Nothing contained in this blog or on www.keytlaw.com is legal advice. This is just a website that provides information about the law designed to help people deal with their legal needs. Legal information provided on this website is not the same as legal advice, i.e., the application of the law to a person’s specific circumstances.
We try to make our legal information accurate and useful, but we recommend that you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our information and your interpretation of it is appropriate to your particular situation and legal needs.
Our blog and website is also an indirect advertisement for legal services by our attorneys who are licensed to practice law in Arizona. Neither KEYTLaw, LLC, nor any of its attorneys are your attorney and you are not our client unless you enter into a written agreement with us to provide legal services.
“The Pima County morgue is running out of space as the number of Latin American immigrants found dead in the deserts around Tucson has soared this year during a heat wave. . . . The bodies of 57 border crossers have been brought in during July so far, putting it on track to be the worst month for such deaths in the last five years.”
New American Media: “In recent weeks, immigration attorneys in Arizona and other states have been flooded with questions from anxious residents about how to avoid getting detained by immigration authorities and what to do if they or a loved one does get caught. Here’s some advice from Margarita Silva, an immigration lawyer in Phoenix affiliated with Los Abogados, a local Latino attorneys group.
In People v. Khaled the Appellate Division of the Orange County Superior Court ruled on July 22, 2010, that red-light camera photos were hearsay and not admissible as evidence to prove the defendant ran a red light.
Here is the actual text of Arizona Senate Bill 1108 that authorizes people over age 20 to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without a permit. This new law is effective from and after July 29, 2010. Changes to existing Arizona statutes are shown in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS IN BLUE. Deleted text is red with a line through the text.
AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 4-229, 13-3102, 13-3105 AND 13-3112, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO WEAPONS.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 4-229, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
4-229.Licenses; handguns; posting of notice
A. A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 or who meets the criteria specified in section 13-3102, subsection D, paragraph 1 or 2 may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises. The sign shall conform to the following requirements: Continue reading Text of Arizona’s Concealed Weapon Law — SB 1108
Here is the text of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s press release of July 28, 2010, about federal district Judge Susan Bolton’s order staying parts of SB 1070, Arizona’s illegal immigration law:
“I am disappointed by Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling enjoining several provisions of “The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” — SB 1070; though I am heartened by some
findings – including the ban on sanctuary cities.
“This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government.
“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
“For anyone willing to see it — the crisis is as clear as is the federal government’s failure to address it.
“The judge herself noted that the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country’s interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona and that, ‘You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored.’”
“When I signed the bill on April 23rd, I said, SB 1070 – represents another tool for our state to use as we work to address a crisis we did not create and the federal government has actively refused to fix. The law protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona are undiminished – holding fast to the diversity that has made Arizona so great.
“I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm.
“We have already made some progress in waking up Washington. But the question still remains: will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps continue? I believe that the defenders of the rule of law will ultimately succeed with us in our demand for action.”
Tax Foundation: “The Tax Foundation launched a new calculator last week that helps users see how their taxes might rise in 2011. In a FoxNews piece about it, we explained that some families making $250,000 or less could see a tax increase under Obama’s budget proposal, which would be a violation of his famous campaign promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes of $250,000 or less. Here’s how that would happen.”
Phoenix Business Journal: “A jury has awarded a Phoenix developer $110 million in connection with a stymied high-end apartment project near the CityNorth development in North Phoenix. Gray Development and its principal, Bruce Gray, were awarded $110,650,000 on Tuesday by a jury at Maricopa County Superior Court, which found against the defendant, Northeast Phoenix Partners,
Those of you who want go delve into the finer points of law regarding United States District Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling of July 28, 2010, in the matter of U.S. vs. State of Arizona that stays the enforcement of parts of Arizona’s illegal immigration law known as SB 1070, should read the entire 36 page Order. Here are some of the Judge’s ending remarks:
“If enforcement of the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court finds a likelihood of preemption is not enjoined, the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is so because the federal government’s ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state’s enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the Court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as federal law. . . . The Court thus finds a likelihood of irreparable harm to the interests of the United States that warrants preliminary injunctive relief.”
. . .
“If Arizona were to enforce the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court has found a likelihood of preemption, such enforcement would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy. A preliminary injunction would allow the federal government to continue to pursue federal priorities, which is inherently in the public interest, until a final judgment is reached in this case.”
. . .
“The Court therefore finds that preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced.”
“If it wasn’t clear before, it is now: The federal government has no intent of enforcing the laws against rampant and brazen illegal immigration. Indeed, it will punish those states that try, leaving them at the mercy of the kidnappers, terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers and human traffickers that now freely cross our southern border.”
Government agencies must take action to justify their existence. Agency action usually means loss of freedom and financial harm to the public. One of the most worthless government agencies is the Consumer Product Safety Commission that now sticks its ugly head in all facets of American life. It’s latest target – roller shades used on windows. Regardless of the fact that there is no evidence that any person, child or adult, has ever been harmed by the roller shades, the CPSC recalled 1.3 million shades. Unelected bureaucrats are ruling our lives.
Earth to the CPSC – it is not possible to eliminate every possible threat to children. Here’s the latest CPSC joketragedyoutrage recall:
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Name of Product: Roman and Roller shades. Units: About 1.3 million (1,160,000 Roman shades and 115,000 roller shades).
Hazard:
Roman Shades: Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the shade or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her neck.
Roller Shades: Strangulation can occur if the shade’s continuous loop cord is not attached to the wall with the tension device provided and a child’s neck becomes entangled in the free-standing loop.
Incidents/Injuries:
Roller Shades: CPSC and Smith+Noble have received a report of a 5-year-old boy in Tacoma, Washington who became entangled in an unsecured continuous loop bead cord on a roller shade in May 2009. No medical treatment was required.
“The state’s strict new immigration law, passed in late April, had no noticeable impact on hotel-industry indicators in greater Phoenix its first two months.”
Washington Post has a story about the picture police: “A few weeks ago, on his way to work, Matt Urick stopped to snap a few pictures of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s headquarters. He thought the building was ugly but might make for an interesting photo. The uniformed officer who ran up to him didn’t agree. He told Urick he was not allowed to photograph federal buildings. . . . Courts have long ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to take photographs in public places.”
Forbes on domestic asset protection trusts: “If you’re aiming to stiff creditors, litigants or an ex-spouse, should you hide your money in Nevis or Nevada? . . . These aren’t the garden-variety trusts set up for the benefit of your heirs. These are “self-settled” trusts, meaning you put the money in and you can benefit from it. But after a certain period of time your creditors (supposedly) can’t get at these funds.”
Arizona Republic: “Across the Valley, nine bus routes will be eliminated, including two local routes, three express routes and four neighborhood circulators. . . . The light-rail system also is reducing service for the first time since opening in late 2008. Peak hours will be shortened, and during that time Metro will run trains every 12 minutes instead of every 10.”
Arizona Republic: “The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is investigating Supervisor Andy Kunasek and two other high-ranking county officials, accusing them of improperly spending public money on sweeps for illegal listening devices.”
Hot Air: “One of the big wins for Obama in the bill was the mandate for insurers to allow parents to carry their kids on policies until their 26th birthday. However, that intervention has created a rather perverse set of incentives that will see fewer children insured:
Use MyTaxBurden.com‘s simple fill-in-the-blanks income tax calculator to estimate your 2011 federal income tax under any or all of the following scenarios:
Congress allows all of the Bush tax cuts to expire;
Congress acts to extend into 2011 all of the Bush tax cuts; and
Congress passes the tax laws suggested in President Obama’s budget, letting some tax cuts expire, extending some, and enacting some new tax laws.
Forbes: Fear that real rocks may contain harmful substances, a school cancelled its rock purchase order and showed students a poster of rocks instead of the real thing. “And so it goes in the unbrave new world, where nothing is safe enough. It’s a world brought to us by the once sane, now danger-hallucinating Consumer Product Safety Commission. . . . [that] actively engages in fear mongering, perhaps to give it something to do.”
“Then there’s the Little Tykes workbench. Last year the CPSC recalled that product’s toy nails after an 11-month-old boy almost choked on one. Those nails are made out of plastic. They’re 3 1/4 inches high and 1 1/4 inches wide. They’ve been sold with the workbench since 1994. And the boy who almost choked is fine. So we’re talking about a product that has been on the market for 15 years and sold 1,600,000 units. It is popular, safe and time-tested. To me that’s an exemplary toy. To the CPSC it is a killer on the loose.”
Arizona Republic has a story entitled “Phoenix area bus riders left waiting amid transit cutbacks.” It states: “Today, Valley bus riders will once again have to cope with fewer routes, less-frequent buses and shorter hours as the regional system revamps 50 lines. . . . but for some cities they represent the fourth round of service reductions in two years, with more trims planned in some places.”
Video of Canadian CF-18 pilot Brian Bews ejecting from his airplane moments before it strikes the ground and explodes into an orange and black fireball. He was making a low speed pass when he stalled the airplane, i.e., it stopped flying because it lacked minimum flying speed, and flipped over and dropped from the sky. I am sure the pilot had a lot of warning indicators going wild in his headset just before he ejected. It is normally a very bad idea to go low and slow close to the ground because there is not enough altitude to recover if the airplane stalls.
The pilot was very lucky he survived. Too many times the pilot waits too long before ejecting while trying to recover the airplane. Waiting too long usually means death. At some point, it becomes impossible to eject safely, even with a modern high tech zero zero ejection seat. During my days of flying the F-4 Phantom fighter-bomber for the USAF in the 1970s, the official rule was that if the airplane was out of control below 10,000 feet, eject. There is just not much time to correct a problem when traveling at high speeds. The Air Force knows from studying jet fighter accidents that waiting too long to eject has killed a lot of its fighter pilots.
When I was a student learning to fly the Phantom at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, in 1971 – 1972, an F-4 with two students in it crashed on the Gila Bend gunnery range during a practice bombing mission. The crew was learning how to dive bomb at a 45 degree dive angle. The student pilot got too steep during a dive bomb run. His dive angle was much greater than 45 degrees. The steeper the dive angle, the more altitude it takes to recover the airplane and avoid hitting the ground. The ranger safety officer and the flight leader saw that the student was too steep and warned the student pilot. A steep dive bomb run has less than 10 seconds from starting the dive until pull out, which is not much time while speeding toward the ground at 450 knots.
Somebody realized that the airplane was approaching the point of no return and yelled over the radio for the crew to eject. They did. The backseater ejected safely, but the frontseater hit the ground before his parachute opened. The F-4 front ejection seat fires 3/4 of a second after the backseat fires. That means the frontseater would have lived if he had ejected one second earlier.
Ejection seat technology has saved a lot of lives. The F-4 had a Martin Baker ejection seat with zero zero ejection capability. Zero zero means that a man sitting in the ejection seat fully strapped in would be able to successfully eject if the altitude were zero and the airspeed were zero. The F-4′s ejection seat with its rocket motor could blast a man 300 feet from the airplane. However, zero zero can be offset by the downward velocity of a stricken airplane. For example, if your airplane is descending at 500 knots, that is 845 a second. It the upward velocity of the ejection seat were 300 feet per second, the net downward velocity would be 545 feet per second. If the ejection shoots the pilot out horizontal, then there is no upward velocity to offset the downward velocity.
The ejection seat with its rocket motor is also a very dangerous device. Too many people have been killed and injured from accidental discharges of ejection seats on the ground during maintenance or accidents involving pilots and their seats. The F-4 ejection seat had seven safety pins in it when not in use. All were designed to prevent the accidental firing of the seat. If a single safety pin were not removed, the seat would not fire. Each of the safety pins was connected by a nylon line to all of the other pins. Before getting into the cockpit, we had to check to make sure that six of the seven safety pins were removed and that the seventh pin on the top of the seat was inserted into its slot. We removed the seventh safety pin after sitting in the seat and strapping in, which involved two connections to the survival kit in the seat, one lap belt, two parachute / lap belt connections, and four leg restraints. Although I loved my ejection seat, I was also very much afraid of it.
The National Association for Legal Career Professionals (NALP) issued a press release about the employment status of the 40,833 2009 law school graduates. “NALP’s Class of 2009 Jobs & JDs report is based on information submitted by 192 ABA-accredited law schools on 96% of the graduates in the Class of 2009. . . . The national median salary for the Class of 2009, based on those working full-time and reporting a salary, was $72,000, unchanged from that for the Class of 2008, and the national mean was $93,454. However, because some large law firm salaries cluster in the $160,000 range while many other salaries cluster in the $40,000–$65,000 range, relatively few salaries were actually near the median or mean.”
“The overall employment rate of 88.3% for Class of 2009 graduates for whom employment status was known represents a 3.6 percentage point drop from the recent historical high of 91.9% for the Class of 2007 . . . nearly 25% of all jobs were reported as temporary . . . .”
“This paper investigates the impact of tax changes on economic activity. We use the narrative record, such as presidential speeches and Congressional reports, to identify the size, timing, and principal motivation for all major postwar tax policy actions. This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.”
“Our estimates suggest that a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP reduces output over the next three years by nearly three percent.”
More proof that the taxpayers exist to pay for the ruling class. Orange County Register: “the city manager of Bell [California], Robert Rizzo, receives a salary of $787,637 as the top bureaucrat in a city of about 38,000 residents, mostly Latinos. Bell’s Police Chief Randy Adams makes $457,000 a year while Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia gets $376,288. This might not sound like a lot to you but Bell is one of the poorest cities in L.A. County.” That’s a combined salary of $1,620,925 for the three imperial city workers. The police chief makes more than the head of the Los Angeles (population 3.8 miillion) Police Department. Four of the five members of the part time city council make almost $100,000 a year. When Rizzo retires, he will become the highest paid retired California employee at over $650,000 a year.
Wall St. Journal: “One of America’s leading libertarian legal scholars handicaps whether the Supreme Court will find ObamaCare’s insurance mandate constitutional. . . . So would ‘any constitutional law professor’ be right to scoff at the case against ObamaCare? Not according to this law professor. ‘The challenges to ObamaCare are serious legal challenges within the existing doctrinal framework’,”
Click to Follow Us!