According to the New York Times:
This month, the Bush administration rolled out a new strategy to solve illegal immigration and just as quickly rolled it back in. It was called Operation Scheduled Departure, and it was simply this: It asked people to turn themselves in.
Guess how many took the government on this supposed offer?
8!
A Rhode Island bishop is helping out of status aliens and suggesting that the state and federal authorities should go elsewhere.
What are your thoughts?
LEASE VISIT US ONLINE AT:
According to this Washington Post article, a man is suspected of having child pornography on his computer but the files are encrypted. The FBI wants the man to type in his password to decrypt the illegal photos. The man argues that to do so would constitute self-incrimination. So far the judge agrees with the suspect.
"If [he] does know the password, he would be faced with the forbidden trilemma: incriminate himself, lie under oath, or find himself in contempt of court," the judge said.
So far the judge agrees, what are your thoughts?
PLEASE VISIT US ONLINE AT:
Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, has some interesting perspectives on immigration from a practical perspective. Key quote:
It’s a managerial one, and any plan that suggests that the US deport illegal workers violates one of management’s cardinal rules: you have to face reality. Forget the notion that illegal immigrants will suddenly heed “the law of the land” and pack their bags.
The problem with the debate on immigration is that it is not a question of black and white at this point. The United States has neither the resources nor the motivation to round up 11 million individuals and deport them. It simply is not going to happen. With that said, what do we do? This is one those areas that there is going to be no "right" answer. However, it seems that most Americans are united in their belief that something should happen.
Nichols & Eberth, PC ask:
1. What would you do with the illegal immigrants currently in this country?
2. Are you in favor or amnesty and/or a path to citizenship for those here illegally?
3. What should happen to employers who hire illegal immigrants?
Please visit us online at:
Your Internet Link To All Things Legal
The Oklahoma legislature passed a sweeping new law that many are suggesting is the toughest against illegal immigrants in the nation.
One quote stands out "You don't have to round up 20 million {which is 9 million more than most experts have estimated} aliens," Berman said. "Stop the two free benefits you're giving them-free health care and free education- and they'll go back across the Rio Grande."
It is important for us to correct the misleading elements of this. No illegal immigrant is entitled to any means-based assistance such as Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare or any other service. If people hear otherwise they are incorrect. What happens sometimes is that many non-profit and religious organizations (in particular the Catholic Church) aid illegal immigrants. However, this aid is not from the government, it is purely private. Additionally, with respect to health care specifically, the issue is that no hospital may turn away an individual in an emergency. Regarding education, by enacting such a law are we not punishing the children for the decisions of their parents?
Nichols & Eberth, PC ask the following questions:
USCIS has suggested that, due to a surge in the number of Naturalization applications, the processing times are going to be substantially increased. Instead of a 7-9 month process, it is likely that it will be 18-24 months.
In his testimony before the House committee, Gonzalez said: “This surge will have a serious impact on application processing times for the next couple of years. As a result, based on our response plan, most customers will wait much longer to have their applications completed. As we have reported, the average processing time for naturalization applications has increased from the current average of seven months or less to approximately 18 months. Family-based adjustment-of-status applications increased from the current average of six months or less to 12 months. Our two-year response plan will help us accomplish reducing processing times to six months by the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010.
Please visit us online at:
Your Internet Link To All Things Legal
As attorneys we tend to be a fairly serious bunch most of the time. Additionally, it is incumbent upon attorneys to demonstrate judicial deference for that is how the entire system has operated for centuries. However, the legal profession also needs to see humor and irony when it stares them at the face.
The New Hampshire Union Leader reports:A Boston-based federal judge wore a black cocktail dress, fish-net stockings and high heels when police arrested him for drunk driving after he rear-ended a pickup truck last week, sources said.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Somma, 63, struck a plea deal with the city Wednesday in which he pleaded no contest to a first-offense misdemeanor driving while intoxicated charge in Manchester District Court. In exchange, the judge agreed to pay $600 in fines and penalties and a 12-month license suspension, which can be reduced to six months if he proves he successfully completed a driver education and alcohol awareness course, court records show.
The arresting officer made no mention of the judge's attire in the written report police provided to the media other than to note the judge "had a difficult time locating his license in his purse."{emphasis added}
It is certainly not our place to judge the Judge lest we be judged ourselves.
Please visit our webpage at:Your Internet Link To All Things Legal
Burgh Diaspora: Knowledge Economy Geography for New Pittsburgh
This article opines that the Rust-Belt, where Nichols & Eberth, PC is proudly located, could be helped by an infusion of capital coming from immigrants. Many people are surprised to hear that one can legally "buy" a green card for between $500,000.00 and $1,000,000.00. Unlike many other countries' investment visas, the US requires that the investor be an active participant in the business venture. However, with careful structuring of the business operation, day-to-day management is generally unnecessary. The investment pilot program started in the last decade but was not widely used. In fact, out of an allocated 10,000 visas, only 3,000 are used each year. Part of this is the shear complexity of the process, while the other hindrances have come in the form of unscrupulous companies preying on investment-minded immigrants.
Going back to the linked story, Detroit could certainly use a capital infusion. With just 250 investors, over $125 million in capital could be invested in Detroit.
Attorneys at Nichols & Eberth, PC are experienced in investment visas, both with the pilot program and stand-alone programs. Should you wish more information, please visit our site at: www. michiganattorney.com .
Due to the interpretation of an Attorney General's opinion, on January 22, 2008, Michigan became the first state in the union to restrict drivers licenses to legal non-immigrants, including students, executives, research scientists and professional workers. While immigration advocates were quite vocal in their opposition, it was the Michigan Chamber of Commerce that finally had the political muscle to change the law which Governor Granholm is expected to sign shortly. Here is a copy of the final bill.
NICHOLS & EBERTH, PC ask:
1. Do you think that illegal or undocumented aliens should have drivers licenses?
2. If you do not think so, how do we track those who are in this country?
As always, please visit us at our webpage:
Your Internet Link To All Things Legal
In yet another example of the Department of Homeland Security's inconsistency in the field of immigration, DHS indicated that they will forego advanced background checks for up to 47,000 green card applicants. While all have gone through a criminal background check and fingerprint check, the names check and other intelligence checks will be temporarily abated. According to published reports, DHS will eventually conduct the lengthy background checks and if there is an issue, the applicant will be immediately removable (i.e. deportable).
This issue is glaring example of the general inefficiency of our nation's immigration policy. With all the rhetoric of national security and the calling for permanent walls on the US Southern border, this current practice only seems to underscore that we have no consistent national immigration policy.It seems legally incongruent that we would identify Amy Winehouse as being an 'undesirable', but then allow an individual who could have ties to terrorism to have a green card. Additionally, it underscores that our intelligence community is effectively broken. If it takes years to conduct a comprehensive background check on an individual; how does this offer the public any assurance of security? WIth all the tough talk of the PATRIOT Act, it has been implemented in an ad hoc fashion.
On the other side of the matter, many of these people who are applying have been waiting for years and there is no indication of when a decision will be reached. This effectively clogs the system and creates enormous backlogs that impact every aspect of immigration.
One amusing statement in the linked Washington Post article is the FBI's proposed interim solution. They proposed "contracting" additional FBI officers. That is, they are outsourcing this!
NICHOLS & EBERTH ask:
QUESTION: 1. What are your thoughts on this prescient matter?
As always, please visit us at our webpage:
Your Internet Link For All Things Legal
If you listen to some people's perspectives, one would imagine that 2008 is a society filled with utter debauchery and sleaze. It isn't. Compared with the 1970's this is a time of moral righteousness. For example, the Bad News Bears was rated PG in the 1970s, while today, it would, undoubtedly, be rated R. For a far different example, we only need to turn our attention to Amy Winehouse. For those not following the story, Amy Winehouse was the breakthrough artist of 2007 and, as such, she was invited to the Grammys. Amy Winehouse is also known for more than her music, due to her frequent skirmishes with the law in England and elsewhere in Europe. As such, the United State State Department refused to grant her a visa to come to perform at the Grammys.
Now I explain this to people and they say "well, she knows the rules, so she gets what she deserves" In short, there is little sympathy. I will not take the position on whether she deserves or does not deserve sympathy, but I will suggest that we have changed our position on this matter over the years. I only have to mention three well-known names to prove my point: Paul McCartney, John Lennon and Mick Jagger. All three of whom had multiple drug busts around the world and yet all three were permitted non-immigrant visas to come to the US and perform. By today's standard, nearly every major act of the 1970's and 1980s would not be permitted to work in the United States. In an ironic twist, both Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have expressed that they have little sympathy for her troubles.
If we examine the reciprocal nature of immigration law (that is to say, that the UK and the US have mutual agreements where we allow their citizens to come here without a visa and vice versa), both Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel would be prohibited from playing in London as Paul has admitted to using marijuana recreationally (itself a bar for a visa) and with Art's arrest (with Garfunkel being arrest only a few years ago). Additionally, there is reference to Paul's arrest at a demonstration in Me and Julio Down By the Schoolyard. Anti-government protests can also be used to deny a visa. Somehow I do not think that Simon & Garfunkel are a threat to London's security.
No one questions that the United States, as a sovereign entity, has the absolute right (or in legal parlance, plenary power) to control who comes into the country. The US had an absolute right to deny Ms. Winehouse a visa and I have not heard anyone say anything to the contrary.
NICHOLS & EBERTH, PC poses the following question: is this the best use of our immigration policy? Could this dampen the artistic interdependence between: US, Canada, Australia, UK and Western Europe?
As always, please visit us at our webpage:
Your Internet Link To All Things Legal
It is expected that the Michigan Court of Appeals will rule on whether to uphold Judge Colombo's decision to release documents pertaining to the alleged relationship between Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his Chief of Staff. While it seems that the public has the right to political transparency, the judicial process survives on settlement agreements to be kept under seal. Thus, we have competing interests in this matter. The entire process of judicial sanctity is called into question when a sealed settlement agreement is leaked. This could potentially reek havoc on the entire ADR field. However, this case was not like any other case. It was a case involving the entire City of Detroit and, unfortunately, the Mayor chose to put his concerns over the concerns of his constituents.
QUESTION: How does one balance the interests of providing the public with full transparency, while, at the same time respecting the confidential nature of settlement agreements? Further, where does private life start and public life begin?
About two years ago, immigration was a purely bi-partisan issue. McCain, along with Kennedy, put forward a very comprehensive approach that no one truly liked. It is an axiom of politics that if all sides to a debate disagree with the proposed legislation, it probably strikes the proper balance. The pro-immigration group did not like the work-permit provisions as, they argued, it fosters a permanent subclass of citizens as it has done in France. The anti-immigrant movement, which has been gaining momentum over the past few years did not like it either. The anti-immigration 'movement' seems to be directly related to the economy. As the economy is inching towards a potential recession, the sentiment has only garnered strength.
Unfortunately,there are no simple answers. It is altogether doubtful, if not logistically impossible, to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants. Further, of these so-called illegals, many of them came to the US legally and let their status lapse; a fact that seems lost on many in this country. This is highly relevant as it is demonstrative of the intellectual dishonesty that both sides engage in. Whether we like it or not, our economy is inexplicably linked to illegal immigration. Thus, it is appropriate to cite the position by Judge Posner, one of the most lauded jurists of our generation and widely regarded as the chief authority on economics and the law. Read it here.
In the past month, I have received several emails that I would describe as pure propaganda. One concerned Obama which was full of highly inflammatory erroneous information. The second one dealt with immigration. Essentially the immigration article dealt with this widespread belief that immigrants do not pay taxes and they are entitled to public assistance. Even if you do not like Obama, or you are negative on immigration, one must not engage in outright lies to secure your position. There are many logical and well-reasoned critiques of immigration without having to resort to this level of discourse.
Fortunately, there is a website that debunks many of these claims, as well s internet chain letters. Here is a link to their discussion on immigration.
One attorney is certainly going to be in hot water upon learning that one of their emails describing settlement negotiations made the front page of the New York Times. Email is so quick and is used more and more for highly sensitive and critical messages that we, oftentimes, forget about the consequences of pressing that magic "send" button. While we have had encrypted email for years, it is hardly a standard in the industry. It is only going to get worse as the Federal Courts already require e-filing and the State of Michigan, as of January 1, 2008, has permitted service on opposing counsel to be done via email.
Perhaps attorneys should require that, as part of their representation of a client, that the client be giving an email key so as to ensure a closed circuit of communication.
What are your thoughts?
At the CPAC convention this morning, President Bush proclaimed Vice President Cheney to be the best VP in US history.
What are your thoughts?
Britney Spears recent release from the UCLA medical center, where she was receiving treatment for an undisclosed psychiatric disorder, has brought mental illness into the forefront. Apparently, Britney visited her attorney upon discharge to discuss the situation. People oftentimes do not realize the legal component to mental health. In Michigan psychiatric matters are handled by the Probate court and is governed by the Michigan Mental Health Code.
"In November, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Clifford Taylor will be running to retain his seat. Although elections are technically non-partisan, everyone knows that Taylor is a Republican. There has been much speculation as to whom the Michigan Democratic Party will seek to have run against Taylor. So far, the following names have been rumored:
NICHOLS & EBERTH, PC wishes to highlight some persistent myths about immigration law. The views expressed below represent AILA and are not necessarily those of NICHOLS & EBERTH, PC. For more information about immigration law, please visit our website.
From AILA:
TOP 5 IMMIGRATION MYTHS OF THIS CAMPAIGN SEASON:
Ending the Immigration Spin - Just the Facts
Immigration has already figured prominently in the Presidential primary campaigns and the issue is unlikely to fade from the limelight any time soon. Debates over immigration policy have always generated strong emotional reactions, but the intensity surrounding the current national debate has reached new levels. The rhetoric by some of the Presidential candidates and their supporters has moved from hyperbole to unbridled misrepresentation.
The American public is justifiably angry about undocumented immigration and the Federal government’s failure to gain control over our borders. But if we ever hope to adopt a practical policy solution that restores the rule of law and advances the interests of our nation, we must untangle fact from fiction. Perpetuating myths and exploiting fears to drive policy are two sure-fire ways to make a bad situation worse.
As the campaign season rolls onward and the intensity of the debate escalates, five recurring myths must be dispelled to clear the way for honest dialogue.
MYTH #1: Enforcement-only policies are a practical solution to the problem of undocumented immigration.
FACTS: Policies geared only towards “sealing the border” or deporting the undocumented without reforming the immigration system and providing a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants already in the country would cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars and have a devastating impact on vast swaths of the U.S. economy.
A 2005 study from the Center for American Progress (CAP) estimates that it would cost between $206 billion and $230 billion over five years to deport all undocumented immigrants from the United States. Moreover, in a 2006 study, CAP calculates that removing all undocumented immigrants from the U.S. labor force would result in a shortfall of nearly 2.5 million less-skilled workers.
As a 2006 report from the Pew Hispanic Center notes, there were 14.6 million people in families headed by undocumented immigrants as of March 2005, including 3.1 million U.S.-citizen children and 1.8 million undocumented children, as well as adult family members who are legally present in the United States. Attempting to deport all undocumented immigrants would therefore disrupt entire families and communities and decimate industries that depend heavily on immigrant workers, both legal and undocumented.
The Pew report also estimates that the 7.2 million workers among the 11.5 undocumented immigrants in the United States as of March 2005—while accounting for 4.9 percent of the labor force as a whole—comprised 24 percent of all workers in farming, fishing, and forestry; 17 percent in building and grounds cleaning and maintenance; 14 percent in construction; 12 percent in food preparation and serving; and 9 percent in production occupations. Mass deportations therefore would have a devastating effect on numerous industries, particularly given the small and shrinking number of younger native-born workers available to fill these kinds of less-skilled jobs.
MYTH #2: Immigrant workers suppress the wages of American workers.
FACTS: The overwhelming majority of economists agree that immigrants increase the economic productivity and thus the wages of natives.
A 2006 study by University of California, Davis, economist Giovanni Peri found that because immigrant workers generally “complement”—rather than substitute for—native workers in terms of their education and skills, immigration tends to increase the productivity, and therefore the wages, of natives.
As a result of this “complementarity,” the White House Council of Economic Advisers concluded in a 2007 report that roughly 90 percent of native-born workers experience wage gains from immigration, which total between $30 billion and $80 billion per year.
MYTH #3: The nation spends billions of dollars on welfare for undocumented immigrants.
FACTS: To the contrary, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any “welfare” benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive.
As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public “welfare” benefits—ever. Legal permanent residents (LPRs) must pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems for approximately 10 years before they are eligible to receive benefits when they retire. In most cases, LPRs can not receive SSI, which is available only to U.S. citizens, and are not eligible for means-tested public benefits until 5 years after receiving their green cards.
A 2007 analysis of welfare data by researchers at the Urban Institute reveals that less than 1 percent of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5 percent of households headed by native-born U.S. citizens.
A 2007 analysis of U.S. Census data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities makes clear that it is the U.S.-born, U.S.-citizen children of undocumented immigrants who are eligible for programs such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The analysis found that, between 1995 and 2005, the share of low-income, non-citizen immigrant children (either undocumented or legally present) who received Medicaid or SCHIP dropped from 36 percent to 30 percent. In comparison, there were increases in the Medicaid or SCHIP participation of low-income citizen children, whether they lived in immigrant-headed households or households headed by native-born citizens (rising from 45-47 percent in 1995 to 53-54 percent in 2005)
MYTH #4: Undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.
FACTS: This is a frequently repeated claim, but the exact opposite is true: both undocumented and legal immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.
According to a 2007 study by University of California, Irvine, sociologist Rubén G. Rumbaut, among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the U.S. prison population), the incarceration rate for the native-born (3.5 percent) was five times higher than the rate for immigrants (0.7 percent) in 2000.
The study also found that incarceration rates were lower for immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala—who account for the majority of undocumented immigrants. In 2000, only 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and 0.5 percent of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men were in prison.
A 2005 study by economists Kristin F. Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl, released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, concluded that lower incarceration rates among immigrants are not the result of deportation or the threat of deportation. Rather, immigrants are a “self-selected” group with “low criminal propensities.”
MYTH #5: Immigrants don’t “assimilate” into U.S. society.
FACTS: Immigrants learn English and climb the socioeconomic ladder over time, and their children and grandchildren make even greater strides.
A comprehensive 2007 study released by the Russell Sage Foundation found that:
• Among Latino immigrants who arrived in California between 1960 and 1970, the poverty rate declined from 23.9 percent in 1970 to 16.8 percent in 1980 and 12.6 percent in 1990.
• Latino immigrants in California exhibit exceptionally large gains in homeownership—a key indicator of entry into the middle class. Homeownership rose from 16.4 percent of Latino immigrant householders in California who arrived in the U.S. in the last 10 years to 64.6 percent among those who have lived here for 30 years or more.
• Latino immigrants who arrived in the 1970s in California had a 16.3 percent homeownership rate in 1980, which rose to 33.6 percent in 1990, and then climbed to 51.9 percent in 2000.
A 2007 study by the Pew Hispanic Center found that among “adult first-generation Latinos, just 23% say they can carry on a conversation in English very well. That share rises sharply, to 88%, among the second generation of adults, and to 94% among the third and higher generations.”
According to a 2003 study from the RAND Corporation, “2nd and 3rd-generation Hispanic men have made great strides in closing their economic gaps with native whites. The reason is simple: each successive generation has been able to close the schooling gap with native whites which then has been translated into generational progress in incomes.
As a law firm dedicated to providing exemplary professional services, Nichols & Eberth, PC does not make it a point to weigh in on the side of purely political issues. Such conversations are more appropriate among friends and colleagues and are inappropriate in most circumstances. With that said, as a provider of immigration services, it is incumbent upon us to correct the mischaracterizations on immigration that is en vogue today. One of the chief purveyors of the "blame everything on the immigrants" mantra is Michelle Malkin. Many may know Mrs. Malkin from her frequent appearances on Fox News and her now famous fight with Geraldo (as seen below). However, Mrs. Malkin also peddles her vitriolic sentiments in a immigration-centric spin-off of her widely-read blog. Going forward, Nichols & Eberth, PC will take articles of hers of interest and provide a necessary rebuttal or alternative perspective on the topic. Unlike many firms that practice immigration law, Nichols & Eberth, PC does not always agree with the positions espoused by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the chief professional organization for immigration attorneys. However in the interest of full disclosure, we do have attorneys who are members of AILA. Immigration is far too complex to have a either/or mentality on. As always, we welcome your feedback and your thoughts.
Nichols & Eberth, PC write:
On January 3, 2005, Governor Granholm signed into law a long awaited, and much-debated bill, which now allows grandparents the right to be heard in court should they be denied visitation with their grandchildren. Prior to this new law, grandparents had no "standing" to even bring the issue before a judge much less obtain visitation with their grandchildren. However, the new law only provides grandparents with the right to a hearing on the issue of grandparent visitation. It will still be up to the judge as to whether or not the grandparents will actually get visitation with their grandchildren.
This new law provides the safeguards required by the Michigan Supreme Court protecting parental rights - as guaranteed by the Constitution - while setting in place standards for grandparents who have been denied seeing their grandchildren and gives them an opportunity to come to court and show why they should have a right to see their grandchildren if that request has been unreasonably denied.
Standing
The new law provides grandparents, in the following circumstances, rights to request relief from the courts to see their grandchildren, if they have been denied visitation by a parent:
If a grandparent falls into any of the above categories and has been denied visitation, they would have a right to bring an action in the court that has heard a prior action, such as a divorce or paternity action. If there has been no prior action filed in the court, then a new action would be brought in the circuit court in the county where the grandchild resides.
Any person, who has legal custody, or an order for parenting time of the child, must be given notice of the grandparent visitation request.
For more information regarding this matter, visit our website at www.MichiganAttorney.com and click on "Grandparent Visitation."
Distributed as a free service to the public
The law firm of Nichols & Eberth, P.C. provides experienced attorneys to speak to groups of all sizes and natures on the topics described below and others. There is no charge for this service. Each presentation lasts about one hour* and includes many handouts and informational brochures. To set up a presentation, please contact our public speaker coordinator, Ms. Kellie A. Strauss, at (313) 561-5700.
DIVORCE
A step by step discussion of the divorce process which includes the issues which typically need to be resolved before a divorce can become "final" such as alimony, child custody, child support, visitation, division of assets and liabilities including pensions and personal protection orders.
WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATE PLANNING
Includes a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of wills, trusts and other testamentary documents. Each person who attends is encouraged and is helped to write his or her own "Living Will" on the spot, which he or she can take with them when they leave.
PROBATE
An explanation of the probate process including the opening of an estate in probate court, the appointment of a personal representative, the duties and responsibilities of a personal representative, the filing of an inventory and annual accounts, and more.
REAL ESTATE
A discussion of Michigan Seller's Disclosure Act, Offers to Purchase, Title Insurance, City Inspections, Certificates of Occupancy, Notes, Mortgages, Land Contracts, Transfer Taxes, Proration of Taxes, Condominiums, Closing Statements and Deeds.
AUTOMOBILE NEGLIGENCE
An explanation of the benefits available to a person injured in an automobile accident and when that person is entitled to sue the driver and the owner of the vehicle, which caused the injury.
BUSINESS INCORPORATION
This presentation includes a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of sole proprietorships, partnerships, "C" corporations, subchapter "S" corporations and limited liability companies.
BUSINESS IMMIGRATION
This presentation includes a discussion on how best to transfer key employees to the United States and various options available to multi-national corporations. Seminar includes strategic planning as well as advice on I-9 compliance in the workforce.
DIVORCE MEDIATION
An alternative to fighting in Court and a way of obtaining a divorce with dignity. This provides an explanation of how the mediation process is used to reach an amicable resolution of such issues as alimony, child custody visitation, child support and the division of assets and liabilities including pensions.
A DIVORCE ATTORNEY'S ADVICE ON HOW NOT TO GET DIVORCED
This very popular presentation includes many excerpts from movies which are used to demonstrate such concepts as "What Love Is and What Love Is Not" and what the typical needs that males and females have from a relationship. The full presentation takes about two hours.
With so much recent news and discussion regarding perjury and the Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, a tutorial on the subject may be appropriate. Under Michigan law, perjury is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in state prison. It applies in any civil or criminal case. To commit perjury, there must be (1) an administration of an oath authorized by law, by competent authority; (2) sworn material statement of fact made; and (3) statements or testimony regarding those facts that are willfully false.
A material statement is one that could have affected the course or outcome of a proceeding although it need not actually affect the outcome.
Perjury is not limited to statements made while sworn under oath at a deposition or trial. Anytime a person falsely swears under oath as to a material issue, even in a document, that person can be subject to prosecution for perjury. A statute may authorize or require that an application or affidavit be signed "under penalty of perjury." If it does, signing such a document, when there are known false statements contained within it, would constitute perjury.
Subornation of perjury is procuring another person to commit the crime of perjury. It is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in state prison.
Example: During a contentious divorce proceeding, Joe Plaintiff decides that he has had enough of his wife Jane Defendant. Joe asks John Witness to testify that he saw Jane having an affair with another man. Joe knows that this is untrue but he and John cook up the story to get back at Jane. At trial, John falsely testifies and commits perjury, and because Joe asked John to testify falsely, Joe has committed subornation of perjury.
Incitement of perjury is procuring a person to commit perjury where no perjury is actually committed. It is attempting to suborn perjury. It is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in state prison.
Obstruction of justice is a common-law crime that uses the same standard as perjury except that the materially false statement need not be made under oath.
SELECTED NEWSLETTER ARTICLES
Distributed as a free service to our clients!
...to be on our newsletter mailing list, please call or email us with your name and address.
