Proposition 8 in the news

The PE does a community service here in explaining that homeowners laboring under inflated home prices can get their home's temporarily reassessed to reduce their taxes. However, the new assessment isn't subject to Prop 13's limitations on yearly increases. In other words, whereas under prop. 13 you are only subject to a 2% increase in assessed value per year, under prop 8 the homeowner is subject to the whims of the market up to a maximum of the homeowner's original tax basis.

Civilian trial for Marine accused of murdering civilians in Iraq

The PE reports that a former Marine accused of killing two civilians in Iraq was found not guilty by a local jury. Interestingly, Jose Nazario was working as a probationary police officer in RivCo when he was arrested. Apparently, an investigation into four deaths of Iraqi civilians by Nazario's squad let the Federal govt to believe that Narzario killed the men without justification. Interestingly, there were only two witnesses both of whom refused to testify. Why? because they were Nazario's squad members who were also going to be charged with murder. The fifth amendment affords them the right to not testify against themselves. Without these two there was no way to prove that the four dead men were not hostiles.

An interesting side issue is why the federal prosecutor brought this case in the first instance when he had to know there was little reason to believe he could prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense argued that "the prosecution had failed to prove the men were not resisting and that any crime was committed." That seems pretty obvious.

Full steam ahead

The PE reports here that Calvary chapel Christian School is moving forward with its appeal. According to the schools attorney, " It is a clear-cut case of discrimination by a secular institution against a church-based one that could affect religious-based education in the country as a whole."

Mortgage fraud and rackets

The PE reports here on some of the prevalent mortgage related rackets taking place by otherwise law abiding citizens. Cuidado.

Church and state matters

Back in 2005 several students from Murrieta Christian school were applying to the UC schools and wanted their Christian focused literature and history classes to meet the UC's prerequisites. Apparently, the UC Regents refused and a row was on. The students sued in federal court on the basis of religious discrimination. Their point was that provided the courses were academically rigorous that they should serve as prerequisites. The UC Regents contended that the courses were not sufficiently rigorous.

U.S. District Judge S. James Otero ruled:

The decision to reject a course is constitutional, the judge wrote in his opinion, provided "UC did not reject the course because of animus" and "UC had a rational basis for rejecting the course." The plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence, he wrote, to show that the university "rejected the challenged courses to punish religious viewpoints rather than out of rational concern about the academic merit of those religious viewpoints." See the PE report here.

The important point to note is the judges contention that the UC had a rational basis. This is called the rational basis test. Most government actions under this test will pass. The govt only has to show that the action has a rational basis and that its chosen method is reasonable. The students attorney is quoted as saying that the judge applied the wrong standard. He obviously wanted the judge to apply the "strict scrutiny" standard. Under this test, the govt has to show that its position or law is narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. Under this standard many government laws and actions fail and are struck down. The attorney apparently wanted the UC's decision on the course work to be strictly scrutinized.

The attorney promises to appeal and in fact promises that it may go all the way to the Supreme Court. That probably is the only way the students will get relief. They must first go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. It is the most overturned of all federal appellate courts. It often gets its rulings wrong. There is probably little hope for the 9th Circuit reversing Judge Otero. This together with the fact that the Supreme court only takes approximately 70-80 cases per year, the students prospects are slim. Stay tuned.

Ouch, that's going to leave a mark

As most readers of this blog know, the IELB regularly whines about the lack of progress for handling of civil cases. Most know that because of the staggering number of criminal cases, that the county has been required by law to re-assign its civil judges to criminal cases. This wasn't enough for DA Rod Pacheco, though. He wanted the courts to reassign probate, juvenile and family law judges as well. The judges refused. Mr. Pacheco couldn't stand for this. His reputation as a tough crime fighter was on the line. So what if the administration of justice of non-criminal cases stopped? He's got to campaign that he's tough on crime. So naturally he appealed the judge's refusal to a panel of Orange County Superior Court judges. The PE reports here that the panel summarily rejected Mr. Pacheco's position.

Sanity prevails. The IELB recognizes and appreciates that the county is underserved with judges. The county should have 12o judicial positions based on its size. It only has approx 76. We're nearly 50 judges short. It may be that Mr. Pacheco believes that by creating a crisis the legislature will address the shortfall. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that the Legislature will ever give this matter the attention it deserves in today's economic climate. As such, non-criminal justice must continue. This ruling is a substantial breath of fresh air. Now if only we could get the civil judges back to work on civil cases. Sigh...

Coachella motor home park part 2

Several months back the IELB noted several legal issues regarding a mobile home park on indian land used mostly by migrant workers. The feds wanted to shut down the park, but the importance of the park to those who lived there was undeniable and argued in favor of keeping it open. The parties are still involved in the litigation as reported here by the PE.

Grab your wallet

The PE reports that the state and cities/counties are fighting over your tax dollars. Rest assured the loser in the battle is going to look to the tax payers.

Radio silence for 4 months and nothing's changed

I'm sure my legion of readers have wondered what's with the radio silence: Four months of no posts. I'm guilty, I apologize to all those disappointed by the lack of updates. Nevertheless, the news continues and I shall get right to the updates. The main update is that even after no posts for four months, the judicial crises remains as serious as ever. See here for the PE's report on 22 criminal case dismissals in July. As long time readers know, this has been an ongoing problem. There are simply too many criminal cases and not enough judges. The district attorney refuses to offer realistic plea bargain to criminal defendants who simply demand a trial. If the DA would offer more lenient plea bargains many of these cases could be disposed short of trial. However, when the DA refuses to make offers the criminals will take we get the backlog and, most importantly, for my law practice, civil judges are reassigned to criminal trials. This greatly hampers the administration of civil cases. It's no way to do business, but alas...