Attorneys's topics - tribe.net

My Sec.2254 US habeas motion is unopposed by the State of California, in Oakland USDC

2009-11-05T00:00:10Z

I attack all class laws, unreviewed in violation of Art.I Sec.7b Constitution of California, and all bills of attainder, Art.I Sec.9, all constitutions.

Who DOES NOT preview Obama-Biden?

Huxtable is all about what if crackhead Prez stayed a professor and thereby STAYED ALIVE, see Travolta, also revolting.

When they BOTH let Sam J. Wurzelbacher III take a half-hour of our Debate III time, President Obama and former Senator McCain proved they BOTH understand, AF 1 and 2 and the Hillary Flapdoodle are likely to go down, DEEP, in 2011.

All the prophets and the 911 agenda would lead a reasonable man to think, AFTER JUNE AND THE HONDURAN COUPS, nobody will pass health care, for a dead man or for his dead VP, both show-offs with dogs named, BO.

McCain knows plane crashes, including when one or two are upcoming. Seen STAR TREK episode 49, A PIECE OF THE ACTION, which calls all the Blago-scandal shots, FORTY YEARS AGO?!

Earth coming up FAST, to Mr. Spooko. Too much candy at previous Halloweens sickened us. Look at the House try to get lucid, 11/4/09.

So when do we admit to Israel, Jews are from ETHIOPIA? You know! That healthcare-deprived nation, between Darfur, Somalia, and Kenya, where Obama-Daddy was from and where he died and is buried, without benefit of diving AF 747s out of the sky, for a ride.

IN-A-GADDA-DA-VIDA, Danny, don't you know you poop your pants, when your plane crashes and you get slammed?

If you goof hard as a Huckstable, you might get offed like a Clifford, but NOT BEFORE THE STUDENTS RIOT, VIOLENTLY.

Now, they riot at all times, for graft, as hostages. So Barry smokes, again, eh? Is he on fire, yet?

I am plaintiff and material witness at any review, for relief of CCCP 1209(a)(3) misconduct as contempt of court, in California.

Get with me, or undermine your cases, since USDC must hear and issue, or you all violated Brown in CGC, by inference.

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

Waves software piracy lawsuit blues !!! Attorney needed !!!

2009-03-24T19:02:51Z

HELP!

I need a Bay Area attorney who can get my friend out of this situation:

one of my closest friends, (we'll call him Walt) called me today and tells me he is being sued by Waves for $75k for using pirated copies of their plugins in his audio recording studio.

Back in March he was approached by a potential client who presented himself as a needing a studio who had these plugins to allow for compatibility in other studios. The "client" visited his studio where he chatted it up, and asked to see the plugins in action. My friend happily obliged and then 3 months later received a letter from Waves about the lawsuit.

This studio is based out of his home. He has a PC based studio set up in the living room... kind of a lounge, beat making studio. This is where all the alleged pirated stuff is... and this is where Walt showed him the Waves plugins he was asking about.

The second studio is the really nice facility which is all Intel Power Mac running Logic Pro. This studio has never had any Waves software on it. This is the studio that people come and pay to use mostly.

In the letter however it states that he had copies of both of these products in both of his studios (he doesn't). The letter included a phone number which he called and he spoke to some people who wanted to hear his side of the story. He told them he only had demo versions on his machines, and that if the client had actually booked the time and paid the deposit that he would have purchased the software. They told him that there was nothing more to say and they would see him in court.

I hate to see hardworking people get the shaft, and I am worried about my friend. This guy has 3 kids and 2 jobs, and now has to hire an attorney and deal with this bullshit. In talking on various forums about this I have learned that this is part of a global campaign by the Waves corporation.

posted in Attorneys - 5 replies

love of law or money?

2009-03-10T18:29:00Z

i love law for the thing it stands for..
and preserving rights
ect
can the poor ever get a real hero in a case or two that reveals civil blasphomy
or provides true voice and representation
public defenders are shit..
dependancy reform is never more in need of having champions..
where are you?

posted in Attorneys - 1 reply

Pro bono recommendations for the unemployed?

2008-12-01T18:57:52Z

Long time since anyone's posted a message here, so I thought I'd give it a try. I've been licensed for a year and have yet to find gainful employment. I'm trying to find something in the areas of Business or Intellectual Property Law and was wondering if there were some good pro bono programs to engage in while I'm looking. I've already worked with the Better Business Bureau and a Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts group. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks!

Dave Friedman

posted in Attorneys - 4 replies

repeat business

2008-08-27T05:43:58Z

The firm handled her divorce. Times were slow and lean and the firm would take almost any client who could cough up a minimim retainer. You do what you have to survive.

The lady was attractive, in a MILF way. She flirted quite a bit with the young attorney. Another attorney advised she would trade sexual favors in lieu of attorneys fees. The young attorney was ethical and declined these offers. Better to work for free than to be paid in that manner.

The lady had nothing worth arguing over. She had kids from other marriages, but there were no children of this marriage, so there would be no custody battle, and the couple mostly had debt and no property.

Soon enough, after filing her divorce, she claimed her husband threw a brick through her window. So the firm filed a motion for a protective order and sought a finding of family violence. This incidentally gave the firm leverage to use in the divorce.

Her husband had a good lawyer, but they quickly caved in. Yet, the client would not take the offer, wanted to keep arguing over the smallest items. When it came down to arguing over who got the Garth Brooks CD, she was told her retainer was used up (actually, it had been used up long before) and it would cost her extra attorney's fees to have a trial over a Garth Brook CD.

Only then did the case settle. One can only imagine the judicial outrage the firm would have faced had they let this client force a trial over a Garth Brooks CD. The firm and the lawyer felt the woman took advantage of them. Here they were, representing her nearly for free, and she kept the case going just to enjoy the drama.

The firm instituted some rules changes after that client.

Every year or two, the client calls the firm, asks for the same lawyer, tells him she remarried and is getting divorced again. And the firm always tells her the firm no longer takes familly cases.

But still, she keeps returning, asking for representation. "What about all the good times we had?" she asks.

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

why is the little Russian mobster a member of this tribe?

2008-08-23T06:08:19Z

by the way, whenever a Russian mobster seeks my legal services, I charge double.

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

What type of lawyer should I pursue?

2008-05-05T06:03:33Z

The Brief: I am a vegetarian and an officer on a U.S. flagged ship. I've worked on this same ship for over 5 years and have recently begun being denied meals because the cook consideres me to be too much trouble to accomodate. Unfortunately for me, the captain agrees with the cook and the situation is boiling down to my either working in an unhealthy & unsafe condition or leaving my job (which I can't afford to do), only to potentially confront a similar situation on the next ship. I have been vegetarian (by religion) for over 10 years and have not run into an issue with it before. I'll be returning to my ship in about a week and I'd like to be prepared for the inevitable confrontation.

Any recommendations on actions to take? Would this case require an Admiralty Attny? Should I just eat the captain & cook?

posted in Attorneys - 9 replies

Legal Job Market Woes

2008-02-28T19:29:17Z

Lots of the folks in my graduating class are whining about not being able to find associate positions.
I am working at it, but it gets rather depressing. See this article about what it takes to get a job in this market --

http://members.aol.com/Ethesis/mw3/oth5d.htm

Should I discourage my cousin who is considering going to law school if she can't get into a top tier school?

Or, do you think that the market is really not that bad, and the internet is fully of whiners because they have time to post, since they are unemployed?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1048518251066

Or this quote, from Vault.com, which offers "career info"
"Contract Attorney" -

Advice to Jobseekers -
Do not consider this field. Do not go to law school, unless it is an Ivy League school or if you have the connections to guarantee you a job upon your graduation. Otherwise, it is a collosal waste of time and money. There are too many unemployed lawyers, and, as a result, the starting salaries have tumbled into the $28 - $40K per year range. That is a non-living wage (in NYC) folks. And for that, you will be absolutely busting your ass. Ignore the dumb-ass shows on TV that show how glamorous it is to be a "young lawyer." The reality is, it sucks. ALL of my friends who barely graduated from college are making way more money than me -- building houses, selling mortgages, etc. -- and their quality of life is WAY better. Go into the health professions, or computer sciences, of financial arena, but don't waste your precious life on a law career. It's not worth it.

Are we all just SOL?

posted in Attorneys - 12 replies

Curative Discharge

2008-02-26T22:34:28Z

What does this mean? Are charges dropped on the basis of seeking treatment?

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

Business networking and Events

2008-02-18T17:29:46Z

i would like to invite my Tribe network to join me on www.connectture.com - its a social business network based in Europe with a growing base of users from all over the world. Easy way of keeping track of your Business Network.

Cheers

Sarah

posted in Attorneys - 1 reply

no way anyone knows this. I guess you can call it a challenge.

2008-02-01T17:18:53Z

This is arcane, and sort of out of left field......

I remember getting a ticket on Federal land in 2003 for not having an illuminated light lighting my license plate from 50 ft or more.

Today, on federal land in Sausalito, I got a comment from a NPS park ranger cop about it.

My question isn't even federal vs. state.... the federal cops on federal land don't always have as much to do, so they get bored, and they start looking for code violations.

My question is this:

My Jeep Wrangler is 1995, before the law, and before the license plate light was on a Jeep.

Did this law happen, when, and does it actually retroactively force me to equip my car with a light? I can't imagine needing to do so.. and I have searched for awhile online for it... to no avail.

Anyone know the local, state, or federal law?

I am really skeptical that they would retroactively force a vehicle to have a light on the plate when I simply cannot put the damn thing anywhere to illuminate the plate. Help?

posted in Attorneys - 5 replies

Help- Who searches a transgendered person??

2008-01-17T20:43:32Z

Hi everyone- I volunteer at a theater, where part of our regular policy is that patrons get searched before entering- male by male, female by female (the show is Rocky Horror, so this sort of thing is actually needed.) But when it comes to legality, who is supposed to search a F-t-M or M-t-F who is pre-op or pre-hormone?? What way of going about this would cause less trouble for our theater?

Many Thanks,
Allison

posted in Attorneys - 1 reply

"Daily Battles over the Mundane"

2008-01-01T22:55:51Z

Hi,

I am a relatively new attorney. A more seasoned attorney was mentioning to me that the daily battles over the mundane are a really draining part of professional life.

Right now I am a legal assistant, and I too have found them draining.

What I am talking about are petty discovery issues, refusals to grant extensions, bad faith answers, righteous letters that drip sarcasm, name calling, melt downs over calendaring, etc.

As a legal assistant, I get caught in the middle. The boss likes to use me, and the other attorney uses his paralegal, and then we all get to play "telephone."

I see it as a cycle that starts with a misunderstanding, and then turns into counterproductive vengefulness. My boss says that I am not seeing the big picture and that if we cave on even one little thing, then they will steam roll us.

How do you all deal with it? Smooth it over or rile it up? Can it ever be completely avoided?

posted in Attorneys - 1 reply

maybe another lawyer

2007-12-19T23:59:31Z

http://sanfrancisco.tribe.net/listing/if-you-are-a-real-man/san-francisco-ca/6a1ba2a6-6ad9-4f5c-ac9c-ec4c1b87d1f9

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

Shouting it from the mountain!

2007-12-07T23:32:41Z

I passed the CA bar exam! Wheee! 56.1% passed this time around. I feel a little special.

Okay--actually, it feels AWESOME!

Now I need to get out there and fight the good fight.

I am looking for mentors and advice from you seasoned attorneys out there. Any feedback is welcome! I realize I am staring at the sheer wall of the learning curve and have yet more dues to pay.

I have applied at a couple legal aid offices as well as a law firm.

Does anyone know if law firms are receptive to folks wanting to work humane hours? If I do get an offer I am going to see if I can negotiate less pay for fewer hours. Anyone out there working at a law firm? How do you like it?

posted in Attorneys - 16 replies

California Corporate conversions

2007-12-02T23:44:05Z

A few years back, California amended its corporation code to start allowing domesitc corporations and other entities to convert their form. For example, now a corporation could convert to LLC and vice versa,

The change also expressly allows foreign corporations to convert into California corporations, LLCs, etc.

But I saw nothing in the statute that allows a California corporation to convert into a foreign corporation.

I assume these means it can't be done.

I want to convert a California corp to a Texas corp. Texas law allows the conversion of a foreign corporation into a Texas corp as long as the laws of the state of the foreign corporation allow it. But since the California Corporations Code does not enumerate any such conversion, I don't think I can do it.

Anyone know about these conversions?

posted in Attorneys - 6 replies

CHECK OUT LAWAMERICA.COM LEGAL INSURANCE $39.95 MONTH

2007-11-28T00:34:24Z

CHECK OUT LAWAMERICA.COM LEGAL INSURANCE $39.95 MONTH

posted in Attorneys - 1 reply

Burningman Photos Copyright Questions

2007-11-19T08:07:18Z

The Burningman Organization claims that they hold copyright over all photos taken within their event.

Is that legally enforceable?

posted in Attorneys - 20 replies

that's it

2007-11-07T01:02:55Z

http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2007,1026-EOIR.shtm

posted in Attorneys - 2 replies

Case pending - cannot speak

2007-10-31T04:55:17Z

"I'm not at liberty to discuss the details of the incident right now becuase the case is still pending."

What's the story on this?

Who is and who isn't allowed to speak about an ongoing case?

Can the victims speak? What about the witnesses?

posted in Attorneys - 6 replies

The older law student

2007-10-03T20:53:31Z

I took up law a few years ago, did very well and really liked it. I did not complete my degree at the time.

I am thinking of returning in a year and a half from now. However, I am over forty. My mind is very sharp and I am not buying into society's drivel on aging and women.

However, society is buying into its own drivel.

What is your experience with the older law student and, more especially, what should I look out for?

I am a translator and translators, especially the ones working in legal translation do very well. The degree would be put to use on that level and I have even found an associate with the same profile so we can cover for each other, always important for translators.
But I also want to take the degree into the field of social justice.

posted in Attorneys - 8 replies

Will the real Lawyer stand up?

2007-09-15T19:45:11Z

Hi everyone,
I am new to this tribe. I am also from Québec (Canada) and halfway through a law degree and involved in legal translation. I just love the legal field and can’t wait to finish my degree. In this province we have the Canadian Criminal Code, Criminal Law and Jurisprudence (cases)and that we share (uneasily) with the rest of English Canada. And of course our own Civil Code that borrowed its armature from the Napoleonic Code but is not the Napoleonic Code as we have evolved our own legal system. It is, following the French tradition, highly codified law, and has left in its wake a relic, the institution of the notaire (or notary) a well-fed species officiating over the sale and archiving of real estate property. We also have lawyers (avocats), filling every other legal aspect including the courtroom pleading.
Now, I notice that in English you have lawyers as well as barristers, solicitors, litigators, attorneys, advocates and counsels. My question to you now is: how do you sort yourselves out?

posted in Attorneys - 8 replies

Labor Law / Human Rights

2007-07-13T13:46:45Z

Starting the job hunt in the Bay Area. I am looking for a position working in international human rights and employment, union organizing, labor law enforcement arena.

So far I am interested in working for California Rural Legal Aid and organizations of the like, or in a private firm that does work like Leonard Carder does in Oakland.

Do any of you more connected and experienced attorneys out there in cyberspace have advice for a plan of attack to help fight for worker rights?

Myrrhia

posted in Attorneys - 2 replies

SOS -- Florida Bar Examination

2007-06-02T01:49:55Z

Good evening. I am taking the FL Bar in July and am curious about the format of the Bar. I understand Day 2 is MBEs (which I am more than familiar with) but it is Day 1 that is a bit sticky for me. Can anyone provide me with any advice? Thanks!!

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

Who Would We Look For?

2007-05-11T01:19:33Z

Here is the situation. My wife is a secretary for a private individual in need of 24 hour care. My wife set up a payroll account with ADP for herself and for her care staff. When my wife took out the account, ADP assured her that everything was according to CA state law. My wife was 100% certain that the staff was being covered by workman's comp. Friday, one of the caregivers fell and broke her leg in two places. My wife just found out today that ADP did not set up an account with Workman's Comp.

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

Legal advice/opinion needed

2007-05-07T23:44:15Z

My first blog post on Tribe (Whither The Bunny? Wherefore The Doc?) described an unexpected encounter I had with the good folks at Elk Grove PD after firing off a few shells from a handgun and shotgun. I received a ticket (like a speeding ticket) from an officer indicating I would be charged with a misdemeanor under section 246.3(a) of CPC, and that I am required to appear in court on April 6th (presumably to enter a plea). 246.3(a) reads as follows:
"Except as otherwise authorized by law, any person who willfully discharges a firearm in a grossly negligent manner which could result in injury or death to a person is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison."

My feeling is that I ought to plead not guilty, and then make it the job of the police to prove I was "grossly negligent" in discharging the firearms, and in addition to prove that it was done in a manner "which could result in injury or death to a person." I believe that if they cannot prove either of those, and most especially both, that the case must be dismissed.

I found an interesting case note that expands upon this, which may go towards bolstering a defense grounded on the fact that care was taken in selecting a direction in which to shoot (i.e. not grossly negligent) and that there were no people around to be potentially injured. It is as follows:
"In People v. Overman (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1344, the court addressed as an issue of first impression whether section 246.3 is a lesser included offense of section 246. (Although defendant was tried several months after Overman was decided, the case was apparently not cited to the trial court.) The Overman court reasoned: “When a defendant shoots at an inhabited dwelling house, occupied building, or other target listed in section 246, the defendant discharges a firearm in a manner that has the potential for culminating in personal injury or death. Shooting at an inhabited dwelling house, for example, whether occupied or not, necessarily poses a significant likelihood or ‘high probability’ that personal injury or death will result, because people ‘“are generally in or around the premises.”’ [Citation.] The same significant risk of personal injury or death is present when a defendant shoots at any other target listed in section 246. “Unlike section 246, section 246.3 does not require that an inhabited dwelling, occupied building, or any other specific target be in the defendant’s firing range. But like section 246, section 246.3 involves discharge of a firearm under circumstances presenting a significant risk that personal injury or death will result. Section 246 proscribes discharging a firearm at specific targets, the act of which presumably presents a significant risk that personal injury or death will result. Section 246.3 proscribes discharging a firearm in any grossly negligent manner which presents a significant risk that personal injury or death will result. “The only difference between sections 246 and 246.3 is that section 246 requires that a specific target (e.g., an inhabited dwelling or an occupied building) be in the defendant’s firing range. Section 246[.3] does not include this requirement. Both crimes, however, involve the intentional discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner which presents a significant risk that personal injury or death will result.” (People v. Overman, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1361–1362.)"

My contention is that I fired the handgun and shotgun at a target (old tin can) behind which was a large empty field (I'll get dimensions for it, as I intend to find out if the far end of the field was even within the range of the handgun or shotgun), at the far side of which was a large, extended earth mound. I was careful to ensure that no houses or vehicles were within my line of fire, and that there were no people visible. I believe, therefore, that I was not "grossly negligent", and I further believe the circumstances were not such that they presented a significant risk of death or injury to anyone. I'd challenge the police to prove otherwise.

Anybody with legal expertise have any thoughts or advice?

I'm naturally keen to avoid being prosecuted as the penalty can be harsh - an example is provided in this case, which I would very much like to avoid happening to me, given I'm here in the US on a green card: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0/955ce0a591c1ec13882569f40060ae84/$FILE/9870529.pdf

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

that's the law

2007-04-24T05:20:44Z

http://people.tribe.net/costin/photos/1517923b-f84d-4126-8810-61f3d3b4261c

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

medical marijuana

2007-03-13T05:36:17Z

what type of license do you need to legally operate a medical marijuana dispensery in San Diego Ca. ?In the last 2 weeks I believe that at least 15 dispenseries were shut down and even patients were arrested as well as workers and shop owners. any enlightening information would be helpful.

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

Little help in arkansas

2007-01-25T15:53:21Z

Just wandering if any one know, anything about child support laws in AR, or a good inexpensive attorney. I don't Really mind giving my children money, but I'd like to not get the short end of the stick. I don't really want to but any personal info online

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

Buying an Island

2007-01-16T08:41:27Z

I'm looking at putting together a group to collectively purchase an island. Here:

http://www.caribbeanislandbrokers.com/islands-for-sale/Lark-Caye

This group would be loosely affiliated to the burningman project, and you can read all of the details about that in our tribe.

http://tribes.tribe.net/floatingman

I was wondering if there are any lawyers who go to burningman, or anyone else, who would be interested in joining our project and doing some pro-bono work setting up the "Floatingman Island" organization.

If not, can anyone point me in the right direction towards legally setting up an organization? What sort of organization would we need? How do we set it up? How much does it cost?

Thanks!
-Adam

posted in Attorneys - 6 replies

New Bankruptcy Regime

2006-10-24T08:04:42Z

Anyone here do much bankruptcy work that could suggest a good practice guide? It's coming up more and more in my practice and I'd love to get updated on the new laws.

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

Any thoughts on how to transition from big firm civil litigation to public interest law?

2006-10-24T08:01:38Z

So, I graduated Order of the Coif from a UC law school. On graduation, I followed the path of least resistance to a big, prestigious law firm. After 7 years, I had a spiritual awakening / midlife crisis situation where I left my legal practice to look into other ways to make a living. After 2 years and some distance, I'm thinking I did not dislike law, I disliked feeling like I was a sell-out doing work any hired gun could do.

If I really had my choice, I'd love to work on important constitutional cases. Like ACLU law. Hell, if I could volunteer for the Guantanamo Bay situation and get paid enough to live on, I'd be in heaven. Anyway, I have started searching for jobs like that. I was an excellent attorney but for the issue of motivation because I didn't believe in my cases.

The problem I'm finding is that all these jobs want a demonstrable commitment to public interest law. I'm not sure the fact that I left my legal career to do massage therapy for 2 years is evidence of that kind of commitment (lol).

So my question is, does anyone who might have done a similar transition or might be in the public interest sector have advice on what some one in my situation could do to get into the public sector? Are there jobs that are so under-sought that they'd take some one like me with radically different legal experience, and then I'd "work my way" to the public interest area I wanted to serve?

I can hear some suggesting doing pro bono, but as I am not practiing law at all right now, it seems like a pretty circuitous route to find a job doing "sell-out" law, get secure enough in that job so I can insist on doing so much pro bono, so that years later, I can take that pro bono as support for switching to public interest law.

I mean, maybe there's no answer. Maybe it's a "you make your bed, you lie in it" sort of thing and those jobs should go to those who have been working in public interest already in some capacity and maybe some one in my position needs a lot of luck to make that transition, where it comes down to being in the right place at the right time?

Well, any advice anyone might have, I'll be interested to read.

And thanks,

~Frinj~

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

Finding a Job

2006-10-09T04:34:34Z

Any suggestions on finding a job as a new associate? What are your ideas on getting my foot in that old proverbial door? Thanks for your thoughts.

posted in Attorneys - 6 replies

Copyright law

2006-09-16T23:36:43Z

Maybe one of your lawyers can settle a question for me.

As a writer, I believe (I'm 99% sure actually) that it is illegal for someone to take one of my articles without my permission and post it in it's entirety on this website.

Other tribe members say that this qualifiers as fair use, since tribe.net is educational. They use truthout.org as an example and say that if truthout says they are not doing copyright infringement, then those who post on articles on tribe.net must not be guilty of copyright infringment either.

Is posting copyrighted articles in their entirety on tribe.net, without the author's permission fair use, or is that illegal copyright infringement?

Thanks for any answers!

posted in Attorneys - 4 replies

Audit rate for ICs

2006-09-15T21:24:37Z

Hello friends,

I am well aware that the rate of IRS audit is much higher for independent consultants and small businesses, schedule C filers etc, as compared with W-2.

Can anyone find a statistic, with source, that estimates how much higher that rate is?

Are 1099s 5 times more likely to be audited than a comparable income level w-2? 10 times?

I am mostly referring to individuals around the $100k income level and above. I know the IRS is paying special attention to all returns with income over that level, including the w-2s.

Please help if you can with a reputable source.

If you can tell me the total number of audits for each category against the total number of returns, cited from IRS, then I can do the math . . .

Thank you!

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

New Tribe -- the Tribers' Court

2006-08-26T06:13:44Z

http://tribes.tribe.net/triberscourt

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

Chisholm v. Georgia

2006-04-22T23:46:57Z

2 U.S. 419 (1793)
[Actually - 1794]
Docket Number:
Abstract

Argued: February 5, 1793
Decided: February 18, 1793

Facts of the Case
In 1777, the Executive Council of Georgia authorized the purchase of needed supplies from a South Carolina businessman. After receiving the supplies, Georgia did not deliver payments as promised. After the merchant's death, the executor of his estate, Alexander Chisholm, took the case to court in an attempt to collect from the state. Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign state not subject to the authority of the federal courts.

Question Presented
Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government?

Conclusion
In a 4-to-1 decision, the justices held that "the people of the United States" intended to bind the states by the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the national government. The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia. The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review.

************************************************************

JAY, J., Separate Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

2 U.S. 419 (February 1794)

Chisholm v. Georgia

Argued: --- Decided:

Jay, Chief justice.

The question we are now to decide has been accurately stated, viz., is a State suable by individual citizens of another State?

It is said that Georgia refuses to appear and answer to the plaintiff in this action because she is a sovereign State, and therefore not liable to such actions. In order to ascertain the merits [p470] of this objection, let us enquire, 1st. In what sense Georgia is a sovereign State. 2nd. Whether suability is incompatible with such sovereignty. 3rd. Whether the Constitution (to which Georgia is a party) authorises such an action against her.

"Suability" and "suable" are words not in common use, but they concisely and correctly convey the idea annexed to them.

1st. In determining the sense in which Georgia is a sovereign State, it may be useful to turn our attention to the political situation we were in prior to the Revolution, and to the political rights which emerged from the Revolution. All the country now possessed by the United States was then a part of the dominions appertaining to the Crown of Great Britain. Every acre of land in this country was then held mediately or immediately by grants from that Crown. All the people of this country were then subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; and all the civil authority then existing or exercised here, flowed from the head of the British Empire. They were in strict sense fellow subjects, and in a variety of respects one people. When the Revolution commenced, the patriots did not assert that only the same affinity and social connection subsisted between the people of the colonies which subsisted between the people of Gaul, Britain, and Spain while Roman Provinces, viz., only that affinity and social connection which result from the mere circumstance of being governed by the same Prince; different ideas prevailed, and gave occasion to the Congress of 1774 and 1775.

The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by State conventions and other temporary arrangements. From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it, and it was then not an uncommon opinion that the unappropriated lands, which belonged to that Crown, passed not to the people of the Colony or States within whose limits they were situated, but to the whole people; on whatever principles this opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution, combined with local convenience and considerations; the people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly; afterwards, in the hurry of the war and in the warmth of mutual confidence, they made a Confederation of the States the basis of a general government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it, and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable [p471] that, in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and, conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc. etc.

If then it be true that the sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State, it may be useful to compare these sovereignties with those in Europe, that we may thence be enabled to judge whether all the prerogatives which are allowed to the latter are so essential to the former. There is reason to suspect that some of the difficulties which embarrass the present question arise from inattention to differences which subsist between them.

It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority, and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African [p472] slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.

2nd. The second object of enquiry now presents itself, viz., whether suability is compatible with State sovereignty.

Suability, by whom? Not a subject, for in this country, there are none; not an inferior, for all the citizens being as to civil rights perfectly equal, there is not, in that respect, one citizen inferior to another. It is agreed that one free citizen may sue another, the obvious dictates of justice, and the purposes of society demanding it. It is agreed that one free citizen may sue any number on whom process can be conveniently executed; nay, in certain cases, one citizen may sue forty thousand; for where a corporation is sued, all the members of it are actually sued, though not personally sued. In this city there are forty odd thousand free citizens, all of whom may be collectively sued by any individual citizen. In the State of Delaware, there are fifty odd thousand free citizens, and what reason can be assigned why a free citizen who has demands against them should not prosecute them? Can the difference between forty odd thousand and fifty odd thousand make any distinction as to right? Is it not as easy, and as convenient to the public and parties, to serve a summons on the Governor and Attorney General of Delaware as on the Mayor or other Officers of the Corporation of Philadelphia? Will it be said that the fifty odd thousand citizens in Delaware, being associated under a State government, stand in a rank so superior to the forty odd thousand of Philadelphia, associated under their charter, that, although it may become the latter to meet an individual on an equal footing in a court of justice, yet that such a procedure would not comport with the dignity of the former? In this land of equal liberty, shall forty odd thousand in one place be compellable to do justice, and yet fifty odd thousand in [p473] another place be privileged to do justice only as they may think proper? Such objections would not correspond with the equal rights we claim, with the equality we profess to admire and maintain, and with that popular sovereignty in which every citizen partakes. Grant that the Governor of Delaware holds an office of superior rank to the Mayor of Philadelphia; they are both nevertheless the officers of the people; and however more exalted the one may be than the other, yet, in the opinion of those who dislike aristocracy, that circumstance cannot be a good reason for impeding the course of justice.

If there be any such incompatibility as is pretended, whence does it arise? In what does it consist? There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State. It is plain then that a State may be sued, and hence it plainly follows that suability and State sovereignty are not incompatible. As one State may sue another State in this Court, it is plain that no degradation to a State is thought to accompany her appearance in this Court. It is not therefore to an appearance in this Court that the objection points. To what does it point? It points to an appearance at the suit of one or more citizens. But why it should be more incompatible that all the people of a State should be sued by one citizen than by one hundred thousand, I cannot perceive, the process in both cases being alike and the consequences of a judgment alike. Nor can I observe any greater inconveniences in the one case than in the other, except what may arise from the feelings of those who may regard a lesser number in an inferior light. But if any reliance be made on this inferiority as an objection, at least one half of its force is done away by this fact, viz., that it is conceded that a State may appear in this Court as plaintiff against a single citizen as defendant; and the truth is that the State of Georgia is at this moment prosecuting an action in this Court against two citizens of South Carolina. [*]

The only remnant of objection, therefore, that remains is that the State is not bound to appear and answer as a defendant at the suit of an individual; but why it is unreasonable that she should be so bound is hard to conjecture. That rule is said to be a bad one which does not work both ways; the citizens of Georgia are content with a right of suing citizens of other States, but are not content that citizens of other States should have a right to sue them.

Let us now proceed to enquire whether Georgia has not, by being a party to the National Compact, consented to be suable by individual citizens of another State. This enquiry naturally leads our attention, 1st., to the design of the Constitution; 2nd., to the letter and express declaration in it. [p474]

Prior to the date of the Constitution, the people had not any national tribunal to which they could resort for justice; the distribution of justice was then confined to State judicatories, in whose institution and organization the people of the other States had no participation, and over whom they had not the least control. There was then no general court of appellate jurisdiction by whom the errors of State courts, affecting either the nation at large or the citizens of any other State, could be revised and corrected. Each State was obliged to acquiesce in the measure of justice which another State might yield to her or to her citizens, and that even in cases where State considerations were not always favorable to the most exact measure. There was danger that, from this source, animosities would in time result, and as the transition from animosities to hostilities was frequent in the history of independent States, a common tribunal for the termination of controversies became desirable from motives both of justice and of policy.

Prior also to that period, the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the laws of nations, and it was their interest as well as their duty to provide that those laws should be respected and obeyed; in their national character and capacity, the United States were responsible to foreign nations for the conduct of each State relative to the laws of nations and the performance of treaties, and there the inexpediency of referring all such questions to State courts, and particularly to the courts of delinquent States, became apparent. While all the States were bound to protect each and the citizens of each, it was highly proper and reasonable that they should be in a capacity not only to cause justice to be done to each and the citizens of each, but also to cause justice to be done by each and the citizens of each, and that not by violence and force, but in a stable, sedate, and regular course of judicial procedure.

These were among the evils against which it was proper for the nation -- that is, the people -- of all the United States to provide by a national judiciary, to be instituted by the whole nation and to be responsible to the whole nation.

Let us now turn to the Constitution. The people therein declare that their design in establishing it comprehended six objects. 1st. To form a more perfect union. 2nd. To establish justice. 3rd. To ensure domestic tranquillity. 4th. To provide for the common defence. 5th. To promote the general welfare. 6th. To secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It would be pleasing and useful to consider and trace the relations which each of these objects bears to the others, [p475] and to show that they collectively comprise everything requisite, with the blessing of Divine Providence, to render a people prosperous and happy. On the present occasion, such disquisitions would be unseasonable because foreign to the subject immediately under consideration.

It may be asked, what is the precise sense and latitude in which the words "to establish justice," as here used, are to be understood? The answer to this question will result from the provisions made in the Constitution on this head. They are specified in the second section of the third article, where it is ordained that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to ten descriptions of cases, viz., 1st. To all cases arising under this Constitution, because the meaning, construction, and operation of a compact ought always to be ascertained by all the parties, or by authority derived only from one of them. 2nd. To all cases arising under the laws of the United States, because, as such laws, constitutionally made, are obligatory on each State, the measure of obligation and obedience ought not to be decided and fixed by the party from whom they are due, but by a tribunal deriving authority from both the parties. 3rd. To all cases arising under treaties made by their authority; because, as treaties are compacts made by, and obligatory on, the whole nation, their operation ought not to be affected or regulated by the local laws or courts of a part of the nation. 4th. To all cases affecting Ambassadors, or other public Ministers and Consuls, because, as these are officers of foreign nations whom this nation are bound to protect and treat according to the laws of nations, cases affecting them ought only to be cognizable by national authority. 5th. To all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction, because, as the seas are the joint property of nations, whose right and privileges relative thereto are regulated by the law of nations and treaties, such cases necessarily belong to national jurisdiction. 6th. To controversies to which the United States shall be a party, because, in cases in which the whole people are interested, it would not be equal or wise to let any one State decide and measure out the justice due to others. 7th. To controversies between two or more States, because domestic tranquillity requires that the contentions of States should be peaceably terminated by a common judicatory, and, because, in a free country, justice ought not to depend on the will of either of the litigants. 8th. To controversies between a State and citizens of another State, because in case a State (that is, all the citizens of it) has demands against some citizens of another State, it is better that she should prosecute their demands in a national court than in a court of the State to which those citizens belong, the danger of irritation and criminations arising from apprehensions and [p476] suspicions of partiality being thereby obviated. Because, in cases where some citizens of one State have demands against all the citizens of another State, the cause of liberty and the rights of men forbid that the latter should be the sole judges of the justice due to the latter, and true Republican government requires that free and equal citizens should have free, fair, and equal justice. 9th. To controversies between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States, because, as the rights of the two States to grant the land are drawn into question, neither of the two States ought to decide the controversy. 10th. To controversies between a State or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects, because, as every nation is responsible for the conduct of its citizens towards other nations, all questions touching the justice due to foreign nations or people ought to be ascertained by, and depend on, national authority. Even this cursory view of the judicial powers of the United States leaves the mind strongly impressed with the importance of them to the preservation of the tranquillity, the equal sovereignty, and the equal right of the people.

The question now before us renders it necessary to pay particular attention to that part of the second section which extends the judicial power "to controversies between a State and citizens of another State." It is contended that this ought to be construed to reach none of these controversies excepting those in which a State may be plaintiff. The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.

This extension of power is remedial, because it is to settle controversies. It is therefore to be construed liberally. It is politic, wise, and good that not only the controversies in which a State is plaintiff, but also those in which a State is defendant, should be settled; both cases therefore are within the reason of the remedy, and ought to be so adjudged unless the obvious, plain, and literal sense of the words forbid it. If we attend to the words, we find them to be express, positive, free from ambiguity, and without room for such implied expressions: "The judicial power of the United States shall extend to controversies between a State and citizens of another State." If the Constitution really meant to extend these powers only to those controversies in which a State might be plaintiff, to the exclusion of those in which citizens had demands against a State, it is inconceivable that it should have attempted to convey that meaning in words not only so incompetent, but also repugnant to it; if it meant to exclude a certain class of these controversies, why were they not expressly excepted; on the contrary, not even an intimation of such intention appears in [p477] any part of the Constitution. It cannot be pretended that, where citizens urge and insist upon demands against a State, which the State refuses to admit and comply with, that there is no controversy between them. If it is a controversy between them, then it clearly falls not only within the spirit, but the very words, of the Constitution. What is it to the cause of justice, and how can it effect the definition of the word "controversy?;" whether the demands which cause the dispute are made by a State against citizens of another State or by the latter against the former? When power is thus extended to a controversy, it necessarily, as to all judicial purposes, is also extended to those between whom it subsists.

The exception contended for would contradict and do violence to the great and leading principles of a free and equal national government, one of the great objects of which is to ensure justice to all -- to the few against the many as well as to the many against the few. It would be strange indeed that the joint and equal sovereigns of this country should, in the very Constitution by which they professed to establish justice, so far deviate from the plain path of equality and impartiality as to give to the collective citizens of one State a right of suing individual citizens of another State, and yet deny to those citizens a right of suing them. We find the same general and comprehensive manner of expressing the same ideas in a subsequent clause in which the Constitution ordains that,

in all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme court shall have original jurisdiction.

Did it mean here party plaintiff? If that only was meant, it would have been easy to have found words to express it. Words are to be understood in their ordinary and common acceptation, and the word "party" being in common usage, applicable both to plaintiff and defendant, we cannot limit it to one of them in the present case. We find the Legislature of the United States expressing themselves in the like general and comprehensive manner; they speak in the thirteenth section of the judicial Act, of controversies where a State is a party, and as they do not impliedly or expressly apply that term to either of the litigants in particular, we are to understand them as speaking of both. In the same section, they distinguish the cases where Ambassadors are plaintiffs from those in which Ambassadors are defendants, and make different provisions respecting those cases; and it is not unnatural to suppose that they would in like manner have distinguished between cases where a State was plaintiff and where a State was defendant if they had intended to make any difference between them, or if they had apprehended that the Constitution had made any difference between them. [p478]

I perceive, and therefore candor urges me to mention, a circumstance which seems to favor the opposite side of the question. It is this: the same section of the Constitution which extends the judicial power to controversies "between a State and the citizens of another State" does also extend that power to controversies to which the United States are a party. Now it may be said, if the word party comprehends both plaintiff and defendant, it follows that the United States may be sued by any citizen between whom and them there may be a controversy. This appears to me to be fair reasoning, but the same principles of candour which urge me to mention this objection also urge me to suggest an important difference between the two cases. It is this: in all cases of actions against States or individual citizens, the national courts are supported in all their legal and constitutional proceedings and judgments by the arm of the executive power of the United States; but in cases of actions against the United States, there is no power which the courts can call to their aid. From this distinction, important conclusions are deducible, and they place the case of a State, and the case of the United States, in very different points of view.

I wish the state of society was so far improved, and the science of government advanced to such a degree of perfection, as that the whole nation could, in the peaceable course of law, be compelled to do justice, and be sued by individual citizens. Whether that is or is not now the case ought not to be thus collaterally and incidentally decided. I leave it a question.

As this opinion, though deliberately formed, has been hastily reduced to writing between the intervals of the daily adjournments, and while my mind was occupied and wearied by the business of the day, I fear it is less concise and connected than it might otherwise have been. I have made no references to cases, because I know of none that are not distinguishable from this case; nor does it appear to me necessary to show that the sentiments of the best writers on government and the rights of men harmonize with the principles which direct my judgment on the present question. The acts of the former Congresses, and the acts of many of the State Conventions, are replete with similar ideas, and, to the honor of the United States, it may be observed that in no other country are subjects of this kind better, if so well, understood. The attention and attachment of the Constitution to the equal rights of the people are discernable in almost every sentence of it, and it is to be regretted that the provision in it which we have been considering has not in every instance received the approbation and acquiescence which it merits. Georgia has in strong language advocated the cause of republican equality, and there is reason to [p479] hope that the people of that State will yet perceive that it would not have been consistent with that equality to have exempted the body of her citizens from that suability which they are at this moment exercising against citizens of another State.

For my own part, I am convinced that the sense in which I understand and have explained the words "controversies between States and citizens of another State" is the true sense. The extension of the judiciary power of the United States to such controversies appears to me to be wise, because it is honest and because it is useful. It is honest because it provides for doing justice without respect of persons, and, by securing individual citizens as well as States in their respective rights, performs the promise which every free government makes to every free citizen of equal justice and protection. It is useful because it is honest; because it leaves not even the most obscure and friendless citizen without means of obtaining justice from a neighbouring State; because it obviates occasions of quarrels between States on account of the claims of their respective citizens; because it recognizes and strongly rests on this great moral truth that justice is the same whether due from one man or a million, or from a million to one man; because it teaches and greatly appreciates the value of our free republican national government, which places all our citizens on an equal footing, and enables each and every of them to obtain justice without any danger of being overborne by the weight and number of their opponents; and because it brings into action and enforces this great and glorious principle -- that the people are the sovereign of this country, and consequently that fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined. The people have reason to prize and rejoice in such valuable privileges, and they ought not to forget that nothing but the free course of constitutional law and government can ensure the continuance and enjoyment of them.

For the reasons before given, I am clearly of opinion that a State is suable by citizens of another State; but left I should be understood in a latitude beyond my meaning, I think it necessary to subjoin this caution, viz., that such suability may nevertheless not extend to all the demands and to every kind of action; there may be exceptions. For instance, I am far from being prepared to say that an individual may sue a State on bills of credit issued before the Constitution was established, and which were issued and received on the faith of the State, and at a time when no ideas or expectations of judicial interposition were entertained or contemplated.

The following order was made:

By The court. It is ordered that the plaintiff in this cause do file his declaration on or before the first day of March next.

Ordered that certified copies of the said declaration be served on the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Georgia, on or before the first day of June next.

Ordered that, unless the said State shall either in due form appear, or show cause to the contrary in this Court, by the first day of next Term, judgment by default shall be entered against the said State. [*]

* Georgia v. Brailsford, et al., ante.

* In February Term, 1794, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and a Writ of Enquiry awarded. The Writ, however, was not sued out and executed, so that this cause, and all the other suits against States, were swept at once from the Records of the Court by the amendment to the Federal Constitution, agreeably to the unanimous determination of the judges, in Hollingsworth et al. v. Virginia, argued at February Term, 1798

posted in Attorneys - 5 replies

Please help

2006-04-14T00:41:11Z

please go to this website to send a fax to the related US
congress and senate members to Request a Congressional Hearing on the
Sujiatun case. it's a very easy to Fill out form, With just a click, the fax will be sent.
thank you,
joshua

here is the link:
http://publicpetition.unvcc.com/UN/index.php

there is more information about Sujiatun on the website:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/211,111,,1.html

posted in Attorneys - 2 replies

New Witness Confirms Existence of Chinese Concentration Camp, Says Organs Removed from Live Prisoners

2006-03-18T03:21:19Z

Please help to end this horrible persectuion. knowledge is our greatest weapon, please share this information. together in peace we can make a difference. Falun Dafa is a peaceful meditation practice that teaches putting others before yourself, kindness, always telling the truth and being tolerant of others. We are literally being killed for being good people. The national media has done very little to help us because of trade issues with China. It is up to us to let the world know. Please help us.

By Ji Da
The Epoch Times Mar 17, 2006
www.theepochtimes.com

The witness, a former employee at the Liaoning Thrombosis Treatment Center of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, and says the bodies of Falun Gong practitioners are cremated immediately after the organs are removed. (The Epoch Times)
[High-resolution image ] A former employee of Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine told The Epoch Times during a recent interview that the Sujiatun Concentration Camp in China was actually a part of a hospital. The concentration camp has engaged in taking organs from Falun Gong practitioners when they were still alive and selling the organs. Since 2001, the concentration camp has secretly detained approximately 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners, none of whom have been able to leave the camp alive. The hospital removed many kidneys, livers, and corneas from the practitioners. After the organ removal, the practitioners were thrown into an incinerator, which was converted from a boiler. Their ashes were dumped together with burned charcoal.

Organs from Three Quarters of the 6,000 People Were Removed
Those whose organs were removed were in various states of health. Because many of the victims were illegally detained, there was neither an arrest warrant nor identification as to who these people actually were. Often after their organs were removed, nobody claimed the bodies. Sometimes their bodies were picked up by crooks who pretended to be their family members.

About three-quarters of the 6,000 people died after their hearts, kidneys, corneas, or skin was removed; their bodies were then burned. This witness, whose family member participated in the removal of Falun Gong practitioners' organs, said that approximately 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners remain in the hospital. She was afraid that the authorities would kill all of them to destroy evidence.

The Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine is located at 49 Xuesong Road, Sujiatun, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province, China. It was the first hospital in China to specialize in the heart, the brain, and surrounding blood vessels. The hospital is composed of several organizations, including the Liaoning Traditional Chinese Medicine College Teaching Hospital and the Shenyang Thrombosis Treatment Center.

Concentration Camp Details
The hospital site is 21,087 square meters, with 17,564 square meters of building area. It employs 460 people in 24 departments and 20 specialized offices. Information from the Chinese government shows that the hospital was established in December 1988, and was formerly named the Shenyang Research Institute of Thrombosis and Liaoning Province Thrombosis Treatment Center of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine. In June 1998, it was renamed China Traditional Medicine Thrombosis Treatment Center.

The Chinese Business Morning View said in a story on July 4, 2004, that a farm worker died of abnormal causes in Sujiatun, Shenyang and was later cremated. The death certificate was provided by the Chinese Medicine Thrombosis Treatment Center in Sujiatun. The news caused a stir in China.

A copy of the death certificate. (The Epoch Times Archives Photo)Below is the transcript of an Epoch Times reporter's interview with the former staff member of the Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine in Sujiantun, Shenyang City. Questions were posed by the reporter and answered by the staff member being interviewed.

Epoch Times: Did the hospital's medical staff inside the concentration camp know about this?

Answer: This hospital has a small number of officials and some doctors involved secretively in the operation of organ harvesting. Some other staff in the hospital knew about this, but this is absolutely a taboo [to talk about]. They all are afraid of being killed or courting trouble, so they all avoid the issue. Only those highly trusted doctors could be chosen to be the surgeons for organ harvesting operations.

ET: Were Falun Gong practitioners alive when their organs were harvested? Did their families know about this?

Answer: Falun Gong practitioners who were imprisoned there came mostly from Dabei Prison, Masanjia Labor Camp, and other prisons in Shenyang, or they were Falun Gong practitioners arrested in parks or residential homes. Because they refused to denounce Falun Gong, they were arrested without formal warrants, and their families did not know their situation. Many did not even have their names [recorded]. In addition, since the Chinese authority exercises a policy of "not being responsible" for killing Falun Gong practitioners, the death of Falun Gong practitioners is not a very big issue for prisons. The Chinese Communist Party persecutes Falun Gong, [but] these medical personnel were told Falun Gong practitioners were facing death because they killed people, or they were sentenced to death because of crimes, or they had become insane from practicing Falun Gong.

Those Falun Gong practitioners whose organs were harvested came from several types.

Organs harvested from live bodies are worth far more than organs taken from dead bodies. Many Falun Gong practitioners were still alive when their organs were taken. After their organs were cut out, some of these people were thrown directly into the crematorium to be burnt, thus leaving no evidence. For some others, after their organs were stolen, the doctor sewed up the wound and asked the family or family representative to give a signature for cremation. Family members did not know at all that the dead had their organs taken out.

Furthermore, there were some healthy Falun Gong practitioners in prisons in other areas who were injected—without their knowledge—with psychoactive drugs that made their minds confused. They then were transferred to Sujiantun concentration camp to suffer further torture, till in the end their organs were harvested and their bodies were cremated in secret.

Among the Falun Gong practitioners whose organs were harvested, some were weak and some were healthy. Since most of them were illegally arrested, there were no arrest warrants or identification cards. After their organs were taken out while they were still alive, no one came to claim their bodies; or [sometimes] people using fake identities claimed their bodies.

None of these people have come out [of the concentration camp] alive; three-quarters of these 6,000 people have died, having their hearts, kidneys, retinas, and skins harvested and their bodies disposed of. I think now about 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners are still in this hospital, and I am afraid now that the authority will destroy all evidence and kill them.

Question: How did you know these things? Were you yourself a doctor involved in organ harvesting?

Answer: I worked at the Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, Shenyang. This is exactly where this concentration camp is located. One of my family members was involved in the operation to harvest Falun Gong practitioners' organs. This has brought great pain to our family.

Question: Please tell us what you knew about.

Answer: From 2001, our hospital started to detain Falun Gong practitioners. At the beginning, these people were detained in the single-storey houses in the back yard of the hospital. Later, the hospital authorities demolished the single-storey houses, and it was unknown where in the hospital the Falun Gong practitioners were transferred. Many staff of the hospital discussed in private that these Falun Gong practitioners had been secretly transferred to the underground chambers of the hospital. According to some people working inside the hospital, the hospital has a huge system of secret underground chambers.

At the time when we went to work there, the person in charge of logistics and purchasing in the hospital said that the quantity of disposable sterile gloves used for operations and daily supplies that the hospital authorities asked to be purchased had increased dramatically. The logistics people estimated based on the scale of purchases at that time that there were at least 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners detained in this hospital.

These Falun Gong practitioners were not detained in the 4-story building under the in-patient department and administration at the front of the hospital, in order to keep the hospital staff from seeing them at all. We only occasionally saw Falun Gong practitioners being sent on a mobile intensive care bed to the first floor for physical examinations. These people were very weak. For the majority of the Falun Gong practitioners, nobody knew where they were being secretly kept. While they still did not know where these people were kept, some staff inquired to the hospital authorities about why so much food and so many sterile gloves and daily supplies were purchased. The hospital authorities said, "You only need to do your job well. There is no need for you to ask any other questions."

Starting in 2001, a family member of mine participated in organ-harvesting operations. My family member tried to keep me from knowing about this at the beginning. The hospital authorities selected doctors they trust in different aspects to perform the secretive operations. After a period of time, I found that my family member was in a lot pain, often had nightmares, and appeared panic-stricken. After repeated inquiries, this family member told me the truth. The leader of the hospital had asked my family member to participate in the organ harvesting operations on Falun Gong practitioners as early as 2001. It was 2003 when my family member confessed. A few years after, my family member felt so much pain from participating in this incident that it was impossible to continue with the evildoing. My family member decided to go abroad to get away from this matter.

My family member also told me: "you don't understand my suffering; those Falun Gong practitioners were alive. It might be easier for me if they were dead, but they were alive."

Question: Were there any other doctors from the hospital taking part in the operations of cutting out Falun Gong practitioners' organs?

Answer: I know there were some. All these things have been carried out secretly. Many doctors at our hospital involved were practicum doctors transferred from other hospitals. Because the government does not want to be responsible for Falun Gong practitioners' bodies and lives, their lives are treated as garbage by the regime, and their bodies were used in experiments by new doctors doing their practitcums.

Many doctors came and left the hospital because they suffered a lot after having been involved in these kinds of things. They either requested to be transferred to other places, or changed their names. Some might have been killed to eliminate the evidence, their identity files were taken out from the hospital's filing system, or their names were changed. Nobody knows where the doctors have gone.

The hospital staff all know that the rear part of the hospital is forbidden. It is always watched. The staff avoids talking about the place.

Question: It is said the hospital is equipped with an incinerator. The person whose organs were removed will be burned when he or she is still alive. Is that true?

Answer: The employees in our hospital call this place "the incinerator." Actually, it is a boiler room. Some poor farmers from nearby places were hired to work in the boiler room. They were penniless when they first came here. But they could scrape up some watches, finger rings, necklaces, and so on. The amount is not small. It is said by the employees in the hospital these jewelry and watches were collected from the Falun Gong practitioners whose organs had been removed when they were about to be thrown in the boiler to be burned. It is also said by the employees in the hospital, some were still alive when being thrown into the boiler.

Question: Do they get injection of anesthetic when in surgery?

Answer: Yes. There is a cap to the anesthetic quantity used in mainland China's hospitals. Generally, the supply of anesthetic was determined according to the accommodation of the hospital. To the public, the number of patients in our care appears to be very small, and publicly reported number of surgical procedures performed is quite low. But the equipment and articles used in surgery are abundant. Because the amount of anesthetic is limited, these secret surgeries could not use the normal anesthetic doses. In order to save anesthetic, they economized on the anesthetic used in surgeries on these Falun Gong practitioners. The amount of anesthetic used was very small. However, many whose organs were removed were still alive. You can imagine the pain suffered by the Falun Gong practitioners whose organs were removed.

Question: Are there any survivors among the 6,000 people detained since 2001?

Answer: Nobody has come out alive. The number of them gets smaller and smaller. The Falun Gong practitioners detained at Sujiatun are fewer now than before. But I believe that the sin of removing the organs of the Falun Gong practitioners is still continuing.

Question: Where are these organs usually sold to? Do the higher authorities in the government know about this?

Answer: They are mainly sold to Thailand, but I believe they are also sold to other regions of the world. Nowadays, there are many patients in China who need human skin, corneas, and kidneys for organ transplant surgeries. Many patients have to wait in line to purchase organs. Currently, a kidney can be sold up to the price of 30,000 to 100,000 U.S. dollars. The profit from selling organs is simply too great. The people who benefit from this are not only the top leaders of hospital and the officials of the Chinese Communist Party's Heath Department. This is a crime present across the entire nation. People ranging from government officials to doctors to organ sellers are all involved in this and are profiting greatly.

Question: Why did they target Falun Gong practitioners as the source of organs?

Answer: Because relatives of many Falun Gong practitioners don't even know that their family members were arrested. So if the Falun Gong practitioners are killed, there will be no one to come and claim their dead bodies.

Question: Why did you want to expose this? This may bring great danger to you.

Answer: I know that there are many Falun Gong practitioners who are currently detained at the hospital. I would like to expose this to the international community, so those who are not yet killed can be saved. Also, I would like to expose this as an atonement for my family.

I am not a Falun Gong practitioner. But as a former staff member of the hospital, I have the responsibility to expose the truth, and let the world to save those Falun Gong practitioners who are still alive. Organs of some Falun Gong practitioners are still living on patients' bodies. I would like to call on all society to pay attention to this issue and stop this shocking crime.

you can find out how you can help at www.fofg.org

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

LOOSER moderator

2006-03-09T05:10:44Z

The mod here doesn't have the integrity to deal with a decent thread here so he deletes them when they don't agree with his religious views.

I'm out of here.

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

1099 employee?

2006-03-01T17:30:13Z

What is maximum % that can be garnished from a 1099 employee? (washington state) collection agency has my boss hoodwinked into thinking 100% is acceptable. I provided RCW 6.27.150
Exemption of earnings — Amount. which states (b) Seventy-five percent of the disposable earnings of the defendant. is exempt. is it different because i am a 1099 independant contractor?

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

And now for something completely different.

2006-02-28T20:39:13Z

More Cheney Shoots Attorney humor:

>I did some Law research on the Texas code regarding the bagging of
>attorneys. The following result was obtained:
>
>An Act To Regulate The Hunting And Harvesting Of Attorneys
>
>372.01 -Any person with a valid state rodent or armadillo hunting
>License may also hunt and harvest attorneys for recreational and
>sporting (non-commercial) purposes.
>
>372.02 -Taking of attorneys with traps or dead falls is permitted. The
>use of United States currency as bait is, however, prohibited.
>
>372.03 -The willful killing of attorneys with a motor vehicle is
>prohibited, unless such vehicle is an ambulance being driven in reverse.
>If an attorney is accidentally struck by a motor vehicle, the dead
>attorney should be removed to the roadside, and the vehicle should
>proceed to the nearest car wash.
>
>372.04 -It is unlawful to chase, herd or h arvest attorneys from a power
>boat, helicopter or aircraft.
>
>372.05 -It is unlawful to shout "WHIPLASH", "AMBULANCE", or "FREE
>SCOTCH" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.
>
>372.06 -It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW,
>Mercedes, or Porsche dealerships, except on Wednesday afternoons.
>
>372.07 -It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms,
>law libraries, health clubs, country clubs or hospitals.
>
>372.08 -If an attorney gains elective office, it is not necessary to
>Have a license to hunt, trap or possess the same.
>
>372.09 -It is unlawful for a hunter to wear a disguise as a reporter,
>accident victim, physician, chiropractor, or tax accountant for the
>purpose of hunting attorneys.
>
>372.10 -Bag Limits -- Per Day:
>Yellow-bellied Sidewinders:2
>Two-faced Tort-feasors:1
>Back-stabbing Divorce Litigators:3
>Horn-rimmed Cut-throats:2
>Minutiae-advocating Chickens:4
>Honest Attorneys: 0 (Protected, Endangered species)

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

America

2006-02-25T19:15:36Z

.....was stolen from the native americans

immigration US is a dealer of solen property, no ?

posted in Attorneys - 14 replies

appropriate?

2006-02-24T02:42:10Z

Is this appropriate forum to ask questions/seek advice re: legal issues I find myself involved in?

thanks

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

Defamation case

2006-02-16T22:29:17Z

I have a friend who has a strong defamation case & is need of council. Who would you recommend? Are there attorneys that specialise in this area or no?

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

self-filing for bankruptcy

2005-12-10T04:53:02Z

I'm attempting to file my own chapter 7 claim with the help of the Nolo Press book. There are two weeks left before the new laws go into effect. I'm concerned that my claim will be refused because I didn't fill out the papers right. Should I just suck it up and pay the $800+ lawyer's fee, or go ahead and try to file myself? Do most people who self-file actually win their claim?

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

Anyone in SF studying for July Bar?

2005-11-18T20:57:43Z

I need some motivation (i.e. someone to study with). I'm taking BarBri but haven't really met anyone to study with. If anyone has advice on how to step up my intensity I'd be so appreciative!

posted in Attorneys - 5 replies

Custody

2005-11-18T03:09:36Z

A friend of mine is going through some rough times with his 6 year old son, his son's mother and custody. If I told you some of the stuff he's gone through you almost wouldn't believe it. Is this a place to get some help or can you suggest another place? He's a poor working guy and the local county legal aid isn't helping much. Thanks!

posted in Attorneys - 2 replies

heeeeeeeeeelp!

2005-11-09T15:10:23Z

hi,
i'd be really greatful if you could answer my questions.
we live in an apt.building and we have some trouble
with our neighbour.
we've been living here for a year and he complained twice
that we were noisy. we tried to be quiet and when we asked him he said we're fine.
i have cracks on the ceiling so i called the landlord and the plummer had to go into his apt. to check where the problem might come from.
as an answer he wrote us and the landlord that we had been noisy over the course of the year, he made up stories. it might happen that we'll be kicked out of our apartement.
(it happened before for this reasons )
can we be kicked out whitout asking us or other neighbours? and if we're kicked out, do we get our deposit back?
we're very conserned. please please please give us any answers!
thanks and cheers ;-)

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

Practice Areas

2005-10-27T23:26:31Z

What do we practice?

I practice IP, primarilly patents.

Dalm aka Steve.

posted in Attorneys - 24 replies

ordinance challenging non-local corporations

2005-10-27T16:51:54Z

greetings y'all.. would love to hear some opinions regarding this ballot initiative locally to prohibit non-local corporations from participating in the local political process. anything interesting or surprising in the ordinance? if passed, on what grounds do you think it'll be challenged? and if so, how--if at all--can it be defended. any comments would be much appreciated.

jerome

Humboldt County Ordinance to Protect Our Right to
Fair Elections and Local Democracy

The People of Humboldt County Ordain as Follows:
To protect our right to fair elections and local democracy we prohibit non-local corporate contributions to elections.

Section 1. Name.

The name of this Ordinance shall be the "Humboldt County Ordinance to Protect Our Right to Fair Elections & Local Democracy."

Section 2. Authority

This Ordinance is adopted and enacted pursuant to the authority guaranteed to the people of Humboldt County by all relevant state and federal Constitutions and laws, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) The California Constitution, Article I, Section 1, which states: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

(b) The California Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which states: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require."

(c) The people's historical memory of Article XII, Section 8, found in the California Constitution for almost a century, from 1879 to 1972, which stated: ".the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be so abridged or construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such a manner as to infringe the rights of individuals or the general well-being of the state."

(d) The United States Constitution, and the 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which recognize and secure the fundamental and inalienable right of people to govern themselves.

Section 3. Findings and General Purpose.

1) In a Democratic Republic all legitimate political power is held by the people, and government exercises just power only with the consent of the governed. The people create their government for their protection and benefit, and retain their right to alter their government whenever they deem the public good requires it.

2) Only natural persons possess civil and political rights. Corporations are creations of state law and possess no legitimate civil or political rights.

3) Courts have illegitimately defined corporations as "persons," allegedly vesting corporations with constitutional protections and rights. The unconstitutional doctrines of "corporate personhood" and "corporate constitutional rights" illegitimately deny the people of Humboldt County the ability to exercise our fundamental political rights.

4) Corporate contributions in electoral politics interfere with the right of the people to create and maintain the institutions needed for democratic self-governance.

5) The people of Humboldt County make the affirmative legislative finding that corporate contributions in elections are imminently undermining our democratic processes, and are denigrating rather than protecting First Amendment interests.

6) The people of Humboldt County make the affirmative legislative finding that corporate contributions in elections pose a genuine threat to the confidence of the citizenry of Humboldt County in our government.

7) The people of Humboldt County make the affirmative legislative finding that non-local corporate contributions are undermining our democratic processes, creating the appearance of impropriety and corruption, and are causing the people of Humboldt County to lose confidence in the integrity of our elections and in our government.

8) Corporations whose owners and employees reside in our local community are more accountable to the people who live here. People who do not live in Humboldt County should not be allowed to use their positions of corporate control and ownership to influence or undermine local elections through their corporate financial resources. This outside influence is unfair and undemocratic, and it is causing the people of Humboldt County to lose confidence in the integrity of our elections and in our government.

Section 4. Specific Purpose.

The specific purpose of this Ordinance is to prohibit non-local corporations from making direct or indirect contributions and independent expenditures in all elections within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County, including candidate campaigns, initiatives, referendums and recalls.

Section 5. Prohibitions.

Non-local corporations shall be prohibited from paying or contributing, directly or indirectly, any money, property, compensated service of its officers or employees, independent expenditures, or any other thing of value for the purpose of:

a) Promoting or defeating the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County; or

b) Promoting or defeating any initiative, referendum or recall election within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County, California.

Section 6. Statement of Law.

The Prohibitions in Section Five shall not apply to any election in which the jurisdiction includes counties other than Humboldt County, California.

Statement 7. Statement of Law.

The Prohibitions in Section Five shall apply to all municipalities, districts and special districts in which the jurisdictions are located wholly within the geographical boundaries of Humboldt County, California.

Section 8. Statement of Law.

No corporation shall be entitled to claim corporate constitutional rights or protections in an effort to overturn this law.

Section 9. Statement of Law.

Nothing in this Ordinance prevents individual corporate employees, trustees, directors, or shareholders from voluntarily and without coercion by the corporation contributing their own personal money or uncompensated services in elections to the extent allowed under state and federal campaign finance laws.

Section 10. Exemptions.

1) Local corporations shall be specifically exempted from the prohibitions in Section Five of this Ordinance.

2) Local labor organizations shall be specifically exempted from the prohibitions in Section Five of this Ordinance.

3) Local nonprofit organizations shall be specifically exempted from the prohibitions in Section Five of this Ordinance.

Section 11. Definitions.

Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following words and phrases in this Ordinance shall have the following meaning:

CORPORATION: An organization incorporated under the laws of the State of California or holding a Certificate of Authority to do Business within the State of California; or an organization incorporated under the laws of any state in the United States; also includes limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies; also includes organizations operating as nonprofits as defined by the Internal Revenue Service Code and Regulations, with the exception of political parties.

LOCAL CORPORATION: A corporation in which all employees reside in Humboldt County, and has its primary place of business in Humboldt County, and has its corporate headquarters located in Humboldt County, and all shares of stock (if any) are owned by individuals residing in Humboldt County, and no portion of the corporation is owned by another corporation.

LOCAL LABOR ORGANIZATION: A labor organization as defined by the National Labor Relations Act in which at least one member resides in Humboldt County. Also includes labor unions and trade unions with at least one member who resides in Humboldt County.

LOCAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION: An organization classified as a nonprofit organization under Internal Revenue Service Code and Regulations in which all members of the board of directors reside in Humboldt County.

NON-LOCAL CORPORATION: Any corporation or organization that does not meet the above definition of "Local Corporation" or "Local Labor Organization" or "Local Nonprofit Organization."

PERSON or PEOPLE: Human beings.

Section 12. Enforcement.

Any non-local corporation found to have contributed directly or indirectly any money, property, compensated service of its officers or employees, independent expenditures, or any other thing of value to political campaigns, initiatives, referendums shall pay to the County of Humboldt ten (10) times the amount the corporation inappropriately contributed.

If any non-local corporation is found to have contributed (directly or indirectly) more than $25,000 to any political campaigns, initiatives or referendums in violation of this Ordinance, the Humboldt County District Attorney shall petition the California Attorney General to:

a) Initiate a charter revocation proceeding against the corporation if the corporation is chartered in California, or

b) Initiate a proceeding to revoke the corporation's Certificate of Authority to do Business in California if the corporation is not chartered in California.

Any violation of this Ordinance shall give rise to a mandatory duty on the part of the District Attorney to enforce this Ordinance. If the District Attorney fails to bring an action to enforce this Ordinance, any natural person residing in Humboldt shall have standing before the Court for enforcement as described in Section 13.

Section 13. Citizen Suits.

This Ordinance creates and vests in every citizen of Humboldt County the right to sue to compel compliance with this Ordinance. All actions shall be brought in the Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt.

Citizen-Plaintiffs shall notify the District Attorney in writing of their intent to sue, and the District Attorney shall have fourteen (14) days following receipt of the notice to initiate an action to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance. Action by the District Attorney following that notice shall supplant the ability to file a citizen suit, but if the District Attorney does not diligently pursue the litigation, the right of the Citizen-Plaintiffs to initiate a suit shall not be impaired.

Section 14. Severability.

The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is determined to be illegal, invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision of the court shall not affect or invalidate any of the remaining sections or provisions of this Ordinance. It is the express intent of the people of Humboldt County, California that this Ordinance would have been adopted if such illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional section or provision had not been included.

Section 15. Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption by the voters.

Section 16. Interpretation.

In the event this Ordinance requires interpretation (by courts, county officials, or anyone else), it is the express intent of the people of Humboldt County that this Ordinance be construed in such a manner to carry out the original intent of this Initiative, which is to eliminate non-local corporate influence from the Humboldt County electoral process.

posted in Attorneys - 2 replies

Legal Authority of Police in New Orleans

2005-09-12T15:21:58Z

As everyone has heard, many police departments across the country have lent officers to patrol the hurricane ravaged city of New Orleans. My own city's force, the NYPD has sent 303 officers and commanders, for example.

Anyone know what is the formal legal authority for these out of town and out of state officers to make arrests in New Orleans?

Is there a formal ceremony where they are deputized into the New Orleans or federal forces?

posted in Attorneys - 4 replies

My New Site for Legal Research: Elegus.com

2005-09-04T04:09:08Z

Hi,

I'd like to let you all know about my new website for government and legal research - elegus.com. elegus.com is a great low-cost alternative for your every-day legal research needs. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

Thanks!
____

Here is the press release:

"Elegus Corporation announced the launch of Elegus.com, a subscription-based tool designed to provide one-stop, simplified searching of virtually any U.S. federal or state government Web site or group of sites."

"Users select searches from a list of government sites that includes nearly every domain and sub-domain within the federal system, as well as all state government, judiciary and legislature sites. Elegus also offers searching of groups of sites, so users can search across multiple sites related to the same office, department, state or subject heading (such as "All Federal Courts") with a single search.

"Leveraging the power of commercial search engine technology, Elegus' patent pending system automatically sends search instructions tailored to the selected website or group. Results are displayed in the user's choice of an easy-to-use viewer or separate window. Elegus.com also features insta-send(TM), which searches immediately upon website or group selection, so users don ’t even need to click the search button (although it's there if you still want to use it). A direct link to each website is also included.

Elegus.com is designed and built by Adam Piacente. Piacente previously built LegalTrek.com, gathering over 40,000 links to government and other law-related web sites. Piacente is also author of 'Computer-Assisted Legal Research Unplugged: The User-Friendly Guide to Lexis-Nexis & Westlaw', and 'lexis.com unplugged: the user-friendly guide to lexis.com' (published in association with Lexis Publishing).

"I built Elegus.com to target specific government websites and groups without having to wade through pages of irrelevant, global search results," Piacente said, "and I am amazed at just how fast and easy searching has become.

"There is such a vast amount of valuable government and legal information available now on the Internet. Elegus.com is a cost-effective solution that helps you quickly find what you need."

Elegus.com is published by Elegus Corporation. For more, visit www.elegus.com or email: info@elegus.com.

posted in Attorneys - 5 replies

Credit Settlements & Filling Documents w/ an Attny...

2005-07-12T23:30:11Z

Hello...im getting ready to have a baby girl and me and my partner are trying to clear some of his debt so we can eventually buy a home...

He has a credit card debt of $14,000 and was recently (June 19, 2005) served a court order saying that the company that has bought his debt (UNIFUND) is going to sue him for the monies, tacking on an additional $4,000-totaling $18,000...

We are in the process of deciding...is it worth it to respond with offical court documents and pay the fees to buy more time, or is it best to settle with their offer, even though they are jacking it up an extra $4,000?...we threatened to file bankruptcy and he got nervous and then offered us a settlement of $6,000 for now, and the rest to be negotiated upon in the future...additionally he pleaded with us to not file offically with the courts...we want to know why? and what is the best bet for us...we have a small nest egg and wanted to use some of these monies for our birth and the new baby and settle some of this debt...

Please if anyone has an idea on which is better and wiser or offer another alternative please let me know!

Thanks so much!

Juju

posted in Attorneys - 7 replies

o man i'm in bad shit

2005-07-03T02:11:06Z

My medical bill just went to the collections agency!

What do I do? I've already drafted a letter for validation, i'm suppose to do that first, right?

Jeez, I can't believe they'd hound a poor student with no money for two years, even when the psychiatric doctor said it would be all taken care of when I told him I had no insurance.

I wouldn't have gone if I had a choice, but my mom called the cops on me and issued me a 5152. After talking to the doctor, it was clear to him that it was my manipulative mother who needed psychological attention more than me.

Nevertheless, the bill came and I was never in a position to pay it off. It went from $300 something to $700 something after the County Department of Revenue got it. Now the collections agency has it and they claim it's $1147.

Now I'm getting ready to go to USC, which I'm struggling to pay for, and if the collections hit my credit report I may not be able to get housing in LA. Aren't there programs for students, specially when they were in psychological distress and couldn't function like a normal human being? This is just about enough to put me in the hospital again.

Can someone who knows more about this advise on what to do now? Thanks.

posted in Attorneys - 19 replies

Filibuster Deal

2005-05-24T02:25:56Z

Anyone actually believe in this?

What the heck are "Exceptional circumstances"? If that were a law, it would be vilified as ripe for litigation. Like the dems will not claim the selection of a Supreme is an exceptional situation and blah blah blah.

Any opinions out there yet?

Dalm.

posted in Attorneys - 1 reply

What would you do??????????

2005-05-20T16:18:10Z

Hired an attorney for wrongful employment termination against former employer. Took him 5 months of doing exactly nothing to finally terminate our relationship.
He blamed it on my impatience but in reality, I only inquired about 8 times about his delay on my case in the 5 month period. (and inquired quite calmly I might add)

At the same time,
Hired a workers comp attorney for the same wrongfull employment termination as above, but this focused on my having an open workers comp case while employed at this job. (injury resulted from working at this job)

The first lawyer did absolutly nothing for 2 months. I found another one. 2 months and she retired and refered me to another lawyer.
This one I talked to once at the onset of our relationship, but 4 phone calls over a month and a half have not been returned. He set up a phone meeting that never transpired and all calls to his number result in either his voice mail, or mailbox full.

Oh, and I contacted the BAR on the first lawyer. They said I should file a complaint for his 5 month delay on any action and his subsequent termination of our relationship.

So, that's 4 lawyers who have so far done absolutly nothing regarding my case.

What am I supposed to do now???

Is this normal?
I have never had any dealings legally.
Can I just expect more of the same until my time runs out in the year alloted for right to sue???

posted in Attorneys - 22 replies

Old English

2005-05-18T04:05:13Z

Does most of the legal jargon come from old English?

posted in Attorneys - 8 replies

Help!

2005-05-13T13:47:58Z

I need a job this summer, and thought Tribe might be a good place to network. I just moved to Minneapolis to go Law School at Hamline, so I don't know any one who can help me find a job. Public interest is my area of interest, which makes it even harder to find a paid position. At this point I am ready to take anything, and would volunteer first to prove myself worthy of pay. I've got a good resume with and great administrative experience as an executive assistant and receptionist.

Advice?

Leads?

posted in Attorneys - 4 replies

sorry to be out of order...if it please the court...

2005-03-27T06:35:41Z

I am sorry if I offended anyone or if you feel that this is not something that you deal with.
There are many attorneys that do and one way or another, I think it involves you all. Even in NY...
But I have deleted my posts and will let you be. If you are interesting in the film, times and dates, locations, and understanding maybe the side of a clients life, you can see it on my web site. www.almostborken.com Till then...
enjoy.

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

Quick Poll-Schiavo

2005-03-22T09:53:59Z

Life and death issues aside...

Congress' actions...constitutional/unconsitutional?

posted in Attorneys - 5 replies

workers comp victims tribe

2005-03-14T05:20:40Z

workerscompvictims.tribe.net

For Californians who need help navigating the system and to share your experiences and issues.

posted in Attorneys - 0 replies

Patents

2005-03-10T21:43:04Z

Have you noticed that great minds really don't think alike? If they did, the patent office would only have about fifty inventions.

posted in Attorneys - 1 reply

King of Pop

2005-02-17T22:51:01Z

Who thinks he is faking it????

Dalm aka Steve.

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

Welcome

2005-01-26T22:34:45Z

posted in Attorneys - 5 replies

Newdow

2005-01-21T03:30:40Z

Poor Newdow,

Guess he did not go to the inauguration since he lost his case at trying to stop Bush from having clergy present.

There was a effective use of judicial resources. Hell, even the 9th Cir ruled against him.

Steve aka Dalm.

posted in Attorneys - 2 replies

Blabbermouths?

2005-01-20T18:42:37Z

Considering that lawyers are supposed to be blabbermouths....people that you cannot shut up...

How come we cannot get some of the lurkers on here to SPEAK UP!

Hell, I know I am ugly, but I took my pic down and put up something else!

Dalm aka Steve.

posted in Attorneys - 4 replies

Attorneys

2005-01-17T00:52:31Z

What motivated you to become one?

posted in Attorneys - 3 replies

Politics

2005-01-09T23:56:10Z

This tribe is listed under politics because laws are policy and politics is the management or enforcement of those policies.

posted in Attorneys - 9 replies