Everyone knows the oldest trick in the book when it comes to traffic court. Get your case continued a number of times in hopes that the police officer does not show up. Amir v. Superior Court teaches us a NEW trick and we get it as a RIGHT.
If you get a ticket far away from your home, ask to have the case heard in the county seat. The Appellate Court holds that the traffic court does NOT have discretion but rather HAS to permit the move. In this case, Mr. Amir receives a speeding ticket in Lancaster, California. He asks the court to move his case to downtown Los Angeles. His request gets denied. But YOURS won’t be denied as the Appellate Court now decided the ambiguity in the language of the statute (if there was any, to begin with).
Veh. Code Section 40502 states that the case can be heard in the court (a) “nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the arrest is made [OR] (b) Upon demand of the person arrested, … at the county seat of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed [if that location is closer to his/her work or resdience].”
The traffic court and police argued that it would be too expensive and inconvenient to the citing agency to travel to the county seat. But the statute is silent as to such considerations, requiring simply that, once criteria regarding proximity to work or residence are satisfied, a request MUST be granted “upon demand”
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
www.LAWSTACHE.com
185 West F Street Suite 100-D
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 357-6677
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Plaintiff Mary Anselmo attended Los Angeles Pierce College(Pierce College). On March 4, 2016, Anselmo traveled to Grossmont College as a member of the Pierce College Women’s Volleyball team to participate in an intercollegiate beach volleyball tournament. Anselmo alleged she was injured during one of the tournament games when she dove into the sand and her knee struck a rock in the sand.
Anselmo alleged only one cause of action for a dangerous condition of public property. Grossmont demurred, asserting the field trips and excursions immunity provided in section 55220 of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. “All persons making the field trip or excursion shall be deemed to have waived all claims against the district or the State of California for injury, accident, illness, or death occurring during or by reason of the field trip or excursion.”
The narrow question the Ninth Circuit faced was whether this immunity extends to an injury sustained during an interscholastic athletic competition by a member of the visiting team caused by the negligence of the home team’s district.
Holding: Grossmont, as the receiving or hosting team, had the responsibility to provide a safe beach volleyball court, in accordance with any applicable regulations. Field trip immunity under section 55220 does not extend to Grossmont as the host of an interscholastic athletic competition for injuries suffered by a player on a visiting team merely because her team traveled to the site of the competition.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq. LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law www.LAWSTACHE.com 185 West F Street Suite 100-D San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 357-6677
Based in San Diego, CA Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Kathleen Willhide-Michiulis was involved in a tragic snowboarding accident at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. On her last run of the day, she collided with a snowcat pulling a snow-grooming tiller and got caught in the tiller. The accident resulted in the amputation of her left leg, several skull fractures, and facial lacerations, among other serious injuries.
A snowcat is a large snow-grooming vehicle — 30 feet long and 18 feet wide. It has five wheels on each side of the vehicle that are enclosed in a track. In front of the snowcat is a plow extending the width of the snowcat. In back is a 20-foot wide trailer containing a tiller. A tiller “spins at a high [speed] br[e]aking up the snow and slightly warming it and allowing it to refreeze in a firm skiable surface.” Mammoth strives not to have snowcats operating when the resort is open to the public; however, it may be necessary at times.
It is for the court to decide whether an activity is an active sport, the inherent risks of that sport, and whether the defendant has increased the risks of the activity beyond the risks inherent in the sport.
Although snowcats and snow-grooming tillers are capable of causing catastrophic injury, as evidenced by Willhide-Michiulis’s experience, we conclude this equipment is an inherent part of the sport of snowboarding and the way in which the snowcat was operated in this case did not rise to the level of gross negligence.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq. LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law www.LAWSTACHE.com 185 West F Street Suite 100-D San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 357-6677
Based in San Diego, CA Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
It is often difficult to draw the line between good police work and excessive pressure in getting a confession. This case is made for an episode of The Confession Tapes.
A 73-year-old man with no formal education gets convinced that he molested a four-year-old girl. Police officers lie to him that his DNA was found on the girl’s body and that the girl passed a lie detector. Both never actually happened. Officers told him that he was not being arrested and they were only there to get a statement for the judge. They minimize his alleged conduct. They tell him what to say to get out of the situation, and he eventually adopts those statements.
The defendant, Mr. Torres, goes to trial and loses. There is no evidence against him except for the recorded confession. The girl says that she does not understand the difference between “truth and lie” at trial. There is also some suggestion that the story came from her mother.
The Appellate Court analyzed if Miranda warning was supposed to be given by the police before the interrogation. Miranda applied during custodial interrogations. They analyze if Mr. Torrest was in fact in custody. He was. His defense attorney is deemed ineffective for failing to file a Miranda motion or object at trial to the confession tape. It’s unlikely that he would have been convicted without that taped confession.
Considering that so many people talk to the police even after being Mirandized, what do we think of police officer’s pressure techniques in getting a confession?
Anton Vialtsin, Esq. LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law www.LAWSTACHE.com 185 West F Street Suite 100-D San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 357-6677
Based in San Diego, CA Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
A story made for television: FBI agent murdered during a bank robbery. A confession obtained through torture by the Mexican police. The trial judge previously investigated for corruption, fraud, and perjury by the very FBI agent that was killed. And the defendant sentenced to death.
Ninth Circuit case from July 25, 2018. The case is Echavarria v. Filson. Presumptive bias occurs when a judge may not actually be biased, but has the appearance of bias such that the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. In other words, we must satisfy an appearance of justice.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
www.LAWSTACHE.com
185 West F Street Suite 100-D
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 357-6677
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
LAWSTACHE LAW FIRM – юридическая фирма специализирующаяся на оказании помощи частным и государственным структурам, а также частным лицам, ведущим бизнес между Российской Федерацией и Соединенными Штатами.
Юридическая фирма LAWSTACHE LAW FIRM представляет финансовые учреждения, которые стремятся признать и привесьти в исполнение иностранное судебное решение на территории США. Наличие решения от суда США означает что ваша компания сможет собирать по невыплаченным долгам. Кроме того, ваша организация может быть в состоянии захватить имущество должника, расположенное в Соединенных Штатах. Фирма LAWSTACHE LAW FIRM имеет большой опыт судебных разбирательств по крупным денежным спорам.
Наша фирма также представляет людей, которых преследуют крупные банки за невыплаченные долги.
Пожалуйста, позвоните нам по телефону +1 (619) 357-6677 за помощью в вашем деле.
www.LAWSTACHE.com
+1 (619) 357-6677
Based in San Diego, CA
Does driving a car in ONE state with registration tags from ANOTHER make you a suspicious person? In this case, Vasquez was a citizen of Colorado, driving alone on Interstate 70 from Colorado through Kansas, in the middle of the night, in a recently purchased, older-model car. We hope Vasquez was driving this wood-paneled war wagon, … Read more
Anton Vialtsin, managing partner of Lawstache Law Firm in San Diego, represented Yakovlev. “Yakovlev was able to show the court … that there was no evidence that the Russian court ever attempted to serve him with process, and that telegrams that were sent to his former home (and returned undelivered) did not contain sufficient information to afford Yakovlev adequate notice and due process as required by California Law.”
Johnson and co-counsel Anton Vialtsin, of San Diego’s Delicino & Vialtsin, argued that the Russian court never had personal jurisdiction over Yakovlev because he had never been properly notified; that he had never been afforded a chance to raise a defense; and that the Russian litigation “was incompatible with the requirements of due process of law.” Read More Here
Full Article Below:
Judge Tosses Russian Bank’s Suit Seeking $30M from Former Tycoon
Greg Land, Daily Report
A California judge dismissed a Russian bank’s bid to enforce a $30 million judgment against the former co-owner of a chain of Russian stores selling toys and children’s clothing, who is now living under political asylum in the United States.
The court ruled on summary judgment that multinational Alfa-Bank, Russia’s largest bank, failed to properly notify Oleg Yakovlev that he was the subject of a Russian lawsuit and default judgment stemming from a guaranty he signed two years before he left Russia.
Yakovlev, who once co-owned a chain of Banana-Mama children’s stores in Moscow and St. Petersburg, fled the country with his two daughters in 2009 amid what his lawyer said were efforts by law enforcement agencies to shake him down for money and a cut of a planned sale of the business, which he described as similar to Toys R Us.
According to court filings, Yakovlev agreed to sign a surety agreement for an entity known as Trial Trading House for tens of millions of dollars and rubles. Alfa-Bank’s complaint said Yakovlev was “at certain times” both a shareholder and an employee of the company.
Yakovlev’s attorney, James Johnson of Knight Johnson, which has offices in Atlanta and Los Angeles, said his client’s reasons for signing the note were “unclear for a lot of reasons.”
“It wasn’t his money, he didn’t get it, but did sign the agreement,” Johnson said.
In late 2008, Trial Trading defaulted, according to the complaint. But a brief supporting Yakovlev’s summary judgment bid says that, between October 2008 and April 2009, he had several conversations with bank representatives “to discuss its demand that Yakovlev assign shares in his company, Banana-Mama (who is not the borrower) to plaintiff.”
At no point did the bank tell Yakovlev that Trial Trading had not met its obligations, nor was he informed that the bank intended to sue him, he said.
In April 2009, Yakovlev and his daughters flew to New York and applied for political asylum. Nineteen days later, Alfa-Bank sued him in Meschansky District Court in Moscow, claiming that Trial Trading had defaulted and Yakovlev had to repay the debt.
The bank sent multiple notices of its suit to Yakovlev’s former home and office. When he failed to appear, the court tried the case without him and in September 2009 awarded a judgment of $30,530,136.
In 2011, Trial Trading was declared bankrupt and liquidated, the bank’s complaint said.
Yakovlev said he knew nothing of the trial or judgment until October 2014, when Alfa-Bank sued him under the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, seeking to enforce the judgment in San Diego County Superior Court.
The complaint, filed by Robin Ball, Susan St. Denis and Michael Distefano of Chadbourne & Parke’s Los Angeles office, argued that Yakovlev had been properly informed of the suit under Russian law, that the court that entered the judgment had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, and that the judgment should be enforced under the UFMJRA.
Ball said the legal team is reviewing the ruling and declined to comment further.
Unlike some tycoons who have fled the Russian Republic with substantial fortunes stashed in foreign banks, Yakovlev is of limited means, Johnson said: his U.S. employment history includes working at The Gap and moonlighting as a Lyft driver.
Johnson and co-counsel Anton Vialtsin, of San Diego’s Delicino & Vialtsin, argued that the Russian court never had personal jurisdiction over Yakovlev because he had never been properly notified; that he had never been afforded a chance to raise a defense; and that the Russian litigation “was incompatible with the requirements of due process of law.” They said he was unaware of the Russian court’s actions until he was served.
“Imagine the shock of that moment,” they wrote. “And imagine the singular question that stands out from the other emotions running through your head: ‘Why was I never told about any of this?'”
Discovery was complicated, Johnson noted, particularly concerning issues of “whether Russian due process was compatible with U.S. and California notions of due process,” said Johnson.
Depositions of the bank’s witnesses had to be by video conference.
On June 10, the parties appeared for a hearing on dueling summary judgment motions before Judge Eddie Sturgeon. On Monday, he entered an order decreeing that, while Alfa-Bank had met its burden of showing that the Russian court had granted a judgment enforceable under the UFMJRA, Yakovlev had also met his burden of proving that the foreign court had no jurisdiction over him.
“There is no dispute defendant was not personally served in Russia, and … there was nothing in the surety agreement waiving his right to service of process,” Sturgeon wrote.
Evidence did show Yakovlev left Russia without notifying the bank, the judge wrote, and under Russian law “the failure to notify the bank of this change may be bad faith justifying a finding that Yakovlev should be held liable. However, the bank has failed to cite any case within the United States which allows this court to find effective service of process under the facts presented here.”
Johnson said he was gratified at the judge’s order, as well as for the opportunity to joust with lawyers from Chadbourne & Parke, “a global mega-firm with infinite resources.”
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
Johnson and co-counsel Anton Vialtsin, of San Diego’s Delicino & Vialtsin, argued that the Russian court never had personal jurisdiction over Yakovlev because he had never been properly notified; that he had never been afforded a chance to raise a defense; and that the Russian litigation “was incompatible with the requirements of due process of law.” 