The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered conveniently in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. For an initial courtesy consultation with this premier Maryland criminal defense firm, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
Similar to the New York Police Department's scandal, the Baltimore Police Department is having its own "stop and frisk" fiasco.
In an effort to diminish its controversy, Baltimore city police are doing away with use of the negative term "stop and frisk" and replacing it with the word "stop". However, Baltimore's "stop and frisk" program continues unabated.
"Stop and frisk", now "stop" or "investigative stop" in Baltimore, is a term used when police detain someone short of arrest and search them allegedly on "reasonable suspicion" that the person is armed and "presently dangerous". It is also known as a "Terry stop", referring to the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d889, that held that such searches were not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
[http://articles.baltimoresun.com/09-23-2013; www.the-atlanticcities.com/politics/09-2013; law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment].
Friday, October 11, 2013
SECRETS TO WINNING YOUR IMMIGRATION CASE : www.charlesjeromeware.com
THE IMMIGRATION PARADOX : 15 TIPS FOR WINNING IMMIGRATION CASES.
http://amzn.com/1440171920. By former U. S. Immigration Judge Charles Jerome Ware.
www.charlesjeromeware.com
SECRETOS PARA GANAR SU CASO DE INMIGRACION : www.charlesjeromeware.com
QUINCE (15) CONSEJOS PARA GANAR CASOS DEL INMIGRACION.
Charles Ware es un ex Juez de Inmigracion de los Estados Unidos. En la actualidad es director de la firma nacional general de Charles Jerome Ware, Abogados y Consejeros.
Charles Ware es un ex Juez de Inmigracion de los Estados Unidos. En la actualidad es director de la firma nacional general de Charles Jerome Ware, Abogados y Consejeros.
GANAR SU CASO DE INMIGRACION : www.charlesjeromeware.com
QUINCE (15) CONSEJOS PARA GANAR CASOS DE INMIGRACION, http://amzn.com/1462068952 .
Charles Ware es un ex Juez de Inmigracion de los Estados Unidos. En la actualida es director de la firma nacional general de Charles Jerome Ware, Abogados y Consejeros.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
A COMMA, A COMMA... MY KINGDOM FOR A COMMA : TAKING AIM AT " ARBITRARY PRINCIPLE ", www.charlesjeromeware.com
This review is presented by the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors : www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (AIG) v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP.,
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No. 12-1640-cv, Decided April 19, 2012.
In his new book on contract drafting, word miser Kenneth Adams attacks the 2nd Circuit 's opinion in the abovereferenced AIG v. BOA case , in which the court essentially invokes the principle of writing construction that if in a sentence a series of nouns, noun phrases, or clauses is followed by a modifier and the modifier is preceded by a comma, the modifier applies to the series, not just the final element in the series.
In a nutshell, in his critique of the opinion Adams opines that the appeals court was " bamboozled by a comma".
Kenneth Adams argues the 2nd Circuit court got it wrong when it said a modifier phrase after a comma applied to the entire series of phrases before it : " ...as the opinion inadvertently demonstrates, that principle of construction [ used by the court in its opinion] has no foundation in English usage; as such, it should be rejected. The opinion also serves as a reminder that judges cannot be counted on to understand how ambiguity operates; courts should permit expert-witness testimony on ambiguity. " [ The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing (Forthcoming 2014), " Bamboozled by a Comma: The Second Circuit's Misdiagnosis of Ambiguity in American International Group, Inc. v. Bank of America Corp. ]
The 2nd Circuit used this example to demonstrate its point:
" This basketball team has a seven-foot center, a huge power forward, and two large guards, who do spectacular dunks," differs from the statement, " This basketball team has a seven-foot center, a huge power forward, and two large guards who do spectacular dunks." The first statement conveys that all four players do spectacular dunks. The latter statement conveys that only the guards do so."
Adams, however, says the relevance or irrelevance of the comma in the court's example can be shown by adding " both " after " who " in the first example and " all " after " who" in the second example. Says Adams : " In the first example, that would result in the modifier having a more narrow scope, despite the comma; in the second example, that would result in the modifier having a more broad
scope, despite absence of the comma. So the only conceivable basis for the court's explanation is expediency. But a principle of interpretation that has no basis in English usage is worse than useless --- it's a travesty." Adams asserts that the 2nd Circuit's grammar lesson " fell apart" when it relied on an " arbitrary principle".
[http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/10-9-2013; A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, Kenneth A. Adams ( ABA 3d ed. 2013) ]
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (AIG) v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP.,
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No. 12-1640-cv, Decided April 19, 2012.
In his new book on contract drafting, word miser Kenneth Adams attacks the 2nd Circuit 's opinion in the abovereferenced AIG v. BOA case , in which the court essentially invokes the principle of writing construction that if in a sentence a series of nouns, noun phrases, or clauses is followed by a modifier and the modifier is preceded by a comma, the modifier applies to the series, not just the final element in the series.
In a nutshell, in his critique of the opinion Adams opines that the appeals court was " bamboozled by a comma".
Kenneth Adams argues the 2nd Circuit court got it wrong when it said a modifier phrase after a comma applied to the entire series of phrases before it : " ...as the opinion inadvertently demonstrates, that principle of construction [ used by the court in its opinion] has no foundation in English usage; as such, it should be rejected. The opinion also serves as a reminder that judges cannot be counted on to understand how ambiguity operates; courts should permit expert-witness testimony on ambiguity. " [ The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing (Forthcoming 2014), " Bamboozled by a Comma: The Second Circuit's Misdiagnosis of Ambiguity in American International Group, Inc. v. Bank of America Corp. ]
The 2nd Circuit used this example to demonstrate its point:
" This basketball team has a seven-foot center, a huge power forward, and two large guards, who do spectacular dunks," differs from the statement, " This basketball team has a seven-foot center, a huge power forward, and two large guards who do spectacular dunks." The first statement conveys that all four players do spectacular dunks. The latter statement conveys that only the guards do so."
Adams, however, says the relevance or irrelevance of the comma in the court's example can be shown by adding " both " after " who " in the first example and " all " after " who" in the second example. Says Adams : " In the first example, that would result in the modifier having a more narrow scope, despite the comma; in the second example, that would result in the modifier having a more broad
scope, despite absence of the comma. So the only conceivable basis for the court's explanation is expediency. But a principle of interpretation that has no basis in English usage is worse than useless --- it's a travesty." Adams asserts that the 2nd Circuit's grammar lesson " fell apart" when it relied on an " arbitrary principle".
[http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/10-9-2013; A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, Kenneth A. Adams ( ABA 3d ed. 2013) ]
U.S. LEGAL HERITAGE & CRITICAL LEGAL THINKING, www.charlesjeromeware.com
For succinct insight into United States legal heritage and critical legal thinking, read the best-selling book, UNDERSTANDING THE LAW : A PRIMER, http://amzn.com/1440111456, by best-selling author and renowned attorney Charles Jerome Ware.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
MD. FAMILY LAW UPDATE: MENTAL CAPABILITY REQUIRED FOR MARYLAND MARRIAGE, www.charlesjeromeware.com
This "reminder" is presented as a public service by the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors. This law firm is headquartered conveniently in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. For a courtesy initial consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.
Recently (on or about October 2nd, 2013) it was reported that a Winnebago County, Illinois judge
had dismissed a woman's petition to the court for an order allowing her to marry her boyfriend of 38 years who suffered from a severe brain injury during surgery on November 30, 2009. the court's reasoning was that the boyfriend lacked the requisite "capacity to consent" to the marriage because
of his severe brain injury.
The boyfriend, John Morris, lives under 24-hour nursing care at the home where he lives with the girlfriend, Colette Purifoy.
Illinois state law requires the "capacity to consent to marriage" by the two participants, and there is no provision in the law allowing a guardian to consent on behalf of a ward, the judge ruled; even
though the parties may have been previously engaged to marry, owned a home together, had combined their assets and had a child together.
The Winnebago County Clerk had refused to issue a marriage certificate for the couple, citing state law that requires each person to " sign the marriage application" and to " appear before the clerk ."
We believe under Maryland Family Law the ruling would have been similar in Maryland courts.
[http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/brain-injured_man_cant_marry_judge_rules/October 7, 2013].
Recently (on or about October 2nd, 2013) it was reported that a Winnebago County, Illinois judge
had dismissed a woman's petition to the court for an order allowing her to marry her boyfriend of 38 years who suffered from a severe brain injury during surgery on November 30, 2009. the court's reasoning was that the boyfriend lacked the requisite "capacity to consent" to the marriage because
of his severe brain injury.
The boyfriend, John Morris, lives under 24-hour nursing care at the home where he lives with the girlfriend, Colette Purifoy.
Illinois state law requires the "capacity to consent to marriage" by the two participants, and there is no provision in the law allowing a guardian to consent on behalf of a ward, the judge ruled; even
though the parties may have been previously engaged to marry, owned a home together, had combined their assets and had a child together.
The Winnebago County Clerk had refused to issue a marriage certificate for the couple, citing state law that requires each person to " sign the marriage application" and to " appear before the clerk ."
We believe under Maryland Family Law the ruling would have been similar in Maryland courts.
[http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/brain-injured_man_cant_marry_judge_rules/October 7, 2013].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)