Tag Archives: Case

How quickly should I contact an attorney in a Colorado vehicle rollover case?

How quickly should I contact an attorney in a Colorado vehicle rollover case?

Cliff Enten, Law Offices of Cliff Enten, http://www.entenlaw.com – (303) 333-2222. Colorado Vehicle Rollover Law faqs: http://thelaw.tv/denver/Vehicle+Rollov…

http://www.ithacadwi.com Attorneys are also called counselors at law but often they must go beyond these roles and assist their clients in other ways. Watch …

Salt Lake City Attorney Announces 15% Off Retainer For Any Kind of Case

Salt Lake City, UT (PRWEB) August 23, 2013

Legal troubles can be difficult and time-consuming, not to mention expensive. If somebody were having legal troubles, it would be wise of them to save money in any way they can. The attorneys at Wall & Wall understand how hard this can be on people who are simply trying to hold on to their lives. That is why they are offering this special, in order to help people who are trying to rebuild their lives. Hopefully, this deal will make it just a little easier on them during this tumultuous time in their lives.

No matter why somebody needs a lawyer, whether its a divorce or a criminal charge, Wall & Wall will give him or her 15% off the retainer. This will give some people an opportunity to have a lawyer on their side that they may not have been able to afford before.

Whenever somebody is involved in a legal matter, divorce or otherwise, they should always have an attorney on their side to help them navigate through with as little damage as possible. Attorneys are trained and educated on the nuances of the legal system and can help their clients get a favorable ruling in any kind of situation.

In order to receive this 15% discount, simply call Wall & Wall at 801-441-2388 and mention Coupon Code: Wall15. This will get callers the 15% discount on the retainer and get them one step closer to successfully navigating the maze that is the court system. They will have an advocate that will stop at nothing to ensure that they receive the most favorable outcome possible.

About Wall & Wall Attorneys At Law PC:

The attorneys at Wall & Wall believe in justice and equality for everyone. They will stop at nothing to ensure that their clients receive a satisfactory outcome.

Contact:

Cory Wall, Partner

Wall & Wall Attorneys At Law PC

2168 Fort Union Blvd.

Salt Lake City, Utah 84121

801-441-2388

http://www.walllegalsolutions.com/







Find More Attorney In A Press Releases

A Just Cause Seeks Congressional Overcriminalization Task Force Review in Criminal Case; Questions if Feds Interfered with IRP Closing Contracts

Denver, Colorado (PRWEB) July 09, 2013

A Just Cause announced today that it is seeking a congressional Overcriminalization Task Force hearing in the case of the IRP 6. A Just Cause and Friends of Justice continue to investigate a federal case in Colorado that is currently under appeal involving six Colorado business executives who were convicted of mail and wire fraud charges. The six executives were with IRP Solutions Corporation, a software development company engaged in the development of criminal investigations software for federal, state and local law enforcement. The IRP-6 (Kendrick Barnes, Gary L. Walker, Demetrius K. Harper, David A. Zirpolo, Clinton A. Stewart and David A. Banks) are currently incarcerated at the federal prison camp in Florence, Colorado.

Dr. Alan Bean, Executive Director of Friends of Justice, recently published findings of a six-month long investigation into the IRP Solutions case. The IRP6 were accused of defrauding staffing companies. The executives of IRP maintained that the case is a debt collection case. The executives argued during court hearings that the federal government impeded their ability to do business ( D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA IRP Solutions Proffer 5/1/11).

Dr. Bean reports that prior to the executives of IRP Solutions being put on trial, there was opportunity for the company to close business and settle it debts.The viability of IRP’s software, an issue that should have been effectively settled when the city of Philadelphia embraced CILC in 2009, was at the heart of the the government’s case against the IRP-6,” says Bean. The only thing standing between (the) staffing companies and a paid-in-full check from IRP was the government of the United States. On two occasions, in 2005 and in 2009, FBI and DOJ interference kept IRP from paying its debts while making an extraordinary contribution to national security (speaking of the software developed by IRP Solutions),” adds Bean. (Money for Nothing, Dr. Alan Bean, 5/23/13 (http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/20130522money-for-nothing-how-racial-bias-destroyed-six-lives-stymied-a-black-owned-business-and-outraged-a-congregation/)

Bean’s investigation shows IRP company proprietary communications from 2008 between IRP Solutions Chief Operating Officer, David Banks and Philadelphia Deputy Mayor of Public Safety, Everett Gillison, in which IRP Solutions made an offer to the City of Philadelphia to install components of IRP’s Case Investigative Life Cycle software (CILC, pronounced silk), and the city would only have to pay for customization, configuration, and maintenance. ( D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA IRP Solutions Proffer, 5/1/11)

Records show that in January 2009, Lorelei Larson, Chief Investigator, Philadelphia Office of the Inspector General, contacted Banks via email stating, All of OIG staff is very excited about this venture.” Records further show that in February 2009 Gery Cardenas, Director of Information Technology for the Philadelphia Police Department was interviewed by FBI agent Jennifer Ngo regarding the IRP Solutions case. PPD (Philadelphia PD) was very close to having the (CILC) product installed prior to the discovery of the IRP investigation, said Cardenas, according to Ngos interview notes. Ngo’s interview further shows that Cardenas stated that the CILC module seemed to look exactly like what Cardenas and the PPD was looking to purchase. (Discovery for D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, Cardenas/Ngo Interview 318A-DN-63228, 2/19/09).

As part of the current appeal, in a 2011 proffer to John Walsh, U.S. Attorney (Denver), IRP executives outline how they believe the federal government interfered with business transactions, prior to an indictment, thus impacting the company’s ability to settle its debts. The proffer further outlines how IRP believes that Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Kirsch contacted Amy Kurland, Philadelphia OIG, and informed her that an indictment was coming. The proffer states, and records show that an indictment didn’t come for four to five months later. David Banks states in the proffer that he was contacted by the Philadelphia OIG expressing regret that the project was being pulled due to their office being contacted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirsch. “I was told by Amy Kurland’s (Philadelphia Inspector General) secretary that the project could not move forward because Assistant United States Attorney Kirsch had told Ms. Kurland that an indictment was coming. How can Mr. Kirsch guarantee an indictment when he has yet to present facts or make a request of the grand jury? Kirsch had already attempted with a grand jury in 2007 and failed to get an indictment,” says Banks. ( D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA IRP Solutions Proffer, 5/1/11)

“In my opinion, these were intentional acts to impede our ability to do business and settle our debts. We signed contracts provided to us by the staffing companies and failed to pay that debt after the government undermined our ability to close business not only with Philadelphia in 2009, but also the Department of Homeland Security and New York City Police Department between 2003 and 2005,” adds Banks.

The IRP6 appellant brief confirms that IRP was engaged in doing business with the City of Philadelphia and that IRP was interfered with by the federal government. The appellant brief states, Exculpatory evidence obtained during the discovery process revealed that IRP was engaged in negotiations with the (City of Philadelphia) Chief Investigator Lorelei R. Larson (Philadelphia Office of the Inspector General). Discussions between IRP and (Philadelphia) included information request involving fees and costs for customization, configuration, maintenance and support. However, after the FBI contacted Gery Cardenas (Cardenas), Director of Information for the PPD, and informed him that IRP was under investigation, all communications and any interactions between IRP and PPD ceased. (FD-302, File No. 318A-DN-63228, 02192009.) Cardenas stated that PPD was very close to having the product installed prior to his discovery of the (FBI’s investigation of IRP). Id. at p.3. This evidence was not (allowed to be) submitted to the jury. During the second day of deliberations the jury asked for more evidence, with the presumption that they were not fully persuaded that a crime existed. Doc 619. Additional evidence as noted above would have rendered a different verdict in favor of the Appellants (showing no) criminal intent. (Appellate Case: 11-1492 Document: 01018987811 Date Filed: 01/22/2013)

“Judge Arguello did not allow this evidence or any evidence related to PPD to be used at trial,” says Banks.

In “Money for nothing: how racial bias destroyed six lives, stymied a black owned business and outraged an entire congregation,” Dr. Bean investigates how the government interfered with IRP doing business. Philadelphia city records show that IBM was awarded a $ 4.7 million contract in 2002 to computerize the police departments records. After seven years the city had invested $ 7.1 million in a failed project for Philadelphia Police Department. http://technical.ly/philly/2012/11/13/philadelphia-police-typewriters-technology/

“At the time we made an unsolicited offer of our search warrant module to Philadelphia Police Department (PPD), we had no idea IBM was struggling to deliver on key information technology modernization requirements for the city. Fortunately for us, search warrants were a key problem area,” says Gary Walker, CEO IRP Solutions. “The city provided us with a copy of their search warrant forms which we incorporated into CILC within two weeks and provided to Deputy Mayor Gillison and Gery Cardenas. We were asked to contact and work with IBM on the search warrant module. We contacted the OIG’s office separately to demonstrate CILC case management,” adds Walker.

When the case went to trial in the fall of 2011, the jury never learned that the federal government had repeatedly frustrated IRPs

Related Criminal Law Press Releases

Privacy Under Fire in U.S. Supreme Court Maryland v. King Case; Gainesville Criminal Defense Lawyer Explains Potential Ramifications

Gainesville, FL (PRWEB) June 18, 2013

In Maryland v. King (2013 U.S. LEXIS 4165), the U.S. Supreme Court decided this month that it is permissible for police to take a DNA sample from those arrested for a “serious offense” and then use that sample as evidence for a completely different allegation. Gainesville criminal defense lawyer Dean Galigani said the ruling goes against one of the most important tenets of the U.S. criminal justice system: That police must have probable cause for a particular crime in order to perform a search on that person.

“A basic principle of American justice has been lost with this ruling: The requirement that police have sufficient reason to believe a person committed a crime before searching that person,” Galigani said. “I am very concerned for very negative potential implications this ruling may have on liberty and privacy.

Alonzo J. King was arrested and charged with assault in Maryland after allegedly pointing a shotgun at several people in 2009, according to Court documents. Police are allowed in Maryland, under a 1994 state law, to take DNA samples from people arrested for crimes of violence and check the sample against a database, with the intent of using it to solve unsolved crimes.

Police took a cotton swab from the inside of King’s cheek, and performed the search using the resulting DNA, according to Court documents. In the database, the search returned a result for DNA from semen found at an alleged sexual assault from 2003. King was charged with sexual assault, and convicted using only the DNA evidence.

In Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court deliberated whether the Maryland law was constitutional, or whether it violated the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. In a narrow decision, the Court ruled 5-4 that the state law was constitutional.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Stephen Breyer. It likens taking the DNA swab, which contains all biological information for the corresponding person, with taking a fingerprint, arguing that the DNA sample is only used for identification purposes. The majority sees the use of DNA for identification as similar to comparing an arrestees face to a wanted poster. For them, once a person is arrested for but not convicted ofa serious offense, that persons interest in privacy is outweighed by the governments need for a correct identification of the person and their criminal history.

The minority opinion eviscerated the majority. In an unusual alliance, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia that attacked the idea that the DNA sample was used just for identification purposes. It stated that the swab was, in fact, used to test suspects for other crimes without requiring a warrant.

Police with DNA evidence in a crime must, in most circumstances, obtain a warrant to get a DNA sample from a suspect. In order to obtain the warrant, they must show probable cause that the suspect committed the crime. Once they obtain the sample, they may test it against the DNA found in connection to the specific crime.

Scalia wrote that the Maryland v. King ruling gives police the ability to have what amounts to a “general warrant” the ability to test the sample for any crime that has been committed, without any known connection to that crime.

“This ‘general warrant’ runs against the ideals of privacy and liberty inherent in the Fourth Amendment: that the police cannot search a person on suspicion of a crime without any probable cause to believe that person actually committed it,” Galigani said. “We are granted certain constitutional protections, and ensuring those protections is more important than solving every crime.”

Scalia pointed out some troubling possibilities that could result from this ruling, such as the possibility that a national database of DNA could be created. Mr. Galigani pointed out another possibility within the direction of this ruling: While the Maryland case only discussed arrests for “serious crimes,” the precedent could lead to such a procedure for any crime. A person arrested for DUI in Gainesville could suddenly be the subject of a search for every unsolved crime in the nation.

“I’m very concerned at the direction this Court has taken on vital issues pertaining to privacy liberty,” Galigani said.

Dean Galigani, of the Galigani Law Firm, is a Gainesville criminal defense lawyer who represents those accused of DUI, drug charges or other criminal matters.







Looking for the Best Detroit Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney To Win Your Case? Kevin Bessant

Looking for the Best Detroit Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney? Detroit Michigan Criminal Defense DUI Lawyer Kevin Bessant has the experience you need to no…

Los Angeles Federal Criminal Defense Attorney – Instant Help 818 986-2092 Real Results in Los Angeles http://www.federalcriminaldefenseadvocates.com Hedding …
Video Rating: 5 / 5

Can your lawyer resign from your case anytime.?

Question by Brandy L: Can your lawyer resign from your case anytime.?
After three months of being in a car accident, my lawyer just call me 2 days ago saying they were resigning to my case, didn’y give me no explaintion , only thing they told me was you will be recieving a letter in the mail. What can I do now?

Best answer:

Answer by Star T
Read the letter. It should tell you what is your next move.

Add your own answer in the comments!

1 2 3 55