Jump to content

elmcitymaven

Members
  • Content Count

    13,934
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    31

elmcitymaven last won the day on October 7 2016

elmcitymaven had the most liked content!

About elmcitymaven

  • Rank
    class traitor
  • Birthday June 5
  • Member # 31091

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • City
    Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests
    Abiding by the TOS.

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Naturalization (approved)
  • Local Office
    Los Angeles CA
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

29,842 profile views
  1. FINE! Last time I do something for you. (j/k, I'm generous)
  2. Question: Is it required to post an article to kick off discussion on a particular topic? I just reviewed the guidance from Penguin on posting in the subforum, and it states (emphasis added): https://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/595604-posting-news-articles-and-tos-enforcement/?do=findComment&comment=9493013 This language implies that there is no requirement that an OP be an article or a link to an article, but rather that where the OP is an article or link to an article, the title of the thread must match that of the article exactly. Accordingly, my reading is that there is permission to start threads on particular topics without necessarily initially including text from an article (including the link thereto) or the link itself without an excerpt. For the avoidance of doubt, is there a change in the policy of what must be included in an initial post in a thread (i.e., there must be an underlying article and link)? As a remedial measure, here's a link (although clearly the title of this post would need to be changed): https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-52717161 This is an interesting topic to explore, and it would be a shame to see it shut.
  3. Ha, no. There was more than a couple of tins of soup in his Boris Box. He was actually quite surprised at how much he was sent. My brother confirmed there was cat food for Izzy the babycat, but she turned her nose up at it! Cats, I tell ya.
  4. My brother received a food parcel from the government this week, as he has been classified as highly vulnerable by the NHS. He was touched by the effort but is wondering what to do with two tins of spicy parsnip soup.
  5. I'll let you know. We are going to ask for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the residence of the guy. He lives here!
  6. Thanks. That's pretty much what I assumed here. I'm rummaging around on Westlaw trying to figure out the actual law of this because, well, even after being on VJ for 13 years 🙄I don't know so much of immigration black letter law, even if I'm very familiar with procedure.
  7. It's actually a commercial dispute -- breach of guaranty. The guy owns a company that is a California corporation. The company entered into a sub-sublease with our client as sub-landlord; the guy signed the guaranty. The company breached the sub-sublease, and the client sued both the company and the guy, as guarantor, as permitted under the terms of the sub-sublease and the guaranty. So the question is: can a permanent resident claim NOT to be a resident of the United States?
  8. Thought I might tap into the VJ hive mind on this -- I am currently drafting an opposition to a motion to dismiss/quash service of summons based (in part) on the ground that service was improper because the defendant does not live in the United States but in Russia, and therefore service should have been made under the Hague Convention in Russia. Now, I know this guy lives in Los Angeles, he's just a complete scumbag who is evading service. One of our service people had this confirmed by the guard at his high-security apartment building. The other side is making a whole song and dance about how he's a foreign national and not a US citizen, but never do they once mention that he has a green card. How do I know? I found out by looking at other filings he made in other courts where he mentions he's a PR. There's also a particularly unhinged letter to Donald Trump that's an exhibit to a motion I found in another case in which he throws himself on the mercy of Trump, calling himself a GC holder, begging to be made a citizen so he can do a business deal because "Distraction will be tremendous , and once terrorists will discover my trick, nothing will stop them." OK then! You do you, boo. Am I correct in assuming that a green card holder must maintain residence and/or domicile in the United States in order to maintain his or her permanent residence? Thanks in advance for helping me do my job.
  9. This one's getting passed around at the moment. Turns out justice isn't blind; she can see your moobs on Zoom. https://www.law360.com/articles/1263646/put-on-a-shirt-for-video-hearings-judge-tells-attys
  10. What I'm saying is that at the time of bringing the charges there was a case that could be made for prosecution given the facts known at the time of bringing the prosecution. Sometimes additional facts are discovered during the prosecution which make it unwise to continue. It doesn't mean that the defendant was innocent or guilty; it means that additional information makes it difficult to proceed. Discovery can sometimes turn up things like, say, that the plaintiff blew the statute of limitations on his claim but thought that he didn't when he filed his complaint. Or the prosecution, based on the facts it has, believes that it can prove every element of a crime, but it turns out some element is missing, or the search that turned up some evidence that's crucial violated the defendant's 4th Amendment rights. These things happen. It always looks huge when it's a huge case, and sometimes, yes! It is huge, and hugely embarrassing. And sometimes it's nothing but a damp squib, something thrown out on a technicality. Or here the risk of exposure of classified information is too great, on balance, to warrant further prosecution. This isn't a "Mueller's an idiot" matter (full disclosure: I went to school and college with several lawyers on Mueller's team, but am not close with any of them -- though I know how bright they were when we were classmates). Rather it's that sometimes justice cannot be pursued because on balance there are impediments to its pursuit. You're better than that, friend. Sorry, this was really more in the realms of the criminal. My apologies for disappointing.
  11. Because it is likely that they did not know at the time of filing the totality of the circumstances. Facts develop during the progression of a prosecution or a civil proceeding that may cause a prosecutor or plaintiff to determine that continuing to pursue an action is not warranted in the circumstances. Dismissals are not the same as an acquittal or a court's determination that a defendant is not civilly liable.
  12. Well, my 25-year-old nephew is self-isolating for the next fortnight in an abundance of caution. He (and the bulk of my nuclear family, except my parents) live in London. My nephew was at a bat mitzvah over the weekend with his girlfriend and his girlfriend's mother. As it turns out, the mother was exposed to a confirmed case of COVID-19 and she is now self-monitoring and self-isolating. Given how many people were in attendance at the event and that apparently the mother is something of a hugger, no one is taking any chances. Yes, this is at two removes but I am telling you, those two removes don't make me any less worried. My nephew is a healthy young man, but his auntie is 5,000 miles away and scared. He can't even go home to his parents as my brother is immunosuppressed and my sister-in-law is at work on Jersey and unsure if she should return to London. Right now, my nephew feels fine but he is aware he could be asymptomatic. I am very, very proud of him for taking extra steps to ensure his community's safety. No one should feel terribly sad for him though -- his girlfriend is the daughter of a Russian oligarch and they're camping out together in her very plush pied-a-terre for the time being. I'm sure between the champagne and the foie gras he'll find time to check in with me. Or not. I should be more concerned that my archaeologist brother nearly got blown up by unexploded ordnance twice in the past month on digs, I'm sure. But these are very strange times indeed. Just checking in with you all and to see if everyone is still bickering as always. In my studies of eschatology, such as they are, I have come across a warning that if everyone in CEHST (RIP P&R) starts agreeing with each other, it will be a true mark of the end times. Glad to see the world's end has been postponed for a few more weeks through your efforts to keep at daggers drawn, keep up the good work.
  13. Not exactly. The classic formulation of the definition of hearsay is "A statement made out of court presented to assert the truth of the matter asserted." We can break it down like this. A statement can be written or oral, or as you say a photograph. It can even be a gesture or a non-verbal assertion like a grunt, if it's clear what that grunt indicates. Out of court means simply not made under oath within the proceedings. So testimony made at trial, in a deposition, or as part of discovery responses in the particular matter are "made in court"; sworn testimony in another proceeding is not. And then the statement needs to be "presented to assert the truth of the matter asserted" -- simply, "I'm saying that this statement means what it says it means." Hearsay is NOT admissible in a court of law. Except... under the 80 bajillion exceptions/exemptions/exclusions to the rule against hearsay. Okay, not that many, under the Federal Rules of Evidence (the rule against hearsay is FRE 802), there are roughly 30 of these. If you can get the hearsay statement in under one of them, it will be admissible, but sometimes it will be admitted with a limiting instruction from the judge -- basically saying to the jury, okay, you can use this statement ONLY for X purpose, but not for its truthfulness. Gluttons for punishment can start with FRE 801 and read all the way through to FRE 807 (if my memory is correct). Of course state rules of evidence will vary from the FRE. So it's not a matter of whether or not the hearsay statement is important (it could be) or accurate (ditto), but whether it's admissible. Unless it's admissible, it don't mean squat in terms of proving a fact is true. My own back of the envelope analysis of what happened here looks like this is actually hearsay that doesn't fall within one of the FRE exclusions/exceptions/exemptions. The only one I can possibly think of (and it's a stretch) is for the effect upon the listener -- that the wife was putting the interviewer on notice of this fact (assuming it is a fact). It would be admissible only for the purpose that the interviewer was put on notice of this, but not for the truth of the statement's contents. Unfortunately everything I know about immigration law I learned on VJ, so it is merely my assumption that the FRE applies in an immigration court, since immigration is a Federal matter. Accordingly, and I cannot stress this enough, YMMV.
  14. That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works. An "attempt" has a specific definition. A criminal attempt is an act that, although done with the intention of committing a crime, falls short of completing the crime. An attempt therefore consists of two elements: (i) a specific intent to commit the crime, and (ii) an overt act in furtherance of that intent. So! She would need to have the specific intent to commit murder. Here's where things get a bit granular -- while the mens rea for murder doesn't require the specific intent to kill another human being, the mens rea for attempted murder does. So, CdeBaca would need to specifically intend that she (? unclear, she's just retweeting, but for the sake of this hypothetical, let's assume it's her) attend Trump rallies with the intent to kill attendees. Now we have another problem -- it is logically impossible to commit a crime that requires recklessness or negligence. There is a strong argument to be made that since the coronavirus has a mortality rate of, what, 1-2% (who knows!), and that the majority of people who get the virus just get sick, that the possibility that someone might die as a result of contracting the virus is a reckless act at best. There is no indication that CdeBaca intends that death result from her (hypothetical) attendance at a rally. So, attempted murder isn't an appropriate charge. Beyond that, there needs to be an overt act in furtherance of the attempted crime. Modernly, this means a substantial step taken to end in the commission of the target crime. A tweet expressing solidarity with the idea of getting the coronavirus in order to attend a Trump rally is not a substantial step, nor is a tweet expressing the desire to do so oneself. There needs to be some act taken that goes beyond mere words. Again, this cannot be shown here. Then we get onto the issue of wanton disregard. As stated above, one cannot be charged with attempted murder for wanton disregard of human life. While wanton disregard -- so-called "depraved heart recklessness" -- is one of the forms of mens rea that can support a charge of murder, it is insufficient to support a charge of attempted murder. There must be a specific intent to kill another human being. Now, we may charge her in the court of public opinion for being crass. I'm cool with that.
×
×
  • Create New...