Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Lessons from the Criminal Bar -- making up a sentence and crafting probation

A couple of hard learned lessons from criminal court in DC.
  • Certain criminal activity doesn't have a sentence associated with it. When that happens, go for misdemeanor 180/$1000. This is especially true for inchoate crimes (attempt, conspiracy, etc.).
  • Crimes that stem from the same event should always be argued as concurrent sentences. Remember the rule - if it stems from the same event or facts, treat it as one clump. See? That rhymes.
  • Always prep your client with the plea proffer before the prosecutor reads it to the judge. If you don't do that, expect all hell to break lose. It's also malpractice. The proffer is a key area to negotiate, as the facts often lead up to the degree or severity of the sentence. An example will help with this:
    BAD PROFFER:
    The man went to the house and stabbed his wife in front of his child.

    GOOD PROFFER:
    The man received a text from his ex-wife to come to the house and watch their children. When he arrived, an altercation ensued when the ex-wife saw sexually explicit email and pictures on his phone. During the course of the altercation, the man stabbed his wife. He was unaware that his son was observing the event.

    Which of the two above would be easier to argue at sentencing? Review and negotiate all proffers of substance.
  • When discussing probation, always be specific as to the level of probation required. Does the Court permit phone contact or no supervision? If so, make sure that is written in the agreement.
  • Always make sure your client has a home address before probation get's a-hold of her.


Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150
Fairfax, VA 22031
Sean R. Hanover, Esq.
Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
1-800-579-9864
admin@hanoverlawpc.com

Monday, March 14, 2016

Rule 68 and how to stop petty copyright cases

I belong to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). This great organization focuses on helping "little people" who find themselves at the butt end of a nasty lawsuit due to first amendment or copyright problems. You can find them at www.eff.org. Now, I should note that not every "little guy" is innocent, and sometimes, a copyright violation is just that -- oops, I stepped in it! But that doesn't mean that a mistake has to cost you your entire business. In this blog, I wanted to share one way of jamming internet "copyright enforcement" lawyers. It won't stop you owing something for your copyright violation, but a trivial payment is significantly different than $5000 or $10000 which is often the demand amounts from these trolls.

Welcome, my "homies", to the dreaded Federal Rule 68. Most states have an analogous rule, although almost all copyright violations are brought as federal action to make them seem scary. Which, I might add, is often successful, and is a rather good tactic. But I digress!

Let me give you the example of the McCleary's. Obviously, I have changed the name - but the fact pattern is the same. Mr. and Ms. McCleary own a small internet music review and production company. They play at various cover concerts, and maybe earn $20 to $25K per year from their newsletter, productions and sales, and cover engagements. Recently, they were contacted by Evil Empire Lawyers who stated that one of the pictures in their blog from seven years ago was actually a copyrighted picture of an artist, and it was used without permission. It was seen a whopping 177 in the last 7 years. Violation of copyright image laws (the image is legal (i.e. not a violation of the first amendment or invasion of privacy), but its use is restricted by rights) has fines up to $30,000 (if willful, up to $150,000) plus the cost of attorney fees. See 17 USC 504(c) which reads in part:

(c) Statutory Damages.— (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.


Now, as you might be saying -- if the Court believes the violation was not willful, and finds that the act was trivial in nature, what's the fuss? A fine of $1000 or so is not likely to cause complete ruin. The problem, folks -- is attorney fees. The judgment may be for $750, but the attorney fees could be considerably more. The filing of a complaint in federal court can cost upward of $5000 between costs and attorney fees. Image if this continues for a year of litigation? A trial? You get the idea.

Here is where Rule 68 comes in. Because the internet law firms enforcing the copyright only get paid if the court awards them money (at a trial) or 33% of a settlement, they will always threaten a trial to scare you, and hope you fight. If you threaten them with a Rule 68 motion, you will cripple their will to fight. Here's why -- Rule 68 says that if you make an offer, and the final judgement is LESS than the offer you made, the internet law firm cannot collect attorney fees from the date of the offer. ALWAYS MAKE A RULE 68 OFFER (if you violated) when filing your initial answer to any complaint.

RULE 68:

(a) Making an Offer; Judgment on an Accepted Offer. At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.

(b) Unaccepted Offer. An unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn, but it does not preclude a later offer. Evidence of an unaccepted offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.

(c) Offer After Liability is Determined. When one party's liability to another has been determined but the extent of liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party held liable may make an offer of judgment. It must be served within a reasonable time—but at least 14 days—before the date set for a hearing to determine the extent of liability.

(d) Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer. If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.

Always consult with a competent attorney to determine what the amount to offer should be. A review of copyright rules and liabilities is required as well.

Do you have a question about copyrights or federal court? Call us! The consultation is free - 1-800-579-9864.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150
Fairfax, VA 22031
Sean R. Hanover, Esq.
Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
1-800-579-9864
admin@hanoverlawpc.com

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Immigration: Motion to Reopen and 42B

Shockingly, sometimes things go poorly for immigrants in court. I was recently given a fact pattern and asked what assistance could be done.
* PC was admitted on 6/22/05 under H-2A through 12/1/05; he never left
* In 2010, when PC was 25 years old, his USC father recognized paternity and legitimated him in PC's birth country of Brazil
* In 2015, PC was convicted of DUI (not clear if there were any aggravating factors). He was detained after violating his parole (drank the night before going to see his PO)
* NTA was issued on 12/15/15, charging him under 237(a)(1)(B) only
* On 2/24/16 he was ordered removed by Dempsey. It appears that he was represented and attorney advised him to take the removal order
* PC has a 5-year-old USC son

Based strictly on the facts you presented, it would appear he is eligible for 42B. He has the time in-country, and the USC child. The question is – why did he not plead this relief at his hearing? The part about dad sponsoring him seems like a bit of a red herring at the moment, as there does not seem to be a basis for auto citizenship here.

I would immediately file an appeal with BIA. When filing an appeal ALWAYS FILE FOR A STAY OF REMOVAL PENDING ADJUDICATION. If you don’t file this…bye-bye. The relevant code is 8 CFR 1003.2(c)(1) which reads in part:

“…nor shall any motion to reopen for the purpose of affording the alien an opportunity to apply for any form of discretionary relief be granted if it appears that the alien's right to apply for such relief was fully explained to him or her and an opportunity to apply therefore was afforded at the former hearing, unless the relief is sought on the basis of circumstances that have arisen subsequent to the hearing. Subject to the other requirements and restrictions of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions in § 1001.1(p) of this chapter, a motion to reopen proceedings for consideration or further consideration of an application for relief under section 212(c) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(c)) may be granted if the alien demonstrates that he or she was statutorily eligible for such relief prior to the entry of the administratively final order of deportation.”

Note that you will need to show that he was not presented with this relief. You need to support the HELL out of this relief. What is the hardship? Get it all together and get a-filin’. Normally, I would advocate filing with the court first, and THEN filing the appeal. However, I have never known the immigration court to stay a deportation – and I’ve never known the BIA NOT to stay a deportation order pending determination. So go with the BIA.

Do you have an immigration question or removal defense problem? Contact us -- consultation is free! 1-800-579-9864 or admin@hanoverlawpc.com.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150
Fairfax, VA 22031
Sean R. Hanover, Esq.
Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
1-800-579-9864
admin@hanoverlawpc.com

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Criminal Consequence for Immigration -- a snapshot

I recently had a great discussion with a colleague of mine regarding criminal/immigration consequences. I thought I would post the distilled form of the discussion here. By the way, if you need a great immigration attorney in New Jersey, be sure to contact Ms. Yolanda Navarrete, Esq. at 973-984-0800.

The conversation began with a question about immigration consequence:

Hypothetical client is detained in county jail, due to DV charges. The girlfriend does not want to press charges, by the DA is moving forward. The state is offering harassment as a plea agreement. This person is desperate to get out of jail. There's an "immigration hold" (means that ICE has placed a detainer on him) so bail is not practical. Should I make him wait for trial, or will pleading to harassment make him (undocumented but has a USC baby) an enforcement priority?

I responded:
Harassment of a family member could potentially make you a domestic violence (DV) removal priority. Actually, though, I would strongly advocate for sitting on this hypothetical client's head and not letting him (or her!) plea to anything. It can be very hard, but no desire to get out can offset a dismissal.

Next question:

How about pleaing to criminal mischief (admitting to breaking a cell phone or other personal effect)?

Answer:
Probably a lot safer in regards to an object. The issue is to avoid any kind of domestic abuse issue, or provide evidence the DHS attorney could use to that effect.

Destruction of personal effects is childish, but does not amount (arguably) to domestic abuse. Harassment, however, is the traditional precursor to a protective order, which would be extremely bad. No to harassment, a qualified "okay" to destruction of property <$100 (I believe you call that criminal mischief). Better still if the plea colloquia just stated destruction of a cell phone, without reference to the other party -- but that could be asking too much.


Do you have an immigration question or removal defense problem? Contact us -- consultation is free! 1-800-579-9864 or admin@hanoverlawpc.com.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150
Fairfax, VA 22031
Sean R. Hanover, Esq.
Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
1-800-579-9864
admin@hanoverlawpc.com

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Appealing Jury Verdicts -- the standards and the risks

It is worth noting the standard of review for jury trial verdicts in most appeals courts. The following is from the DC Court of Appeals, but most states follow a similar position: when the jury decides an issue of fact, the appeals court cannot change it unless there is absolutely no evidence to support the jury finding.

(a) In considering an order or judgment of a lower court (or any of its divisions or branches) brought before it for review, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall review the record on appeal. When the issues of fact were tried by jury, the court shall review the case only as to matters of law. When the case was tried without a jury, the court may review both as to the facts and the law, but the judgment may not be set aside except for errors of law unless it appears that the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. D.C. Code §17–305 (2016).

"As an appellate court we have no power to retry factual issues; our authority is restricted to a review for errors of law." District of Columbia v. Harris, 770 A.2d 82, 89 (D.C. 2001) citing to Sachs v. Eller, 89 A.2d 644, 645 (D.C. 1952).


Notwithstanding 17-305, the Court of Appeals will not disturb a jury's verdict if there is "any substantial evidence which will support the conclusion reached." Boynton v. Lopez, 473 A.2d 375, 376 (D.C. 1984). "Substantial evidence repeatedly has been defined as more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Reese v. Newman, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 36 (D.C. Feb. 11, 2016) citing to Wheeler v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 395 A.2d 85, 89 (D.C. 1978).

When no jury is present, the Appeals Court can entertain an argument that the facts were improperly considered by the trial court, however, the review is generally at the "abuse of discretion" level, and is often hard to overturn. Note, though, that as a strategy matter, bench trials can have the facts reviewed, where jury trials rarely, if ever, do.

Also, be careful of filing an appeal at all -- on the defensive, as the appellee, you have no choice but to respond; however, as the appellant, if you file foolishly, you will have to pay the court fees, appendix costs, and other attorney fees if you lose. This should always be a salient consideration when attacking facts in an appeal.

Do you need help with an appeal in Virginia, Maryland, DC or Federal Court? Call us! We can help. 1-800-579-9864 or email us at admin@hanoverlawpc.com.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150
Fairfax, VA 22031
Sean R. Hanover, Esq.
Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
1-800-579-9864
admin@hanoverlawpc.com

Monday, January 11, 2016

NAFTA TN Visas for Canadians and Mexicans

Interesting question that I don't usually field. A fella asked about TN visas in a legal request board. I thought I would include his question, and my answer, here:

I am a Canadian citizen currently in the US on a TN Visa. I have been approached by an Indian software company to conduct business development, sales activities on their behalf. I am wondering if I am legally allowed to do this on a TN visa. Also i want to set up my own business can I do so, and and what is the criteria for doing this.

TN's are designed for NAFTA countries (primarily Canada, it seems...but it could be because I, too, am in DC, so we see a lot more Canadian TN's than from Mexico). It allows professionals from NAFTA countries to freely work and conduct their trade, on a temporary basis, in any NAFTA country. At least, that was the idea. In reality, it acts like a defacto H visa. Generally, to come over here on a TN, you need to have a sponsoring employer. So...who sponsored you? What happened?

Generally, the requirements for TN are:
  • Applicant is a citizen of Canada or Mexico;
  • Profession is on the NAFTA list;
  • Position in the United States requires a NAFTA professional;
  • Applicant will work in a prearranged full-time or part-time job for an employer (see Required Documentation).
  • Self employment is not permitted;
  • Applicant has the qualifications, meeting the specific requirements, education, and/or experience, of the profession.


As a rule, a TN visa holder ought not to be looking to open a business in the US. Nothing against entrepreneurial spirit and all, but because TN's are by nature temporary, you open the door to all sorts of problems should your business happen to be successful (and don't fall into the boat of those that suggest you can bootstrap yourself -- that is, start a business then sponsor yourself for an E or H visa. Down that path leads to pain and creative lawyering). Note that you cannot sponsor yourself for a TN, either (see above list of criteria for TN visas). However, if you are here doing work for the company that brought you in via the TN visa, there is nothing to prevent you from owing an interest in a C corp. Tricky business though (no pun, of course), so talk to us first.

But...bottom line...can it be done? Absolutely! Can you work for another company when you entered on a TN for a different purpose? Sure..come speak with us and we can help. We're in Fairfax/DC, so it's not an issue to chat.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150
Fairfax, VA 22031
Sean R. Hanover, Esq.
Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
Lili O'connell, Esq.
Charles Hatley, Esq.
1-800-579-9864 admin@hanoverlawpc.com

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Determining Arriving Alien Status

How to determine if your client is an arriving alien -- or not!

First test: Was she stopped at the border?
Yes: Continue
No: Was she stopped with ~25 miles of the border within 10 days of when she arrived?
Yes: Continue
No: Arguably not arriving alien.


Second test: Is she a US citizen?
Yes: Interesting. If they are moving to revoke citizenship (i.e. not by birth), then you have a pickle. Arguably, not an arriving alien, as only a judge could revoke citizenship and a citizen cannot be an arriving alien. So most likely – not an arriving alien.
No: Continue


Third test: Was she granted conditional parole?
Yes: This is very narrow exception. Humanitarian or CBP approved “signed at the border” parole only. In this instance, she would not have been given a return date, and she would not have been placed in removal proceedings. A deferred inspection is not a parole for this purpose.
No: Continue


Fourth test: LPR?
Yes: Is there a petty exception that the CBP officer will accept? If so, get this kicked at the deferred inspection. If not, she is an arriving alien.
No: Arriving alien


If she is an arriving alien, hope her case get’s randomly transferred to York, PA. In York, the judges oftem grant bond even for arriving aliens (must have a legal place to go in the US, and someone willing to vouch for the alien). Otherwise, you are looking at no-bond initially.

How do I get bond for an arriving alien?
  1. York
  2. If there has been a credible fear determination (either through Court or through CBP), then you can ask ICE to grant a bond. ICE always has the right to grant bond. Talk to the DO (Deportation Officer – fella who is responsible for your client’s case on the ICE side) and request a bond. This usually only works on successful credible fear. If you have a pending asylum application and work permit, you should be able to get this unless your DO is being particularly ornery.


Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150
Fairfax, VA 22031
Sean R. Hanover, Esq.
Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
Lili O'connell, Esq.
Charles Hatley, Esq.
1-800-579-9864 admin@hanoverlawpc.com