Hour 1
Attorneys Have Problems Too
She wanted a protective order. husband’s attorney threatened to expose intimate photos of her in court.
During a deposition of the unrepresented petitioner that was attended by a court reporter and others in Respondent’s firm, Respondent confronted the petitioner with several 8″x10″ color copies of intimate photos she had sent the man during their relationship, prior to the events giving rise to the protective order petition, displaying them facing up on the table for all in attendance to see. Respondent asked the petitioner, “why do women who seek the aid of the court send these kinds of pictures to men?” Respondent then asked her if she still intended to pursue a protective order or whether there would be a “better way” to handle things than for her to be “drug through” and “exposed in” the court.
Attorney can’t discharge penalties in bankruptcy, nor practice law until he ponies up.
Fur-ther observing that the Wisconsin Supreme Court follows a policy of “progressive discipline,” the referee recommended temporary suspension of Osicka’s license, restitution of $150 to a client, and imposition of the full cost of his disciplinary proceedings—$12,878.14.
New York Lawyer Suspended for Personal Use of Client Funds
Yoram Keinan, who focused primarily on tax law, joined an unspecified firm as a non-equity “contract” partner who wouldn’t receive compensation for firm work directly from clients. After he learned his contract would not be renewed, he took in $9,405 in checks made payable directly to him. He then received four additional checks, totaling $47,389, and deposited them into his personal account, according to the court.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/new-york-lawyer-suspended-for-personal-use-of-client-funds
* * *
The Attorney Grievance Committee and Keinan ultimately agreed to a one-year suspension from the practice of law, citing mitigating factors including that he was going through a contested divorce. The court also said that no client was harmed as a result of the misconduct.
Qualified Immunity and § 1983
Deputizing gone wild: Federal task forces give state and local cops ridiculously broad immunity
Ever since Congress enacted the civil rights act of 1871, individuals have been able to sue state and local government officials who violate their constitutional rights (codified today as Section 1983).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/02/15/local-police-ridiculous-qualified-immunity/6616330001/
But in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court created the doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which protects all local, state and federal government employees from legal liability, unless they violated a “clearly established” right, a requirement that often means finding a precedent with practically identical facts.
Bivens Actions
A Bivens action generally refers to a lawsuit for damages when a federal officer who is acting in the color of federal authority allegedly violates the U.S. Constitution by federal officers acting.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bivens_actions
Burden of Proof: The plaintiff in a Bivens action must prove that a constitutionally protected right has been violated by the federal officers.
Why Some Police Departments Are Leaving Federal Task Forces
Cities say the feds won’t follow their rules about using force, body cams.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/10/31/why-some-police-departments-are-leaving-federal-task-forces
Rebroadcast of Counter Speech with Deana Sacks – Revolution.Radio 2022-02-19
Citizen’s Arrest and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hour 2
Recent § 1983 cases
Taylor v. Hughes, No. 20-2377 (7th Cir. 2022)
The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for Hughes and remanded for a determination of damages. Hughes is entitled to good-faith immunity only if he could have “reasonably believed” that the search was authorized by a valid warrant. Hughes told the judge that he knew Taylor’s address; he did not. Hughes stated that there was probable cause to believe drugs would be found in the apartment; there was not.
The Tenth Circuit Reverses Qualified Immunity for University Official Under Rule 12(B)(6) in Student Speech Case
“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity under §1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Id. at *7 (citing District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589, 199 L. Ed. 2d 453 (2018)). “To establish that the law was clearly established in this context, the plaintiff must point to Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedents in point, or to the clear weight of authority from other circuit courts deciding that the law was as the plaintiff maintains.”
https://www.hollandhart.com/the-tenth-circuit-reverses-qualified-immunity-for-university-official-under-rule-12b6-in-student-speech-case
Commercial Bankruptcies
10 Retailers to Watch for a Bankruptcy Filing in 2022
with the end of both COVID-related relief and eviction moratoriums, there are a number of “problem tenants” that may not be able to recover or adapt, forcing them to use the bankruptcy process to stay viable.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/10-retailers-to-watch-bankruptcy-filing-2022
The following are our top 10 retailers to watch for possible Chapter 11 filing(s) in 2022.
Music Credits
Bad Boys (Theme From Cops)
https://youtu.be/bBD8M3WFrAw
Bobby Fuller Four – I Fought The Law(1966)
https://youtu.be/OgtQj8O92eI
Golden Earring – Radar Love
https://youtu.be/ckM51xoTC2U
15 second snips
https://sectorradio.ru/space/
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved in print and audio content.