I plaintiff in a suit against Episcopal Diocese NY. Constitutional and Human Rights issues. A lawyer to help?
Question by titou: I plaintiff in a suit against Episcopal Diocese NY. Constitutional and Human Rights issues. A lawyer to help?
I was summarily ejected for no reason from a landmark New York City church by the Rector, who threatened me with immediate arrest for Trespass. Since, he and the administration of the Church have waged a campaign against me for over four years that has included slander, and false claims to both the Police and the District Attorney’s Office. My own investigation has uncovered a vast and documentable corruption leading all the way up to the present and previous Bishops of New York, and includes prominent Episcopal clergymen. Sounds impossible, I know, but so did Watergate at first glance. An opportunity to “make Law”, a reputation, and do real good for an attorney willing to give his attention. Case due for hearing in Appeals on October 1, 2007.
Best answer:
Answer by Penguin_Bob
Sounds complicated. I suggest you speak to a lawyer as soon as possible. In most suits you don’t have to pay the lawyer up front … they only get paid an agreed upon portion of any settlement. Be very careful though, if you lose the case YOU could be responsible for paying all the legal costs of the defendants. Big decision, so please don’t take it lightly as you could end up on the hook for many thousands of dollars. I admire your persistance and your adherance to a matter of principle, but …….. Good luck!
Give your answer to this question below!
Are you happy to see your constitutional rights disregarded?
Question by : Are you happy to see your constitutional rights disregarded?
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, freedom of speech zones were set up. Apparently the entire country is not a free speech zone, but there are little areas where we can congregate and speak freely.
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
DUI checkpoints- While I in no way endorse drunk driving as thousands are killed annually from it, DUI checkpoints are a direct violation of the 4th amendment. Random search and seizures based solely on where one is driving is unconstitutional.
The TSA’s controversial patdowns are another violation of the 4th amendment, but there’s a simple solution to this one: Don’t fly. However that’s not an option for many, so thousands of Americans unwillingly get groped by people in the name of security. Benjamin Franklin once said “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”, and that’s as true now as it was back then.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This one just became public, but it’s a big one. Terrorist and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was recently killed in a drone strike. This blatantly violates the 5th amendment beacuse he was not given a trial, but he was “deprived of life…without due process of law”. The president can now order the assassination of an American citizen who he thinks is bad.
Best answer:
Answer by BROhemian Rhapsody is in wuv with soy
old news
What do you think? Answer below!
Global Const_062
Some cool Constitutional Law images:
Global Const_062
Image by rosswrit
Global Const_060
Image by rosswrit
Global Const_048
Image by rosswrit
Nice “Constitutional Law” photos
A few nice Constitutional Law images I found:
Global Const_011
Image by rosswrit
Global Const_096
Image by rosswrit
Global Const_042
Image by rosswrit
Help and Judge these cases?
Question by : Help and Judge these cases?
Okay so pretend your a judge in a court. After reading the case, pick a,b,or c on what you would do and tell me why.
CASE 1: Homer Plessy, a blake citizen of Louisiana, was arrested when he refused to leave a railroad car for whites only. A Louisana law states that blacks and whites must travel in sparate railroad cars, At his trial, he argued that the law is unconstitutional because it denied him “equal protection of the law.” This right is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. A Louisiana court ruled that the law is constitutional. Plessy has taken his case to the Supreme Cout, You are a Supreme Court Justice and must rule in this case. Will you rule that the Louisiana law is:
A. constitutional because it provides “equal protection of the law.”
B. constitutional, but do not issue a written opinion
C. unconstitutional because it denies “equal protection of the law/”
why?
CASE 2: Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix for kidnapping and attacking a women. The women identified him in a police line up. He was questioned for 2 hours before he signed a written confession. His lawyer was not present during the questioning, but no force was used to make him sign. Miranda was found guilty and sent to prison. His lawyers have brought the case to the supreme court. They claim that Miranda didn’t know that he had a right to a lawyer, He was unaware that he had a right to refuse to answer questions. The police argue that Miranda signed the confuession of his own free will. Also, the women identified him in the line up. Will you rule that Miranda’s rights were”
A. not violated, and that he should remain in jail
B. violated, but the women’s identification is enough to convict him
C. violated, and he should be released from jail.
answer and why?
HELP!! I’m only 13 and don’t understand a thing. It’s for History.
Best answer:
Answer by Artemis Gwen
I’m not going to give you MY answers because it is important for you to make the decision for yourself. I’ll give you a little bit of information in the hopes you will be able to decide which answer is the best one.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a Louisiana law mandating separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites on intrastate railroads was constitutional. This decision provided the legal foundation to justify many other actions by state and local governments to socially separate blacks and whites. Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education.
This means that Brown v. Board of Education found that segregating blacks and whites was unconstitutional.
The rational of the Brown v. Board of Education Court’s decision was based on the dehumanizing effects of segregation: “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.”
In Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) the Court held that confessions made when a person his in police custody can only be admissible at trial if the prosecution can show that the defendant was told he had the right to talk to an attorney before he was questioned by the police. If the prosecutor can’t prove that the person was given this information, the confession cannot be used against him in his trial. This means that if the confession was the ONLY reason the defendant was convicted, the defendant goes free. If there is other evidence against the defendant, the prosecutor can still try to convict him.
Give your answer to this question below!
Nice “Constitutional Law” photos
A few nice Constitutional Law images I found:
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.