Many "self-represented" litigants have very little understanding of the court system, the protocol, and what to do in Court?
This is not surprising, even with about 70% of clients representing themselves (in CA courts...)
Therefore, if you are representing yourself and cannot possibly afford an attorney, you should at least
do some research to figure out how you can increase your chances in Court...this can include any motions, hearings, or documents you file, and exhibits; and if you are not sure how to represent yourself and do stand to LOSE a great deal (of either time, money, or your kids) then it is well worth your effort to pay to have someone who can bolster or increase your chances in court, if only because, the person helping you will know what she/he is doing (because she has done it for decades?!)
Attorney herein (attorney C. Chan) does help litigants win their own cases, and of course will also represent clients in entire cases as well. Some clients are better speakers than others, so if you are not good at doing that, it's best to get some help if possible.
Many times you may be forced into using what is known as "court call" which means you might not go to the court and have to do it from your home over the phone. This is not usually the best way to make your case but sometimes we don't have a choice because the Butte court is limiting litigants to around 11 people at one time in the courtroom.
If you believe you need help on your case, please feel free to call attorney herein. There is no obligation as the consultation is free. YES--free!
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Saturday, December 12, 2020
Pitbull Litigator-- If the Hat Fits? Federal Court Litigation+ Famous Landmark Supreme Court Case U.S. v Stevens, on First Amendment Violation
Attorney Chan is well qualified to speak on the issues involving the dogs commonly known as "pitbulls" "APB😏 😄 Ts" (American Pitbull Terriers) or just "pitbulls" (generic classification for which there is not necessarily known genetic markers or proof that such dog is actually descended from APBT actual line, and there is no genetic link necessarily...dog might just look like one?)
Why is that?
The "why is that" --- is because attorney Chan has long studied the issues, starting in 2002, and litigated in CA state and CA Northern and Southern District Federal Courts and Denver CO Federal court--by attorney herein,...... over issues involving the dogs and the dog breed laws which often "ban" such dogs. Attorney has worked on these issues in Northern District Federal Court San Francisco, and although we did not win on the issue of pitbull dogs being treated disparately in 2007 in DENVER Federal Court----(years ago),many MANY attorneys have attempted to change the law in Denver banning pitbulls since 2008 BUT-- none of them EVER succeeded..... and just for the record, attorney herein believes that the 2013 ordianance in the City of San Diego violates the Cartright Act of CA, wherein all of the claimed non profits and humane groups and pounds can sell any animal they want while bona fide sellers of same cannot sell unless they actually obtain them from the aforementioned groups???? Not until January 2021, did the law in Denver CO finally get changed, not via litigation--which had been futile since 2007--but by gaining social media and dog owners to put pressure on Denver local government---they finally got the government to get rid of the dog ban !!! Everyone these days realizes that the pitbull is one of the most widely liked breed type (despite the haters...)
Attorney has worked with well known canine experts and has studied the subject for many years. in fact, our canine expert was actually used in the Landmark case of U.S. v Stevens, LII Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. STEVENS ( No. 08-769 ) 533 F. 3d 218, affirmed. Syllabus Opinion [Roberts] Dissent [Alito] HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . STEVENS Certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 08–769. Argued October 6, 2009—Decided April 20, 2010
Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. §48 to criminalize the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. The statute addresses only portrayals of harmful acts, not the underlying conduct. It applies to any visual or auditory depiction “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed,” if that conduct violates federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession takes place,” §48(c)(1). Another clause exempts depictions with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” §48(b).
The legislative background of §48 focused primarily on “crush videos,” which feature the torture and killing of helpless animals and are said to appeal to persons with a specific sexual fetish. Respondent Stevens was indicted under §48 for selling videos depicting dogfighting. He moved to dismiss, arguing that §48 is facially invalid under the First Amendment . The District Court denied his motion, and Stevens was convicted. The Third Circuit vacated the conviction and declared §48 facially unconstitutional as a content-based regulation of protected speech.
Held: Section §48 is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment . Pp. 5–20.
What this means, is that animal activists got HSUS to try and convict the guy who was selling historical videos of dogs, not that different from any movie which shows beating of slaves, killing of Indians, torture of ethic people, or barbaric actual events from the past?
BUT the United States Supreme Court found that the animal activist statute (on snuff films using animals) was not only poorly written, it was illegal in the sense that the Court found a ton of things wrong with it (by using the parameters of constitutional law)...THUS- the District court below received direct testimony from OUR expert who lives in Washington. The rest is HISTORY--and the law had to be stricken and re-written properly. This was just another tactic by activists trying to smear legally operated businesses!!
Attorney recommends that people interested in obtaining the "right" type of dog check out the Dog encyclopedia book, or the book on 150 common dog breeds, BEFORE even attempting to buy a dog or even a "rescue" dog. MOST dog rescues do NOT know the actual history of many of their dogs, the lineage or even anything about the dogs.
In SOME cases they may have data from the pound (and that is usually sketchy, but a temperament test was likely done at the pound..) I cannot tell you how many people with absolutely NO canine knowledge at all, will just buy any canine without researching a thing. AS A HORRIBLE EXAMPLE--A HUMANE SOCIETY IN SAN DIEGO SOLD A DOG TO A COUPLE THAT HAD A NEW BABY. THEY SOLD THEM A HUGE DOG, RESCUED PURPORTEDLY...no humane society should EVER, EVER sell or adopt out ANY large breed dog, to parents of a new baby in household??
It's common sense so obviously this humane group did not do its job correctly.
Especially when the parents know nothing about dogs, or how dogs act, and especially a rehomed large dog which appeared to be part bully dog or in that family of canines? ANY rescue or humane group should know better than to give such an animal to a family with a newborn baby. AS it happened--these dumb parents put this huge dog in BED with them AND with the new baby?? Utterly stupid, stupid, stupid. So what happens? The DOG ended up killing the baby right there in the BED???
All of this could have been avoided by: (1) Never adopt out any large breed dog to new owners who probably had no clue about dogs at all. (2) Never adopt out any unknown pound dog to owners who have no experience with dogs.(3) Make new owners pass a test (written) re dog ownership (4) Ask simple questions of would-be-new-owners as to safety, dog safety, and child safety? There is no other way to know unless this is done in person !!!!!
That is sheer stupidity and all children should know dog safety BEFORE obtaining any dog!!! Most children are bitten on the face due to lack of supervision, parents who are idiots, and parents who have no idea of what it takes to own a dog. No child who lacks dog safety training should have a dog, simply because it's dangerous. Many schools offer dog-child safety training. If you cannot locate this help, contact me and I will find the help for you.
The encyclopedia book is huge and fairly expensive but will last a lifetime. You should also research online but be careful what sources you are believing. There is a lot of untrue data out there. And if you are inclined to buy a dog off the internet and have it shipped, you should do much research first. It is difficult to return dogs that are shipped from breeders you know nothing about. Here are examples of what you can learn by reading-- (Mastiff)--
SEE https://petdefense.wordpress.com/ Attorney is likely one of the few attorneys outside of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, that has first hand knowledge and data on canine issues involving certain breeds, restrictions in the sales of dogs, and the abuses by certain non profits claiming to be "rescues." Non profits do not pay taxes. Yet some BUY animals including dogs, from auctions and then resell them, claiming they are rescued? For example, a claimed rescue group paid over $7k (yes, seven thousand) for one dog that was pregnant, then they SOLD 3 of the pups for over $4,000 EACH. Importing alleged "rescue"dogs has resulted in new strains of virulent disease not seen in the USA prior.
Let's get real people---if you are selling dogs, fine. But don't claim that doing it under a 501(c)(3) makes you a "rescue." It in fact, does the opposite.
And an update on one of the biggest dog related cases in the state, is continuing in Sacto Federal Court where the owners are suing Placer County/others, because the non profit "humane group" acting as the animal control apparently, has been accused of illegal action. Attorney herein already knows what happened because attorney worked on the case for a year previously, before any lawsuit was filed.
Attorney herein believes the case is a civil rights case, and when coupled with PC597.1, proves that the PC597.1 code was applied improperly,*** resulting in great harm.
The case may have been dismissed but if it was, crucial data was not used and instead the case may only have used a government claim and failed to single out a non governmental entity, even if they worked together.
[In constitutional law as to statues, one either uses the strict wording, or "as applied" to the case; in this case, they used the strict wording to create knowing harm and blatantly ignored the "as applied" which was very very obvious.] Placer County is no stranger to these type of cases. Years ago in a horse case, the owner found her horse was given away to a government employee without due process. If we get rid of due process, then this obviously means our government is way way off base.
- California Court of Appeals, 4th District: "Our role in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 94 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 893, 980 P.2d 441].) Because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent, we look first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. (People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 230 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, 6 P.3d 228].)
- We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation, but rather examine the entire substance of the statute in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision, construing its words in context and harmonizing its various parts. (People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 112 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 435, 52 P.3d 624].)" Alford v. Superior Court(People) (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1040