Strategic Law Command

What should couples expect from the process of ending a marriage?

It’s time to dispose of Qualified Immunity Racism in the police force? Sure. All Police Officers are racist? Not hardly....Continue reading

It’s time to dispose of Qualified Immunity Racism in the police force? Sure. All Police Officers are racist? Not hardly....Continue reading

What could happen after just one mistake?

A recent court ruling solidifies the existing rule about which courts can handle criminal charges against servicemembers.

Judges consider many more factors than they used to when deciding child custody.

Do ex-spouses have a claim to assets like houses, cars and pensions?

There are at least three potential consequences of winning a drinking game.

9th Circuit finds Prop 64 Does Not Remove the Stigma of a Drug Conviction Claudia Prado came to the United States in 1972. She was 6 months old when she arrived with her parents. On December 29, 1980, Claudia become a Lawful Permanent Resident. Although Claudia lived in the United States since she was a baby; she never became a United States citizen. On May 28, 2014, Claudia entered a guilty plea to one count of possession of marijuana for purposes of sale as a felony, a ...violation of Health and Safety Code 11359. She was placed on three years probation as part of her plea. Two years later, Homeland Security found her in Orange County jail in custody for another drug charge. Homeland Security filed two charges against her in immigration proceedings. Both charges were related to her 2014 marijuana for sale plea. Either charge standing alone could result in her removal from the United States. While Claudia’s removal proceedings were progressing, she applied to have her felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors under California’s proposition 64. The California Superior Court granted her motion stating: The following felony conviction(s) is/are recalled and reclassified as misdemeanor conviction(s) and any enhancements are dismissed by operation of law: 11359. The immigration court found that Claudia’s conviction being reduced to a misdemeanor did not change matters for Claudia. She was still convicted, in the view of the immigration court of a controlled substances offense that contained elements of trafficking. And ordered removed from the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the lower court ruling that a marijuana conviction redesigned for rehabilitative purposes "remains a conviction for immigration purposes." Claudia appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Her argument acknowledged that a felony conviction for 11359 would make her deportable, however, she argued that under the Act (Prop 64) removes that stigma. She argued that the Act’s allowance to a reduction to a misdemeanor prohibited her removal (deportation) from the United States. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with Claudia for several reasons. Probably most telling is that the Ninth found that the reclassification under California law does NOT change the federal law. Apparently, immigration law is still governed by the Federal laws, not California’s. (Prado v. Barr (9th Cir. May 10, 2019, No. 17-72914) 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13984.)

I do not own a Dell computer at the current time, however, I know many of our clients use Dell computers. I ran across this article and for those of you who use Dell, you should probably read this and get the update. https://www.pcmag.com//dell-laptops-and-desktops-vulnerabl

The benefits of working with a service member turned attorney.

Strategic Law Command is proud to receive BBB accreditation.

People v. Pride - January 10, 2019 (2018 DJDAR 268) In May of 2017, the internet and social media having been around for a long time, Mr. Pride does something stupid. Mr. Pride was suspected of having committed a robbery and stealing a gold chain, along with shoes, cash, credit cards and an iPad. Mr. Pride, a suspected gang member, had "friended" a gang detective on social media. Apparently the gang detective lied about his name, yet Mr. Pride was comfortable enough to frie...nd the detective. Mr. Pride then posted a video of himself wearing the freshly stolen gold chain and stating "Check out the new chain, dog." The video was posted on a social media site that supposedly has the video disappear after being viewed. The detective was able to copy the video and use it to have the victim identify the gold chain. The victim was then able to make an identification of Mr. Pride from photographs. A warrant was sought and issued for Mr. Pride. Mr. Pride was found at his arrest in possession of the stolen items and in fact was wearing the victim's gold chain when he was arrested. Mr. Pride was convicted of the robbery and gang enhancements, since Mr. Pride had prior strike convictions; his staring video earned him a 21 year sentence. There is no fourth amendment protections available when you give an invitation to view videos. This basic premise goes all the way back to when Jimmy Hoffa was surreptitiously audio taped in his office. If you don't want your mother - or law enforcement - to see what you possess; don’t' post it on social media. Pretty simple rule.