More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of alternative dispute resolution
Summary of alternative dispute resolution
Summary of alternative dispute resolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Board entered into a Stipulation in Settlement of Accusation 175 against Fred C. Guenther in January of 1977. Guenther's civil engineering license was suspended for six months, but the suspension was stayed except for the first thirty days and Guenther was placed on probation for one year. A second accusation, Number 219-A, was filed for violations of Business and Professions Code sections 8780 (c) in conjunction with section 8762 and section 8780 (a). The decision, effective August 29, 1983, revoked Guenther's license, but revocation was stayed and he was placed on probation for five years under certain terms and conditions. Accusation 300-A was filed to revoke the probation for violation of the probationary conditions. Effective March …show more content…
27, 1988, Guenther's license was revoked for violating Business and Professions Code section 8792 for practicing land surveying while his license was suspended, and sections 6775(b) and 8780(a) for misrepresentation in the practice of civil engineering and land surveying. In 1990 and again on April 17, 1992, Guenther petitioned the Board for reinstatement of his revoked license. The Board determined that Guenther displayed ignorance of the statutes and regulations which govern the licensed activities of civil engineers and land surveyors. Additionally, it was found that he had engaged in a flagrant and continuing violation of the Board's Cease and Desist Order regarding information contained in his brochures. The evidence established that he expressed no remorse for his past actions and demonstrated no rehabilitation, and that the public would not be protected even if he were permitted the most strict probationary license. The Board denied his petitions for reinstatement. On March 8, 1993, the Superior Court of Alameda County (Southern Division) issued an order, in the matter of Fred C.
Guenther v. Henry Calvert, which determined that Guenther, individually and doing business as ABL Services, is a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 391, et seq., in that he has, in the past seven years, commended, prosecuted, and maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in small claims court that have been finally determined aversely to him or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing. The order also declared that Guenther has, in the course of litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly filed meritless motions, pleadings, and other papers and has engaged in frivolous tactics. The order requires Guenther to furnish for the benefit of all defendants in the litigation adequate security in the amount of $15,000 within 30 days of the date of the order. If he fails to furnish this security, his case will be dismissed. A Pre-Filing Order was also issued which prohibits Guenther, individually or doing business as ABL Services, or doing business under the name of any other business entity under his ownership or control, from filing any new litigation in propria persona in the courts of the State of California without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be …show more content…
filed. On September 16, 1993, Guenther was found guilty of two felony counts of violating Penal Code section 487.1 (grand theft) and one misdemeanor count of violating Business and Professions Code sections 8725 and 8792(a).
The Superior Court of San Mateo County found that Guenther willfully and unlawfully took money or personal property of a value exceeding $400 in two instances, and that he willfully and unlawfully practiced, offered to practice, or represented himself as a land surveyor without licensure in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 8725 and 8792(a). On November 19, 1993, Guenther was admitted to supervised probation for a period of three years upon certain terms and conditions; the execution of sentence was stayed to January 7, 1994. Included in the conditions was a requirement that he serve a total of 60 days in the county jail. He was also required to make restitution in the amount of $1,300 and pay a $220 restitution fund fine and collection fee. He was also prohibited from practicing as a land surveyor unless legally licensed to do
so. On November 17, 1994, the Board heard a Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License of Fred C. Guenther, Jr. Guenther petitioned the Board, pursuant to Government Code section 11522, for reinstatement of his revoked civil engineer license C 10868. After considering all of the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board determined that reinstatement would be contrary to the public interest. The Board determined that Guenther had undergone no rehabilitation since the revocation of his license and continued to show no remorse for his past actions. Further, since the denial of his petition in 1992, he had been convicted of two felony counts of grand theft and one misdemeanor count for practicing land surveying without a license. Guenther believed he was innocent of these crimes and accepted no personal responsibility for them. He also accepted no personal responsibility for his conduct which led to revocation of his license and the denials of his petitions for reinstatement; he blames others for his actions. In his testimony at the 1994 hearing, he continued to mislead the Board. Therefore, effective February 27, 1995, the Board denied his petition.
spiracy which included convicted to posses cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of (21 U.S.C sec 846), possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C sec
This trial was between a group called the Mau Mau and Great Britain. Great Britain colonized Kenya in 1895. Great Britain's colonization of Kenya had major effects, good and bad.But in the early 1900’s, the Kenyans wanted independence. They formed a independence group called the Mau Mau. The Mau Mau were mostly made up of a tribe called the Kikuyu. As they tried peaceful protests and demonstrations, the Mau Mau were usually attacked by the British. Britain believed in order to stop the Mau Mau from their independence movement and the violence they were causing on the Britain's, Britain needed to use force. The purpose of this trial was not to make a decision about if Britain's violence was justifiable or not, but to figure out if the Mau Maus
The violation was due to the failure to abide by the probation set forth during her first disciplinary action. The nurse was put on five years’ probation in June of 2015. The probation was for DUI, leaving the scene of the accident, being under the influence of methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, morphine,
sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison. The case against him was largely
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
Gideon did a horrible job of defending himself in court. He was found guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny, which was a felony. Gideon was sentenced to five years in Florida State prison mostly due to his prior...
Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in 1961 and charged with breaking and entering a pool hall with intent to commit theft, by taking money out of vending machines. What he did at the time was considered a felony. When it came time to have the trial he did not have enough money for a lawyer and asked that one be appointed to defend him. The judge denied the request saying that under Florida state law counsel can be appointed only in a capital offense. Since Gideon didn’t have a lawyer and was not educated to defend himself he lost easily to the prosecution. Gideon was then sentenced to five years in prison. He then filed out a writ of certiorari, which is a petition of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States asking for them to review his case. The Court granted Gideon's request and appointed Abe Fortas to represent him as his lawyer.
Other officers advised the Carrollton Police Chief that Popescu falsely claimed a work injury so as not pay for his medical bills. On August 14, 1987, the Chief directly gave Popescu two charge letters, which placed him on indefinite suspension. The first letter stated he would remain suspended indefinitely for various violations of policy. The second letter stated he would remain indefinitely suspended for insubordination. Both of the August 14 letters directed to the Carrollton Civil Service Commission Code violations and the policy violations that Popescu allegedly committed. Neither letter notified Popescu that he if appealed to an independent hearing examiner; he would waive his right to appeal to the district court except under certain circumstances.
Mr. P has a history of DUI’s in his past, which thereby warranted his current arrest. He was pleasant and cooperative during his arrest and was taken into custody without incident. He then was released the next day and was given a court date. Mr. P obtained legal defense and faced the judge with fear of being incarcerated, but was confident that he had a defensible case. The judge thought otherwise, and imposed a harsh sentence of 90-day substance abuse treatment at a correctional facility. Yet, Mr. P was defensive when confronted about his alcohol use and denies that that his drinking and driving is a concern. Furthermore, he rejects this behavior as being harmful to his work environment, other than if he were incarcerated he may lose employment.
In the pre-sentence report recommending Mr. Moreno's sentence, the Probation Officer added a point to his criminal history score as a result of September 2001 convictions for driving with a suspended license and for unsafe turning or stopping. For this earlier offense, Mr. Moreno was sentenced to six months in jail, with all but five days suspended, and six months of probation. The Probation Officer justified the addition of this point by citing the sentencing guidelines, which direct that sentences for less than sixty days should be given one point. The Probation Officer then determined that Mr. Moreno's criminal history points totaled ten, placing him at the bottom of criminal history category. The district court agreed with this result and calculated Mr. Moreno's total adjusted offense level to be twenty-five. The court subsequently sentenced Mr. Moreno to 100 months in prison, which is at the bottom of the 100 to 125 month range for an offense level twenty-five and criminal history category 5.
In 2015, a motion was filed by Nike (the defendant) to dismiss Jacobus Rentmeester’s (the plaintiff’s)
(a) Prosecutors have nearly limitless discretion in the most critical matters they must consider, yet they are held to very high ethical standards.
The Paralegal Professional, A reference to the source of legal information chapter 12, pages 434, 446, and 454.
An Indictable Offence and How it is Brought to Trial An indictable offence is an offence that may be tried on indictment, i.e.- by a jury in the Crown Court. Most serious offences i.e. murder and rape are indictable offences. A judge and jury in the Crown Court try indictable offences, and the magistrates sit only as examining justices to decide whether the prosecution has sufficient evidence to justify a trial. In a Practice Direction issued in May 1995, Lord Taylor CJ defined the four classes of offence triable on indictment as follows: Ø Class 1: Offences carrying the death penalty, misprision of treason, treason felony, murder, genocide, offences under s.1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and incitement, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these. Ø Class 2: Manslaughter, infanticide, child destruction, abortion, rape, sexual intercourse or incest with a girl under 13, sedition, offences against s.1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, mutiny, piracy, and incitement, attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these.
was also an RN, who was there on a probation violation as well. Her original charge was a failed drug test upon hire for a traveling nurse position. The drug test was positive for marijuana and tramadol to which the nurse had no prescription or medical reason have these drugs in her system. She was placed on five years of probation based on the Nurse Practice Act section 335.066. Denial, revocation, or suspension of license, grounds for, civil immunity for providing information--complaint procedures “(15) Violation of the drug laws or rules and regulations of this state, any other state or the federal government;” This particular RN was very forth coming about her substance abuse addiction. She explained that she originally had an alcohol abuse problem and that she had started smoking marijuana to try and stop drinking. This nurse old a license in both Kansas and Missouri. According to her the Kansas BON only required her to call in five days a week, Monday through Friday and the Missouri BON requires seven day a week call ins. She was accused of violating the call in portion of her probation agreement and having a positive drug test of default due to creatinine levels being below