Grand Rapids Criminal Defense Attorney of Charles F. Boekeloo, P.C. Launch New Website
Charles F. Boekeloo
Grand Rapids, MI (PRWEB) November 23, 2011
The Grand Rapids, MI law firm of Charles F. Boekeloo, P.C. recently launched their website, providing a valuable online legal resource to current and potential clients. The site offers helpful information to remove some of the fear and uncertainty from the legal process, including basic information on Grand Rapids, MI criminal laws.
“Our site has been designed to provide potential and existing clients with the critical information they need to help them understand how we will bring their matter under control and guide them through the entire legal process. It is our belief that the personal attention we provide will be illustrated by the information provided there,” states Mr. Boekeloo.
Website visitors learn how the experienced criminal law attorney at Charles F. Boekeloo can assist them with their legal issue. The firm has developed a reputation for maintaining high ethical standards while aggressively representing clients throughout Grand Rapids in Criminal legal matters.
About the Firm
Attorney Charles F. Boekeloo has more than 25 years in the practice of law, concentrating in the areas of criminal defense, juvenile delinquency and school law, and personal injury matters. Details about Mr. Boekeloo’s areas of expertise can be found in the practice areas overview. Charles F. Boekeloo, P.C. practices primarily in the following areas:
Criminal Defense
Juvenile Rights
Personal Injury
Whether the consequences are serious or seemingly minor, facing criminal charges can be a frightening experience, potentially putting your reputation and even your freedom in jeopardy. With more than 25 years of experience in the field of criminal defense, law firm principal Charles F. Boekeloo has the skills and background to effectively protect your constitutional rights. Since founding his practice in 1982, Grand Rapids criminal defense attorney Boekeloo has appeared in state and federal trial courts throughout the region, earning the respect of local prosecutors, judges, and attorneys alike. In recognition of his work, national directory of attorneys Martindale-Hubbell has awarded Mr. Boekeloo a Distinguished Peer rating, a respected mark of achievement indicating that fellow attorneys rate his services as excellent.
For more information about the firm, please go to http://www.charlesfboekeloopc.com/ or call (616) 454-6464.
California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement as Proposition 8 Passes in the State
Los Angeles (PRWEB) November 5, 2008
As reported today by the Wall Street Journal California voters passed Proposition 8. According to California Family Law Attorney Veronika Melamed of the law offices of Feinberg & Waller, A.P.C., the measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California. Now that the voters of California have passed Proposition 8, and amended the State’s Constitution, what does this mean for the state and for the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that have been solemnized since June 17, 2008? And, what can proponents of same-sex marriage do now?
The voters of California have chosen to amend the state’s Constitution to explicitly provide that, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Coming in reaction to the state’s Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage in California, opponents of same-sex marriage sought assurance that no future court decisions would again grant same-sex marriage rights in California.
The California Supreme Court is delegated with the task of upholding the state’s Constitution and assessing whether the laws enacted by the Legislature and the voters comply with the Constitution. In carrying out this task, the Supreme Court’s decision in May 2008, granting same-sex couples the right to marry, was based on its interpretation of the California Constitution and whether Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5, defining marriage as, “between a man and a woman” comported with the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s Constitution.
In the course of its analysis, the California Supreme Court ruled that Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5 were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and that same-sex couples could marry in California. The Supreme Court’s decision was based solely on constitutional analysis, and centered on the fact that the prohibition against same-sex marriage was a law, and that it violated the Constitution. This, then, became the foundation for Proposition 8: unlike the state’s previous attempts to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman through the enactment of legislative provisions, such as with 2000’s Proposition 22 which added Family Code Section 308.5, this year opponents of same-sex marriage placed an initiative on the ballot to actually amend the California Constitution.
The difference is significant: while the Supreme Court may strike down laws for being in violation of the State’s Constitution in performing its job of enforcing the Constitution, the Supreme Court lacks the power to overrule a constitutional provision. By making Proposition 8 an amendment to the Constitution, the law ensures that the Supreme Court must enforce the provision, and must now ensure that other laws comply with this Constitutional provision.
And now the questions begin: with a Constitution that may now prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, through its definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, what will happen to those same-sex marriages that were solemnized when marriage between same-sex couples was “legal?” And, if the public wants another change, what can be done to “undo” Proposition 8? The question of what happens to current same-sex marriages has no easy answer, nor is the passage of Proposition 8 the last California may hear on the topic of same-sex marriage.
One of the main issues that must be resolved in answering the question of what will happen to current same-sex marriages is whether the new constitutional amendment is retroactive in its application; that is, does it now invalidate the same-sex marriages that occurred following the Supreme Court’s ruling in May 2008? As reported in the Los Angeles Times, some constitutional scholars believe that the new amendment will only affect prospective same-sex marriage, leaving intact those same-sex couples that married before Proposition 8 passed. The experts base their opinions on judicial history where courts have traditionally made constitutional amendments retroactive only if they were explicitly written that way, resisting an abrogation of people’s rights and freedoms unless directly mandated to do so. In support of the argument that Proposition 8 is not intended to apply retroactively, scholars point out to the Los angeles times that nothing in the proposed language states that the constitutional amendment will be retroactive in its application. Furthering the argument against retroactive application is California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s statement issued through his office on August 4, 2008, that Proposition 8 will be prospective in its application, leaving intact the same-sex marriages entered into prior to its passage.
Others say that the retroactive application of Proposition 8 will depend on whether the Proposition was intended by the voters to be retroactive, and point to the language contained in the California Voter Guide which states that, “A ‘YES’ vote on this measure means: The California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Those who believe that Proposition 8 will be retroactive in nature argue that the language in the California Voter Guide expressly states, and informs the voting public, that passage of the proposed amendment will affect the validity and recognition of same-sex marriage, and will apply regardless of when or where the marriages were performed. The implication in this interpretation of the Proposition goes beyond California’s borders: in addition to invalidating same-sex marriages performed in California, the State and its agencies and offices will be prohibited from recognizing or validating same-sex marriages performed in any other state or country, even if legal and recognized where performed.
Ironically, as both positions have legal validity, it will be up to the California Supreme Court – the same court whose ruling allowed same-sex marriage – to interpret whether Proposition 8 was intended to be retroactive or prospective. And until such time as this question is decided, same-sex married couples will be in a “legal limbo” waiting for third parties to determine their fate. If it is eventually determined that Proposition 8 was, in fact, retroactive, then same-sex couples will find their marriages to be of no legal effect in California, and they will be denied the rights and expectations they had enjoyed until Proposition 8 was passed. If, however, Proposition 8 is found to be prospective in its application, then there will be a group of same-sex couples who will continue to be married, most likely forfeiting that appellation only in the event that they should ever divorce.
What options are available to those who still oppose Proposition 8 , and what can be done about the constitutional language in the future? If the language proposed by Proposition 8 is part of the California Constitution, one of the alternatives for proponents of same-sex marriage is to change the Constitution. Proponents will need to draft language proposing a repeal of any newly-enacted amendment or an altogether new amendment to be included in the Constitution. They will then need to raise the requisite 694,354 signatures to have the amendment certified for the next electoral ballot. California will then go through the same battles and arguments as it did during this election, with the voters again determining whether the Constitution will be amended on the issue of same-sex marriage.
The other alternative is further legal battles. Opponents of Proposition 8 may argue to the courts that passage of the amendment is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits any group from being treated differently than any other. Opponents may also argue that passage of Proposition 8 is violative of the U.S. Constitution’s Contracts Clause prohibiting states from enacting laws that impair contracts, and that marriage is, after all, nothing more than a contract. Both of these arguments will likely be undertaken in the federal courts, and may eventually end up being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear these arguments.
For the full history of same-sex marriage in California go to the article Same sex Marriage in California at http://www.Feinbergwaller.com/CM/Custom/family-law-Publication.asp
California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling
Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) June 2, 2009
California Family Law attorney Mary Ellen Waller says the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court on the validity of Proposition 8 is a dangerous ruling for all minorities. The following is a statement by Waller analyzing the decision:
The Court has handed the mob a loaded weapon that can too easily be used to pursue inappropriate discriminatory goals and agendas. The ruling undermines the judiciary’s authority to protect minority rights and it substantially alters the California Constitution as a document of independent force and effect.
In its ruling, the Court has altered the procedural process regarding Constitutional initiatives having to do with civil rights. They have done so by removing the procedural requirement that initiatives affecting only individual liberties go through the more rigorous, deliberative process known as Constitutional revision (as opposed to Constitutional amendment). The implications of this ruling have a far-reaching and chilling effect on state constitutional rights as this ruling has eased constraints on the ability of the majority interests in our State to discriminate. Indeed, it has been a hallmark of our State Constitution, our Federal Constitution, and the very fabric upon which our political and social systems in this nation were formed that we operate on a system of majority rule with protection for minority rights. Great and honorable steps against “tyranny of the majority” have been undertaken throughout our history, and sweeping policy attitudinal changes and reforms have been imposed to protect the rights of the minority in society.
This is why, for example, it is against the law to refuse to hire an individual because of their race or ethnic origin; why it is illegal to deny equal access to government based on a suspect classification (such as race, gender, religion, etc). These issues are very often hotly contested and debated, yet to our credit as a people very often we have been able to rise above our own individual prejudices and dislikes. We have enacted laws that are designed to protect the members of a minority group, members of, in Constitutional parlance, a “suspect class.” Race is generally considered to be the most easily recognizable example of a suspect classification, and there are indeed many others as well.
This assessment of the high Court’s “invitation to discriminate” falls far short of mere speculation or conjecture; a discriminatory pattern of behavior by the majority towards minorities is a well-documented reality throughout history. Let us recall that Nazi Germany started with German citizens being stripped of their rights for no reason other than their religion, Japanese-Americans of this country went from curfew to internment, women were not allowed to vote, and blacks were “separate”, “but equal,” a concept that is all too blatantly adopted by the Proposition 8 ruling. The Proposition 8 ruling opens the door for a majority of California voters to adopt future measures designed to gradually reduce or eliminate fundamental rights of vulnerable minorities. Click here to read more http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilyLawBlog.com
Mary Ellen Waller is a family law attorney licensed in California and New York. She is a shareholder of Feinberg & Waller, APC, a firm practicing exclusively in the area of family law with offices in Calabasas and Beverly Hills, California. The Daily Journal, the State of California’s legal newspaper, recently published an article by Waller entitled, “Whatever the Prop.8 Outcome, Some Families Will Be Stuck in Legal Limbo”. An in-depth analysis and report on the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 can be found at http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilylawBlog.com
No matter where you live, whether it is in San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, La Jolla, Del Mar, Pacific Beach, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos, Mission Beach and Escondido or the cities of Huntington Beach, Anaheim Hills, Yorba Linda, Buena Park, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Hills, Buena Park, Temecula, Indian Wells, La Quinta, or Palm Springs, unless you haven’t turned on the television or read a newspaper during the 2008 Presidential election, or looked at the internet, you have seen claims by the Republican campaign that the publishing media is biased.
Attacking the media has long been a tactic of national candidates. In this election, once again, we have seen this tactic employed, yet with little of the success it enjoyed in previous Presidential campaigns. As an election and constituitonal lawyer, one can only applaud this lack of success in the use of this tactic in this election.
For the most part in this Presidential campaign, one candidate has been leveling these attacks on the press with regularity and with increasing anger, John McCain. While newspapers expect this to some extent, the public that is not wedded to one side of the fence or the other appears to be tiring of the attacks.
Recently, John McCain denounced the New York times in the strongest words, following a Times report that McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had been pain nearly million by mortgage entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. McCain’s chief strategist, Steve Schmidt said the New York Times is no longer a journalistic organization but is 150 percent in the tank for Barack Obama. Schmidt earlier attacked MSNBC as being an organ of the Democratic National Committee, and said the news media are on a mission to destroy Sarah Palin.
Unfortunately for John McCain, it has since been reported in the press that McCain’s campaign manager’s lobbying firm owned by his campaign manager has received ,000/month for nearly three years and that and that the campaign manager was paid ,000/month for nearly five years by an advocacy organization that he headed and which was financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fight regulation. It has further been reported that McCain’s senior advisor, his campaign’s vice chairman, and his Congressional liaison, also made large sums of money from Fannie and Freddie lobbying or were in firms that did.
In an apparent attempt to deflect attention away from his mistaken attack on the New York Times story, McCain then announced he was suspending his campaign to immediately fly to Washington after awaking that morning to find a report in the Washington Post that he was behind in the polls by nine points. Soon after attempting to criticize that finding, and knowing what the disaster Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric would be aired that night, McCain chose to dump his appearance on the David Letterman show, upstage the Couric interview with his own interview on the CBS News, and announce the suspension of his campaign that was in reality, never a suspension.
In hindsight of course, McCain’s actions were a huge error in judgment. His dilly-dallying around New York after ditching Letterman were picked up on and hammered at him unmercifully for two nights on the David Letterman show and later on the Daily Show, other news shows, on the internet and in the press. By the time he arrived the next day in Washington, it had already been announced that there was bipartisan support for the bailout bill, that just as quickly dissipated upon his arrival. It was reported that his campaign had not been suspended and Letterman, among others joked at his expense why he must have felt he could not leave his campaign in the hands of Sarah Palin, when she was seen incapable of answering simple questions put to her by Katie Couric. And after announcing he would not take part in the debate until there was either a bailout bill or great progress toward one, he had to fly back from Washington for the debate with no bailout bill in hand and Congress much less united than when he had arrived.
In the past, attacking the press has proved fruitful for Presidential candidates. This time the attack is falling on deaf ears and has either been the exception to the rule that it will help a candidate, or there is a change taking place in what a candidate risks if he is wrong. As an election, campaign, publishing, marketing, media and constitutional law attorney, one can only conclude that negative attacks by the candidates are not working as they used to, whether it is against the media or against the other candidate. The public has become weary of such tactics and it is showing in the polls.
Visit the Sebastian Gibson Law website at http://www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com . If you have a publishing, literary, first amendment, media, marketing or constitutional law issue, come to an experienced law firm who can represent you as your California Publishing Lawyer, your San Diego Constitutional Attorney and your attorney throughout Southern California. We have the resources and knowledge to represent you from San Diego to Orange County, from Huntington Beach and Newport Beach to Long Beach, Santa Monica, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. We also represent clients inland from Anaheim to Temecula, from Rancho Cucamonga to Palm Springs and Indian Wells.
The Sebastian Gibson Law Firm serves all of San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs and Palm Desert, the Coastal Cities from La Jolla, Carlsbad and Del Mar to Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana and up to Ventura, Oxnard, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. We also serve the Inland Empire cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Temecula, Riverside and San Bernardino and all the cities in the Coachella Valley and high desert, from La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella to Yucca Valley and Victorville.
Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com if you have a publishing issue of any kind. We have the knowledge and resources to represent you as your San Diego Publishing Lawyer and California Publishing Attorney or your attorney in and around the cities of Palm Springs, Palm Desert, San Diego, Orange County, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Malibu, Beverly Hills, Pacific Palisades, Santa Ana, Laguna Beach, Anaheim, Riverside, Chula Vista, Irvine, San Bernardino, Huntington Beach, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, La Jolla, Del Mar, San Marcos, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Garden Grove, Palmdale, Long Beach, Corona, Yorba Linda, Escondido, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Victorville, Carlsbad, Temecula, Murrieta, Mission Viejo, El Cajon, Vista, Westminster, Santa Monica, Malibu, Westwood, Hesperia, Buena Park, Indio, Coachella, Del Mar, Oxnard, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Cambria and Santa Barbara.
NightmareRH’s Production Presents Runescape Constitution Update Guide/Review (Commentary)! This is a review of the most worthless update ever!Also please remember to subscribe. My other youtube channel: www.youtube.com Please subscribe to it so you will be the first to view my videos. www.NightmareRH.net My site, free guides and forums -=-=-=-=-DISCLAIMER-=-=-=-=- RuneScape is a registered trademark of JaGeX Limited. I do not claim, or have any, affiliation with JaGeX Ltd. This video was not intended for any personal gain, only for entertainment purposes. All comments by others are their own and I do not take responsibility for their actions. Consider this, free advertising www.runescape.com Video Rating: 4 / 5
CLEM KINCAID v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Supreme Court of Virginia December 1, 1958
The defendant, Kincaid was convicted in the circuit court on April 23, 1957, of reckless driving. Later he was again, charged with reckless driving. He was tried and convicted of this latter charge on November 6, 1957, and the judgment entered on that conviction is the subject of this appeal. During the course of the trial the Commonwealth introduced evidence of the previous conviction (April 23, 1957), which evidence was admitted over the objection of the accused wherein he asserted that the evidence was inadmissible as the warrant on which he was being tried did not charge a second offense. In instructing the jury, over the objection of the accused, the court set forth the penalties for a second offense of reckless driving, and the jury imposed a fine as permitted under the instruction and as provided in the statute (Code, § 46-210 as amended; now § 46.1-192, 1958 Cum. Supp.) for a second offense. The accused moved to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and without evidence to support it, and further urged the court to grant him a new trial on the ground that the court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence relating to the previous conviction. These motions were overruled and judgment was entered on the jury’s verdict. The defendant sought review of the decision.
Issues:
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence relating to the previous conviciction?
Whether a defendant in a criminal case can be taxed with the costs of a jury without invading his constitutional right to trial by jury?”
Discussion:
This court held that it was error for the court to admit the evidence relating to the prior conviction and to instruct the jury regarding the punishment for a second offense. In this case the warrant simply charged that the accused did unlawfully operate a motor vehicle on the public road in a reckless manner and did not charge him for a second offense. Thus he should have been put on trial for the offense as charged and no other this court held that under the evidence, the issues involving the identity of the accused and whether or not he was guilty of reckless driving were for the determination of the jury
This court held there is no merit in the contention that the taxing of the costs of the jury is an invasion of the constitutional right of the accused to a trial by juryCode, § 19-296 imposes upon the clerk of the court the duty to make up a “statement of all the expenses incident to the prosecution” and issue an execution therefore. The costs of a jury are an expense incident to the prosecution, and its collection violates no constitutional right of the accused.
Conclusion:
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which convicted the defendant of reckless driving and overruled his motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. The court remanded the case for a new trial.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts. The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law. The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Lynchburg County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia. The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore. The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge. The New York office is in New York City. The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County. The California office is in Orange County, CA.
The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.
Alex is live for the first two hours of the broadcast. He will talk about the unconstitutional effort by Congress and Obama to force through health care using “deem and pass” without a vote by the Senate. Obama, Congress, and Treason Against the Constitution Kurt Nimmo www.infowars.com March 19, 2010 On Thursday, Robert Gibbs, Obamas press secretary, responded to a question about the so-called Slaughter Rule (named after Rep. Slaughter, who sits on the rules committee) that will be used by Democrats to force through Obamas totalitarian care bill, probably over the weekend. Gibbs answer was deliberately opaque. By not addressing the question, he essentially said deem and pass will be used in the future to enact unpopular legislation, including a bill that will legalize millions of illegal immigrants. It is now official — the Constitution is dead. It may as well be used to wrap fish. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that both houses of Congress hold recorded yea-or-nay votes on a bill before it can be presented to the president for his signature and before it can become law. Obama approves of sabotaging the Constitution. He said he does not spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are, in other words violating the spirit and law of the Constitution is not a biggie for him. What I can tell you is that the vote thats taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to … Video Rating: 4 / 5
©Copyright 1997-
©Copyright 1997-
