Attorney C. Chan, Esq. Affordable Family Law,Strategy-Driven, 4.7/5 Ratings! Free Consultation, Butte county Family Law Attorney C. Chan 530.359-8810

Friday, September 4, 2020

COVID HOURS 7AM-7PM NO OFFICE VISIT Required.. FREE CONSULTATION

         Attorney does not use "Zoom" in most cases due to....  some of  the potential problems (indicated further below in *article examining it...) however attorney does use Court Call, Webx, and possibly can  also appear in Court in person, depending on if judge allows it. The Butte Family law courts are open for hearings.

----> You should CALL the Courthouse to make sure you can either

 (1) appear in person or

 (2) if you are required to USE Court call, or another type of call in system......




 


Due to people having to navigate the problems of not being able to always  meet an attorney in person in an office, attorney does still manage to meet up with clients. Bad weather and Covid does not usually deter attorney from meeting anyone, in reality. 

    Years ago when attorney had a huge office in Sacramento with 4-5 attorneys,  [my office window overlooking the garden was so big you could drive a large car through the window] and it is right across the street from Arden Fair Mall------ attorney did not ever answer the office phone, because we had people answering it for us, but I eventually found out that many shortcomings can ensue.

    These days, with people being used to working with machines all the time, they seldom get to
actually speak or interact with attorneys for very long due to the cost. Attorney herein spends a great deal of time on the phone in order to better understand the client's case. This usually helps the client's case and has a great deal to do with attorney being able to prevail in the case, in the long run. 




Attorney has always relied mostly on technology and computers and has access to very competent computer experts.   Pretty much most of my skill and experience is in litigation, mainly in the courtroom. People can say what they want but the proof is in the litigation record and I have this data displayed directly on this blog. Attorney is not originally from Butte County and has years of experience in larger county jurisdictions.

Attorney has done both state and federal litigation and has been involved in many areas of law outside of family law, such as civil,  criminal,  bankruptcy,  administrative,  animal law; thus in cross-over cases involving several areas of law, this is also not new to attorney either... for example, attorney has sued Chase bank, the State of CA, PGE, City of Sacramento, American Kennel Club, Nestle Purina, City of San Diego, CA Southern District Federal Court;  City of Aurora,  Colorado Federal District Court...and bankruptcy litigation, Eastern District Federal Court, Sacramento, CA.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Our animal expert (from Washington) was used in the case below at the lower level,  involving  United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) a federal precedent case known the world over, United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), 

was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 48,[1] a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. 

Many attorneys do not know this case, however it is a huge case in Federal case law, and was published in nearly every main newspaper in the USA.  

The gist of the case shows that animal activists attempted to use an illegal law to make a historical accounting (such as the history of dog fighting, for example) into something illegal, just by one talking about it in a book or video?  For example, talking about the killing of Jews by Hitler is historically talked about, written about, and spread widely in books and films.

In applying the constitutional law correctly, the author of the book was not guilty, and the law by the activists (HSUS had a hand in it), was illegal and the statute had to be rewritten.

You can look it up: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NOTE,  WARNING ON PRIVACY AND SECURITY IN THE WIKI DATA...AS TO ZOOM........of course, I did not write the Wiki data. You can research it for yourself that the shortcomings were there.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_(software)



Woman shopping at supermarket