Archive for October, 2008

Litigation Financing Company

litigation financing company
Am I the only stay at home mom with this problem?

I am a stay at home mommy not only by choice but stay at home by default as well. I was in a terrible car accident 3 years ago that left me with nerve damage in my right arm and unable to work. I struggle with certain things and do house work at my own pace but ALWAYS, ALWAYS my home is spotless and little boy is healthy and happy. My husband works a good job, but financally we have been taken to our knees from my accident. (Still in litigation with the insurance company of the Tractor Trailer truck that hit me) I know that there is much stress in our marriage dealing with finances. Before the accident we always had. Now – we make it, but struggle. It just seems that my husband has no clue nor cares how hard I work making our house a home and raising our son. He comes home, does yard work occassionally and watches tv. Never really does anything to help, just tells me when ‘the dryer went off’… or my son has a dirty diaper. He seems self-centered since my accident. Help?

I dont have any real answers for you. I am in the same situation. I have a nuerological disorder similiar to cp. I was in real good shape when I had my daughter who is now sixteen. My husband and I decided to have more children recently. There is an age gap of 13 and 15 years between my children. I know have three. One is 3 years old and one is 21 months old. My husband told me he would help. But, when comes home from work he sits on the couch and watches tv. Also, like your husband he does the yard work. My house is not spotless, but I try. I am doing all I can. Unless I specifically ask him to do something and then he seems put out, but he does it. I have talked to him about it. He says to just ask and he will do it. But, when I ask it is in a minute and that minute never comes or he does it, but you can tell he dont want too. I am much slower at getting things done and try my best to everything. When you come up with an answer let me know. My husband has never bathed the children. Although he does change a few diapers (very few). If I am away or something. He wants me the way I used to be. I will never be that. I know it causes me to resent him when I am so busy and frankly he sits on his ass. I dont know what to do. I do love him. I just dont know. Edit. I know I did not answer you question but I thought it might help to know you are not alone.

New York Ethical Lawsuit Funding Company LawCash

Lawsuit Loans Allow Personal Injury Litigants To Pursue Full Compensation

Sometimes, this is because they don’t have the money to pursue their claim through to the end.  Litigation financing companies offer relief in these types of instances, so that you can stay afloat until your case reaches a verdict.

Depending upon how serious your injuries are, you may be unable to work for a few weeks, or you may be disabled.  You can no longer work.  How will the bills get paid?  Pre-settlement funding gives you the money you need to pay monthly household bills, medical costs, attorney fees and more.  No doubt you will have a great deal of medical expenses, and perhaps expenses for rehabilitation as well.  How can you continue your claim, which may last for months when your income supply is gone?  You can’t.  This is exactly what lawsuit loans are for.

You may be thinking “but this won’t work for me. I already have enough bills, I can’t afford another monthly payment for a loan.”  This is where pre-settlement funding differs from regular bank loans.  There is no credit check, no hassle, and you do not repay the money until you win your lawsuit.  You pay the litigation financing company absolutely nothing until you receive your money!  But, what if something goes awry and you end up losing?  That is the best thing about lawsuit loans.  If you do not win, you do not pay.  

No doubt you have heard about people settling out of court.  While this may be fine in some cases, often it means the plaintiff gets an amount that is substantially less than what they deserve.  You do not have to put up with accepting less than you are entitled to from insurance companies.  You can fight the defendants, even if they are a large corporation or company!  Pre-settlement funding gives you the necessary funds so that you can concentrate on winning your case, and worry less about how you are going to pay your monthly obligations.

Speak with your attorney about lawsuit loans, and what litigation financing companies may be able to do for you.  The process is simple, there is very little paperwork involved, and you will get your money the same or very next day if you qualify.  You deserve every dime you have coming for the injuries, pain and suffering, and loss of income you have endured.  Pre-settlement funding is beneficial for many litigants; it may also be the perfect answer to your dilemma.

Finance Litigation

finance litigation

Does Anyone Have Some Tums? – a Palm Springs, Palm Desert, & Indian Wells California Finance Attorney Take on the Growing Financial Crisis

Pass me a couple of airsick bags, will you?

Watching the stock market drop like an airplane hitting an air pocket and then rising only to drop again is enough to give you heartburn, even for a California finance attorney. Business, real estate, corporate and finance lawyers, whether they practice in San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs or Indian Wells think they have seen it all when it comes to seeing finance fraud in litigation cases. But the testimony we have been hearing about the fraud in the financial markets is enough to turn your hair white, if you have any left. The words I’ve been hearing are making people quake in their boots. Panic, stock crash, depression, bank runs…

Somebody, pass me the Tums, will you?

Yes, there were professors from esteemed institutions of higher learning saying that the bailout proposal Congress passed wouldn’t solve the problem, and yes, they may have been right, but neither them being right nor the passing the bailout bill hasn’t calmed the financial markets in the U.S. or the rest of the world. The Dow has been dropping 300, 500, 600, and nearly 700 points now for, well, I’ve lost track of how many days it has dropped. Many are now routinely calling it a stock crash. Others are now calling the Great Depression of the 1930s the First Great Depression. Has anyone seen my 401K or IRAs? Last I saw they were going down the sewer.

Does anyone have some milk for my stomach?

Yes, there are also people out there saying that the financial bailout was a bad idea all around. That it rewarded the rich, and those foreign investors who got sucked into buying our financial stocks. As it turned out, they may have needed it just as much as we do. Last I heard, Iceland was facing bankruptcy as a country and now that their markets are falling like leaves, it’s throwing more wood onto our own fire sale on Wall Street.

Does anyone know if alcohol and Tums are a bad combination?

Reports are that the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks are making hundreds of billions of dollars and euros and other currencies available for the world’s banking systems to boost the amount of money available for lending so banks will feel confident to start lending to one another and to businesses again. Anyone feel confident yet? Anyone tried to get a loan lately?

Has anyone seen my bottle of scotch?

I think we just learned what it was that scared Hank Paulson, George Bush and all the rest of the usual suspects who testify to Congress that the world was in effect going to come to and end if the bailout plan wasn’t passed. Well, it turned out they were almost right, despite passing the Bailout Plan. No the world isn’t coming to an end, and we don’t have a depression like in the 1930s, but in case there is something more that our leaders know that is still going to cause something else to implode, could they just tell us exactly when it is set to implode? I want to make sure I have my head ducked under something.

Isn’t Tagamet good for an upset stomach, or is that Pepto Bismol?

Yes, I know that all is not good in the world of credit card balances, student loan programs, home mortgages, equity lines of credit, construction loans, corporate debt, auto loans, commercial real estate loans and those swaps that you hear about but don’t really know exactly what they consist of on the financial channels. But, last I checked, hey, I’m still here. They still have groceries on the shelves, they still take my credit card and gas is getting cheaper by the day.

Hey, Houston, Ground Control, we’re still here!

Finance and Banking
On July 15, the Senate passed a comprehensive financial reform bill that touches every aspect of financial services, from derivatives to mortgages to consumer finance. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will now go to the White House for President Barack Obama’s signature.

Litigation Sentence

litigation sentence

The Bureau Of Prisons’ Failure To Properly Implement The Second Chance Act Of 2007

Have They Become Too Autonomous?  

As of this writing, there are approximately 200,000 people being confined by the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP), a component of the Department of Justice (DoJ). Their offenses span the spectrum from high treason, terrorism, or murder – to the more mundane like poaching deer on federal land. Interestingly, official government records will confirm that a majority of federal inmates are non-violent and non-weapon offenders that are incarcerated for comparatively low security violations, minor drug offenses, or white-collar related offenses. Nonetheless, the debate rages on how to reduce the federal prison population and, in turn, reduce the $5.53 billion (yes, that’s a “B”) BOP budget that was approved for fiscal year (FY) 2009.

In an effort to facilitate a federal inmate’s return to society, reduce inmate recidivism, and bring the federal prison population to manageable levels, U.S. Congressman Danny Davis (D-IL) introduced House Resolution 1593 (H.R. 1593) in 2007. It was signed by President Bush, became Public Law 110-199 on April 9, 2008, and it became known as The 2nd Chance Act of 2007. In addition to its many Sections offering funding mechanisms for inmate re-entry programs, The 2nd Chance Act also increased a federal inmate’s previous 6-month maximum allowed in a Residential Re-entry Center (RRC), commonly referred to as a Halfway House, to a maximum of 12-months. The thought of course being, it would immediately reduce federal prison levels by allowing worthy non-violent offenders an opportunity to return to society, become gainfully employed, start paying income taxes, begin paying restitution to any victims, and most importantly, start supporting their own families. However, despite the intent of The 2nd Chance Act of 2007, and the logic that accompanied it, the BOP has again apparently decided to “implement” this very worthwhile Congressional mandate in the same cavalier manner that they handle most of the other ineffectual political or judicial attempts to “dictate policy” to BOP upper management – they simply ignore it. Consequently, prison populations are still increasing and American taxpayers continue to fund the $25,000 to $35,000 annual fee it reportedly requires to house each federal inmate.

How did we get to where we are today? Arguably, it was precipitated by the knee-jerk reaction of a few elected officials in their politically motivated, albeit failed, attempt to address the rise in violent drug related crimes that were proliferating our city streets during an election year. (Why does the rush to pass The Patriot Act come to mind?) As a direct result, The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (the Acts) overhauled the federal sentencing system and revised bail and forfeiture procedures along with other federal practices. They also abolished federal parole and mandated minimum-mandatory sentences for any federal offense. Consequently, this political faux pas took all sentencing discretion away from federal judges and began filling our federal prison system with a majority of non-violent offenders with no possible way for them to be prematurely released. Indeed, federal defendants could (and still can) be assured that they would serve at least 85% of any sentence they received – no matter how innocuous their offense might have been. Furthermore, should one consider that more than 94% of all infrastructure labor support (repair, landscaping, maintenance, kitchen, etc.) at BOP facilities is conducted by federal inmates, why would the BOP be in any hurry to release their 12-cents an hour labor force or tamper with their revenue generating UNICOR business interests? It might also explain why they refuse to honor the Congressionally mandated “good-time” provision for federal inmates and continue to drag that issue through the federal courts. We would suggest that you don’t have to be a Wharton School graduate to conclude that the BOP currently enjoys the luxury of having a very large number of ” not-so-bad” bad guys doing the lion’s share of the work required to incarcerate a much smaller number of “truly-bad” bad guys.

From 1984 until today, the BOP has been demonstrating what can only be described as a consistent and conscious attempt to move farther and farther away from any accountability to Congress, federal judges, or anyone else for that matter. Initially supported by elected officials (who always seem to be working on their re-election), coupled with the oft-times well-deserved national hysteria of crime victims, the BOP has been allowed to create their own little fiefdom within the DoJ and now appear to be enjoying unprecedented powers and an autonomy or an “institutional arrogance,” if you will, that has heretofore been reserved for the likes of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who coincidentally, also happen to be a component of the DoJ.

Although pretty much “neutered” in sentencing matters by the Acts of 1984, some federal judges mistakenly believed that they remained sacrosanct in their own courtrooms. In fact, some even had the temerity to suggest that judicial recommendations to the BOP on defendant designations, rehabilitation treatments, and other issues delineated within the court’s Judgment & Commitment Orders should be honored. Several subsequent cases to include the First Circuit case, United States v. Dennis Guerette (District of Maine Docket CR-03-95-B-W) nipped that presumptuous thought in the bud,

 ”…..[d]ecisions to place a convicted defendant within a particular treatment program or a particular facility are decisions within the sole discretion of the Bureau of Prisons. United States v. Melendez, 279 F.3d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 2002) (per curiam), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 (2002) (quoting Thye v. United States, 109 F.3d 127, 130 (2d Cir. 1997)). A sentencing court’s recommendation to the BOP is both “non-binding” and “non-reviewable and its failure to recommend is similarly ‘non-appealable.’ Id”

In these days of economic uncertainty and Congressional oversight into anything with a financial pulse, one can only imagine how far “below-the-radar” the BOP must be operating – or are they? Notwithstanding various credible and well-publicized allegations, multiple state/federal investigations, and subsequent contracting fraud indictments targeting various business associates, Keefe Group of St. Louis has consistently been awarded the extremely lucrative contract within the BOP to supply food stuffs to all the BOP prison commissaries throughout the United States. Contracts that stand to earn several million dollars in annual profits, yet when questioned about these well-documented contracting improprieties or, at the minimum, the appearance of an egregious conflict-of-interest, the consistently unflappable BOP continues business as usual. Interestingly, the same reaction they have when asked to explain why they charge indigent federal inmates and/or their families more than seven times the average cost of a telephone call from a federal penal facility. A long distance telephone service contract that is being awarded with about the same transparency as the Keefe Group contract. Little wonder why BOP Correctional Officers can find more cell phones in a minimum-security federal prison camp than a college sorority house.

Speaking of bidding on contracts, how about the even more lucrative BOP medications contracts that have been consistently awarded to McKesson Corporation. A company that has been investigated by both the Department of Justice (various U.S. Attorneys Offices) as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration, eventually leading to some high-ranking executives being federally indicted. In fact, one May 2008, incident in the District of Maryland required McKesson to pay the government a $13-million dollar fine for among other things, “…allegations that it violated federal reporting provisions relating to the sale of certain prescription medications.” Sounds suspiciously like an articulate way of saying they were “selling dope.” In any event, such minor indiscretions never dissuaded the BOP contracting officers from continuing to award extremely lucrative contracts for McKesson to provide “generic” medications for federal inmates and do so even while these various federal investigations were still being conducted. Due to limited space here, we won’t even open the “Pandora’s Box” of BOP Government Purchase Orders (GPO) – Duraskin Gloves from Indonesia, T-shirts from Pakistan, Hypard products from China, Gildan merchandise from Honduras, cloth and other products from Vietnam and Mexico. Are we, as American taxpayers, to understand that our American factory workers are incapable of manufacturing a single item that the BOP can use or does the BOP simply not have any credible government contract oversight? Indeed, any oversight at all?

In addition to these head-scratchers, should the opportunity ever present itself, we would certainly make ourselves available to discuss the mass removal of heretofore well-qualified contract medical officers from the BOP, many of whom were replaced by much lower paid graduates from “lesser known” medical schools and, in some cases, even replaced by Physician’s Assistants (PA) and/or Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). The recent and arbitrary discontinuation of any kind of medically acceptable and/or effective pain medication from the BOP Formulary – replacing them exclusively with Gabapentin (Neurotin). The infamous and well-traveled BOP “spider” that has apparently bit every BOP inmate that has ever contracted MRSA inside a BOP facility, the recent unexplained deaths of incarcerated inmates in West Virginia and Texas from something other than prison violence, the recent riots in Texas BOP facilities. Lastly, of specific interest to us would be a detailed BOP senior management accountability of revenues generated by the BOP from reduced/unpaid inmate salaries, inmate TRULINC and copier fees, re-cycling contracts, UNICOR profits, inmate commissary and long distance telephone profits, monies saved from “low-bid” food purchases – all the while failing to backfill several vacant positions causing the understaffing of the more violent BOP facilities thus, exposing the remaining overworked and underpaid Correctional Officers to more than usual violence that is usually encountered in those specific facilities. The list of “Talking Points” could go on and on, but we have limited time/space and we digress. Therefore, back to The 2nd Chance Act of 2007.

In order to comply with implementation requirements set forth in The 2nd Chance Act language, Federal Register, Volume 73, No. 204, pp. 62440-62443, the BOP set forth their policy to implement The 2nd Chance Act of 2007. Of specific interest was Section 570.21, wherein the BOP delineated the maximum of 12-months of RRC time a federal inmate was permitted under the Act. However, even a cursory review of the policy will confirm the BOP’s usual practice of leaving enough policy “wiggle room” that the benefits afforded by the Act can neither be implemented uniformly throughout the BOP nor can the BOP ever be held legally accountable for their failure to do so. Indeed, as one Washington insider once opined about a similar situation, “It was one of those Washington assertions that is simultaneously accurate and deceptive and just confusing enough to defy opposition.” Resultantly, every Warden and/or every Regional Director within the BOP would now appear to have the unilateral authority to dictate how much Halfway House time an inmate in their facility should receive. Consequently, you have inmates receiving 10-months in one facility and another more deserving candidate receiving less than 3-months in another. We would respectfully suggest that this type of “selective” policy implementation was not what Congressman Davis intended when he drafted the Act in 2007.

That said, nobody can argue that the BOP rank and file do an outstanding job in a dangerous and thankless job. Indeed, given the nature of the mission and the type of dangerous individuals involved, the federal penal system is unquestionably one of the best in the world. Best selling author John Grisham confirmed as much when he suggested in his best selling novel The Brethren, “If you have to do time – do federal time.” However, notwithstanding our admiration for the work of the BOP correctional cadre, we will continue to encourage debate about the wisdom of our elected officials passing laws or policies and then delegating the authority to implement (and adhere to) that policy to the very agency management officials that the policies are designed to govern. Indeed, after The Patriot Act was passed, FBI agents, as well as other government entities, were admittedly monitoring privileged electronic communications and throwing around National Security Letters and Administrative Subpoenas with little (actually, none whatsoever) regard for the “spirit-of-the-Act” or individual civil rights. Today, with the BOP and The Second Chance Act of 2007, “It’s Déjà Vu all over again.” Even last ditch Congressional inquiries from family members, friends, or lawyers are usually being handled by the lowest ranking aide in the Congressman’s office and done so usually as a vexatious collateral duty. This 20-something intern will no doubt get a response back from a well-versed and politically savvy BOP Congressional liaison who appeases them (and their inexperience) with a some type of in-the-can generic form letter or email response marked “High Priority,” “Sensitive,” or some other impressive heading, yet lacks any semblance of a meaningful response to the initial question.

Should we point fingers, the BOP’s ability to develop such unprecedented (and apparently unchecked) power can partially fall directly on the shoulders of certain federal inmates who were “amused to abuse” the legal process by filing repeated and frivolous complaints and/or torts claims. Conduct that eventually facilitated the strict implementation of both the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the Federal Tort Claim Act (FTCA). As a result, every inmate is now relegated to filing everything through the labor intensive and intentionally time consuming BOP Administrative Remedy Process. Unfortunately, despite the purpose of this Process, it would appear that BOP management has now, yet not surprisingly, developed the Administrative Remedy Process into their own self-managed and personally supervised shell game to hide and delay formal responses to inmates – or any other outside inquiries for that matter. In fact, they have turned it into an art form and, wait for it, there is no appeal, other than filing another tort claim. We know, George Orwell couldn’t make this stuff up.

In conclusion, how do we properly and uniformly implement The 2nd Chance Act of 2007, and do so in the spirit for which it was developed? Actually, it’s relatively simple, we need to develop an outside oversight committee for the BOP. A group of individuals that are tasked and empowered with the authority to ensure that BOP senior management properly runs this massive government “cash cow” and does so in full and transparent compliance with Congressional and judicial mandates. Has anyone on Capitol Hill ever read Lord Acton?

However, as comedian Dennis Miller would say, “This is just our opinion, we may be wrong.”

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

——————-
The Second Party is an advocate who is affiliated to the Association of Indonesian Advocates who runs a business in legal services, have vast experiences in business and trade in general and expertise of litigation in courts in Indonesia.

I identified the modified words with a parenthesis.

The Second Party is an advocate (who is) affiliated to the Association of Indonesian Advocates who runs a business in legal services, (have) vast (experiences) in business and trade in general and (expertise of litigation) in courts in Indonesia.

Modified version (if you meant to say that the second party is the one who “runs a business, etc. etc.”):

The Second Party is an advocate affiliated to the Association of Indonesian Advocates who runs a business in legal services, has a vast experience in business and trade in general, and a litigation expertise in courts in Indonesia.

Modified version (if you meant to say that the Association of Indonesian Advocates is the one that “runs a business, etc. etc.”):

The Second Party is an advocate affiliated to the Association of Indonesian Advocates. This association runs a business in legal services, has a vast experience in business and trade in general, and a litigation expertise in courts in Indonesia.

Litigation Dictionary.com

litigation dictionary.com

Immigration Delays – Suing U.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services Uscis Through a Writ of Mandamus

Immigration Delays

Writ of Mandamus in Minnesota

by Kent B. Gravelle, Esq.

 According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2004), a writ of mandamus is a “writ issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform a mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.”  In immigration law, writs of mandamus are most often utilized when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) allows an I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status), N-400 (Naturalization Application), or I-589 (Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal) to languish for years while a criminal and national security background check is conducted.

The immigration bar in Minnesota has been quite active (and successful) in writ of mandamus litigation against the federal government.  Most recently, a published opinion was released in Burni v. Frazier, 545 F.Supp.2d 894, 897 (D.Minn.2008) in which the spouse of a U.S. citizen “…filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residency on or about December 10, 2004.”  The applicant’s security checks were not completed, thus placing his final approval in limbo.  Id.  The applicant exhausted his administrative remedies by “…making written inquiries to the Department of Homeland Security, making Infopass appointments at the local district office to inquire about the status of his case, and writing to various government officials.”  Id.

Finally, after more than three years of delay, the applicant brought a suit requesting the issuance of a writ of mandamus which the government attempted to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Id.  The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the government’s motion to dismiss, holding that it had jurisdiction because the failure to make a decision on the I-485 application was not a discretionary action within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(2)(B)(ii) and that 28 U.S.C. §1361 (the Mandamus Act) and 5 U.S.C. §§551 et seq. (Administrative Procedures Act or APA) afforded the applicant relief.   Id. at 902, 903.  The Court explained that 8 C.F.R. §245 requires that an I-485 applicant “shall be notified of the decision” regarding the application and thus “USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate an application…and that the APA requires the applications to be adjudicated in a reasonable time.”  Id. at 904.

A year earlier, the Court issued three decisions in three separate mandamus cases in October of 2007:  Sun v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2907993 (D.Minn.);  Sawad v. Frazier, 2007 WL 2973833 (D.Minn.);  and Asrani v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 3521366 (D.Minn.).  All three were favorable to the immigrant-plaintiff.

In Sun, a Chinese immigrant filed an I-485 with the Nebraska Service Center of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) on August 19, 2004.  Id. at *2.  On September 2, 2004, the FBI received Sun’s name from USCIS for a name check.  Id.  In 2006, Sun sought the help of her congressman and senator to no avail and Sun received information pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which showed that the FBI had no records pertaining to her.  Id.

Sun filed her suit for a writ of mandamus against various DHS, USCIS, and FBI officials on March 13, 2007, about two and one-half years after her submission of the I-485.  Id.  The government brought a motion to dismiss which the Court denied, holding that “…the APA requires that the applications be processed in a reasonable time.”  Id. at *8, citing 5 U.S.C. §555(b).  The Court also ordered that the government “provide to the court and plaintiff within 60 days evidence specific to plaintiff’s application showing that the delay in processing her name check and adjudicating her application is reasonable.”  Id. at *12.

In Sawad v. Frazier, 2007 WL 2973833 (D.Minn.), a husband and wife filed their I-485 applications on March 1st and December 27th of 2004.  Id. at *2.  The FBI acknowledged receipt of USCIS’s name check requests shortly after each I-485 was filed, but as of September 14, 2007, the date of the court hearing, plaintiffs’ name checks had not been completed.  Id.  Thus, one of the applications languished for more than three years and the other for almost three years.

On March 30, 2007, plaintiffs brought suit against the USCIS and FBI officials, requesting a writ of mandamus.  Id. at *3.  The government brought a motion to dismiss which the Court denied, holding that “plaintiffs have a clear, indisputable and nondiscretionary right to have USCIS adjudicate their applications in a reasonable time.”  Id. at *10.

In Asrani v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 3521366 (D.Minn.), at *1, an immigrant filed an I-485 application on March, 18, 2005 and on April 7, 2005, USCIS initiated a mandatory FBI name check.  The Court noted that:

                        In the thirty months since Petitioner filed his application

                        for an adjustment of status, Petitioner’s mandatory FBI

                        name check has not been completed and USCIS has not

                        adjudicated his application.  As of May 29, 2007 the St.

                        Paul office of USCIS had 406 name check requests that

                        had been pending longer than Plaintiff’s request.

 Id. at *2.

The Asrani Court analyzed in detail whether it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. §1361 stating:

                        The Mandamus Act provides for subject matter

                        jurisdiction only in extraordinary circumstances and

                        when (1) the plaintiff has a clear and indisputable right

                        to the relief he seeks, (2) the defendant has a non-

                        discretionary duty to honor that right, and (3) the

                        plaintiff has a lack of an alternative, adequate remedy.

Id. at 3 (citing Castilla v Ridge, 445 F.3d 1057, 1060 (8th Cir. 2006). 

With regard to the first prong of the test, the Court held that the applicant “has a right to have the USCIS adjudicate his application within a reasonable time.”  Id. at *5.  The Court quoted language from 8 C.F.R. §245.2(a)(5)(i) which states, “‘the applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial.’”  Id. at *4.  The Court explained that “This language makes it clear that USCIS has a duty to actually make a decision and the Plaintiff has a right to be notified of the decision.”  Id.

Regarding the second prong of the test regarding whether the government had a non-discretionary duty to make a decision regarding the I-485 application, the Court explained that the applicant only requested a decision, not a favorable decision, and thus the duty is not discretionary.  Id. at *5.  With regard to the third prong on whether the applicant has an alternative, adequate remedy, the Court found that waiting is not an alternative remedy.  Id. at *6.  Thus, the Court found that subject matter jurisdiction existed under the Mandamus Act and that the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would be denied.  Id.

In December of 2006, a decision was issued by Judge Donovan Frank which appears to have laid the ground work for the subsequent immigration mandamus decisions discussed above.  The style of the case is Haidari v. Frazier, 2006 WL 3544922 (D.Minn.) and in it, three Palestinians filed I-485 applications with the Nebraska Service Center, all of which languished for four to six years while the FBI conducted name checks (Senator Mark Dayton’s office confirmed that one of the FBI name checks was completed on October 13, 2006 and forwarded to USCIS but as of December 1, 2006, USCIS had still not adjudicated that I-485 application).  Id. at *5.

The Haidari Court analyzed the three-pronged test as in the Asrani decision, above, and found that jurisdiction existed under the Mandamus Act.  Interestingly, with regard to the third, unreasonable delay, prong, the Court noted that USCIS waited between one and three years just to request a name check from the FBI.  Id. at *12.  The Court held that the delay was unreasonable and that the APA explicitly forecloses USCIS from exercising “unfettered discretion to relegate aliens to a state of ‘limbo’, leaving them to languish there indefinitely.”  Id.  The Court ordered USCIS to completed its adjudication of the I-485 applications within 30 days and promptly notify the Court and the Plaintiffs of its decisions.  Id. at *13.  The Court also retained “jurisdiction over the matter in the interim to ensure that the USCIS complies with this order.”  Id.

Finally, the only case from this jurisdiction that the Government may cite in its favor is Chaudry v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 2670051 (D.Minn).  In Chaudry, the applicant filed his I-485 on July 23, 2004.  Id. at *1.  USCIS interviewed the applicant on April 21, 2005 and told the applicant that the background check would be completed in four to six months.  Id. at *2.  Almost a year after the interview, the applicant filed an action seeking a writ of mandamus.  Id.  Employing the three-prong Mandamus Act test, the Chaudry Court found that the applicant had not established a clear and indisputable right to the relief he sought because “the background checks must be completed” and the applicant had not shown that there was no other adequate remedy because “his remedy is to wait for the USCIS to process the petition.”  Id. at *4.  With regard to the APA, the Court held that the applicant’s documentation and interview process was completed seventeen months ago and that “This length of time is not unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that the Complaint alleges no particular inauspicious motives or unscrupulous actions by Defendants.”  Id. at *5.  The Court dismissed the applicant’s lawsuit without prejudice, allowing the applicant to re-file should “the FBI and USCIS persist in delaying adjudication of Plaintiff’s I-485 petition.”  Id. at *6.

Fortunately, the applicant in Chaudry brought suit after “only” 17 months of delay, much less time than in the other cases above.  However, even if a future litigant brings a suit requesting mandamus relief after “only” 17 months of delay, it is certainly possible that the court will not find Chaudry to be controlling.  This is due to the fact that the only published decision on this subject from this jurisdiction, Burni v. Frazier, 545 F.Supp.2d 894 (D.Minn.2008), severely discounted the value of Chaudry in its opinion at footnote 8 when it stated:

                        This Court recognizes that in a fifth case out of this

                        District, Chaudry v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 2670051

                        (D.Minn. Sept. 18, 2006) (J. Magnuson) (the same

                        judge assigned to this matter), that the Court found

                        that the mandamus statute did not provide subject

                        matter jurisdiction, and that under the APA (which

                        was not pled), the delay (approximately 22 months

                        from application and 17 months from documentation

                        and interview) was not unreasonable as a matter of

                        law.  Id. at *2-3.  This Court notes that this was the

                        first case to be decided out of this District, plaintiff

                        was pro se, and Judge Magnuson did not have the

                        benefit of the extensive case law that has developed

                        on the subject since his decision.  In addition, the

                        Court notes that Judge Magnuson did not foreclose

                        plaintiff from returning to court in the future.  He

                        dismissed the case without prejudice “because

                        Plaintiff’s claims, if properly pled, may have merit

                        if the FBI and USCIS persist in delaying adjudication

                        of Plaintiff’s I-485 petition.”  Id. at *3.  Finally, the

                        Court notes that on February 4, 2008, the USCIS

                        issued “Revised National Security Adjudication and

                        Reporting Requirements,” which now require that if a

                        name check in conjunction with an I-485 application

                        has been pending more than 180 days and the application

                        is otherwise approvable, the application shall be approved

                        and the card issued.

Conclusion

            A federal law suit requesting a writ of mandamus may be an immigrant’s only hope when the years drag on without any resolution from the government.  Fortunately, Minnesota’s case law is favorable to such a remedy and thus it should be seriously considered by immigration attorneys and their clients once it appears that the government’s delay is unreasonable.

 Kent Gravelle is an attorney with Cundy & Martin, LLC – Immigration Lawyers in Minnesota.  www.cundyandmartin.com

Litigation Support Services Phoenix Az

litigation support services phoenix az

Dental insurance issue.please help?

Litigation Boutique Firms

litigation boutique firms

Paralegal jobs in Orange County

This article aims at providing you valuable information over paralegal job opportunities in Orange County. Take a look at the possibilities and understand your requirements.

Orange county business litigation boutique

If you have an experience as a general civil litigation associate then orange county business litigation boutique has something good to offer you. They are looking for a paralegal that would have good knowledge over general business and should belong from a background of civil litigation.

The aspiring candidate should have a background in the aspects like the law and motion, client advising and counseling, defending depositions and trial preparation. In addition to that if the candidate has a prior trial experience then it would be more desirable but then this is not obligatory.

Excellent credential, good communications skills and CA state Bar is required.  The compensation provided will be very good along with added benefits for the employees.

Legal staffing group can also be the source of such jobs in Orange County for you; if you have a legal background in terms of qualifications then they can really give you the useful links of law firms that are in the lookout of aspirants like you.

Huntington Beach law firm

This firm is looking for paralegal assistance or a legal secretary. They work on immigration laws and bankruptcy. The aspiring candidate must have an experience in this field for a time period of 3 to 5 years with a relevant back ground in immigration law and bankruptcy.

This company guarantees a very good work environment and it can promote your learning experience hugely as you will not be stressed out badly. An additional language should be known by the candidate for the purpose of getting selected by this company.

Medical plans are included in the benefits and the compensation provided would be in terms of the hours spent working. If interested, then selected the candidate is requested by this firm to join within a period of 3 weeks. If you are interested then you must email them your resume and give your contact number so that they can contact you easily.

Temporary opportunities in Orange County

Davidson legal staffing has to offer some good temporary posts or a litigation secretary. If you need experience and exposure in this field but at the same time you do not wish to commit for a real long period of time then this post is ideal for you. The candidate must have sufficient knowledge in state federal court procedures, Microsoft word, and e-filing and legal terminology.

The person is required to be proactive and confident with the way he deals with his clients and should not have poor communication skills. The person is expected to adapt in any kind of situations and should be in a position to cope with extra work whenever required. The compensation provided will be very good. So if you are interested then you must not waste time any further, but send your resume to their email id quickly.

So these are some of the job options that are available to you at Orange County.

I’d like to start a law practice in St. Louis — any suggestions for getting started?

I’m a civil litigator with 10 years of experience defending individuals and businesses locally and nationally. I would like to start my own boutique litigation firm, specializing in representing minority women business owners and small to mid-size businesses on litigation matters. Any suggestions for how to get started, possible office space, etc.? Thanks!
I’m licensed in Missouri, Illinois, and Colorado.

ck w/the courthouse.

Litigation India

litigation india

Private Investigation Services for Litigation Support in Delhi

No one can deny the fact that on of the most sought after services of modern times is investigation service. Though it always was an important service but recent times have seen its popularity grow to a mammoth proportion. The reason for it is not difficult to understand. Recent times have seen a spurt in coming up of corporate enterprises. Here it is important to understand that the entire process of starting up a business in India is pretty onerous. So much so that there is always a possibility of committing some error despite taking precautions. These can prove to be expensive as they can invite heavy penalties. What needs to be understood here is that judicial set up of India functions on the basis of evidences and proofs. It is here that the true worth of investigating services is realized as they help enterprises in gathering all sorts of evidences video, audio, pictures or any type of documentary evidence.

Talking about private investigation services in Delhi that provide litigation support in Delhi as well as other parts of India one name that immediately springs to mind is that of Aaider Detection & Protection (P) Ltd. Now the question that arises is that what is it that has made this agency such a formidable name that it is giving its rivals a run for their money. Well, answer to this is not difficult to understand. There are certain aspects of the services provided by them. That have catapulted it to the position of number one amongst the investigating agencies.

Chief amongst them is its policy that ensures a complete confidentiality about the client.  Indeed, this is one practice that elevates this Detectives in Delhi to a lofty position in the heart of its clients. Then again it is a policy with the agency that whenever they undertake assignment they ensure that they finish it off within the deadline period and to the best of client’s satisfaction. Another reason that tilts the scale firmly in its favor is that the fee charged by them for the services they provide is also extremely restrained.

These entire reasons combine together to make Aaider Detection & Protection (P) Ltd. the most sought after name when it comes to opting for private investigating services for litigation support in Delhi.

When will my supreme court of India case come up for hearing?

I have a litigation pending with my deceased aunt for ownership of property.

India has Supreme Courts?

SAP Unveils Latest Version of SAP ® Business ByDesign (TM) Walldorf, Germany, 2 August / PRNewswire / – SAP AG (NYSE: SAP) today announced the general Availability of the Feature Pack 2.5 for SAP ® Business ByDesign (TM) solution, early 30s July 2010. This is a comprehensive, fully integrated on-demand business management suite from Now in China, France, Germany, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. SAP also announced the introduction …

Civil Litigation Process Uk

civil litigation process uk

Divorce…how to Survive a Break-up

The number of divorces has trebled over the past half century and is continuing to rise. The most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal there were 313,600 marriages and 167,100 divorces in the UK during 2004, up from 305,900 marriages and 154,600 divorces in 2000. However, the fallout particularly on the financial side can be felt for years afterwards if the process is not managed properly from the outset.

The emotional aspects of separation can be difficult enough without having to address the minutiae of budgets, pensions, savings and investments. But it is vital to dedicate time to sorting out the financial details and seek professional advice or you could end up paying a heavier than expected price for the split.

People are planning for their divorces now both before and during their marriage and wealth protection is a whole new issue that needs to be considered.

This trend could be partly apportioned to last years high-profile litigations, known as the Miller and McFarlane cases, which redefined the concept of compensation where wives gave up good earning careers to have children and deal with the domestic side of the family.

In particular, the Miller case also demonstrated that even where a marriage did not last very long, this does not necessarily affect the principle of equal division of matrimonial assets.

Before potential financial settlements can be discussed, anyone considering filing for divorce needs to work out how much the divorce process itself will cost.

Any action will obviously depend on the individual circumstances of the case, but there are some general themes to bear in mind. The earlier you plan for a possible divorce the better. Taken to extremes, cynics – often including those who have been married and divorced before – argue that a pre-nuptial agreement is worth considering. While pre-nuptial agreements are not binding under British law, they are increasingly being given greater priority in court, after the Miller and McFarlane cases.

Even so, the vast majority of couples do not consider pre-nuptial contracts. For those who find themselves sadly overtaken by events it is important to build up a record of your partner’s finances.

For couples with joint bank accounts or credit cards, both parties are jointly and severally liable for any outstanding debts. That means there is no splitting of the debt between couples on divorce and lenders reserve their legal right to pursue either or both parties for the entire debt, regardless of what the divorced couple may view as their share.

Banks can also freeze an account on the request of either party if there is a dispute. But if an account is not frozen, then the account’s normal terms and conditions apply. For example, that means one partner can withdraw funds without the other’s permission.

Any other action, such as changing the account to another type of account, can only be taken with the written agreement of both parties.

Two people are not jointly responsible for debts taken out in individual names just because they are married. The marriage has nothing to do with it. So, your partner could have a £10,000 loan in his name and you are not liable for it, he is. It depends whether or not you took out the debt in joint names. This is an important distinction to make.

However, it could get messy if you are both named on a mortgage and the deeds of the property and your partner cannot afford to pay a loan in his name. The creditors can then apply for a charge on his share of the equity in the property.

For example, this might have nothing to do with the wife if it is a loan to the husband’s business but the family home could still be at risk.

There have been several court cases in recent years where banks have sought to repossess homes where wives have signed agreements for loans to their husband’s business but subsequently denied having understood the consequences.

Most people’s second-most valuable asset is their pension fund. Usually, this will be in the husband’s name and, often, a non-earning wife may have little or no pension fund of her own.

However, there are also cases where the wife has access to a final salary or defined-benefit pension which might be far more valuable than a husband’s money purchase or defined-contribution scheme and so could substantially alter the division of assets. Anyone involved in a divorce should be aware of the three main options facing them if a private pension pot has been built up.

The first possible arrangement is known as offsetting, where couples agree one party keeps the pension while the other gets the house, usually as a home for children. Although this can cause problems in the future as the person with the house still needs something to live on when they retire. You sign away those pension rights at your peril. The second option is known as ear-marking, where the parties agree that the individual with the pension will pay a percentage of it to the other party on retirement. The problem here is that in the meantime the person with the pension still has control of it and so this may not work out to the advantage of the other party. The third option, called pension splitting, is where the person with the pension allocates a part of it to the former partner and those assets are then transferred into a pension in the former partner’s name. In the majority of cases, could be the most attractive solution as it gives the person acquiring the pension control and they are not reliant on their spouse for those pensions rights.

You may get shared additional state pension if you divorce or have your marriage annulled after December 2000 or if your civil partnership ends.

Often women are still reliant upon their husbands to provide for them in retirement. However, in the case of a divorce this can often leave the ex-wife with little or no pension provision.

Both parties should get their financial house in order as soon as possible and avoid attempting to conceal any assets as the process is based on both parties making full disclosure of their assets and liabilities.

The number of divorces where family wealth was split half and half between husband and wife more than doubled in 2005, up to 63 per cent of cases, against 30 per cent in the previous year, according to forensic accountants Grant Thornton.

Any assets transferred between husband and wife in the tax year of separation are free of capital gains tax (CGT). So, while January is a popular time for people to file for divorce for emotional reasons, financially April 6 may prove a wiser choice.

If you separate on April 1, you only have a small window of a few days before the end of the tax year and realistically you are not going to get everything sorted in that time. People may decide to wait until April 6 so you can benefit from the whole of the tax year to move assets around without the tax implications.

If either party has brought assets to the marriage, it is important that records are kept as it is possible that those assets may be ring-fenced and excluded from the settlement.

But if filing for divorce is the only option, taking time to plan the split and filing for divorce at the start of the tax year instead may be your best financial move.

Basic planning

• Gather information and keep records of your partner’s financial income, gains and assets
• Don’t tell the bank of a dispute as they may freeze the account, leaving you with no money to fight your corner
• Keep records of your expenditure, to prove your standard of living
• Check whether you should be entitled to some of your partner’s pension

If you would like to find out more about the services that we provide, please visit our website
www.mfgsolicitors.com
to arrange a meeting.

CDI Corp. Reports Second Quarter 2010 Results and Announces Dividend
PHILADELPHIA , July 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — CDI Corp. (NYSE: CDI – News ) today reported financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2010 and announced a quarterly cash dividend. For the quarter ended June 30, 2010 , the company reported net earnings of $2.6 million , or $0.13 per diluted share, on revenue of $219.0 million versus $0.1 million in net earnings, or $0.00 per …

Litigation Conferences 2010

litigation conferences 2010

The Unification of Family Law Jurisdictions to Deal With All Relationships

Under the Commonwealth Constitution, the Federal government has the power to make laws with respect to marriage. As such, the various States and Territories historically were left with the power to make laws dealing with matters arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationships, including parenting and financial issues.

In the mid 1980s various States and Territories conferred upon the Federal government the power to deal with parenting issues arising out of de facto relationships. Previously, contested parenting issues involving children from de facto relationships were dealt with in the State Civil Courts. After the Federal government acquired the power to deal with children of de facto relationships, all parenting disputes, whether arising from marriage or de facto relationships, were then dealt with in the Family Court jurisdiction.

Financial issues arising out of marriage relationships have always been dealt with in the Family Court. However, financial issues arising out of de facto relationships were historically dealt with in the State and Territory Civil Courts.

To add to the confusion of which jurisdiction to turn to in contested financial cases after the breakdown of a relationship, the Federal government established the Federal Magistrates Court in 2000. The idea was for the Federal Magistrates Court to deal with the simpler cases, whereas the Family Court was to deal with the more complex cases. Loose guidelines indicated which was the appropriate jurisdiction to deal with any particular case. However, those guidelines were not clear, and not consistently applied.

In late 2008 the Federal government passed legislation to amend the Family Law Act after various States conferred upon the Commonwealth the power to deal with financial matters arising out of de facto relationships.

This meant that any de facto relationship which broke down after 1 March 2009 would be subject to the new laws under the Family Law Act. Those new laws would treat financial issues arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationship on a par with marriage cases. Previously the economically disadvantaged party in de facto relationships usually achieved a poorer result in property settlements than in equivalent marriage cases.

This was seen as a sensible move as potentially de facto relationships which had broken down involving contested parenting and property issues could end up having parenting issues litigated in the Family Court/Federal Magistrates Court and financial issues in the State Civil Courts. Now all issues arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationships will be litigated in the Family Court or Federal Magistrates Court.

In a move which will relieve confusion over which jurisdiction in which to commence proceedings, it has been announced that in 2010 the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court will merge. The practical result of this will be that any contested parenting or financial issues whether arising out of marriage or de facto relationships, will now all be dealt with in the one Commonwealth Court rather than having to navigate the minefield of State Civil and Commonwealth Courts.

Getting Tech-nical
Since his hiring at Texas Tech in January, Tommy Tubberville wasted no time grabbing the Red Raider football program, turning it upside down and shaking it with authority.