Mediaboss Marketing

Did you know that there are some instances in which the United States, state and municipal governments can come take your property, even without your consent?

Its a legal right called eminent domain, and if you have never heard of it or want to know more, here are some key questions as to how it happens and how to deal with it.

Eminent domain is the Fifth Amendment right of a government entity to take your property for a public purpose. The government has to provide proof that the property will have a beneficial use to the public, and also has to make a fair value offer for the property.

There is a wide range of situations, but the most common ones are for construction of roads/highways and public buildings, supplying water to a community or for defense purposes.

There are cases when it can be. If the government makes an offer for more than the property is worth or if a property owner doesnt owe much more money on a loan, eminent domain can be great for that owner. But it can work the other way, also. If an owner owes more money on a property than is offered by the government, it can be a crushing blow.

Ad

If someone is unhappy about an eminent domain offer from the government, an owner can retain the services of a lawyer and fight for a better offer. As part of the process, that lawyer can also hire a forensics appraiser that can evaluate the value of a property and testify in front of a judge in defense of that evaluation.

Roughly 95% of cases are settled before going to court, according to Rick Dreggors, a forensic appraiser in Orlando with 34 years of experience in the industry. But there are instances in which cases arent settled, and a judge will decide the true value of an offer and what an owner should be getting from the government.

On this most recent episode of You Have Real Estate With Justin Clark, attorney Justin Clark chats about eminent domain with Dreggors.

To watch the full segment, hit play on the video above.

See the original post:
There are instances in which the government can take your home. Heres how. - WKMG News 6 & ClickOrlando

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trumps judges on Americans rights and liberties. Cases in the series can be found by issue and by judge at this link

Trump Ninth Circuit judges Patrick Bumatay, Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson, Daniel Bress, and Lawrence VanDyke argued in dissent that police failure to give someone Miranda warnings before interrogation, as required by the Supreme Court, does not violate the Constitution and subject officers to liability for violating constitutional rights. The majority, including Trump judge Eric Miller, rejected that view and let stand a panel decision holding exactly the opposite in Tekoh v County of Los Angeles.

Terence Tekoh, a Black immigrant from Cameroon, was working at a medical center in Los Angeles when a patient accused him of sexual assault. An LA County police detective found Tekoh working in the hospital and began to question him, but never gave him the Miranda warnings required by the Supreme Court before interrogation. According to Tekoh, the deputy brought him into a small windowless office, blocked his path to the exit, and accused him of the sexual assault. After Tekoh maintained his innocence during more than 35 minutes of questioning, the detective falsely told him that the alleged incident had been captured on videotape, but Tekoh continued to state that he was innocent. The deputy ignored Tekohs request for a lawyer and Tekoh then got up to leave. The deputy then stepped on Tekohs toes, put his hand on his gun, and used racial epithets in threatening to have Tekoh and his family deported and put your black ass where it belongs. Tekoh later explained that this left him shaking and triggered flashbacks of police brutality incidents in Cameroon. The deputy then handed Tekoh a pen and paper, and essentially dictated a confession that he demanded that he sign.

Although Tekoh was charged with sexual assault and the statement was used against him, a jury acquitted him on all charges. He then sued the deputy for damages for violating his Fifth Amendment rights. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that the deputys failure to provide Miranda warnings violated the Fifth Amendment, the jury found against Tekoh, and he appealed. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel, including Trump judge Miller, unanimously reversed, holding that the trial court erroneously refused to explain to the jury that, if proven, the deputys failure to provide Tekoh with Miranda warnings and the use of his statement at trial deprived him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, for which the deputy could be held accountable.

When the deputy requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider the decision, a majority of the judges who voted, including Trump judge Miller, declined. But Trump judge Bumatay, joined by Trump judges Bennett, Nelson, Bress, and VanDyke, joined by a few others, harshly dissented. Based on their own view of the history of the Fifth Amendment and the right against self-incrimination, they maintained that Miranda is only a prophylactic rule, as the Supreme Court has often referred to it, and that failure to provide Miranda warnings does not violate the Constitution. The dissent made clear that this question is much more than theoretical. Since police officers can be held liable only for violating a constitutional right, Bumatay stated, the dissents view means that the deputy in this case, or any police officer in any case, cannot be held liable under federal civil rights law for violating the prophylactic rule of Miranda. According to the dissenters, the panel decision was an example of brazen judicial overreach that contradicts the text and history of the Fifth Amendment and the weight of precedent.

Although agreeing with some of the dissents analysis, Trump judge Miller explained why the dissents proposed result was unacceptable. Even assuming that Bumatay was correct about the history of the Fifth Amendment, and agreeing that Miranda was not an originalist decision, Miller wrote that Ninth Circuit judges lack authority to disregard the Supreme Courts precedent. As Miller explained, in striking down a Congressional law that tried to overturn Miranda in the Dickerson case, the Supreme Court specifically held that Miranda announced a constitutional rule and, as the Court indicated in another case, established a personal constitutional right. Federal civil rights law thus provides a remedy, Miller stated, when police like the deputy in this case fail to provide Miranda warnings before interrogating a suspect like Tekoh. The dissents arguments may help the deputy in preparing a writ of certiorari to try to persuade the current Supreme Court to change the law, Miller concluded, but they are a poor reason for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the panel decision.

As a result of the Ninth Circuits decision, Terence Tekoh will have a proper opportunity to get justice and accountability for the deputys misconduct in interrogating him, including the failure to provide Miranda warnings. Yet the opinions of the Trump judges in the case, including even Judge Miller who agreed with the result, are extremely troubling. Putting aside what the Supreme Court may or may not do on the issue, the Trump judges views suggest significant disregard for the importance of holding police accountable for the violation of constitutional rights as in Miranda. Indeed, a few more votes would have allowed the dissenting Trump judges to reconsider the case and rule against Tekoh.

To help preserve and extend the principle of police accountability for violating constitutional rights, it is crucial to our fight for our courts that President Biden nominate and the Senate promptly confirm judges for the Ninth Circuit who recognize the importance of this principle. Four judges on that court have stated that they will be taking senior status upon confirmation of their successors, who have yet to be nominated.

The rest is here:
Trump Judges Try to Rule that Failure to Provide Miranda Warnings Does Not Violate the Constitution and Allow Lawsuits Against Police: Confirmed...

In March, I wrote about National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. This petition challenged the federal policy that excludes women from the draft. At the time, I considered whether the Biden Administration would defend the constitutionality of the policy. Ultimately, after several extensions, the SG filed a brief that punted on the constitutional question. Rather, the SG asked the Court to deny the petition so that Congress can change the policy. Sensible enough.

Today, the Court denied cert. And there was a statement respecting the denial of certiorari. It was written by Justice Sotomayor, and joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan. Scratch that. Justice Kagan did not join. It was Justice Kavanaugh. On quick read, I simply assumed it was Justice Kagan. The team at SCOTUSBlog made the same error. But no, it was Justice Kavanaugh.

Let's walk through the statement. Justice Sotomayor begins with a rousing statement about the original meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Scratch that. Justice Sotomayor writes about the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from discriminating on the basis of sex absent an "'exceedingly persuasive justification.'" Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 9) (quoting United States v. Virginia, 518U. S. 515, 531 (1996)); see Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76 (1979); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199 (1977); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636 (1975); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973). Cf. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347U. S. 497 (1954).

Next, the statement expressed agnosticism about how Congress was addressing that issue. Scratch that. Justice Sotomayor quoted legislative history (!) describing the "hope" (!) of one member that a provision may be "incorporated" (!) in a future bill.

Just a few months ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the report, where Chairman Jack Reed expressed his "hope" that a gender-neutral registration requirement will be "incorporated into the next national defense bill." Tr. of Hearing on Final Recommendations and Report of the [NCMNPS] before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., 21 (Mar. 11, 2021).

I need to check Reading Law to see what Justice Scalia thought about citing aspirational statements of legislative history.

The statement concludes with a firm deference to Congress on matters of national affairs. Scratch that. The dissenters will give Congress a bit of time to resolve this issue, but if they don't reach the right result, the Court will.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether Congress will end gender-based registration under the Military Selective Service Act. But at least for now, the Court's longstandingdeference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue. I agree with the Court's decision to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

That's a really nice bicameralism-and-presentment you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

This statement is entirely predictable from Justice Sotomayor. Ditto for Justice Breyer.So let's talk about Justice Kavanaugh's join.

First, I am no longer convinced that Justice Kavanaugh is an actual originalist. Sure, he can talk the talk, but time and again, he writes and joins opinions that have no grounding in the original meaning of the Constitution. In a granted case, he would follow non-originalist precedent. But when writing about the denial of certiorari, he is free to write about the Constitution's original meaning. Here, he endorsed one of the most atextual opinions in modern Supreme Court history, Bolling v. Sharpe. And this citation was not a one-off. Justice Kavanaugh also cited Bolling, along withBrownin hisBostockdissent. Now I think the outcome in Bollingcan be justified on originalist groundsRandy and I talk about that case in our book. But an unexplained citation to Bollingdoes not reflect the work of a careful originalist. And his brief footnote in Bostock doesn't cut it. (Democratic Senators wasted so much time asking judicial nominees ifBrownwas correctly decided; they should have asked aboutBolling to watch the noms squirm).

Second, I fear that Justice Kavanuagh will forever try to prove that he is fair to women. In the past, his jurisprudence was not exactly pro-feminist.SeeAzar v. Garza. But the Blasey-Ford allegations, coupled with his contentious second confirmation hearing, may have changed that calculus. This join is a useful way for Justice Kavanaugh to virtue signal he favors gender equality.

Third, I think this opinion reflects another savvy move from Justice Kagan. Why didn't she join the statement? It was basically a tribute to Justice Ginsburg. I'm sure Justice Kagan agreed with it. But when four Justices join a statement respecting the denial of cert, that suggests there are four votes to grant in the future. Justice Kagan's decision to sit out gave Justice Kavanaugh a lane to join.

The past few weeks have been very sleepy. The Court has issued a string of unanimous decisions in relatively unimportant cases. A storm is brewing for the end of the term. Will it be Red June? Or more likely, Purple June?

Read more:
Let's talk about Justice Kavanaugh's vote in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System - Reason

EAU CLAIRE Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers will appoint a special commissioner to hold a hearing on Eau Claire County District Attorney Gary Kings behavior, a step that could lead to an attempt to remove King from office.

Concerns about Kings behavior became public last week after incidents both in the courtroom and the district attorneys office. Coworkers accused King of sexually harassing a woman. An independent investigation by the county led County Administrator Kathryn Schauf to send King a letter instructing him not to have individual contact with employees.

When these employees are in the office, you are not to have any direct one-to-one contact with them until further notice, Schauf wrote. In addition, you are not to approach or question any Eau Claire County employee regarding this investigation or take any retaliatory action against any Eau Claire County employee who you may perceive to be a part of this investigation or believe may have made allegations against you.

Kings courtroom behavior has also been under scrutiny. Eau Claire County Sheriff Ron Cramer submitted a report in February after he saw King behaving oddly, and a hearing last week was postponed after a judge ordered King to have a breath test for alcohol and received the results.

The commissioner will have the authority to determine whether investigations are needed and will report on the findings.

Wisconsin law does allow for a governor to remove a district attorney, but only for cause. It requires written verified charges brought by a taxpayer who lives in the area covered by the attorney, followed by a speedy public hearing which must allow for presentation of a defense.

Witnesses at the hearing are not allowed to assert a Fifth Amendment right to silence, but neither can a witness be prosecuted for anything they say aside from perjury.

Read more:
Commissioner will head King investigation | Local News | leadertelegram.com - Leader-Telegram

Law360 (June 9, 2021, 10:03 PM EDT) -- A lawful permanent resident of the U.S. sued the Department of Homeland Security in Maryland federal court Wednesday, claiming an unreasonable delay in processing his wife's spousal visa application, which he says has not been acted on since it was filed in January 2020.

Preet Kamal says the failure to process the application of his wife, Vishal Thakur, a citizen of India living in Australia, constitutes a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires the government agencies to conclude matters "within a reasonable time," and of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

"Preet Kamal has made repeated attempts...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Link:
DHS Hit With Suit Over Spousal Visa Processing Delay - Law360