Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

The Making Of The Twenty Fifth Amendment Part 2
Think. Create. Inspire. Relax. Become.

By: LPTrax

Read the original here:
The Making Of The Twenty Fifth Amendment Part 2 - Video

The Making Of The Twenty Fifth Amendment Part 1
Think. Create. Inspire. Relax. Become.

By: LPTrax

The rest is here:
The Making Of The Twenty Fifth Amendment Part 1 - Video

Synopsis | The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Its Complete History And Application
THE SYNOPSIS OF YOUR FAVORITE BOOK =--- Where to buy this book? ISBN: 9780823213726 Book Synopsis of The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Its Complete History and Application by John D....

By: Gene Walter #39;s Marketplace

Continue reading here:
Synopsis | The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Its Complete History And Application - Video

The city of Denton is expected to pay out about $1 million to settle a long-running inverse condemnation case over power lines placed along Bonnie Brae Street in 2009.

Inverse condemnation is defined as government taking private property without fair compensation, which is required under the Fifth Amendment.

The property owners attorney, Charles Orsburn, asked Judge Doug Robison of the 393rd Judicial District Court to dismiss the case during a hearing Friday afternoon. But Robison said that he would retain the case on his docket for another 90 days.

All but three of the property owners have settled with the city in the past few months, according to court records. The city agreed to pay each property owner in exchange for dropping out of the lawsuit.

Orsburn told the judge that he and the citys attorneys have agreed to finish the last three property owners settlements even if the lawsuit is dismissed.

Weve got some subrogation of lien problems with banks out of California, Orsburn told the judge.

The city needs clear title to pay for an easement. Typically, the city works through any title issues in a condemnation case, according to Paul Williamson, the citys real estate manager.

But to settle inverse condemnation, the burden to convey clear title is on the property owners, Orsburn said in an interview after the hearing. Some of the lien holders havent been very cooperative, he added.

Without that condition satisfied, the three properties would end up in regular condemnation hearings, Orsburn said.

As it should have been in the beginning, he said. If I hadnt filed this lawsuit, these people wouldnt have received anything. The 2,000-pound gorilla rule no longer applies.

See the article here:
City to pay about $1M to settle suit

The Making Of The Twenty Fifth Amendment Part 7
Think. Create. Inspire. Relax. Become.

By: LPTrax

The rest is here:
The Making Of The Twenty Fifth Amendment Part 7 - Video

Topic: The Fifth Amendment #39;s right to counsel attaches
Look today on new interesting topic - The Fifth Amendment #39;s right to counsel attaches. *---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*--*---*---*---* Check out more e...

By: Funnypedia

Here is the original post:
Topic: The Fifth Amendment's right to counsel attaches - Video

Fifth amendment project
Oh, right. The poison. The poison for Kuzco, the poison chosen especially to kill Kuzco. Kuzco #39;s poison. That poison?

By: Haley Ebertz

See the original post:
Fifth amendment project - Video

Although the news is likely to be buried in the understandable hoopla over the same-sex marriage case, the Supreme Court today also agreed to review Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a case where property owners argue that the federal governments demand that they turn over large quantities of raisins is a taking for which they are entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The governments effort to seize the raisins is part of a program intended to increase the price of raisinsby creating an artificial scarcity on the market, thereby benefiting producers at the expense of consumers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the owners claim in large part because it concluded that the just compensation requirement of the Takings Clause affords less protection to personal [property] such as the raisins, than to real property.

Will Baude has a good post explaining the case in greater detail here. As he notes, I joined an amicus brief co-authored with several other property and constitutional law scholars urging the Supreme Court to take the case and overrule the Ninth Circuit. The brief explains in some detail why the Takings Clause protects personal property on par with real property, and demonstrates that that understanding goes all the way back to the Founding.

Horne is now one of the rare cases that has gone to the Supreme Court twice. In 2013, the Court unanimously rejected the federal governments claim that the property owners should not even be allowed to present their Takings Clause argument in federal court without first paying some $483,000 in fines and pursuing various likely futile administrative remedies.

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and popular political participation. He is the author of "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain" (forthcoming) and "Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter."

View post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Raisin takings case returns to the Supreme Court

The Mexican government is throwing its weight behind a U.S. lawsuit filed by the parents of a Mexican teenager who was killed in his country when a U.S. Border Patrol agent fired his weapon across the border.

When agents of the United States Government violate fundamental rights of Mexican nationals, it is one of Mexicos priorities to ensure that the United States has provided adequate means to hold the agents accountable and compensate the victims, lawyers for the Mexican governmentwrote in a brief filed on Thursday.

The case marks the first time a U.S. appeals court has considered the legal implications of a cross-border shooting. The question before the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is whether the U.S. Constitution reaches into the Mexican side of the 2,000-mile border with the U.S.

The Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 in June that the parents ofSergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca could sueU.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa Jr. for alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that no person shall be . . . deprived of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The panel threw out claims against the U.S. government and Mr. Mesas supervisors. The Fifth Circuit has agreed to rehear the case, with all active judges participating, at the request of the U.S. government and Mr. Mesa.

The Mexican government sought to assure the court that it had no qualms about the U.S. Constitution nosing into its territory, in this instance at least.

Any invasion of Mexicos sovereigntyoccurred when Agent Mesa shot his gun across the border at SergioHernndez. Requiring Agent Mesa to answer for that action in U.S. courttothe same extent as if Hernndez were a U.S. national or on U.S. soilonly shows respect for Mexicos sovereignty, the brief said.

The lawsuit alleges that in June 2010, Mr. Hernndez was playing with a group of friends in the cement culvert that separates El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The game involved touching the barbed-wire fence on the U.S. side of the border, and then running back down the incline of the culvert into Mexico.

When Mr. Mesa arrived on the scene, he detained one of Mr. Hernndezs friends on the U.S. side of the border. Still in U.S. territory, Mr. Mesa then shot Mr. Hernndez, who had retreated down the culvert back into Mexico, according to the complaint.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation said after the incident that Mr. Mesa, who is still a member of the Border Patrol, used force because the group was throwing rocks at him, ignoring his commands to stop.

Read the original here:
Mexican Government Backs Lawsuit Against U.S. Border Patrol Agent

RACINE The federal lawsuit brought against the city by former owners of five shuttered Racine bars is continuing its slow march toward trial, but attorneys are still deep within the information-gathering process known as discovery. Meanwhile, one defendant has taken the Fifth Amendment for some claims.

Filed first on Feb. 25, and then amended on Aug. 21, the lawsuit accuses Mayor John Dickert and close to a dozen other defendants of engaging in an elaborate plot to drive minority tavern owners out of the city, violating the bar owners constitutional and civil rights, and running afoul of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as RICO.

In addition to claiming minority bar owners were held to different standards than their white counterparts, the lawsuit accuses some Racine City Tavern League members of engaging in an elaborate effort to bankroll Dickerts mayoral campaigns that resulted in minority-owned bars being targeted, and their licenses freed up for white bar owners.

When the suit was first filed, there were 20 defendants and eight plaintiffs. Since then one of the plaintiffs Cerafin C. Davalos, the owner of the former Ceras Tequila Bar has been dropped from the complaint, as have eight of the original defendants, including the tavern league itself.

Although attorneys for the remaining municipal defendants continue to deny the allegations, the case has proceeded to the discovery process.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller ruled in November that while the civil rights conspiracy claims in the lawsuit should be dismissed, the RICO claims made against the municipal defendants and private defendant Doug Nicholson should proceed to discovery along with the civil rights complaints.

Discovery began in earnest in November. The process, whereby plaintiffs and defendants can obtain evidence from the opposing party, is expected to wind on for several months, said Michael J. Cohen of Meissner, Tierney, Fisher & Nichols S.C., the attorney for the city, Dickert, and 10 other municipal defendants.

There is quite a bit of it that has been requested particularly from the municipal defendants, Cohen said. I wouldnt be surprised if it ends up being 2 million pages of paper that (the plaintiffs) have requested including electronic information.

On Jan. 6 Stadtmueller honored a request by both parties to keep certain personal information contained in the documents such as Social Security numbers of the parties, or identifying information of those not named in the suits, such as witnesses in police reports sealed to public.

But attorneys for the defendants havent spent all their time filling document requests and preparing for depositions. They have also filed answers to the plaintiffs amended complaint.

View post:
Legal process continues in bars lawsuit, Fifth Amendment asserted