The world has been reshaped by the 2019 coronavirus, and numerous industries will undergo a transformation. Once the dust settles down, the legal landscape is going to look extremely different.

How Has COVID-19 Affected the Legal System At Large

Coronavirus’s influence on the practice of law is felt the most inside the courtroom. There are lesser cases overall, with all the hearings being postponed, dispositions cancelled or postponed, and the deadlines extended. The insistence that mostly drives the legal industry has been mostly removed. Therefore, there is a need for people to hire attorneys on a short term basis. These delays, along with slow-downs, pose a potential threat to the appeal lawyers’ income.

The cash flow has slowed down, and all the finances are in an upheaval. There are numerous people who require access to additional funds which includes endowments, structured expense plans, and investments, to name a few. Under such circumstances appeal lawyers who help out their clients with these financial activities must prepare to act quickly.

How Will COVID-19 Affect Court Appearances and Clients

There is a level of difficulty faced by firms due to coronavirus as they switch to working remotely. This difficulty is going to depend on two factors:

1. Court appearances
2. Age of clients

There are numerous cases which have been cancelled or postponed, and some courthouses have been completely shut off. Essential activities, for instance, criminal bond hearings and child custody are still taking place. Nonessential court cases, for example, personal injury and evictions have been put on hold. Consequently, law firms are going to find older clients who require increased face to face interactions. COVID-19 also adds an extra layer of urgency as your clients might face extremely difficult decisions in the face of adversary. For all employment lawyers, clients who have been laid-off are going to require instant assistance as they begin to navigate unemployment and various other challenges.

How Is COVID-19 Going To Affect Law Firms

Business owners are most likely to ramp up efforts in expectation of defaults, forbearances, plus alterations to short term compensation plans. As per our appeal lawyers, we can expect to see an uptick in a non-compete lawsuit.  COVID-19 is going to bring an increased number of clients to law firms. The recession in the year 2008 triggered the launch of new businesses. There is a whole host of new startups just waiting to emerge as a consequence of COVID-19. Attorneys are going to be in high demand in order to help businesses develop as well as evolve.

Between March 15^th and 21^st 2020, more than 3.3 million people have filed for unemployment. This is 1% of the country’s population. As these individuals head back to the workforce, they will have to readjust their goals accordingly. Some of these jobs will never return and will not be altered. This is going to provoke some individuals to explore other career options.

All new business owners are going to seek help from lawyers to help them legally protect their business. Lawyers are going to be tasked with helping startup owners make all the correct decisions regarding their tax status and deciding which entity to create, for instance, sole proprietorship or a limited liability corporation. Your clients will require help with their operations and membership agreements throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/how-has-covid-19-affected-law-firms/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Finding an appeals attorney can be a complicated task and would require you to consider a plethora of factors before making a decision. An attorney is someone who represents you in the court of law, which is why it is imperative to make an informed decision, especially when it comes down to an appeal attorney. Why the increased focus on appellate attorneys you might ask? Well, firstly, appellate attorneys represent cases that are generally not in the plaintiffs’ favor, which is why it requires an even greater consideration before choosing your appeal attorney. If you are wondering how to choose your appeals attorney, here are seven tips to help you make an informed decision:

1. Licensed Attorney

Well, obviously, the first factor you need to consider is whether your attorney has a license. Even if they have one, you should also confirm if they are allowed to represent your case in the court of law. Signing up with an attorney and finding later that your case cannot be represented will only cause unnecessary delays in your appeal procedure.

2. Effective communication skills

One of the most important traits an attorney needs to possess is effective communication skills. The attorney needs to explain the judge why your case needs favor. A piece of advice, always have a word with your attorney in detail. If he/she is unable to convince you, chances are they might not be able to convince the judge and the jury.

3. Past record

Historical information about various practices and cases represented in the court of law will certainly help you understand your attorney’s background. An attorney with many cases on their career will definitely have a better exposure and understanding about how courts work. It also gives you the ability to reflect on their success rate to determine their capacity and ability to represent cases effectively.

4. Trustworthy

For someone who represents your case in the court of law, you surely need to develop some sort of trust. You need to unfold a lot of information to your attorney and often, the information is personal. If your attorney is not trustworthy, it might result in an embarrassing situation. A piece of advice: seek for reviews from the market or trust your gut feeling about the attorney. If you feel that the attorney is not a trustworthy individual, chances are you are right.

5. Experience with similar cases

Specialization is one critical factor when it comes to representing the case effectively and increasing the chances of winning. For example, if you have filed for a personal injury claim, but hire an attorney specialized in real estate cases, chances are that the attorney will not be able to represent your case as effectively.

6. Understands your case

Before you decide to proceed with an attorney, ensure that they understand your case. You need to be clear about what your expectations are and what the attorney needs to push for. Do not leave it at the discretion of the attorney or assume they understand. Ask for their opinion and views explicitly. Since you are paying for the services, you have all the right to demand if they understand what they are representing. If you feel, your attorney is not competent enough to understand the objective of the case, it is best to look for another one.

7. Transparent about fees

The judicial system has different fee structure that you may be unaware and usually the attorney needs to inform you about the various legal fees you need to cover. However, it is better to be transparent about the fees right from the start to avoid blowing your budget mid-trials.

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/seven-points-to-consider-when-selecting-an-attorney/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

The judicial system is tricky and complicated. Each category of judicial system has differing laws and practices according to the misdemeanor, claim, the state, and various other factors. Since there are several rules and regulations that need to be considered when presenting a case, it can often become difficult to determine the course of the judicial system. For example, the judicial system is different for handling juvenile cases compared to adult criminal appeals. Similarly, the judicial system works differently for eviction cases than personal injury claims. One of the trickiest encounters you can face in the judicial system is when your case is rejected and you need to represent yourself with an appeal. Now you might think that you can simple search for the top appellate lawyers or criminal appeals lawyers to increase your chances of success. However, here are a few things you need to know about judicial system and how criminal appeals work.

The Judicial System For appeals

When a court hands out its ruling, you are allowed to defend your case in a higher court and refute the ruling placed against you. It does not matter whether you were the plaintiff of the defendant. As long as the ruling was not in your favor, you are free to appeal against it in a higher court. Frist, the higher jurisdiction court will either accept or deny the appeal, which means chances are that your appeal will not be heard. Therefore, it is imperative that you hire from the top appellate lawyers available to make your appeal worthy and acceptable.

 

How do you make the criminal appeals worthy?

Well, according to law, if you are wrongfully convicted of a crime you did not commit, you need to challenge the ruling in a higher court of law. However, criminal appeals need to point out an error made by the jury or the judge. That means, that your criminal appeals lawyer needs to examine the ruling made by the court and identify a fault in the verdict based on the guidelines provided in the law. The appeal needs to be descriptive and clear to be accepted in the higher court.

 

What Happens once my appeal is accepted?

Once criminal appealsare accepted in a higher court, the criminal appeals lawyer will seek a standing order to halt the verdict or the penalty imposed by the previous court. However, this process needs to be quick and effective to ensure the plaintiff does not face any severe consequences due to a delay in the process.

 

Hiring one of the top appellate lawyers gives you an edge as they have the necessary exposure and experience in the field. It may be a tad more expensive to hire one of the top appellate lawyers compared to other criminal appeal lawyers with less exposure and experience. However, when it comes to criminal appeals, you better not take your chances on your case and hire the best talent available to speed up the process.

 

 

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/how-the-judicial-system-works-in-an-appeal-process/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Eleventh Circuit Appeal of Plea Agreement Rule 11

In 2011, a grand jury sitting in the Middle District of Florida returned a thirty-eight-count indictment, charging Copeland with eleven counts of mail fraud violating 18 U.S.C. § 1341, (Counts One through Eleven), sixteen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts Twelve through Twenty-Seven), nine counts of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Counts Twenty-Eight through Thirty-Six), and two counts of making false claims against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (Counts Thirty-Seven and Thirty-Eight). Read Mr. Copeland’s Petition: Copeland Brief.

Criminal Plea Agreements in Federal Courts

Copeland entered into a written plea agreement with the Government. Id. Per the plea agreement, Copeland would plead guilty to Counts Twenty-Seven, Thirty-Six, and Thirty-Seven of the indictment. Id. at 3a. Subsequently, the Government would dismiss the remaining counts in the indictment. Id. Importantly, the Government stated that Copeland should receive a downward departure and a reduced sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. Id. Given this notion, Copeland believed it was in his best interest to agree to enter a guilty plea. Id.

Sentencing Hearings in Federal Criminal Cases

On June 18, 2012, Copeland was sentenced to a total of 264 months imprisonment. App. 3a. Importantly, the PSI findings, which were ultimately adopted by the trial the judge, included two pre-indictment incidents. Carlos Dawson was a witness for the Petitioner at sentencing, however, he was prevented from offering mitigating evidence on behalf of the Petitioner. App. 36c. Both of these led to the PSI, including a U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 enhancement for obstruction of justice. Id. Moreover, the PSI did not include the U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 adjustment as promised by the Government. Id. The PSI stated that this § 3E1.1 adjustment was not initially included because Copeland did not truthfully admit all of his conduct nor did he voluntarily assist authorities in the investigation of the crimes charged. Id. at 37c.

First Appeal.

Soon thereafter, Copeland appealed the sentence to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stating that the Government breached the terms of the plea agreement by failing to recommend a three-level guideline reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Id.  United States v. Copeland, 520 F. App’x. 822, 823 (11th Cir. 2013). The Eleventh Circuit agreed and remanded the case for resentencing before a different judge. App. 3a; United States v. Copeland, 520 F. App’x. at 828.

Remand and Resentencing

Prior to the resentencing hearing, the Probation office revised the Presentence Investigation Report. App. 3a. Once again, the § 3C1.1 adjustment due to pre-indictment incidents. App. 4a. However, the promised § 3E1.1 downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was applied, which resulted in a 235-293 sentencing range. Id. Ultimately, the court varied down to a total term of imprisonment of 204 months. Id.  Copeland appealed his sentence once more to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the court erred by applying the 3C1.1 enhance for obstruction of justice stemming from pre-indictment incidents.    App. 5a.

Second Appeal.

On March 19, 2015, the Court of Appeals dismissed Copeland’s appeal stating that:

Because Copeland did not challenge the district court’s initial decision to apply the enhancement when the opportunity existed in his first appeal, that decision is law of the case, and Copeland is deemed to have waived his right to challenge the enhancement on resentencing and in this appeal (Cites omitted).

 

Copeland’s Habeas Corpus Petition under § 2255.

On June 7, 2016, Copeland, pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under § 2255. App 35c. Specifically, Copeland argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. App 38c. First, Copeland argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel promised an unrealistic sentence in order to induce a guilty plea that he would have otherwise not entered. Id. As a result, Copeland argued that he entered a plea unknowingly, involuntarily, and unintelligently. App. 42c. Specifically, Copeland informed the court that his previous counsel advised him that the maximum sentence he could receive under the plea agreement was 84 months imprisonment. App. 44c. However, according to his trial counsel, it was more likely that Copeland was going to receive closer to 60 months imprisonment given prior cases. Id. Importantly, Copeland testified to these facts in his sworn affidavit. App. 33-34c.

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/eleventh-circuit-court-of-appeals-supreme-court-petition-copeland/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Boulder Young Petitions US Supreme Court to Overturn Criminal Federal Case

Petitioner Boulder Young, also known as Boulder Daniel McManigal [“Petitioner”], was indicted on May 24, 2017 for four counts relating to the distribution of methamphetamine. The indictment claimed that on three separate occasions, Petitioner sold methamphetamine to ATF agents or informants. The prosecution additionally asserted that Petitioner possessed a reputation for dangerousness, citing proffers provided by two of Petitioner’s supposed customers who were both under indictment for related drug charges at the time. Although Petitioner has never been convicted of a felony and possesses a very limited criminal history, the prosecution cited his firearms collection as further evidence of his supposedly violent character.

On August 2, 2017, Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance , and signed a memorandum of the proposed plea agreement. The plea was entered on October 2, 2017. App. 1a. This offense carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. App. 3a. Paragraph 41 of this memorandum requires Petitioner to waive his right to appeal the conviction and the sentence involved. Furthermore, paragraph 41 stipulates that at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing the Court will note that Petitioner’s appellant rights are limited. The Magistrate Judge entered the guilty plea on October 2, and it was accepted by the District Court on October 18, 2017. App. 1a.

Right to Appeal Federal Conviction

On January 11, 2019, Petitioner was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months in prison and five years of supervised release. App 8a. Counsel for Petitioner argued that the court should apply the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) safety valve provision, authorizing a sentence below the federal minimum. To be eligible for “safety valve” relief, defendant must have minimal criminal history and an offense which is nonviolent in nature. The court held that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof due to his possession of several firearms, and the fact that he was in the process of cleaning one of them during a federal drug deal. The judgment was entered on January 14, 2019.

 

Read more about the federal appeal: Young PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI to United States Supreme Court

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/young-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-us-supreme-court/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Eric Longmire Petitions United State Supreme Court in Case With Warshaw Berstein

Whether the State Appellate Division wrongfully denied Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Appeal when sua sponte and without notice to Petitioner, and without providing him an opportunity to respond, it determined that Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against his former employer. Longmire Petitions the US Supreme Court in a case with Warshaw Berstein, and the Petition is attached here: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI United States Supreme Court

New York Court of Appeals Opinion

The second question for review in the petition is:

Whether the State Appellate Division erred in affirming sua sponte and without notice to Petitioner, and without providing him an opportunity to respond, the decision and order of the motion court in dismissing Petitioner’s counterclaim for legal malpractice against the Respondent.

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/longmire-v-warshaw-burstein-cohen-schlesinger-kuh-llp/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Kyle Hurst Challenges Rainbow Family Immunity Ruling

The question presented in the petition is:

Whether the Eleventh Circuit wrongfully absolved Respondent of liability when it determined that Moore Lake was not an “area” where a fee was charged, or a part of an area used for commercial purposes.  Read the Petition here: Hurst Petition

The Rainbow Family has long history of violating the laws

Equally important, the Permit for the Rainbow Group covered “3 square miles”. 4 Since the distance to Moore Lake and Silver Lake is less than 1 nautical mile, the holding in Goodman means that the properties are the same “area” and the Permit covered activity at both Silver Lake and Moore Lake. The Eleventh Circuit failed to correctly apply Goodman for the following reasons:

1. A “fee” is charged for access to Silver Lake;
2. Moore Lake and Silver Lake are less than 1 mile apart;
3. Both Moore Lake and Silver Lake are covered by the plain language of the Permit, stating that activity of Rainbow Family is permitted up to “3 square miles” from Moore Lake.

The holding in Goodman means that USFS cannot avoid liability and the Eleventh Circuit opinion incorrectly interpreted federal law. The Court of Appeal’s decision strays from the factual issues in the case. The facts are clear that Moore Lake is a part of Silver Lake. Moore Lake is the camping compliment to Silver Lake.

 

Contact Robert Sirianni and Brownstone Law to discuss your Supreme Court Appeal.

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/kyle-hurst-v-united-states-forest-service-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Jackson v. United States Petition for Writ of Certiorari

The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger, 580 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2009) acknowledged that this court’s seminal decision in Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) did not overule Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (2003) (per curiam). In Ruelas, the Sixth Circuit held that a federal habeas court is free to apply the Esparza harmless error standard to determine whether a state court of appeals reasonably applied the Chapman harmless error standard on direct review. In the decision below, infra, App. 3a, the court of Appeals applied this standard. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court did not apply the Chapman harmless error standard on direct review.

Brownstone Law Petitions U.S. Supreme Court

Read more about the Petition here:  Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

This case presents the following questions:

 

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the Esparza harmless error standard, instead of the Brecht harmless error standard on federal habeas review, when the state court failed to apply Chapman on direct review.

 

2. Whether a trial court’s erroneous denial of a request for a self-protection instruction as to the lesser included offenses of second-degree manslaughter and reckless homicide may be deemed harmless.

Contact Robert Sirianni to discuss more about your appeal.

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/brownstone-law-files-petition-to-united-states-supreme-court/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Supreme Court Writ on First Amendment

The August 14, 2019 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denying Schiano’s Petition for enc banc review, which decision is herein sought to be reviewed was not published.  The June 7, 2019, Opinion of the Panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was unpublished, but can be found at Schiano v. Friedman, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17105 (11th Cir. 2019).  The September 26, 2017, Opinion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida was unpublished, but can be found at Friedman v. Schiano, No. 16-cv-81975-BB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159584 (S.D. Fla. January 6, 2017).              The statutory provision believed to confer on this Court jurisdiction to review on a writ of certiorari the judgment or order in question is 28 U.S.C. §1257.  Read the writ here: Cert Petition- First Amendment

Whether substantial truth is a complete defense to defamation under the First Amendment, regardless of the motives of the speaker?

Schiano owned Hotwiremedia.com, a “party vendor directory” that sold listing space and banner advertisements on its website to service companies that catered to the party planning industry.  A few months after Schiano trained Freidman to maintain Hotwiremedia.com’s database and to sell vendor listings, Freidman represented to clients of HotWireMedia.com that Hotwiremedia.com was purchased by Friedman and Freidman’s Planningforevents.com company. Thereafter, Appellee Freidman charged Hotwiremedia.com clients’ credit cards for Freidman’s commissions and for banner ad upgrades. Schiano reported Friedman’s actions to the local Police Department and then started a webpage on the Hotwiremedia.com website documenting Appellee Freidman’s fraud. Thereafter, Appellee Freidman accused Appellant Schiano online of being, among other things, a child molester and rapist. Schiano’s business did not survive Freidman’s accusations, and he was forced to leave his home, opting to rent the property due to the loss of business. Schiano was forced to move from his home at 3840 Northwest 17th Avenue, Oakland Park, Florida 33334 to 400 NW 53rd Court, Oakland Park, Florida, 33309. As of December 12, 2016, Schiano’s usual place of abode was the property at 400 NW 53rd Street.

Schiano added that the District Court erroneously failed to recognize Schiano’s truth defense as a complete defense to allegations of defamation and failed to properly consider the economic burden imposed on Schiano by the $1,310,535.08 judgment and injunctions that permanently shut down Schiano’s business websites.

Contact Brownstone Law and Robert Sirianni to discuss a Supreme Court Writ (888) 233-8895.

 

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/supreme-court-first-amendment/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

rvtyrtyr styrty

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/test-post/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com