Hour 1
If I shoot an intruder in my home will my home insurance cover me?
Even if the law recognizes your right to defend yourself, insurance companies see it differently, according to the International Risk Management Institute (IRMI). Policies often contain an intentional injury exclusion, which defines self-defense as an intentional act and therefore excluded from compensation.
Self Defense Fund Perspective – January 2022
https://www.flipsnack.com/larryyamper/sdf-perspective-january-2022/full-view.html
Pennsylvania v. Barr
As a result of a vehicle search, the Commonwealth discovered a bag of marijuana and a firearm.
https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2021/28-map-2021.html
Oregon v. McCarthy
Although the stop occurred on a weekday afternoon near the county courthouse and the officers had mobile phones and a computer, the officers did not attempt to contact a magistrate to obtain a warrant to search the truck. Instead, they searched it without a warrant.
https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2021/s067608.html
California v. Super. Ct. (Real party in interest Valenzuela)
The question this case posed for the Court of Appeal’s review was what evidence sufficed, for purposes of a preliminary hearing, to bind over a defendant on a direct aiding and abetting theory of implied malice murder.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021/d079089.html
O’Donnell v. Allegheny Co. Tax
O’Donnell received a 16% share of the settlement, or $34,560,000. The question before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this case was whether this qui tam award was taxable in Pennsylvania as compensation under Section . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tam
https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2021/8-wap-2021.html
Chaganti v. Superior Court
“A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true: … The judge . . .
Rule 59. Motion to correct error: (A) Motion to correct error–When mandatory. A Motion to Correct Error is not a prerequisite for appeal, except when a party seeks to address: (1) Newly discovered material evidence, including alleged jury misconduct, capable of production within thirty (30) days of final judgment which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and produced trial; . . . (Indiana Trial Rule)
Rule 60. Relief from judgment or order: (B) Mistake–Excusable neglect–Newly discovered evidence–Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment, including a judgment by default, for the following reasons . . . (2) any ground for a motion to correct error, including without limitation newly discovered evidence, which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a motion to correct errors under Rule 59; . . . (Indiana Trial Rule)
Further down in Rule 60 we see:
(8) any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment, other than those reasons set forth in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4). The motion shall be filed within a reasonable time for reasons (5), (6), (7), and (8), and not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken for reasons (1), (2), (3), and (4). A movant filing a motion for reasons (1), (2), (3), (4), and (8) must allege a meritorious claim or defense. A motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding or for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
https://www.courtlistener.com/
https://www.courtlistener.com/person/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coram_nobis
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021/h048373.html
Hour 2
Reflection on teachers of Law,
Good and bad over the years
educational materials and sources
Story time. You can set your pen down for 15-20 minutes.
Johns Stuart, Richard Graves and Jurisdictionary, and Randy Kelton.
Las Vegas Review-Journal v. City of Henderson
Plaintiff submitted a public records request to the City of Henderson under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA) for certain documents. When the City requested a payment from Plaintiff to cover the cost of a review of the documents for privilege Plaintiff sought mandamus relief. . . . At issue was whether Plaintiff was entitled to recovery of attorneys fees as the prevailing party under the catalyst theory.
https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2021/81758.html
Park v. Law Offices of Tracey Buck-Walsh
The DOJ reportedly reviewed several hundred thousand electronic documents but produced fewer than a hundred. During the production, the trial court ordered Park to pay $32,836.25 to defray the “undue burden or expense” of the DOJ’s compliance with Park’s subpoena. When the production was complete, the court ordered Park to pay the DOJ an additional $111,618.75. The court of appeal affirmed.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021/a161672.html
United States v. Issa
Through forgery and fraud, Issa transferred tens of millions of dollars in Weston assets to his own accounts. Issa bought at least 25 residential properties, two private planes, four yachts, and 60 firearms with money that he stole, totaling $77,494,657.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2949/20-2949-2021-12-27.html
United States v. Mansfield
His PSR recommended an imprisonment range of 188-235 months and listed 26 other arrests in 1992-2013, involving at least 49 charges, including domestic battery and battery resulting in bodily injury, resisting law enforcement, felony intimidation, neglect of a dependent, and . . .
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2981/20-2981-2021-12-28.html
Wegbreit v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Wegbreit founded Oak Ridge, a financial-services company, and worked with attorney Agresti to reduce his tax liability. At Agresti’s suggestion, Wegbreit transferred his Oak Ridge interest to a trust that would convey that interest to an offshore insurance company as a premium for a life insurance policy benefitting the trust. Agresti, as trustee, acquired a variable life insurance policy from Threshold (later Acadia), which shares a U.S. office with Agresti’s law firm. The Wegbreits leveraged the policies by means of policy loans and purchases by shell companies. Acadia, at Samuel’s direction, sold his Oak Ridge interest for $11.3 million. The proceeds were wired directly to Agresti, who conveyed them to Acadia; the Wegbreits did not report any taxable income from the sale. After an audit, the IRS determined that the trust income and policy gains, including those from the Oak Ridge sale, were taxable to the Wegbreits, who had underreported their 2005-2009 income by $15 million. The Wegbreits disputed that conclusion in the tax court. After discovery revealed suspicious documents related to the trust and policies, the IRS asserted civil fraud penalties.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-1306/20-1306-2021-12-29.html
Leszanczuk v. Carrington Mortgage Services
Leszanczuk sued Carrington for breach of the mortgage contract and for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on behalf of putative nationwide and Illinois classes.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/21-1367/21-1367-2021-12-28.html
Pondering Steve Baker, the Feds, and Oscar Stilley’s Book, Busting the Feds.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved in print and audio content.
Music credit: https://sectorradio.ru/space/