Some obvious advice, but one guy didn't get the memo. If you steal the identities of immigrants, you will get caught and you will go to jail. A lost bar license adds to the woes of the former chief counsel of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE).
Raphael Sanchez, pleaded guilty to wire fraud and identity theft and now faces four years in prison. As the head attorney for the agency's Seattle division, Mr. Sanchez was responsible for giving legal advice to ICE agents and overseeing asylum and deportation cases in several states.
It was in his position at ICE that Mr. Sanchez was able to obtain the personal information of immigrants and use it to his advantage. Court records indicate Mr. Sanchez was able to fraudulently obtain almost $200,000 through his crimes.
As a former Deputy Trial Counsel at the State Bar of California, I have seen many attorneys make bad decisions like this one. It is never worth it, especially after working so hard to graduate from law school and pass the bar exam. If you do find yourself facing a State Bar complaint or investigation, my office handles such matters. Feel free to contact me for a free consultation at 323-522-4440 or email@example.com.
CAn government agencies use member fees to promote messages that members oppose? A Grape case in california says yes.
Free speech vs. the government's interest in promoting and marketing the state's grape industry. That was the question in Delano Farms Company v. California Table Grape Commission. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Grape Commission, finding that the marketing, paid for by fees passed on to grape growers and shippers, constituted government, not private speech
(which is given more protection from government intrusion).
The Court went through a lengthy discussion and review of the case law regarding private vs. government speech and the consequences of speech being classified in either category. The Court also reviewed the statutory set up and duties of the Grape Commission, which was created in the 1960's to assist the table grape industry. This industry is now worth approximately $1.7 billion to the California economy. The Grape Commission was originally created when the grape industry to deal with increasing competition and other issues in the grape markets.
After a lengthy review, the speech that was being generated in the Grape Commission's work, including marketing of grapes, was found to be government speech - not private speech being forced upon the grape shippers and growers. Such a classification proved fatal in this case, as this type of speech enjoys little to no protection under Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court found in favor of the Grape Commission, allowing them to continue charging fees to grape growers and shippers.
A divided Supreme Court ruled today that the police need a warrant to obtain records from your cell phone company.
The 5-4 decision shifts away from a long list of court rulings that records held by a third party fall outside of 4th Amendment protection. That earlier view reasoned that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the records are stored at a company where many people can access the data.
The majority opinion stated that cell phone records are different than other records because people have become so reliant on their phones and tend to have them in their possession at all times. This causes cell data to track your every move, which would give police the ability to track you virtually anywhere - without obtaining a warrant. While the court expanded protections for cell phone records, it left open the possibility that police can still obtain the records without a warrant in some situations.
The dissenting opinion did not see a legal justification for a difference between cell phone records and other types of records, such as banking or landline telephone records under the third party doctrine.