April 30, 2017 An Oregon judge is under investigation for helping an illegal immigrant charged with a DUI leave the Multnomah County Court to avoid arrest by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents. Monica Herranz allegedly helped Diddier Pacheco, a 22 year-old undocumented Mexican-born construction worker, escape through her own private entrance while federal agents were outside waiting to deport him. The judge is under internal investigation by the Multnomah County Court Administration and is said to be cooperating with investigators. Federal law makes it illegal to hide illegal aliens in any way, shape or form. ICE officials met with Billy Williams, the U.S. Attorney in Portland, asking him not to launch an investigation. Williams instead met with most of the judges in the county and made it clear that such actions would not be tolerated. Pacheco could have left the court room through only three exits, and he failed to come out through the public one. Instead, he is believed to have fled through the private exit the judge and courtroom staff use to get to their offices. This leads to a staircase that goes to yet another exit on the first floor. Pacheco’s attorney claims to have no knowledge of how his client left the courtroom but acknowledged his client and Herranz knew there were ICE agents inside the courthouse positioned to arrest Pacheco upon his exit through the public exit. Many in Portland think Herranz should be removed from the bench and even lose her license to practice law for her actions. Herranz is currently a board member of the Oregon Hispanic Bar Association and for the time being, remains a judge in the Multnomah County courts. She will likely face disciplinary action when the investigation is over. ICE agents captured Pacheco outside the same courthouse after another appearance in court two weeks later. He was taken to an ICE detention facility in New Mexico and is awaiting deportation to Mexico. With the upheaval under the Trump administration regarding the status of illegal aliens and deportation, the courts continue to challenge the application of related laws. For questions about your civil rights , call us for help. Larry Bellomo is an Orange County attorney practicing in Bankruptcy and Family Law.
April 20, 2017 The Supreme Court decided not to rule on a high-profile transgender rights case on whether public schools should allow students to use bathrooms matching their gender identities. A hearing for the case originally scheduled for March 28 looked like it would be the biggest case of the court’s current term. However, the Trump administration rolled back federal guidance that a lower court had determined did cover transgender students using school bathrooms that correspond to the gender they identify with. Many officials from the Obama administration, trans-rights advocates, and school officials had filed legal briefs with the Supreme Court to show their support to 17-year-old Gavin Grimm, a student who was born female but who identifies as male . The student, set to graduate in June, had sued his Virginia high school for the right to use the boys’ bathroom. Lawyers for the Obama administration previously determined transgendered students’ bathroom access was covered under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a law that bars sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funding. However, the direction of this case dramatically changed with the election of Donald Trump. The Trump administration backpedaled on the Obama directive that left the decision about school bathroom use up to the personal preference of the student. Previously, the young person could choose a bathroom based on their gender identity , not based on the gender listed on their birth certificate. The high court asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to look at the case again and decide what to do with it now that the transgender guidance is no longer on the books. The justices did not issue any comment on the case other than their one-sentence order returning it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit . Since the Supreme Court returned the case to a lower court without reaching a decision, the issue of transgender rights in school settings will likely be left in limbo until sometime after Grimm has graduated from high school.  Larry Bellomo has become known as the best Orange County family lawyer for good reason. With decades of experience in practice, he serves his clients with compassion and unrivaled expertise. Contact us today to find out what we can do for you.
April 10, 2017 Bryce Hemstad, an ex-inmate of St. Tammany Parish, settled out of court with the Sheriff’s Office reference an assault case involving a deputy accused of brutality in March 2017. Hemsted’s attorney, Stephen Haedicke, would not release the details of the settlement but divulged that the confidential agreement would be completed within a few weeks. The Sheriff’s Office gave no immediate response to a request for a statement concerning the compromise. After the settlement had been reached, U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon dismissed Hemstad’s lawsuit. On October 19, 2016, Hemstad, an inmate in St. Charles Parish’s Nelson Coleman Correctional Center, filed to sue the St. Tammany Sheriff’s Office for police brutality in federal court in New Orleans. The suit stated that on November 27, 2015, Deputy Joseph Hart removed Hemstad from his dormitory, walked him down a hallway while cursing at him and forced him to handcuff himself to a bench. Then, former deputy Timothy Hooker placed Hemstad in a headlock, sprayed him with pepper spray and punched him in the face several times, damaging his teeth, jaw and face. Hemstad claimed he was left to suffer for nearly an hour while still handcuffed to the bench. The lawsuit also named Deputy Joseph Hart and former Deputy John Favaloro. Hemstad asserted that the pair witnessed the incident but did nothing to prevent the allegedly unprovoked attack. Two other named defendants included Sheriff Randy Smith, former Sheriff Jack Strain and the Sheriff’s Office Insurer. Hooker, arrested on separate charges in December 2015, was fired by the Sheriff’s Office for allegedly striking another inmate while removing him from the jail’s eating area for not complying with mealtime procedures. Hooker will stand trial concerning the incident. Within the last 12 years, Hemstad has taken a guilty plea to various charges in St. Tammany which include illegal possession of a firearm, aggravated assault, harassment by telephone, burglary, unlawful possession of the prescription pain medicine oxycodone, and maintaining a methamphetamine lab. Larry Bellomo is an extraordinary Orange County lawyer with decades of experience practicing Bankruptcy and Family Law. For help with your case, contact our office today.
Learn the first steps in the divorce process with Larry Bellomo Attorney at Law in Mission Viejo, CA. Expert family law guidance—click to read our guide now.
January 28, 2018 According to an October 27, 2017, announcement, the Los Angeles jeans company, True Religion, exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy with about $357 million less debt, debt maturities extended, cash to implement a growth plan and a positive outlook for the future. The company emerges with a reduced retail footprint and an exit loan of $60 million from Citizens Bank, the same bank that provided the initial cash during the reorganization process. At the peak of the company, True Religion jeans were selling anywhere from $150 to $250 a pair at their nearly 140 stores and online. The brand also sold at upscale department stores, such as Bloomingdales, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom and at other locations in the U.S., Mexico and South America. Around 2013, True Religion, like many other apparel stores, struggled for success, watching sales decline as it competed with the internet, online shopping and competing discount retailers. The rapid growth in the trend of athletic wear for leisure caused the sales of blue jeans to quickly decline. Behind $192,000 on rent for its California office headquarters and drowning in major debts owed to creditors, manufacturers, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and malls around the country, True Religion filed for bankruptcy on July 5, 2017, in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. At the time of filing, the company had 128 stores in the United States and 11 stores outside the country. The company made some major changes, hiring John Ermatinger as CEO and president and bringing on a new chief marketing officer and a new vice president of sourcing. They also reduced costs, streamlined processes and closed unprofitable stores. John Ermatinger publicly thanked the company’s supporters — consumers, employees, vendors and suppliers — for their ongoing commitment and devotion to True Religion. He expressed his excitement regarding the future of the company, which includes implementing new growth strategies through innovative partnerships, expanding True Religion’s digital presence and refining its marketing operations. You do not have to be a major corporation to file bankruptcy , Like in the case of True Religion, bankruptcy allows individuals to emerge in a better financial position than before. Our legal team can help you navigate through these difficult times.
January 16, 2018 A Fresno State professor who intimidated a pro-life group was ordered to pay $17,000 and attend training on the First Amendment. He was recorded on video in an attempt to harass pro-life students who were drawing with chalk on the sidewalk. He also asked students from his public health class to assist him in his efforts. He claimed they were outside of the campus free speech area, but no such area has existed on campus since 2015. The sidewalk messages suggested pro-life options for students. The president of the club stated that the First Amendment gives students the right to speak on campus. She documented an incident between herself and the professor on video. He can be heard telling her that she is not in a free-speech area. However, she claimed that she had school permission to be there and to be speaking. The professor began erasing the sidewalk messages with his shoe. He told her that she did not understand the areas where free speech was permitted on campus. Alliance Defending Freedom acted as legal representation for the group, the Fresno State Students for Life. The professor must pay $1,000 to the president and $1,000 to another student as well as legal fees. However, he said that the money was paid by his insurance company, so he is not concerned about the legal fees. He does not admit to any wrong actions but is willing to attend the training so that he can learn the opinions and thoughts of others. The president expressed her relief that he will not be able to harass them again and explained that the case was not about winning money. She was extremely surprised at his actions, especially on a public campus. She further opined that professors should encourage and not prohibit free speech. Legal counsel for the pro-life group stated that the professor’s behavior flagrantly violated the First Amendment He added that school officials do not have the right to restrict freedom of speech on campus. The school did not comment about the case. If you believe that your First Amendment rights have been violated, you will need experienced legal representation to defend you. Contact us so that we can discuss your case.
January 5, 2018 The complexities of any divorce include dividing money, property and assets between both parties. While this might not be as complex for a millennial as it is for a couple who has spent their lifetime acquiring possessions, both types of divorce require finding a qualified family lawyer to deal with the personal issues. Legal experts report that stereotypes claim that other generations are more loyal than millennials who don’t really value traditions. She continues that even though they wait to marry, they still place a high priority on the institution. However, she added that they will not tough out a relationship the way their parents did. This by no means makes a divorce any easier for millennials. They feel just as hurt and disappointed as any others who divorce , but their outlook for the future tends to be more optimistic. Although marriage rates in the U.S. continue to decline, divorce rates are also dropping. Millennials delay marriage until later in life, placing an emphasis on education and careers before taking this significant life step. Millennials tend to be more open to diverse relationships, including living together. In the past, prenuptial agreements held a negative connotation as if one of the parties expected the marriage to end. The more-practical millennials, who prioritize acquiring and preserving wealth, see the prenup as a planning tool and communication map to manage financial expectations and interests. Creating a prenup with a lawyer realistically deals with the uncertainty of the future and helps a couple draft specific plans. Millennials choosing to live together instead of marrying can benefit from an attorney’s expertise when drawing up a cohabitation agreement, protecting both parties and their assets in case the relationship ends. When couples know the laws regarding cohabitation , marriage and divorce in their state, they tend to be ready for even unexpected contingencies. Whether a couple plans to cohabitate, marry or file for divorce, planning for a big relationship step helps the individuals prepare for the future, no matter what happens in the marriage. Consulting with a knowledgeable, experienced family lawyer sets up both parties for success.
December 23, 2017 The 32-year-old mother entered the high rise in downtown Memphis as a memory tugged at the far corners of her mind. Suddenly, it came to her. She had been in this very building with her own mother for the same purpose — to file bankruptcy . She anguished over the decision but a court order had recently enforced a judgement against her that allowed a company to seize a portion of her check. With her struggle to make ends meet, the judgment would put an unbearable strain on her already overburdened finances — the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Despite the stigma, she decided that bankruptcy would stop the vicious cycle of juggling bills each month so that she could now start fresh. She even dreamed of becoming a homeowner one day. While the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee in Memphis funnels millions of dollars to the court, the lawyers and the creditors, the debtors for whom the entire system exists don’t fare so well. The clients are stuck in a vicious cycle. Most people choose to file Chapter 7, which allows the person to start over from square one without seizing any debts. In contrast, Chapter 13 requires monthly payments while stopping car repossessions and home foreclosures. This method is most common in the South and was what this mother chose. She didn’t understand the difference between the two. However, filers who opt for Chapter 13 must continue making payments for five full years. Most cannot even last 12 months under the program. These individuals went through each and every step of the bankruptcy — paying filing and legal fees and dealing with a seven-year blemish on their credit record — but do not ultimately benefit from the program. Once they have defaulted, they revert back to all unpaid debts with interest rates higher than ever. When comparing Caucasian filings with African-American filings, the latter usually file under Chapter 13 but cannot complete the program. Some return for repeat filings, with a few filing Chapter 13 up to 20 times during their lifetimes. They view bankruptcy as a last resort. If you are considering bankruptcy, talk to our knowledge attorneys about which options — Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 — is best for you.
