AS REPORTED BY Grumpy Abe on Feb. 11, the new director of the Summit County Board of Elections will

2011-2012 supreme court term abortion abortion funding Abraham Lincoln barack obama baucus discount travel planning bill CBO commerce clause constitution constitutional interpretation discount travel planning constitutional law defense of marriage act democracy DOMA don t ask don t tell equality equal protection establishment clause First Amendment fourteenth amendment freedom of expression freedom of religion freedom of speech free exercise clause gay rights health care health care financing reform health care reform health insurance reform individual mandate intellectual property law legal education necessary and proper clause obama oral argument PPACA President Obama public option right to privacy same-sex marriage separation of powers sotomayor supreme court torture Source: ohioverticals.com
AS REPORTED BY Grumpy Abe on Feb. 11, the new director of the Summit County Board of Elections will be Joe Masich, the long-time inner-circle loyalist of Chairman Alex Arshinkoff s county Republican Party. Masich is the administrator discount travel planning of the Summit County Probate Court and will move into his new $105,000 job March 5, the day before the Ohio primary. Source: blogspot.com
Tagged as: Anita Rios, Athens, ballot, Bill Johnson, Bob Gibbs, Charles R. Earl, Charlie Wilson, Daniel H. LaBotz, Dave Yost, David Pepper, Debbie Phillips, Dennis Spisak, elections, environment, Eric Brown, Eric W. Deaton, green, John Kasich, Jon Husted, Josh Mandel, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Ken Matesz, Kevin L. Boyce, L. Michael Howard, Lee Fisher, Lenny Eliason, Lindsey Dean Sutton, Marc Allen Feldman, Margaret Ann Leech, Martin J. Elsass, Mary Jane Trapp, Mary Taylor, Maryellen O Shaughnessy, Matt Gaiser, Matthew P. Cantrell, Maureen O Connor, Michael L. Pryce, Mike DeWine, Mike Hunter, November, Ohio, Richard Cordray, Richard E. Cadle, Rob Portman, Robert M. Owens, Ted Strickland, Ty Collinsworth, voters guide, Yvette discount travel planning McGee Brown, Zack Space Source: collegegreenmag.com
So I m weird I get a huge rush when a difficult accounting balances. For those of you not familiar with the process, the Summit County Probate Court (and all Ohio probate courts) requires an annual itemization of every penny received and spent and every penny remaining for guardianship accounts. This week, with the help of Bosstopus and the clients, I balanced two tough accountings, and helped another client finish off an easy one and get ready to close the money-managing guardianship. It took a few long and late days, but it was worth it. I love the wiggly feeling of elation when everything is perfect and the only thing left to do is type the data onto the Adobe forms and print it out. *grin* We always do court pleadings and accountings on 20lb bond paper. When our client took her completed discount travel planning accounting to court on Friday, the clerk helping her touched the original and said, Only one attorney uses such nice paper are you one of Bosstopus clients? When the client told me about that, I passed it on to Bosstopus, who d been stuck down in Steubenville for most of the day. She laughed and wondered if that was a good thing to be known for at court. I said, It s better than your previous reputation for using yukky paper clips. I ve tried to fix that since I first heard about it, and I save the rusty, old, bent or otherwise bad paperclips for the bank. Key Bank is a huge corporation, but if you give their tellers a deposit with a paperclip, they will keep it. For the fees they charge, they can buy their own! When not working this week, I ve been making soap. More about that in a later post, when I get the pictures off my camera. Yesterday, I took the parental units to the airport to catch a flight to Dallas, then shopped for more soap supplies. Source: blogspot.com
Filed 10/2/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR ANDREW BUESA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. B212854 discount travel planning (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC378215) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of David W. Allor and David W. Allor for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo and Carmen Trutanich, City Attorneys, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ 2 This is an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in an action against the City of Los Angeles (City)1 brought by two former Los Angeles police officers, Andrew Buesa and Michael Cardenas. Plaintiffs seek damages for a violation of their rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq. (POBRA)).2 The gravamen of their complaint is that a perjured declaration submitted by the City deprived them of their statute of limitations defense in an administrative mandamus discount travel planning proceeding over their discharges. The issue is whether they may maintain this as a separate action, or whether under the doctrine of collateral estoppel it is barred by the final judgment denying their petition for administrative mandamus. We conclude that plaintiffs‟ action under POBRA is barred because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the mandate judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Since this matter is on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, we take our factual summary from the allegations of the second amended complaint, which is the charging pleading. On February 2, 2002, plaintiffs participated in the arrest of a suspect following a car and foot chase. The same day, the Los Angeles Police discount travel planning Department (LAPD) learned of alleged acts of misconduct by plaintiffs arising from that arrest. The next day, Sergeant Joe Losorelli, of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group, was assigned to investigate discount travel planning the alleged misconduct. On August 15, 2002, Losorelli met with a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney‟s Office for the purpose of seeking a determination whether criminal charges should discount travel planning be filed against plaintiffs based on the February 2002 incident. discount travel planning Losorelli met with the deputy district attorney again on October 2, 2002, at which time he provided a copy of his investigation and witness statements. 1 Police Chief William J. Bratton discount travel planning was a named defendant in the original complaint, but he was deleted in the second amended complaint, the charging pleading. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 Statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 3 According to plaintiffs, the district discount travel planning attorney‟s office opened its criminal investigation against plaintiffs that day. POBRA provides a one-year statute of limitations for bringing of police misconduct charges. The time runs from discovery of the misconduct. (§ 3304, subd. (d).) Section 3304, subdivision (d)(1) tolls the limitations period while a criminal investigation or prosecution is pending. On December 2, 2002, Losorelli asked LAPD superiors to toll the statute of limitations against plaintiffs because of the pending criminal investigation. discount travel planning He asked that the period be tolled from his August 15, 2002 meeting with the district attorney‟s office until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. The criminal investigation was terminated on February 11, 2003, when the deputy district attorney discount travel planning in charge discount travel planning of the case elected not to seek a grand jury indictment. Personnel complaints discount travel planning against plaintiffs were filed at the Los Angeles Police Commission on August 3, 2003, alleging misconduct arising from the February 2002 arrest. They were served the next day. On August 3, 2004, a board of rights found plaintiffs guilty of misconduct and recommended that they be discharged. On September 29, 2004, the chief of police adopted the recommendation that plaintiffs be terminated for failure to report the use of force against a suspect. The chief signed orders removing them from employment, effective that day. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) on December 14, 2004 seeking review of their terminations. They alleged that Losorelli furnished a false declaration regarding tolling, which was used by defendant discount travel planning in responding to the petition. Allegedly, Losorelli knew that pursuant to a policy of LAPD and the district attorney‟s office, only the latter was authorized to open a criminal investigation against sworn personnel. According to the complaint, the district attorney‟s office opened the criminal investigation discount travel planning against plaintiffs on October 2, 2002. Plaintiffs allege: “Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that his investigation against plaintiffs was considered a criminal investigation from the beginning (as of February 2, 2002). Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally discount travel planning testified discount travel planning falsely that he first presented discount travel planning the case against plaintiffs discount travel planning to [the deputy district 4 attorney] for possible criminal filing at a July 31, 2002 meeting, when this meeting actually took place on August 15, 2002.” Allegedly, with knowledge that the August 3, 2003 personnel complaints against discount travel planning plaintiffs were time-barred, Losorelli presented discount travel planning a false declaration in the mandamus action “with the intent of fraudulently extending discount travel planning the tolling period for criminal investigations” authorized by section 3304, subdivision (d) “and with the malicious intent to deprive plaintiffs of their rights,” and further employment with the LAPD. According to plaintiffs, discount travel planning they discovered Losorelli‟s wrongful conduct on July 25, 2007, after the administrative mandamus proceeding was concluded. They do not explain the circumstances of that discovery. Plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate was denied by the trial court. The court found the weight of evidence at the administrative discount travel planning hearing supported the decision to terminate plaintiffs. It identified the application of the POBRA statute of limitations as “the main legal issue in the case.” The court noted that both sides had submitted documentary evidence and declarations on the