Home » Posts tagged "Attorneys"

Fund Capital America California?s Premiere Plaintiff Personal Injury Cash Advance Company to Exhibit at the 50th Annual California Attorney?s of California Convention

Fund Capital America California’s Premiere Plaintiff Personal Injury Cash Advance Company to Exhibit at the 50th Annual California Attorney’s of California Convention













Fund Capital America


San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) October 27, 2011

(CAOC Convention Booth #111) Fund Capital America – California’s premiere plaintiff personal injury cash advance company to exhibit at the 50th Annual California Attorney’s of California Convention (CAOC) in San Francisco, CA, on November 10-13, 2011 at the Palace Hotel.

Fund Capital America provides plaintiff’s in California with personal injury cash advances for their pre or post settlement lawsuits. The company works with traditional personal injury cases such as automobile accidents, motorcycle accidents, truck accidents, commercial vehicle accidents, construction accidents, birth accidents, railroad accidents, train accidents, boating accidents, wrongful death, slip and fall, premise liability, burn accidents, brain accident, product defect accidents, nursing home negligence and dog bites.

Fund Capital America takes a look at the lawsuit and the case is analyzed by an expert team of legal underwriters. The lawyer for the accident or attorney for the accident (plaintiff’s personal attorney) will help the plaintiff with the application for a cash advance. Lawsuit litigation is serious business, but the aim is to take some of the financial pressure off of the plaintiff.

Personal injury attorneys in California represent many different types of accidents and injuries. When a client has suffered a personal injury, why should the attorney allow the plaintiff’s financial circumstances cause them to have to settle the case earlier than necessary in order to alleviate the their financial burden. The plaintiff should be free from financial woes, while their case settles, so the attorney can get the highest settlement that is deserved. Injured victims should have the ability to sustain themselves and their families, while awaiting settlement on their personal injury lawsuits. When an injured victim has to choose between low-ball settlements or the necessities of life such a food, rent, and clothing; nobody wins. Non-recourse personal injury cash advances provide a solution that allows the injured victim to take the financial advantage away from the insurers. Non-recourse cash advances can help clients who are having financial difficulties. There are No credit checks, monthly payments, upfront out of pocket fees, notes or security required of the plaintiff. Remember, there is no payment until the case settles. Cash advances are not secured by a lien on personal credit or home equity. If the Plaintiff doesn’t win the case, they don’t owe us back a dime.

The CAOC California Attorney’s of California is the leading California organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the constitutional right to trial by jury for all consumers and championing the cause of those seeking justice through our California civil justice system. CAOC is an organization of more than 3,000 attorneys who represent plaintiffs and consumers who seek responsibility from wrongdoers. CAOC Attorney’s represent consumers injured or killed by defective products or drugs. People who suffer discrimination because of age, gender, disability or race. People who are injured or killed because of another’s negligent acts. The represent California citizens whose civil rights have been violated.

Fund Capital America is California’s Premiere Personal Injury Cash Advance Company providing competitive interest rates and fast turn around times. Fund Capital America utilizes a simple one page application for the plaintiff’s attorney to fill out and provides us the scope of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit and the nature of the litigation. The company knows that when the clients needs cash, they need it fast.

Fund Capital America knows that when a personal injury case has caused the plaintiff an economic burden, they need to be alleviated immediately. The company works with top rated law firms, all across California to provide financial assistance when it’s desired the most. Cash advances are from $ 500 to $ 200,000. It’s fast, simple and easy. The company provides a fast 48-72 hours turn around time on the application. If the application is not approved, there is no application fee cost.

Fund Capital America:

Competitive: We compete to give you competitive pricing.

Secure: All personal information is secured and kept confidential.

Solid: We have been in business for 5 years serving personal injury plaintiff’s.

Convenient: Based in Los Angeles. Servicing Northern and Southern California.

Whether the plaintiff has been involved in a personal injury cases such as automobile injury, motorcycle injury, truck injury, commercial vehicle injury, construction injury, birth injury, railroad injury, train injury, boating injury, wrongful injury, slip and fall injury, premise liability injury, burn injury, brain injury, product defect injury, nursing home negligence injury and dog bites.

Call today at 310-424-5176 or email us at info (at) FundCapitalAmerica(dot)com.

For more information please visit http://www.FundCapitalAmerica.com.

###









Attachments


























Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Related The Constitution Press Releases

La Quinta Business Attorney?s Top Ten Things That Sarah Palin Would Like Changed in the Constitution

Here is La Quinta Business Attorney Sebastian Gibson’s Top Ten:

1. No more free speech for those liberal media types.

 

2. Move the capital from Washington D.C. to Anchorage.

 

3. Free guns for everyone.

 

4. Religion should replace recess in all the schools and economics in all the colleges.

 

5. Drilling in the ANWR and off the coast of California should be mandatory.

 

6. Neiman Marcus should be required to open a store in Alaska.

 

7. Every woman should be required to have their hair in a beehive.

 

8. From now on, Putin shouldn’t be allowed to rear his head in the airspace above Alaska.

 

9. Katie Couric is persona non grata.

 

10. There is only one political party and the name of it rhymes with mepublican.

 

Now here is everything (well, almost everything) you need in business about personal injury, car accidents, brain damage, wrongful deaths, business, real estate, landlord-tenant, homeowners association law, construction, patents, trademarks, corporations, entertainment law, advertising, copyrights, and litigation without making any serious legal missteps.  

If you need to know more about business environmental, international law, election and campaign law, consumer law, class actions, constitutional, internet, publishing, advertising, media, food and wine, hotel and restaurant law, estate planning, wills, trusts, water law, agricultural, insurance law, bad faith, psychologist and psychotherapist defense, education law or child accidents, you can find valuable information by searching for those subjects and adding the words La Quinta business lawyer or La Quinta business attorney to your search terms and looking for other articles by Sebastian Gibson.

 

You can also learn more about any of these business areas of law and how we can assist you as La Quinta business attorneys, or as lawyers in any city, by calling the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson at any of the numbers which can be found on our website at http://www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com  .

 

1. Personal Injury, Car Accidents, Drowning Accidents, Brain Damage, Catastrophic Injuries and Wrongful Deaths in La Quinta – If you’ve had a La Quinta auto, motorcycle, truck, pedestrian, bicycle, bus, train, airplane or car accident of any kind, get the other driver’s information, take camera or cell phone pictures, call the police, get a report, seek medical treatment immediately, call us or another good La Quinta personal injury lawyer, follow up with more medical treatment if you are still hurt, report the accident to your insurance agent, file a report with the DMV and don’t talk to anyone else or give a recorded statement until you talk with us. If you’ve lost a loved on in an accident, call us or another good La Quinta personal injury lawyer immediately. If you’ve been bitten by a dog, get treatment, call animal control and then call us. If you or someone you know has come close to drowning, seek medical treatment immediately as death or serious injury can still occur hours later.

 

2. La Quinta Business – Put everything in writing and preferably with our help or the help of another good La Quinta business lawyer. Spend money only as you need to. A La Quinta business attorney can tell you where to save costs and how to do it without risking liability. Limit your promises to employees and to customers. Buy insurance. Protect your intellectual property at the outset. Don’t disclose your inventions or any trade secrets to anyone without a non-disclosure agreement. Incorporate as soon as you are profitable. Get legal advice for problems or indications of pending lawsuits immediately. Keep all costs, including labor costs, to the bare minimum. Always use confidentiality agreements when disclosing valuable information and be careful what information you agree to receive. Tell customers they must pay in advance or on delivery. Do not agree to bill and be paid at a date after delivery. Otherwise you won’t be paid on a percentage of your products. Be wary of the potential for fraud by customers, business partners and employees.

]]>

 

3. Residential and Commercial Real Estate, Landlord Tenant Law, Mortgage Law and Homeowners Association Law in La Quinta – Use a La Quinta real estate lawyer who is also a Realtor, or a Realtor who is also a La Quinta real estate attorney. Don’t buy or lease more than you need. Choose the right location. Choose the right mortgage. Don’t refinance if you think you may need to walk away from a home. Don’t buy more than you can afford. Check out the neighborhood carefully. Get a home inspection and a home warranty. Have a La Quinta real estate lawyer look over the documents. Homeowner Associations are facing a host of problems stemming from the number of foreclosures. As fees are reduced by vacant homes and condos, projects must be trimmed back or delayed in order to save money. Some homeowner associations, who were already in trouble, may face additional problems in the future and both homeowners and their associations should consult with legal counsel to help resolve how to deal with such issues.

 

4. Construction in La Quinta – With the construction industry in it’s biggest ever slump, down more than 90% from its peak in many areas, La Quinta contractors need to shift their focus to energy free homes, apartment construction and to take advantage of contracts likely to be offered for bid under the new administration’s plan to create new jobs rebuilding the country’s infrastructure, construction of roads, bridges, the electrical grid and other utility projects. If you are dealing with contractors yourself, always use licensed contractors and have a La Quinta construction lawyer look over your contracts. You can also investigate the contractor online to ensure he is licensed and insured and a La Quinta construction attorney can do an additional investigation at little extra cost. Never pay a contractor the entire sum for a project at the start. Put all agreements in writing, including any changes.

 

5. La Quinta Patents and Biotechnology – A patent should be applied for, for any new, and non-obvious process, or invention and to any new improvement of an invention at first opportunity. A patent is good for 20 years. Depending upon the complexity, most utility patent applications will cost between ,000 and ,000.00. A design patent can be applied for by a La Quinta patent attorney, for the look of an item and is good for 14 years. A provisional patent can be applied for, good for one year at a cost of half of the usual utility patent cost but is only good for one year. If the inventor does not upgrade the provisional patent into a utility patent application within that period, usually for the cost of the remainder of the corresponding cost of a utility patent, the inventor loses his or her protection. A patent is pending once it has been applied for, and can be licensed, or sold outright. Without a patent, others can make and sell your invention with no compensation to you. Patent searches help the La Quinta patent lawyer write an application around existing patents and cost an additional sum, usually under ,000.00. Drawings must also be prepared for the patent application usually for under 0.00. A design patent can be sought for between ,000 to ,500 and a European design patent for between ,000 to ,500. Accelerated patent applications usually cost an additional 50% of normal patent applications. Foreign patent applications also require additional fees.

 

6. La Quinta Trademarks – Trademark any original logos, designs, words, phrases, symbols or combinations that you use to identify your products or services as soon as possible. Call a La Quinta trademark attorney as soon as anyone else’s trademark or service mark is so similar as to cause a likelihood of confusion in the public or if you receive a cease and desist letter from someone else accusing you of infringement. Trademark applications range from between ,500 if there has not yet been any use of the trademark to ,500 to apply for a trademark already in use. Therefore, to save money, create some products and advertising materials and apply for the trademark once they are ready to be sold and advertised.

 

7. La Quinta Corporations – Never incorporate by yourself. Corporations will not protect you from liability if you do not follow corporate formalities correctly. Protect your intellectual property from the start with the help of a La Quinta corporations attorney. Don’t borrow someone else’s employee handbook or fire problematic employees without legal advice. Don’t get investors without seeing one of our La Quinta corporate attorneys. Cut costs to the bone. Use extra money to advertise, and sell in new markets. A La Quinta corporations lawyer can provide you with advice as to which type of corporation or LLC to use for your business.

 

8. Entertainment Law, Sports Law, Marketing, Advertising, Media and Copyrights in La Quinta – Whether you are a musician, an actor, a model, a writer, an athlete, a broadcaster or connected in any other way to the entertainment industry, contact us or another good La Quinta entertainment attorney as soon as anyone gives you a contract to sign. Signing a bad contract can end your career before it’s ever begun. As soon as you have written any body of work, have it copyrighted. You can do this quite easily yourself, but if you need assistance or if someone else infringes your copyrighted work, you can then file suit against such a party.

 

9. La Quinta Litigation – At the first sign that someone may sue you or your business, consult with a La Quinta litigation attorney. Many times, a lawsuit can be forestalled before it has been filed or the matter resolved with letters between the litigation attorneys. If you are served with a lawsuit, hire a La Quinta litigation lawyer like one from our firm who specializes in mediations and non-binding arbitrations so your litigation can be resolved at the soonest possible opportunity and limit your exposure to years of lawyer’s fees and costs as your case winds slowly through the courts.

 

10. Employment Law in La Quinta – It may seem silly to think you should hire a La Quinta employment attorney whenever you are considering firing an employee, but it has come to that. However, a consultation with a good La Quinta employment law firm can provide you with the advice of how to handle your employee relations both immediately and in the future as you either seek to cut costs or get rid of a problematic employee. If you have been sued or threatened with a suit, or are being scammed by an employee, consult a La Quinta employment lawyer immediately.

 

If you have a legal matter in La Quinta, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Coachella, Rancho Mirage, Indio, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Thermal, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Twentynine Palms or anywhere in the Coachella Valley, our La Quinta law firm has the knowledge and resources to be your La Quinta Lawyers and your La Quinta Attorneys. Be sure to hire a Coachella Valley law firm with experience in Personal Injury, Car Accidents, Drownings, Brain Damage, Catastrophic Injuries, Wrongful Death, Business, Real Estate and Landlord Tenant Law, Homeowner Association Law, Construction, Trademarks, Patents, Corporations, Entertainment, Sports Law, Marketing, Advertising, Media, and Copyright Law, and who will endeavor to ensure that your rights are properly represented.

 

Additionally, if you have a legal matter which involves Environmental and Toxic Tort Law, Litigation, International, Shipping and Maritime Law, Employment, Election and Campaign Finance Law, Consumer Law and Class Actions, Constitutional, Publishing, Publicity, Privacy Rights, Internet Law, Advertising and Media Law, Food and Wine Law, Hotel and Restaurant Law, Estate Planning, Wills and Trusts, Water, Agricultural and Natural Resource Law, Insurance Law, Bad Faith and Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist Defense, Education Law or a Child Accident in La Quinta or anywhere in Southern California, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com  and learn how a La Quinta attorney from our offices can assist you.

The Sebastian Gibson Business Law Firm serves La Quinta, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Coachella, Rancho Mirage, Indio, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Thermal, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Twentynine Palms, the entire Coachella Valley and all of Southern California. We stand ready to assist you with any type of Personal Injury, Car Accidents, Motorcycle Accidents and Truck Accidents, Dog Bites, Drownings, Brain Damage, Catastrophic Injuries, Wrongful Death, Business, Real Estate and Landlord Tenant Law, Homeowner Association Law, Construction, Trademarks, Patents, Corporations, Entertainment, Sports Law, Marketing, Advertising, Media, and Copyright Law matter.


Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com if you have a legal matter of any kind. We have the knowledge and resources to represent you as your La Quinta Business Lawyer and La Quinta Business Attorney for Environmental and Toxic Tort Law, Litigation, International, Shipping and Maritime Law, Employment, Election and Campaign Finance Law, Consumer Law and Class Actions, Constitutional, Publishing, Publicity, Privacy Rights, Internet Law, Advertising and Media Law, Food and Wine Law, Hotel and Restaurant Law, Estate Planning, Wills and Trusts, Water, Agricultural and Natural Resource Law, Insurance Law, Bad Faith and Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist Defense, Education Law and Child Accidents.

Article from articlesbase.com

California San Diego County Driving Constitutional Rights Writ Mandamus Lawyers Attorneys

JAMES V. PEPIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
July 22, 1969

The Department of Motor Vehicles ordered Plaintiff (James V. Pepin’s) driver’s license suspended for his refusal to submit to any of the blood alcohol tests required by Vehicle Code, section 13353, after he was arrested by an officer who had reasonable cause to believe he was driving while drunk.  Plaintiff brought mandamus in the superior court to compel the DMV to reinstate his driving privileges.  The Superior Court of San Diego County denied the driver’s application for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant Department of Motor Vehicles to reinstate a driving license.  Plaintiff driver sought review the above judgment.

Issues:

Whether the trial Court erred in denying the Plaintiff Writ of Mandamus?
Whether § 13353 violate the driver’s right to equal protection?

Conclusion:

Pepin un-meritoriously asserts that because section 13353 does not permit an exception for “employment-livelihood” cases, similar to that of Vehicle Code, section 13210, he is denied the equal protection of the laws.  The issue is whether section 13353 arbitrarily discriminates against certain classes of persons who refuse to take the chemical test, as opposed to other classes who also refuse the test.  No discrimination exists.  No particular class of person is selected for suspension for refusing a chemical test.

The suspension is mandatory, not discretionary.  Pepin did not have a constitutional right to refuse to take the chemical test.

Hence the Court affirmed the trial Court’s Judgment.

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, 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.

 

Article from articlesbase.com

New York Suppress Motion Driving Under Influence Constitutional Rights Denied Lawyers Attorneys

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. George P. Kelty, Defendant

District Court of New York, First District, Nassau County

June 30, 1978

 

Facts:

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence. Defendant made an omnibus motion to suppress a statement allegedly made by the defendant and the results of a breathalyzer test given to the defendant, on the grounds that it was illegally performed.

Issue:

Whether defendant’s Motion to suppress a statement should be allowed?

Discussion:

The court found that the police had probable cause for the arrest and there was enough evidence for the jury to find that the breathalyzer test was performed within two hours after arrest.  It is clear that there is no constitutional prohibition against giving such a test without defendant’s consent.  Thus, the right of refusal is not a personal privilege but an accommodation to avoid a distasteful struggle to forcibly take blood, breath or saliva.  It is a qualified statutory right whereby the defendant and police may avoid the unpleasantness connected with administering a test to an unwilling subject.  The People have shown the legality of the police action by satisfying the court that they had probable cause for the arrest and performed the test within two hours of arrest.  Since the defendant’s consent is deemed, the People need only show that the test was given, that it was performed after an arrest based upon probable cause and within two hours of that arrest.  In order to sustain his motion to suppress, defendant had the burden of going forward to show that the test was given, even though the defendant refused to take it.  This defendant has failed to do and has not met the burden necessary to suppress a chemical test which he claims he had refused.

Accordingly, the motion to suppress the chemical test is denied.

The court ruled that defendant had the ultimate burden of proving that the evidence should be suppressed. Further, the court held that the state showed the legality of the police action by satisfying the court that they had probable cause for the arrest and performed the test within two hours of arrest. Also, the court found that in order to sustain his motion to suppress defendant had the burden of going forward to show that the test was given, even though defendant refused to take it. The court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that defendant failed to meet the burden necessary to suppress a chemical test which he claimed he had refused.

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.

Article from articlesbase.com

North Carolina Criminal Impaired Driving Checkpoint Articulable Suspicion Constitutionally Permissible Lawyers Attorneys

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KAREN SEAGLE FOREMAN
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

On 16 November 1996, defendant was arrested for driving while impaired (DWI), possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of cocaine. Defendant was subsequently indicted for the DWI charge. On 16 September 1997, defendant was found guilty of DWI in District Court, Craven County, and gave notice of appeal to the superior court. On 12 February 1997, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge because there was no probable cause sufficient to justify the stop of her vehicle or in the alternative, to suppress any evidence obtained from the stop of defendant’s vehicle. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or to suppress, and defendant was tried before a jury at the 23 February 1998 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Craven County. The jury found defendant guilty of DWI. On 25 February 1998, the trial court, inter alia, sentenced defendant to a suspended sentence of sixty days in jail with unsupervised probation for two years and revoked her license for one year. Defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals found no error.  In support of its decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was not constitutionally permissible for an officer to stop a vehicle which had made a legal turn away from a posted DWI checkpoint.

ISSUES:

Whether a legal turn away from a posted DWI checkpoint would justify an investigatory stop and whether it is constitutionally permissible?

DISCUSSION:

When an officer observes conduct which leads him reasonably to believe that criminal conduct may be afoot, he may stop the suspicious person to make reasonable inquiries.  In the instant case, the officer observed a “quick left turn” away from the checkpoint at the precise point where the driver of the vehicle would have first become aware of its presence. However, Officer Ipock did not stop defendant’s vehicle once it turned away from the checkpoint. In fact, we cannot conclude that Officer Ipock “stopped” defendant’s vehicle at any point. Defendant voluntarily parked in a residential driveway and remained hidden in the car until Officer Ipock approached the vehicle. Therefore, defendant was not “seized” by the police officer until at least that point. Based upon that series of incriminating circumstances, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that Officer Ipock observed sufficient activity to raise a “reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

There is no dispute that the DWI checkpoint in the present case met all the statutory requirements for an impaired driving checkpoint. The perimeters of the checkpoint were marked with signs stating that there was a DWI checkpoint ahead, and the signs were posted approximately one-tenth of a mile prior to the actual stop. The checkpoint was established with the intent to stop every vehicle briefly and to check for impaired drivers traveling on Neuse Boulevard within the vicinity of the checkpoint. Certainly, the purpose of any checkpoint and the above statute would be defeated if drivers had the option to “legally avoid,” ignore or circumvent the checkpoint by either electing to drive through without stopping or by turning away upon entering the checkpoint’s perimeters. Further, it is clear that the perimeters of the checkpoint or “the area in which checks are conducted” would include the area within which drivers may become aware of its presence by observation of any sign marking or giving notice of the checkpoint. Therefore, the Court held that it is reasonable and permissible for an officer to monitor a checkpoint’s entrance for vehicles whose drivers may be attempting to avoid the checkpoint, and it necessarily follows that an officer, in conjunction with the totality of the circumstances or the checkpoint plan, may pursue and stop a vehicle which has turned away from a checkpoint within its perimeters for reasonable inquiry to determine why the vehicle turned away.

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, 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.

 

Article from articlesbase.com

More The Constitution Articles

ADF Attorneys Seek to Dismiss Lawsuit Against National Day of Prayer



Madison, WI (PRWEB) March 13, 2009

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys asked a federal court Monday to throw out a lawsuit that claims government-issued proclamations which call on citizens to pray are unconstitutional. The motion to dismiss — the second filed by ADF attorneys — comes in response to an amended complaint filed in the lawsuit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

“Prayer proclamations are a long-established and cherished American tradition going back to the Founding Fathers,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster. “This is simply a ridiculous lawsuit and an example of one radical organization’s allergic reaction to anything involving God.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed its suit against a number of government officials, including now-former President George W. Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle. The suit also names National Day of Prayer Task Force Chairperson Shirley Dobson, who is being represented by ADF attorneys.

Last year, ADF attorneys sent an information letter to nearly 1,200 of America’s largest cities, advising them of their constitutional right to religious freedom and to recognize and participate in the National Day of Prayer.

The 58th National Day of Prayer, which occurs May 7, offers an opportunity for thousands of Americans to exercise their religious rights and unite in prayer for the country at a variety of events nationwide. In 1775, the Continental Congress called upon people to pray for God’s wisdom in forming a nation. In 1952, President Harry S. Truman established an annual National Day of Prayer via a joint resolution of Congress. The law was amended in 1988 to set the day as the first Thursday of May.

Those wishing to support the effort to defend the National Day of Prayer and protect their First Amendment right to religious liberty can visit http://www.savethendop.org .


Motion to dismiss filed in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Case No. 08-CV-588).

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

###