Counter Complaint V. Martin Katz Case Study

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search

However, in this case, Saundra Davis wasn’t the only conflict of interest Vance had issues with; Vance had a second altercation with another co-worker named Connie McVicker. For her part, McVicker called Vance a “porch money” and used the term “nigger” to refer to both her and other African-American students. Vance was informed co-worker McVicker family has connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Vance was frightened, she claimed both co-workers used racial slur towards her in the workplace. When Vance reported the harassment to the University’s Compliance Office, Kimes investigated the complaints. During the process, Kimes was very rude and a little prejudice; he refused to shake Vance’s hand. After the investigation was completed Davis walked away freely, Kimes exhorted both Davis and Vance to “respect” each other in the workplace. Co-workers witnessed Davis daughter accosted Vance on campus, making racist threaten statements. The co-workers who witnessed the complaints should have come forward, but instead, they keep quite. Vance complained to the EEOC and filed harassment charges proclaimed Davis violated her civil rights and denied her breaks, in response to the investigations no sign of

The facts in this case are that Harvey Pierce ambushed and shot Robin Kerl and her fiancé David Jones in the parking lot of a Madison Wal-Mart where Kerl and Jones worked. Kerl was seriously injured in the shooting, and Jones was killed. Pierce, who was Kerl’s former boyfriend, then shot and killed himself. At the time of the shooting, Pierce was a work-release inmate at the Dane County jail who was employed at a nearby Arby’s restaurant operated by Dennis Rasmussen, INC. Pierce had left work without permission at the time of the attempted murder and murder/suicide. Kerl and Jones’ estate sued DRI and Arby’s, INC. As in pertinent to this appeal, the plaintiffs alleged

Defendant submits the following Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion to amend their complaint.

COUNSEL: For Plaintiff: Mona C. Engel, Esq., Law Offices of Robert F. Danzi, Westbury, New York.

“A decade ago, Hempstead’s only full-time black police officer sued, alleging that Chief Smith had dismissed him on a trumped-up charge after he complained about his supervisor’s racial slurs. An African-American couple also sued, alleging that Chief Smith had turned them away when they reported that a white man had assaulted

Lastly, John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint, connecting their case to that of Roe’s. They were seeking declaratory and injunctive help and they made the District attorney the defendant. Both, John and Mary

Finally, Sucklal argues that she was denied an adequate opportunity to be heard with respect to the motions hearings on September 26, 2013, and September 5, 2014. At the outset we note that an appellant has a responsibility to cite us to “the facts material to a determination of the questions presented.” Md. Rule 8-504(a)(4). Indeed, “we cannot be expected to delve through the record to unearth factual support favorable to the appellant.” Rollins v. Capital Plaza Assoc., L.P., 181 Md. App. 188, 201 (2008). In her brief, Sucklal makes bald assertions that she was denied due process, but fails to articulate the specific circumstances that give rise to such claims. The deficiencies in the arguments notwithstanding, after a through review

The Plaintiff, Sullivan, was one of three Commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama who sued the Defendant, the New York Times, for printing and releasing an full page ad about the civil rights movement taking place in the south that defamed Sullivan. The ad was called "Heed Their Rising Voices" and it caused a "wave" of terror that had been directed against those who took place in the civil rights movement in the South. Some of the facts were false. The ad didn't single handily point out Sullivan, he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had oversight responsibility of the police. The Defendant stated that they didn't have any reason or proof to say the facts were false. No one put out the extra effort to see if the facts were false

Comes Plaintiff, Constance Wolf F/K/A Constance Wolfgram, by counsel, and for her complaint states as follows:

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.

The investigation revealed that Complainant and Respondent Montgomery were involved in an argument which the police were subsequently summoned. Respondents maintain that Complainant called Montgomery a “lying slut,” cornered and intimidated her; which Complainant denies. By Complainant’s own admission, the police warned him to avoid Montgomery or he might be subjected to going to jail regarding his behavior. No independent evidence has been presented which shows that any tenant, who was non-American-American under 40 years old, without any disabilities and does not receive any governmental subsidies, called any of Respondents’ employees a “lying slut” and cornered and intimidated them whose was treated more favorably. Respondent has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for issuing a 10 Day Notice to

Plaintiffs begin their strained path to relief by citing Section 17-103(a) of the Estates and Trusts Article (“ET”) of the Maryland Code (2010, 2016 suppl.) for the proposition that they are entitled to petition the court to “construe a power of attorney or review the agent’s conduct.” Indeed, when accepting the facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs would likely have standing to review Martin’s conduct as power of attorney under ET § 17-103(a). While ET § 17-103 may grant the Plaintiffs standing to seek review of the power of attorney, that authority does not afford third parties—such as the Plaintiffs—any entitlement to relief. Simply put, while ET § 17-103(a), grants Lauren and arguably Phyllis standing to

Cletus who attends Cabot high school is being charged for defamation. Due to the fact that Cletus is lying about what people have done. Such as lying about the service at a local restaurant saying that the chef spit in his food. This caused the restaurant to close down. Now the owner of the restaurant is suing Cletus and his parents for defamation. The way he committed defamation was by calling the health department and telling them that the chef spit in his food. This cause people to not want to eat there because they didn't want the cooks spitting in there food which cause the restaurant to close down. This also caused the chef to lose his job and probably won’t get rehired. So the chef is also suing Cletus for defamation. The reason Cletus