1. Home /
  2. Local service /
  3. Saidian & Saidian, APLC

Category



General Information

Locality: Los Angeles, California

Phone: +1 213-222-8564



Address: 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard 90025 Los Angeles, CA, US

Website: www.saidianlaw.com

Likes: 99

Reviews

Add review

Facebook Blog





Saidian & Saidian, APLC 04.01.2021

The Rebbe's prophetic words prior to the Six Day War in 1967.

Saidian & Saidian, APLC 26.12.2020

"In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled against partygoers who had won a $680,000 award in their lawsuit for false arrest." #SupremeCourt #SCOTUS

Saidian & Saidian, APLC 22.12.2020

So I watching All in The Family, and saw a commercial for "miracle spring water". Apparently this guy, Peter Poppoff (perfectly fitting name for a con artist) sold this "miracle" spring water and has made millions. Why doesn't the FBI go after him ? The reason they can't is due to a Supreme Court Case called US v. Ballard, where the court held that the founder of the I AM movement, who raised millions by claiming he had shaken hands with Jesus, could not be criminally charged... with mail fraud if he sincerely held those beliefs. The court said, "The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views. The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religiion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position." See more

Saidian & Saidian, APLC 04.12.2020

Just an observation about a recent Supreme Court decision that’s been in the news recently. Simon Tam, band director, created a band called The Slants, a derogative term used for Asians, and wants to Trademark it under The Slants. Mr. Tam’s justification: that usage of the derogatory name in the band will help to reclaim the term and drain its denigrating force.... The trademark attorney says you can’t do that because there is a federal law that says you cannot copyright a name that disparages a person or group, called the Disparagement Clause. The Supreme Court holds, that the Disparagement Clause violates the First Amendment: But no matter how the point is phrased, its unmistakable thrust is this: The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’ And here is my one observation. In 1992, a 60 year old African-American professor, Russel Lawrence Lee, went to legally change his name to "Mister N***** Mr. Lee’s purported justification for changing his last name legally to the N-Word, was in fact the same that Simon Tam would use years later: he wanted to take the sting out of the word. But there, the Court of Appeal held that allowing him to register under that name would include State Action, and that even though he was free to call himself whatever he wanted, the trial judge was correct in denying him permission to register under that name. Were we to give our imprimatur to appellant's request, such might be construed as encouraging or sanctioning a racial epithet, translating to ‘state action’ promoting racial disharmony. (See Mulkey v. Reitman (1966) 64 Cal.2d 529, 537 [50 Cal. Rptr. 881, 413 P.2d 825]; see also 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law, 597, pp. 48-49.) But in the recent Supreme Court case, the Court held that permitting a federal trademark was not the same thing as government speech. Can these two case be reconciled?

Saidian & Saidian, APLC 24.11.2020

http://www.saidianlaw.com//pedestrian-crosswalk-accidents/