baca, Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich – served as three of nine electors for the Democratic Party in Colorado, which did not impose a penalty on faithless electors but instead simply required electors to vote for the candidates who won the popular vote. All the electors were appointed to serve as presidential electors after Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine won the popular vote in both Washington and Colorado.

Before the presidential electors actually voted, the electors in these cases went to court, asking federal judges to block the governments in their states from enforcing the “faithless elector” laws on the ground that the laws interfered with their right to vote freely. They wanted to be able to vote for someone other than the Clinton/Kaine ticket in the hope that doing so might move the fate of the election to the House of Representatives, which would eventually select someone other than Donald Trump as president. To that end, each of the faithless electors in Washington voted for Colin Powell for president and for someone other than Tim Kaine for vice president; their votes were sent to Congress and counted, but the state fined them $1,000 each for failing to vote for the nominee of their party. In Colorado, Micheal Baca was removed as an elector after he tried to vote for John Kasich, a Republican then serving as the governor of Ohio, instead of Clinton; Colorado election officials referred Baca to the state’s attorney general for possible perjury charges, but none were filed. The other Colorado electors, Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, ultimately cast their ballots for Clinton.

The Washington electors challenged their fines in state court, but the Washington Supreme Court (after an oral argument that you can watch here) upheld the fines. By contrast, the Colorado electors went to federal court, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed that the state’s faithless elector law violates the Constitution. Both the Washington electors and the state of Colorado asked the Supreme Court to weigh in; the Colorado electors (who are represented by the same lawyers as their Washington counterparts) agreed that the justices should take up the cases, and the Supreme Court announced in January that it would hear them.

The cases were originally scheduled for argument last week, but the arguments were postponed because of the COVID-19 crisis. And although the cases were originally consolidated – that is, slated to be argued and decided together – the court announced in early March that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would recuse herself from the Colorado case because she is friends with Polly Baca.

Before the justices can reach the merits of the two cases, they need to decide a threshold issue in the Colorado case: whether Micheal Baca has a right to sue (known as standing) at all. The state argues that he does not because as an elector he is a state official, and the Supreme Court has ruled that such officials cannot bring federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state laws that outline their official duties when they are not actually affected by the laws. (The court of appeals ruled that Polly Baca and Nemanich did not have standing because they were still able to serve as electors.) Moreover, the state adds, Micheal Baca did not suffer the kind of injury required to bring a lawsuit in federal court: “Colorado did not fine him, prosecute him, or impose any other” negative consequence that the Constitution would recognize. All that happened, the state concludes, was that Baca lost some political power.

Baca counters that because of his effort to cast a ballot for Kasich, he was removed from office and barred from voting. Colorado election officials also referred him to the state’s attorney general for possible perjury charges. That is exactly the kind of “concrete injury” that would be addressed by a ruling in his favor, Baca says, and he therefore has a legal right to sue. But in any event, he points out, the justices undoubtedly can reach the issue presented in the Washington case.

Turning to the merits of their cases, the electors argue that although Article II of the Constitution gives states the power to “appoint” electors, nothing in the Constitution suggests that the state has the power to bind electors to follow the popular vote. If it did, the electors note, the states could also – for example – ban electors “from voting for candidates who fail to release” their tax returns or visit the state.

Instead, the electors contend, the text of the Constitution supports the idea that electors have the discretion to vote however they want. For example, the Constitution’s use of the word “vote” indicates that the electors get to choose – they are not simply casting a ballot to rubber-stamp the popular vote. And the requirement that the electors vote “by ballot” supports the idea that states cannot interfere with the electors’ choices: The Framers wanted electors to “use a particularly secure, reliable, and objective voting method to ensure that the personal choice of each elector was accurately counted,” the electors write.

Quoting Alexander Hamilton, the electors contend that the Framers specifically contemplated that electors would be “free agents” who could choose the best-qualified candidates for president and vice president, even if that did not correlate with the popular vote. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, requires electors to vote separately for president and vice president. But that amendment did not affect the role of the electors themselves – even after electors in presidential elections in the years leading up to the amendment voted contrary to expectations. “The rule that had existed before the Twelfth Amendment would thus continue after the Twelfth Amendment,” the electors assure the justices: Electors “could vote as they wished.”

Historical practice also confirms that electors have the right to make their own choices when voting, the electors suggest. Congress “has counted more than 180 anomalous electoral votes for either President or Vice President” – including seven such votes in January 2017 –  and “no such votes have ever been rejected.”

The electors acknowledge that “our current political culture views the power of presidential electors differently” from the Framers, so that electors are now regarded primarily as “mere delegates” who implement the will of the people, rather than exercising their own discretion. But changes in the public’s expectations, the electors stress, cannot change the text of the Constitution.

The states, not surprisingly, have a very different view. By giving the state legislatures the right to “direct” the “Manner” by which electors will be appointed, they contend, the text of Article II allows states not only to select but also to control their electors – including by requiring them to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state’s election. This makes sense, the states say, because “the power to establish requirements for state elections, including the selection of presidential electors, ‘would mean little without the [states’] ability to enforce them.’” Indeed, the states tell the justices, unless the states had this power, they wouldn’t be able to remove electors who, for example, couldn’t meet residency or age requirements. Electors also would be able to freely “violate their oath, take a bribe, or cast a ballot for a constitutionally ineligible candidate” – all of which would render voters’ choices meaningless – unless states had the power to remove electors.

As a historical matter, the states suggest, the Electoral College was intended to be a compromise that gave the states a role in electing the president. There was no consensus at the Constitutional Convention on the role of electors, and some Framers actually had the opposite view from Hamilton, they say. The 12th Amendment was ratified so that electors could cast separate ballots for president and vice president, the states acknowledge. But by the time it was adopted, everyone understood that the role of an elector was to follow the will of a state; the amendment does not “purport to confer unbridled discretion on electors” anywhere.

The historical practice in the years following the ratification of the Constitution also confirms that “the public understood” that “electors were expected to support the prevailing party’s nominees,” the states assert. And that has in fact been the practice, as “[l]ess than one percent have ever been faithless.” Indeed, the states note, most states no longer even list the names of electors on ballots: Because there is an assumption that the electors will follow the voters’ choice, the electors’ “identities are irrelevant.”

The fact that Congress may have counted faithless ballots in the past, cast by electors from states that did not have faithless elector laws, “says little about the States’ authority to enforce their binding statutes,” the states argue. Indeed, in 2016 Congress did count ballots from states that require their electors to cast ballots conforming with the popular vote: Not only did it count the vote from the elector who replaced Micheal Baca, but it also accepted the ballot for a Minnesota elector whom the state substituted for the original elector, who had tried to vote for Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton.

The states caution the justices that a ruling in favor of the electors would lead to “bizarre and dangerous consequences. It would mean that elections for the most powerful office in our government are and always have been hollow exercises,” because electors would vote however they wanted, no matter what they had promised to do or what the popular vote in a state was. “Such a ruling would profoundly undermine public confidence in the value of participating in our democracy,” the states conclude.

When the electors urged the justices to take up their cases, they emphasized that the justices should resolve the conflicting legal views on the constitutionality of faithless elector laws now, rather than run the risk that they might have to do so in the middle of a presidential election, when the Supreme Court’s resolution of the question might determine the outcome of the election. But even if the ruling in this case does not decide the 2020 presidential election, it has the potential to be very significant indeed. A decision is expected by summer.

This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.

The post Argument preview: Justices to weigh constitutionality of “faithless elector” laws appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/argument-preview-justices-to-weigh-constitutionality-of-faithless-elector-laws/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[benrleeusa]

[John K. Ross] Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

A police schism, a profanity-laced raid, and Mustangs over Berlin.

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.

"Until now, the excessive-fines clause in the Constitution's Eighth Amendment had languished in obscurity, the Rodney Dangerfield of constitutional rights," IJ's President Scott Bullock and Legislative Analyst Nick Sibilla wrote this week in The Atlantic. But after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Timbs v. Indiana, the clause can finally get some respect. A resuscitated excessive-fines clause, they assert, could rein in civil forfeiture, municipal fines, and other forms of policing for profit. Read the whole thing here.

Black man convicted of Shreveport, La. murder by all-white jury spends nearly 30 years on death row, in solitary confinement before he's exonerated. Allegation: Law enforcement fabricated evidence, withheld exculpatory evidence, among other misdeeds. (The lead prosecutor has since apologized.) The defendants answer the complaint but later move to dismiss it. District court: It's too late to try to dismiss. Fifth Circuit: And it's too early to appeal that ruling. Go deal with the merits of the case.

Woman says she was raped by a Shreveport, La. police officer after he asked her to come in to the station. So can she sue the police chief? Fifth Circuit: Not when she didn't give details on how the chief was involved. The only evidence against him was speculation based on a third officer's refusal to testify.

Motorcyclist twice evades police, flies down US-183 outside Cisco, Tex. at over 100 mph. An officer driving an SUV ahead of the motorcyclist slows down—from 100 mph to 50 mph in seven seconds—to block the way. The cyclist slams into the SUV and dies. Fifth Circuit: And his claim slams into qualified immunity.

Karnes County, Tex. man goes to rival's granddaughter's elementary school during pickup, pantomimes shooting the rival. He's arrested for harassment. But wait! Maybe it never happened. He says he wasn't at the school that day: The sheriff's department trumped it up for political revenge. So can he sue the head honchos at the sheriff's office? Fifth Circuit: Not when he didn't give details on how management was involved.

Ohio distributes gov't money to nonprofits to address public health issues, but the money cannot go to any organization that provides or promotes "nontherapeutic abortions." (The money has long been prohibited from directly funding abortions.) Sixth Circuit (last year): Which is not OK, as it requires the surrender of constitutional rights to participate in an unrelated gov't program. Sixth Circuit (en banc): Nay nay. There is no freestanding right to perform an abortion, only the right of a woman to obtain one. Because this law affects only the former, no one is forced to sacrifice constitutional rights to obtain funding, and the law stands.

Taylor, Mich. officer pulls over driver, decides to go easy on her and tickets her for a non-moving violation. The driver, proving that no good deed goes unpunished, gives officer the finger as she drives away. The officer, proving that no insult to a police officer goes unpunished, pulls driver over again, upgrades ticket to a moving violation. Sixth Circuit: No qualified immunity for the officer; the second stop violated clearly established rights under the First and Fourth Amendments.

"Hermann Göring, head of the Luftwaffe in World War II, remarked: 'When I saw those Mustangs over Berlin, I knew that the war was lost.'" So begins the Seventh Circuit in its lesson on why, if you suspect someone has stolen your P-51 Mustang fighter, you should sue promptly rather than wait 30 years.

Indiana law makes it a felony to acquire, receive, sell, or transfer the "tissue, organs, or any other part of an aborted fetus," which Hoosier professors challenge as interfering with their medical scholarship. District court: The words "acquire," "receive," and "transfer" are unconstitutionally vague, as is the phrase "any other part." Seventh Circuit: Which would make much of the legal system invalid, as those words are ubiquitous. The law stands. Judge Hamilton, dissenting: When both the gov't lawyers and the authoring legislators run away from the apparent meaning of statutory language, there's a vagueness problem (which presents both due process and separation of powers issues).

Thanks to a quirky interaction among the bankruptcy code, the N.D. Illinois' bankruptcy practice, and Chicago parking ordinances, Chapter 13 debtors rack up thousands in parking fines with no way for the city to collect. Seventh Circuit: "Immunity from traffic laws for the duration of a Chapter 13 plan does not seem to us an outcome plausibly attributed to the Bankruptcy Code."

Illinois requires homeless sex offenders to report to law enforcement weekly, but those with fixed residences need report only quarterly. Tired of weekly updates from homeless people, some Chicago cops instruct them to list shelters as their fixed residences—knowing full well that the registrants don't reliably live there. But a schism lurks! Other police officers dislike that approach and arrest homeless people who list fictitious residences. Caught in the bureaucratic crossfire, one such offender finds himself arrested and jailed for 17 months before being acquitted. And his due process claim is not barred by the statute of limitations, says the Seventh Circuit, so it can proceed.

Decatur County, Iowa sheriff allegedly sexually harasses staff, resigns. The new acting sheriff fires the former sheriff's wife, who had worked in the department. Can she sue the acting sheriff for violating her First Amendment right to intimate association? The Eighth Circuit says no; he wasn't trying to poison her marriage; he was trying to prevent a hostile work environment.

Santa Monica, Calif. passes law allowing "home-sharing" (rentals where residents remain on site with guests) but forbidding the sort of short-term rentals pioneered by Airbnb and HomeAway.com. Airbnb and Homeaway.com: The city is requiring us to monitor and remove third-party content from our platforms, hence violating the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment. District court: Dismissed. Ninth Circuit: Just so. The city is merely restricting the companies' internal booking transactions, which falls outside the CDA. No dice on the First Amendment claim for similar reasons.

Uniformed Kansas City, Kan. police officers in two separate squad cars activate their roof lights; one officer gestures to man in a parked car to exit his vehicle. Would an ordinary person feel free to leave in those circumstances? The Tenth Circuit says no, so the man was seized and the Fourth Amendment applies.

Allegation: After a driver is pulled over for speeding and refuses a search of his vehicle, Miami police arrest driver and leave him in intentionally painful handcuffs for more than five hours, leading to permanent nerve damage and loss of sensation. Eleventh Circuit: We've granted qualified immunity in other handcuff-injury cases, but none of those involved injuries this serious to a compliant arrestee. The officer should have known better, so no immunity for him.

DeKalb County, Ga. deploys 36 officials—some wearing army fatigues and masks—to launch an unannounced, profanity-laced raid on . . . a strip club. At 5 p.m. For the sole purpose of checking the dancers' permits. Which was pretty over the top, says the club—not least because the club's colitis-ridden owner was handcuffed and forced to soil himself. Definitely over the top, agrees a jury: The county violated the Fourth Amendment and must pay over $10k. And we will not disturb that verdict, says the Eleventh Circuit. "Administrative inspections" of strips clubs are constitutional as a general matter, but the jury reasonably found that this particular sh*tshow (paraphrased) was unreasonable in scope and execution.

This week, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that property owners who assert their innocence are entitled to a prompt hearing after their property is seized. Police seized Helen Olson's car after a traffic stop, and prosecutors kept it for 18 months without giving Helen (who wasn't in the car when it was taken) an opportunity to seek judicial review of the seizure. Not good enough! Said the court: "Due process is not satisfied by a rule that allows a person's property right to turn on the whim of a prosecutor." IJ filed an amicus brief urging the court to take this course of action. Says IJ attorney Jaimie Cavanaugh: "This decision is a victory for the rights of Minnesotans who have done nothing wrong but still see law enforcement seize and hold their cars, cash or other property for months or years. It only makes sense that innocent owners should be granted a hearing within days of law enforcement seizing their property. Because of this result, there will now be additional scrutiny on law enforcement practices that amount to policing for profit."

[orlandosingless]

Personal Injury Lawyer Hamilton Ohio

from Personal Injury Lawyer Hamilton Ohio

[johnmeriggi]

Personal Injury Lawyer Hamilton Ohio Call now 1-855-855-2751 for a free, no hassle evaluation. Have you been involved in a motor vehicle accident? Do you have medical expenses? Loss of time at work? Call us today. Visit http://ift.tt/1RsZWRI for more information. by Personal Injury Attorney Network

[phoenixsingles]

Personal Injury Lawyer Hamilton Ohio Call now 1-855-855-2751 for a free, no hassle evaluation. Have you been involved in a motor vehicle accident? Do you have medical expenses? Loss of time at work? Call us today. Visit http://ift.tt/1RsZWRI for more information. by Personal Injury Attorney Network

[thehometownlawyers]

Don’t forget about your mental health after an auto accident! These injuries are hard to see but can be as debilitating as bruises and broken bones.

https://www.thehometownlawyers.com/mental-health-after-an-auto-accident/

[thehometownlawyers]

Our specialist personal injury lawyers are here to make things easier for you and your family. Every year we help thousands of people claim for personal injury Lawyer, call us 513-894-3333 today!

https://www.thehometownlawyers.com/spinal-cord-injury/

[thehometownlawyers]

If you are facing drug crimes charges, Call The Kruger & Hodges LLC Attorneys at law today. Our criminal lawyers will remain committed to obtaining the best possible results in your case. Call us 513-894-3333.

https://www.thehometownlawyers.com/drug-crimes/

[thehometownlawyers]

Have you been involved in an Ohio motorcycle accident? Contact our motorcycle accident lawyers if your accident was due to someone else’s negligence. Visit us for more info!

https://www.thehometownlawyers.com/motorcycle-accident-attorney-riding-gear/

[thehometownlawyers]

If you have suffered an injury or lost a loved one in a train crash or railroad crossing accident in the Hamilton, Ohio the train accident lawyers at The Kruger & Hodges LLC Attorneys at law are here to help.

https://www.thehometownlawyers.com/train-accident-lawyer/

[thehometownlawyers]

Injured in a vehicle accident? Get experienced legal help today. Call The Kruger & Hodges LLC Attorneys at law 513-894-3333 today!

https://www.thehometownlawyers.com/injuries-caused-by-rear-end-auto-accidents/

[thehometownlawyers]

Our truck accident lawyers can help if you've been in a truck accident. Get the compensation you deserve. Call 513-894-3333 today!

https://www.thehometownlawyers.com/truck-accidents-cargo-spills-lawyer/

[thehometownlawyers]

When motorcycle accidents occur, the resulting injuries can be particularly serious. This is why it is the responsibility of motorcycle riders and all other vehicle operators to drive with caution in order to prevent motorcycle accidents for further information please call us (513) 894 – 3333 or visit our website!

https://www.thehometownlawyers.com/avoiding-motorcycle-accidents/