Crystle

LEGAL TIP TIME (VEHICLE OPERATORS): If you are ever stopped by law enforcement while driving, do not stop immediately in the middle of the road. Put on your hazard lights and proceed slowly to the next available legal parking spot, then park and allow the officer to make his inquiry. If you stop your vehicle in the middle of the road, it allows law enforcement to act in their community caretaking capacity, and if they determine that you are not legally entitled to operate ...the vehicle your were driving, they will seize the vehicle and park it themselves. However, before do so an officer is allowed to ensure his safety by searching for any dangerous weapons located around the driver’s seat that could pose a risk of danger to the officer’s safety. Such protective sweeps, however, are dually motivated by a desire to protect themselves and a desire to search for evidence of criminal activity. If the officer determines that there is any evidence of illegal activity an inventory search will commence. While an inventory search is distinct from an investigative search, in practice, any search is always a search. Even where no illegal contraband is found and no probable cause exists to support that anything found is illegally possessed or the product of illegal activity, any substantial amount of cash found will likely be seized. Pennsylvania’s Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws are frankly atrocious and subject innocent victims to seizure of their property and lengthy litigation before, and if, you can successfully regain possession of property that you legally owned and possessed, but a particular officer decided to seize. Is this process fair? No. Is successfully winning the case and the return of your property an adequate remedy? No. Can you bet that the risk that an officer will attempt to take advantage of your fear, anxiety and lack of legal knowledge to manipulate you? Yes, always. Asset Forfeiture Law promotes such unjustified traffic stops in hopes of finding a justification to seize property because the law enforcement agency that seized the property keeps the proceeds of you fail to prove your case. P.S. The burden of proof is on you to disprove that the seizure was impermissible - which is the complete opposite burden that you would face if you were a criminal defendant. In Asset Forfeiture Law you are guilty until proven innocent, and there is no desire to amend such laws in sight. Protect yourself with the utmost powerful weapon you will ever possess: a knowledgeable brain; and proactively prevent the opportunity for such injustice to ever occur.

The U.S. Constitution grants and protects every citizen's right to freedom, right? Well, sort of, but not really. For everyone that likes to know why things actually are the way that they are, here is an opportunity to start understanding what the U.S. Constitution actually does. #Constitution #Law #SCOTUS

A fantastic charitable opportunity to help ensure our Pennsylvania courts continue to provide an avenue for all to obtain justice efficiently.

National politics have taken center stage, but it is important to stay informed of state and local matters. This is especially true where the two find themselves pitted against one another. We will have to stay tuned as this separation of powers issue unfolds.

Be sure to exercise your most important right!

KEEPING IT REAL AND POLICE QUESTIONING: In case there is any uncertainty: whenever a law enforcement officer asks you for your permission, it is because he does not have it and wants it. Did they ask to pull you over? ... Did they ask for your license and registration, or did they tell you to give it to them? BUT: Did they ask you if they could search your vehicle? = no probable cause and weak support for a reasonable suspicion to search. Did they ask you if you would mind coming to the station to talk? No probable cause. No reasonable suspicion. They want to investigate a possible crime that they believe you may know about. Did they ask you if you would mind coming to the station to talk just to find out what happened and that you weren’t under arrest and didn’t need to have a lawyer? No probable cause. No reasonable suspicion. They want to investigate YOU because they think YOU committed a crime. Did they stop you for speeding? Rolling a stop sign? Brake light out? Then ask you where you were going/ what you were doing/ questions stemming from your answers? No probable cause. No reasonable suspicion. No, theyre not making casual conversation or looking for friendship. They are fishing for evidence supporting the actual reason they pulled you over. ONE EXCEPTION IN PA (KIND OF): If they ask you if you consent to a breathalyzer test? They are actually asking if you wish you take a breathalyzer test and be judged on the results, or if you would prefer to take a breathalyzer, lose your license for a year and be fined regardless of the results. Being a law enforcement officer is an occupation, it’s not a character trait. There are polite officers and rude officers. There are law abiding officers and less than law abiding officers. You will never know until your entire interaction with a law enforcement officer has concluded. Be safe, not sorry. Ask if you are under arrest and ask if you are free to leave? No matter what else is claimed, if they answer no, then answer yes, freely continue on your way.

FYI LAW (RED TAPE AND PA MAIL-IN-BALLOTS): For everyone voting in the upcoming election through an absentee ballot, or have requested a mail-in-ballot and choose to vote by mail, pay close attention to the following really stupid rule: 1. You will receive one ballot, and you will receive two envelopes. You will complete one ballot. You must mail mail the single ballot back in both envelopes by the specified deadline. ... Presumably, this rule is intended to ensure that if your ballot breaks out of its initial enclosure, then it will face another challenge before it breaks free and is lost. And it must be mailed on by the deadline because everyone forgets how to count after Election Day. Exercise Your Rights. And, Know Your Rights.

FYI LAW: Don’t try and buy a car on Sunday, it’s illegal!

LAW FOOD FOR THOUGHT (MENU: YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM): Everyone knows that the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to own a fireman, right? Incorrect, some people actually know the law. That’s why you ALWAYS CALL US to speak with an attorney that LISTENS and KNOWS THE LAW. Let us begin by bursting the bubble. It is realistically impossible for the 2nd Amendment to fulfill its stated purpose. Furthermore, it never created an individual right to own a gun. And it isn’t the ...Amendment that allows individuals to possess them now. So, as a general matter, it is never effective to state I know my rights in a confrontation with anyone because whoever the other person is also believes they know their rights. However, if you are so compelled to invoke your 2nd Amendment right, do it properly by advising the other person that your right to own a firearm was granted to you by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and is constitutionally guaranteed to you by the 14th Amendment. Fun fact: the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment we’re drafted under polar opposite ideologies. For more information on your actual right to own a firearm check out the video below.

FYI LAW (FRIDAY EDITION) - IGNORANCE IS BLISS: THE LEGAL DEFENSE OF STUPIDITY I. BACKGROUND... At common law and sometimes codified by statute, such as in Pennsylvania’s Dragonetti Act, there are claims referred to as Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of Process, and Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings. While there are technical differences relating to which of those claims applies to a given situation, they essentially all aim to provide legal relief for an individual that has been wrongfully prosecuted or sued. Instituting a legal proceeding in civil court begins when a plaintiff files a complaint against the defendant, but relating to Abuse of Process includes any legal process that is undertaken to obtain results for which the specific legal process is not designed. For example, if a valid lawsuit is filed, but during the litigation one party seeks to depose (interview under oath out of court) an individual for the purpose of delaying the litigation process instead of for the purpose of obtaining information related to the defense or pursuit of the relevant legal claims, then that is an Abuse of Process. Malicious Prosecution and Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings are distinct in that they relate to the decision to file a civil or criminal complaint in the first place when the individual or entity does not have reasonable grounds to believe allegations made in the complaint. In layman’s terms, this means that someone knew there was no legal claim, but just wanted to seriously annoy someone for a few years. In civil actions this relates to the plaintiff’s belief that a legal claim exists when they first file a complaint. There is a slight wrinkle related to criminal actions filed against a defendant because an individual citizen does not have the authority to bring a criminal action against another individual (that is what District Attorneys do). However, the in deciding to bring a criminal action against someone a District Attorney relies on the information relayed to them by the law enforcement officer(s) that investigated the crime. The lawsuit enforcement officer(s) investigation is in many cases dependant on the statements of witnesses. In nearly all cases law enforcement’s investigation of any crime begins upon receiving a complaint from an individual citizen that suspects a crime has occurred or is about to occur. Thus, the initiation of a criminal action depends on the truthfulness of the statements made to law enforcement to initiate an investigation. Malicious Prosecution, Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings and Abuse of Process claims are all intended to ensure that people do not abuse the legal process by filing frivolous claims or taking frivolous actions during litigation because those claims and actions can seriously impair the efficiency of the courts which delays legitimate victims from obtaining justice. Largely, the mentioned legal actions provide an effective deterrent against the filing of frivolous actions, however the problem still exists due to three primary reasons: (1) a human, for survival, is biologically predisposed to be self-serving, (2) everyone believes that they are entitled to right a perceived wrong done to them, and (3) no one knows that they are stupid. The lynchpin of all the claims mentioned above comes down to the knowledge of the individual that instituted legal proceedings against a defendant, whether in civil or criminal court. In a criminal investigation a person may provide a faulty report that results in an unwarranted criminal prosecution, however the individual providing the report may have based their belief on speculation and assumption rather than on actual personal knowledge. Despite a lack of supporting evidence, or the existence of unexplainable evidence, the criminal prosecution may commence while the search for evidence continues. This can result in an innocent person being charged and jailed until it becomes evident that the prosecution’s case may not move forward and the charges are dropped. Such individuals are often left with a Sorry, Bud, that’s our bad. Turns out the initial report and evidence turned out to be unreliable. Anyway, how was your year in jail? To be clear, the criminal justice system has many built in protections to prevent situations like these, however they are far from perfect. However, in the civil context there are not nearly as many built in protections and getting the case dismissed often only occurs after the discovery phase of litigation, which in Pennsylvania is an indefinite amount of time absent an agreement by the parties or a judicial order. So a defendant will carry the burdens of litigation (and the costs of defending against the claim) potentially for years before the defendant is able to bring a lawsuit against the plaintiff that sued them without reasonable grounds to believe a legal claim existed. However, once such actions have been terminated in favor of the defendants, they may then choose to sue the original plaintiff for Malicious Prosecution, Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings or Abuse of Process, but to do so they will need to overcome the burden of proof and prove that the initiator of the frivolous claim did so maliciously or with a wrongful purpose. To do this, you must overcome the stupidity defense. II. THE STUPIDITY DEFENSE IN ACTION As all of the claims mentioned require that the prior legal action was initiated maliciously, without reasonable grounds to believe a legal claim existed or were performed for an ulterior purpose, the primary factors involve what information was available to the individual who made the complaint or report and what a reasonable person would have believed. A reasonable person is a legal term of art meaning referring to what a hypothetical reasonably prudent person would believe. As the standard is an objective standard, the original initiator’s subjective belief should be irrelevant, however in practice this is often not the case as it has been shown over the years that a reasonable person is not held to have an intimate knowledge of the law. Thus, an erroneous belief that their legal claim is legitimate will be founded unless there is utterly no evidence to support their suspicion or the individual has intentionally misrepresented known facts to a private attorney or to law enforcement. The bar that a reasonable person is held to amounts to a showing that they have been wronged even if no legal right has been violated or legal remedy exists. Therefore, when attempting to sue an individual that has brought an unfounded action against you the reality is that you must prove it was maliciously done. Generally, the evidence that a legal action was started maliciously is not documented and is only evidenced on circumstantial evidence that presents a possibility that the individual acted maliciously. While this provides grounds to seek any of the claims discussed, it does not offer a firm foundation to present your argument that the individual knew there was no legal basis for their claim, yet pursued it anyway to annoy, harass or otherwise burden the innocent defendant. In sum, the I didn’t know defense is a powerful defense in such actions, if there is any shred of evidence to support the initial claim filed. In order to prove otherwise often depends on the ability of an attorney to prove that the original initiator must have known that their was no basis for their legal action. However, proving what someone must have known did not amount to a legal claim, any area of expertise, can generously be called an up-mountain battle. As a result, the not kn owing provides an effective defense against individuals seeking justice for being wrongfully sued or prosecuted thereby offering protection for stupidity and a that’s the way the cookie crumbles apology to the victims of stupidity. The overall takeaway: Ignorance is bliss and powerful defense in the legal arena. In the next segment of FYI LAW: IGNORANCE IS BLISS we will take at how it applies to civil rights violations and promotes individuals from failing to be proactive in the performance of their employment.

For anyone that missed FYI LAW (Friday Edition): Ignorance Is Bliss - The Legal Defense of Stupidity, fear not for this week we will delve deeper into the Stupidity Defense and examine how it prevents recovery in cases of clear violations of civil rights.

FYI LAW (FRIDAY EDITION) - IGNORANCE IS BLISS: THE LEGAL DEFENSE OF STUPIDITY I. BACKGROUND...Continue reading

FYI LAW: Pennsylvania is unique among the many states in recognizing as an inherent and indefeasible right of all mankind the right to acquire, possess and protect their reputation. So, kids, be sure to check yourself, before wreck yourself and think hard before spreading that rumor about how little Timmy picks his nose...and eats it. Like for more FYI LAW.... Stay Safe. Stay Informed. And Call Us.