Joseph Devine asked:
The Plenary Power Doctrine is a central, integral feature of the Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence (the entire subject of law, the study of law and legal questions) since the late 19th century. The doctrine gives the legislative and executive branches broad authority to regulate immigration. In addition, the doctrine holds that the courts should generally not interfere in immigration cases.
The Plenary Power Doctrine gives Congress and the President the power to make policy free from judicial review. It rests on the assumption that anything related to immigration is a question of national sovereignty that is related to a nation’s right to define its own borders.
During the Chinese Exclusion Case of 1889, the Plenary Power Doctrine was first articulated. In this instance, the Supreme Court upheld a statute which barred Chinese laborers from entering the United States. It did not subject law in question to any substantive constitutional analysis.
This doctrine shields a variety of immigration provisions from constitutional scrutiny. As a result, in Matthews v. Diaz (1976), “in the exercise of its broad powers over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”
Fortunately, the doctrine has not gone unchallenged. It has been challenged over the years by a variety of people including academics, other judges, and advocates of immigrants’ rights. Despite their efforts, the Supreme Court has not formally rejected the doctrine.
During arguments in front of the Supreme Court and other district courts, the representatives of the government frequently rely on the doctrine when defending or arguing in favor of a law that is being subjected to an attack on constitutional grounds.
In addition to being seen as having plenary powers in the areas of immigration, Congress is generally viewed as having plenary power in the area of commerce and its regulation. While no one has officially recognized limits on Congress’ plenary power concerning immigration, there have been successful challenges to the idea when it concerns commerce. As a result, Congress’ powers over commerce are no longer complete and covering all matters.
Due to the complicated nature of immigration laws, it is rarely a good idea for people to attempt to defend their case on their own. Immigrants facing criminal charges are in greatest need of representation.
Jeff Bender asked:
Despite what many people claim, there are several good reasons for the existence of free court records. First and foremost, the fact that court records are public means that the public (that is to say, all of us) can monitor the actions of courts in order to determine its accuracy. There has been more than one case when only the free access to court records has let the justice to be served.
Then, there is a wider case of public control over the government and the freedom of information that have been helping keep the U.S. democracy together for over two centuries. It will not be possible to keep an eye on local or federal government actions unless we have the right to access the public records to check what they have really been doing all that time. And we can’t do it fully without ability to check the court records, too.
And last, but not least, there is a matter of our personal and business safety. On many occasions it is crucial for us to know who we are dealing with. It is only logical that we will try to access to (preferably free) court records in an attempt to check the possible criminal record of our prospect business partner, major provider or an odd-acting neighbor. However, this is the moment when the right to access the public records conflicts with another major right – the right to privacy.
There many ways for people to access to court records, depending on the individual solutions chosen by the local court. Basically, you can either look for them at commercial websites such as Choice Point (though you can’t hope for the court records to be free) or at your local court webpages, or in the court archives. If you choose the latter alternative, you will receive free court records, but you will have to do most of the digging yourself, since there is no single, universal government-run database containing court records from all around the United States. The first alternative is usually much faster, though somewhat more expensive, too.
Either way, be warned that in many cases you can expect the data to be either harder to find or less informative than you might think. The major problem of free court records is that while there are no technical problems concerning publishing complete set of all public and court records on the Internet, such system is unable to discern between the honest citizens and potential scammers and identity thieves.
If such people were able to get access to the vital information concerning someone – its name, Social Security number, driving licence and a photo (and all such information may be parts of the court record even in case of a witness) – they could easily impersonate that person and commit frauds or crimes in that person’s name. Of course, there are also several other dangers of publishing court records – false accusations, denying of a mortgage or work because of minor wrongdoings, revealing the witnesses’ personal data as well as the risk of a technical mistake.
That is why many courts throughout the United States have ruled to seal most information concerning people’s privacy or allow searching their databases solely by a case number, not a name. While in many cases you can plea to the court to reveal some personal data, it can only be done with regard to a specific case. Such information are generally available only to specific organizations and businesses that need credential verification or pre-employment information. Usually it is done through some private database such as Choice Point and only rarely we can access the information directly rather than after being processed by the service provider.
Howard Iken asked:
Conjure up an image of divorce. The average person visualizes people sitting in a courtroom, giving testimony, with a judge at a bench presiding over everything. But the actual reality of most divorces is dramatically different. Forget high profile, exciting confrontations in courtrooms that were built 50 years ago. Most of the time, one or both spouses will never see the inside of a courtroom. More often that not, one spouse attends a short, 10 minute hearing. During the hearing a judge reviews a mediated settlement agreement, previously negotiated by the parties. If everything looks proper, the judge signs off on the divorce.
The vast majority of divorces in Florida are relatively boring exchanges of paperwork and telephone calls, rather than exciting court action. The average divorce case consists of tons of paperwork creation. The mountain of paperwork is interrupted by long waiting periods. Those waiting periods allow the opposing party time to create and send a similar pile of paperwork. The legal action consists of repetitive paperwork, exchange of financial documents, punctuated by the occasional phone call. The process rarely varies and the paperwork in each case is similar if not the exact same. One spouse sends a petition, the other sends an answer. Each spouse exchanges financial affidavits, tax returns, paycheck stubs, and other types of documentation. The attorneys act as paperwork mills, churning and spinning out pounds of identical documents into the postal system. Copies of documents are filed with the court records office. Judges rarely, if ever get involved at this stage. All of the documents, legal pleadings, notices, and forms, are oriented toward the mediation process. If mediation is successful it is the final event in most divorces.
In Florida, and in many states in the U.S., the process of mediation has become a mandatory step in a divorce. In the Mediation meeting each party, their attorney, and a neutral-unbiased mediator meet in a room. The mediator’s job is to negotiate an agreement that will cover all divorce issues. If the parties come to an agreement, a contract is written by the mediator and everyone signs the contract. At that moment in time the divorce is virtually over. The written agreement is binding and all parties must obey the terms. The only formality is to have a judge sign the final judgment.
Mediation appears to work. Over 90% of divorce cases settle by the time they get to mediation. Of the 10% that do not settle by mediation, the majority settle some time before final trial. The bottom line: only 1 out of 100 divorce cases go through the colorful confrontation in a courtroom that many people visualize or see on television. The vast majority, 99 out of 100 cases, never make it to court. There is no doubt: mediation works. The benefit: thousands of dollars in attorney fees are saved. Money that could pay for rebuilt lives is not diverted to the bank accounts of each attorney. Cases are brought to an early end. And each party to the divorce ends up having little or no contact with the court.
Copyright 2005 The Divorce Center P.A.
Andrew Bicknell asked:
Because everything is bigger in Texas doing a search for Texas district court records can be quite a daunting task. Consider that there are 443 district courts within the state, each with its own set of records it is easy to see that finding criminal records while doing a background check could take some time and effort.
When you add the fact that there are also 254 county and 917 municipal courts that also hold Texas public court records it is nearly impossible to hunt down criminal and other background information on someone. Or at least that’s the way it used to be until the public record websites came on the scene.
Here’s how finding specific court records used to work. Each court has an employee known as the court retriever whose job it is to search for and find specific records and case reports upon request. After the required paper work is filled out and submitted it can take up to 72 hours before the records are retrieved and ready for you. This can be longer then most people are willing to wait. And when you consider that some people may have records in multiple courts you can see how it may be difficult to find all the records that may pertain to them.
At least that’s how it used to be. Like most states Texas has moved to input all the paper files and micro-fiche records that were kept at each district, county, and municipal court into computerized databases. This makes finding court records and doing background checks much easier when you use a public records search website.
These websites give you access to records that are considered public domain, which most court records fall under. This makes it exceedingly easy to run thorough background checks on just about anyone. In many cases you will also gain access to *** offender records, bankruptcy reports, marriage and divorce records, tax liens, and other publicly available information. These sites do charge a small fee to join but your membership will give you unlimited searches for the lifetime of that membership.
Finding Texas district court records is easy if you use an online public records website and any search you do will be completely anonymous with no one being the wiser.
Kirk Randolph asked:
The United States Constitution guarantees all defendants a public trial. This also guarantees public access to the transcripts of criminal trials except in cases where the court itself orders the trial records sealed. For instance, in a juvenile criminal trial, where the judge determines the crime to be an isolated event, he may order the records sealed to prevent undue future harm to the defendant. Other areas of criminal court history that won’t be available to the public are those areas that pertain to family court issues involving a minor child.
Each state has its own criteria for acquiring a person’s criminal court history. In general though, you need the person’s name, the date of the trial, and if possible the docket number of the trial. You can give this information to clerk and they will access the records for you. Some states, like Massachusetts, will require valid personal identification to be presented before they search. Also, some states require that you make your request in person. To determine if your state requires you to make the request for a person’s criminal court history in person, you should contact your local courthouse. They will also be able to tell you whether there is a fee for the search.
Often, people see a television program where a character accesses a database and finds every criminal court reference to a person. Or a private investigator taps out a few keystrokes and prints out a person’s entire life history with no effort whatsoever. Legal databases such as those seen on television are not publicly available. The private investigator is using a skip trace program or service that he pays for. Social Security numbers are not part of a person’s criminal court history. You can’t look up court history information that way.
One last thing, to look up a person’s criminal court history in federal court, you will need to approach the federal court system, not state or local. Many federal trials are of a more sensitive nature to the safety of the country than state and local so you may not be able to access them through the court archives without a Freedom of Information form. Whether or not the records are publicly available you will still need to provide the person’s name, the trial date, and if possible the docket number of the trial.
Andrew Bicknell asked:
You could have many reasons for trying to find Oklahoma district court records for a particular person. Maybe you are trying to find the outcome of a certain court case or you are doing a background check on a potential employee. What ever the reason going online can expedite your search in ways that were not possible only ten years ago.
Back in the pre-internet era finding court records for Oklahoma would be a somewhat tedious task. Before criminal records found their way into computerized databases they were stored in files and on micro-fiche at the individual court house where the case was tried. This would mean a trip to that particular court house to put in a request for the court records pertaining to that individual. This could result in a wait of 3 or 4 days before receiving the information you were looking for.
Another choice was to hire a private investigator, usually one licensed in the state of Oklahoma. A P.I. knows who to contact and the tricks of the trade when it came to finding court records and other background information on just about anyone. Unfortunately going this route could also take time and also cost quite a bit of money depending on how much time and effort the P.I. put into the search.
This is no longer the case. Oklahoma court records can now be searched for quickly and easily online for minimal cost. Over the last ten years public domain information, including district court records, have found their way into computerized databases. This centralized consolidation of public records has made it much easier to do thorough background checks on just about anyone.
The nice thing about these public records websites is the sheer amount of information they provide right at your fingertips. Not only will you be able to look up district court records you’ll also have access to state and county court records, federal records, arrest reports, bankruptcy records, tax lien information, marriage and divorce information, and just about any other record or report that is considered in the public domain.
The simplicity with which you can look up information on one of these sites is quite amazing. Armed with little more then a persons name and state of residence you can access not only Oklahoma district court records but any other records as well, allowing you to do a complete background check in a matter of minutes. It really doesn’t get any easier then that.
Warren Redlich asked:
Traffic court in Virginia is generally held in the General District Court. Some of the more serious offenses, like a felony DUI, might be handled in a Circuit Court, but most cases are in the district courts. In most of the state, each county and city have their own district court and circuit court, though there are some exceptions.
Speeding tickets in Virginia can carry hefty penalties. Going 81 miles per hour in most states means a fine of between $100 and $400 or so. Not here. If the speed is 20 or more over the limit, or over 80 anywhere, the fine is up to $2500, and it’s considered reckless driving in Virginia Traffic Court. That makes it a crime, not just a violation. It carries 6 points and stays on your record for a long, long time. On top of that, in 2007 the VA legislature added a new surcharge throwing another $1000 onto the costs - and that’s mandatory. This was repealed in 2008 but when the next budget crunch comes, it could return.
And that’s not all. In theory at least you can get jail time. It’s not likely, but the maximum sentence is a year. And your right to drive can be suspended too. Then there’s the impact on your insurance rates. And even for lower speeds, the maximum fine is $500.
Traffic courts in VA also handle DUI cases. The fines can be high, up to $2500 for a first offense, though it is typically well below $1000. Jail time is also possible, but still rare for minor first-time offenders. And the guilty drunk driver loses driving privileges for a year, though it is possible to get a restricted license to drive to and from work. In more serious cases such as a high blood-alcohol content, an accident, or a repeat offender, jail time becomes more likely, the fines go up, and other consequences are more severe as well.
With such serious consequences, it’s not a bad idea to consult with a lawyer before going to traffic court in Virginia.
Joe Hunley asked:
I, for one, was really happy about the Supreme Court’s decision regarding “Heller vs DC”. For once—the Anti-Gun crowd has taken a hit, in their claim that the 2nd Amendment wording “Right of The People”, does not in fact mean “The People–Citizens–Just Me and You”. The Supreme Court has determined otherwise. Not only was this a “Blackeye” for the Anti-Gun crowd, but also a reason of celebration for the Pro-Gun crowd, and indeed, a lot of us did celebrate! However–Let’s look at this “Victory” very carefully!
The Justices determined that the wording, did indeed refer to the people, giving the people the “Right to keep and bear arms”. A more in depth reading of the decision, clarifies the true judgment of the Justices.
1. “…violate the Second Amendment Right of individuals…”
THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, AND THE BAN VIOLATED IT.
2. “…who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia…”
THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT MILITIA STATUS IS IMMATERIAL.
3. “…handguns and other firearms…”
THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT HANDGUNS ARE INCLUDED, THOUGH SOME ROOM WAS LEFT FOR VERY NARROW TYPES OF GUN BANS
4. “…for private use in their homes.”
THE RULING TODAY WAS LIMITED TO “IN THE HOME” AS THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE COURT
This is definitely a victory in our quest for the True wording of the Second Amendment—But the True Battle has just started. San Francisco and Chicago are the first targets of the NRA and Pro-Gun groups. The decision of the Supreme Court will be the focal point of these lawsuits, and you can be certain, that the lawyers for these cities will have one thing on their mind—The Supreme Court ruling Did Not eliminate the power of the States to pass “Reasonable” laws to protect their citizens. What is “Reasonable”? That makes a good question for a Second “Supreme Court Decision”.
The fact is–There will be numerous “Reasonable” laws passed, ( Or shall we say Reasonable Infringements ), by numerous Cities and States, using the LOOPHOLE, that the Supreme Court Ruling has provided ( See Numbers–3 and 4 ). This is the upcoming battle, Not a challenge of the Justices decision—-a Challenge of what the Justices Did Not Decide.
Lisbeth McCarty asked:
I had appeared in court for several years as an attorney before I was ever actually one of the parties in a lawsuit. I always “dressed for success,” wearing the de riguer dark skirted suit with a beige blouse or some variation thereof, with my hair slicked back in a bun. All I had to do was look around to see that this was what was expeted of a woman attorney, as far as attire goes.
I never gave the slightest thought to the clothes being worn by the people I represented. This was mainly for a good reason — I was concentrating on the legal issues of the case at hand. Sometimes, though, I would be so involved in the law that I forgot about the actual people I was representing.
After a few years of practice, however, my marriage disintegrated and I was one of the parties in a divorce. This event, of course, was extremely stressful, but being on the non-lawyer side of the bar also caused me to think about “going-to-court” clothes.
A suit seemed too drastic — too lawyerly. Jeans or a throw-on dress was definitely too casual. I finally settled on what I can define only as a “church” outfit, a simple skirt and blouse which would be jsut as appropriate for Sunday school as it was for court.
I noticed that my lawyer never mentioned clothing to me in any way. I realized that if the lawyer had, I’d have that stress out of the way. Instead, I had to figure it out all on my own.
I began to think about some of my clients, who were not well-educated and probably did not have a wide selection of clothing from which to choose. I learned that my client’s stress may be eased if we discuss proper court attire for a plaintiff/defendant.
Since that time, I have let my clients know that they should dress nicely for court, further describing the clothing as “church” wear. These clients have thanked me for informing them about how to appear in court.
If my clients do not have and cannot afford such attire, I even loan them some of my clothes or take them shopping. This has had a tremendous effect on my clients, and some of them had told me that this helps them tremendously, as they now no longer worry about “looking stupid” in court.
In conclusion, if you are about to attend a court hearing, even though you are not there as part of a fashion show or to be criticized in any way for your apparel, clothes really do make the man. Or the woman.
David M Siegel asked:
While is true that a change in the ability of a recipient of maintenance to support herself could constitute a substantial change in circumstances, the court record indicated that the husband failed to present evidence of a change in the wife’s ability to support herself and the court found that the husband failed to meet his burden of showing a substantial change in circumstances. Without a substantial change in circumstances, the order remains in full force and effect.
In another case, however, the court found differently. In that case, the woman had become employed. The court record supported the trial court’s determination that she remained unable to adequately support herself through her employment and that no substantial change of circumstances had occurred for her financially. Thus, she continued to receive the support from her ex-spouse.
The court will often look at the income and expenses of the parties to see if a change has occurred. If the change is minor, the court will not likely amend the support order. For example, in another case, neither husband nor wife demonstrated a material or substantial change in their relative positions. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to modify the original maintenance award.
When you are considering going back to court to change a support order, keep this in mind; there is a great expense in petitioning the court. Cases are not often resolved in one appearance. Thus, make sure that you truly have a change in circumstances prior to involving the post-decree courts.