Group items tagged

1 C ONSTITUTIONAL L AW O UTLINE I. The Building Blocks Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marshall - political struggle between John Adams and Federalists and successor Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans - Commissions for justices signed by Adams but not yet delivered when he left office; Jefferson administration refused to honor appointments for which commissions had not actually been delivered - Marbury : would-be justice of the peace; brought suit directly in S.Ct. sought writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver their commissions - Madison : Secretary of State for Jefferson - Which branch shall have final say interpreting the Constitution? Q1: Does Marbury have a RIGHT to commission? Q2: Does he have a REMEDY? Q3: Is remedy a MANDAMUS? Q4: Can a mandamus be issued from THIS COURT? Marshall's Decision: a. Right to Commission: Yes, on facts and law he has a legal right b. Remedy: Yes, judicial remedy will not interfere improperly with executive's constitutional discretion (Marshall acknowledged that there are some Qs which legislature is better equipped to deal with but this is not one of them) c. Mandamus not allowed i. § 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 allows Court to issue mandamus ii. Article III § 2(2) gives Court original jurisdiction in a few cases and appellate jurisdiction in the rest. Writ of mandamus not among the cases as to which original jurisdiction is conferred on S.Ct. Congressional statute at odds with Constitution d. Supremacy of Constitution: If S.Ct. identifies a conflict between const. provision and congressional statute, the Court has the authority (and the duty) to declare the statute unconstitutional and to refuse to enforce it. i. Constitution is paramount: The very purpose of written constitution is to establish fundamental and paramount law. An act which is repugnant to C cannot become law of the land. ii. Who interprets: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicia

1 C ONSTITUTIONAL L AW O UTLINE I. The Building Blocks Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marshall - political struggle between John Adams and Federalists and successor Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans - Commissions for justices signed by Adams but not yet delivered when he left office; Jefferson administration refused to honor appointments for which commissions had not actually been delivered - Marbury : would-be justice of the peace; brought suit directly in S.Ct. sought writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver their commissions - Madison : Secretary of State for Jefferson - Which branch shall have final say interpreting the Constitution? Q1: Does Marbury have a RIGHT to commission? Q2: Does he have a REMEDY? Q3: Is remedy a MANDAMUS? Q4: Can a mandamus be issued from THIS COURT? Marshall's Decision: a. Right to Commission: Yes, on facts and law he has a legal right b. Remedy: Yes, judicial remedy will not interfere improperly with executive's constitutional discretion (Marshall acknowledged that there are some Qs which legislature is better equipped to deal with but this is not one of them) c. Mandamus not allowed i. § 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 allows Court to issue mandamus ii. Article III § 2(2) gives Court original jurisdiction in a few cases and appellate jurisdiction in the rest. Writ of mandamus not among the cases as to which original jurisdiction is conferred on S.Ct. Congressional statute at odds with Constitution d. Supremacy of Constitution: If S.Ct. identifies a conflict between const. provision and congressional statute, the Court has the authority (and the duty) to declare the statute unconstitutional and to refuse to enforce it. i. Constitution is paramount: The very purpose of written constitution is to establish fundamental and paramount law. An act which is repugnant to C cannot become law of the land. ii. Who interprets: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial

1 C ONSTITUTIONAL L AW O UTLINE I. The Building Blocks Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marshall - political struggle between John Adams and Federalists and successor Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans - Commissions for justices signed by Adams but not yet delivered when he left office; Jefferson administration refused to honor appointments for which commissions had not actually been delivered - Marbury : would-be justice of the peace; brought suit directly in S.Ct. sought writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver their commissions - Madison : Secretary of State for Jefferson - Which branch shall have final say interpreting the Constitution? Q1: Does Marbury have a RIGHT to commission? Q2: Does he have a REMEDY? Q3: Is remedy a MANDAMUS? Q4: Can a mandamus be issued from THIS COURT? Marshall's Decision: a. Right to Commission: Yes, on facts and law he has a legal right b. Remedy: Yes, judicial remedy will not interfere improperly with executive's constitutional discretion (Marshall acknowledged that there are some Qs which legislature is better equipped to deal with but this is not one of them) c. Mandamus not allowed i. § 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 allows Court to issue mandamus ii. Article III § 2(2) gives Court original jurisdiction in a few cases and appellate jurisdiction in the rest. Writ of mandamus not among the cases as to which original jurisdiction is conferred on S.Ct. Congressional statute at odds with Constitution d. Supremacy of Constitution: If S.Ct. identifies a conflict between const. provision and congressional statute, the Court has the authority (and the duty) to declare the statute unconstitutional and to refuse to enforce it. i. Constitution is paramount: The very purpose of written constitution is to establish fundamental and paramount law. An act which is repugnant to C cannot become law of the land. ii. Who interprets: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial

1 Web Images Maps News Video Gmail more ▼ Shopping Groups Books Scholar Finance Blogs YouTube Calendar Photos Documents Reader Sites even more » crystalfinancial@gmail.com | Web History | My Account | Sign out Google Advanced Search Preferences Web Results 1 - 10 of about 4,940 for legal clinic helps self represented litigants for elders . ( 0.31 seconds) Search Results Self-Representation Resource Guide Jan 13, 2009 ... "Self Represented Litigants and Court and Legal Services Responses to their Needs: What We ... Provides links to various legal hotlines for the elderly. ... Starting a Court-Based Self Help Center: 12 Core Resources. ... www.ncsconline.org/wc/CourTopics/ResourceGuide.asp?topic=ProSe - 61k - Cached - Similar pages - [PDF] ACTION PLAN TO ASSIST SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML San Francisco's Action Plan will serve self-represented litigants in San ... collection, traffic, guardianship issues, and court services for elders ... (a) We are currently providing most self-help services at the Civic Center ... Cooperative Restraining Order Clinic, Volunteer Legal Services Program and Eviction ... www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/equalaccess/documents/san_francisco.pdf - Similar pages - [PDF] Notes from the Mini White House Conference on Aging Session File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML The private bar is more involved in legal services for elders ... of legal assistance to self-represented litigants, including exploration of the role of ... www.whcoa.gov/about/des_events_reports/ Legal %20Services%20Min

The National Center for State Courts, working alongside the members of the Elder Abuse and the Courts Working Group, is involved in a number of follow-up activities to develop services the courts can use. For more information on the Elder Abuse and the Courts Working Group, con-tact Brenda Uekert, Ph.D. (buekert@ncsc.dni.us) of NCSC's Research and Technol-ogy Division. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3 3Courts looking for the latest information on ways to improve jury service can turn to a new edition of Jury Trial Innovations (JTI), the National Center for State Courts' best-selling guide to techniques used nationwide to make jury service more appealing to the public and to help jurors become more effective decision makers. This new edition was updated by G. Thomas Munsterman and Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, of NCSC's Center for Jury Studies, and G. Marc White-head, chair of the Jury Initiatives Task Force of the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation, who were editors of the original edition published in 1997.This new edition looks at innova-tions courts have tried in the decade since the first edition was published, especially those involving the model of "the interactive juror"-that is, innovations focused on how jurors organize information, how to keep jurors actively involved in trial proceedings, The new edition of Jury Trial Innovations will be available in July 2006 and can be ordered through NCSC's online bookstore accessible through the "Communications" page on NCSC's Web site (www.ncsconline.org).NCSC Updates Jury Trial Innovationsand how jurors test what they see and hear against their own beliefs and values. After exploring "How Jurors Make Decisions: The Value of Trial Innovations," JTI discusses innovations in six areas:1. Jury Administration and Management 2. Voir Dire3. Pretrial Management4. Trial Procedures5. Jury Instructions and Deliberations6. Post-Verdict Co

Riverside County Sheriff's Department v. Louis Zigman, Astrid ... Real party in interest and appellant Riverside County Sheriff's Deputy Astrid Megan ... for writ of administrative mandate filed by the Riverside County Sheriff's .... who is interrogated during a law enforcement agency's internal affairs ... Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b),6 makes it clear that a law ... www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=E043187&s=CA&d=38412 - 46k - Cached - Similar pages - [PDF] 1 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH DISTRICT ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Real party in interest and appellant Riverside County Sheriff's Deputy Astrid ... petition for writ of administrative mandate filed by the Riverside County Sheriff's .... during a law enforcement agency's internal affairs investigation of .... which constitutes the administrative appeal guaranteed by Government ... www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E043187.PDF - Similar pages - [PDF] SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML practices, rather than through an external unfunded mandate. The Sheriffs Department is also subject to reviews and audits by many government agencies such as: ... completed internal affairs investigation. The Attorney General's Office ... Riverside and San Diego. Finally, through the Public Records Act. the ... www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/ocsd.pdf - Similar pages - About Lackie & Dammeier Michael makes his home in Orange County with his wife. .... Labor Experience: Chief negotiator and labor rep, Riverside Sheriff's Association, ... Mr. Lackie has extensive experience in internal affairs representation, ... including injunctions barring police agencies from violating the Bill of Rights. ... www.policeat

SEYMOUR , Chief Judge. After a joint jury trial, co-defendants Ardashir (aka Ardie) and Daryoush (aka Steve), along with Jalal (aka Jack) Rahseparian, were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. All three appealed. Jack's appeal is addressed in the companion opinion, see United States v. Rahseparian, No. 99-6031 (Nov. 7, 2000). Ardie contends on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Ardie and Steve contend a new trial is necessary due to the prosecutor's comment on their failure to testify in violation of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). Steve further claims a new trial is required because of certain incriminating hearsay statements elicited by the prosecutor in violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). We affirm. I BACKGROUND Ardie and Steve Rahseparian are the sons of Jack Rahseparian. At the time of the conduct for which they were charged, Steve resided in Altoona, Pennsylvania, Ardie resided in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and Jack resided and worked in Shawnee, Oklahoma. The government contended at trial that Ardie and Steve Rahseparian formed Genesis Marketing, a telemarketing company, through which they and their father conspired to commit and did commit mail fraud from May 1994 to May 1995. The government further successfully argued that Ardie, Steve, and Jack Rahseparian laundered the proceeds from the telemarketing scheme through Jack's business checking accounts. Brad Russell, the company's only employee other than the Rahseparians themselves, testified on behalf of the government. Mr. Russell was a personal friend of Ardie. The two worked out of Ardie's apartment in Fort Smith as the sole telemarketers for Genesis Marketing. Mr. Russell testified that he and Ardie would entice customers over the telephone to buy products, such as water purifiers and "Say No to Drugs" kits, at highly inflated pric

Planning/Needs Assessment* Provided expertise, guidance andinput to the 2006-2007 annualupdate of the 2005-2009 StrategicPlan-Strength in Aging.* Convened a public hearing on the2005-2009 Strategic Plan-Strengthin Aging annual update.Leadership Development* Hosted overview of the Ralph M. Brown Act and Conflict ofInterest by County Counsel.■ Held an Advisory Council Orientation Day to provideinformation to the Council members on Older AmericansAct, committee assignments and structure, HelpLInkpresentation, handbooks, Council reporting requirementsand an overview of the Strategic Plan on Aging.* Continued leadership participation and close allqnmentwith TACC (Triple A Council ofCalifornia).* Represented Advisory Councilon the Foundation cBoard.* Convened and chaired Housingand Transportation Standing CommitteeIntergenerational/Quality of Life Standing Committee'Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Task Force'Caregiver Standing Committee, Health/Wellness StandingCommittee, Public Relations SubcommitteeIntergovernmental Subcommittee, Ad Hoc Food BankCommittee, Ad Hoc White House Conference on AgingCommittee, ByLaws Committee, and MembershipCommittee.* Recruited three new Advisory Council members.* Attended C4A Annual Meeting and Allied Conference inIrvine, California. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 Submitted Older Americans Act Reauthorization, OlderCa ifornians Act Appropriations, Death Certificate Fees forstate and federal legislative proposals to the ExecutiveOffice for inclusion in the County legislative platform.* Supported and hostedroundtable discussionsregarding the issuessurrounding the newMedicare Part D changes.Ri,.ha„rü u " Hosted Presentation fromRichard Hayes on the statistic and demographic dataassociated with Prop 63 budgets.Attended Senior Inspiration awards in Palm Springs.Hosted a discussion with Donna Dahl, Riverside CountvAÖ PlaT"' °f Mental Hea"h °n the Mental Heal,h