Finance Ideas

The wildfire that began in the Santa Barbara area earlier this month was apparently an act of accidental arson. The fire that destroyed scores of homes in Montecito and Santa Barbara was caused by a group of young people who had built a bonfire.
A group of 10 young men and women described by authorities as locals went to the Tea house, an abandoned mansion, for a bonfire party. They told Santa Barbara County sheriff’s investigators that they had put the fire out before they left that night. But authorities believe the fire continued to smolder before breaking out into fire when winds swept in Thursday afternoon. Last year, officials arrested several people who allegedly started a bonfire in some caves above Corral Canyon in Malibu, where flames burned dozens of homes.
Arson is a serious matter, especially in Los Angeles where the yearly fires cost millions of dollars in damage, as well as the lives of some home owners. Arson is a serious crime, and the laws hand down stiff penalties to individuals who commit the crime, whether purposefully or accidentally. Criminal defense attorneys who defend arson cases often have to dig through piles of facts, research and so forth to find out exactly what the prosecution will portray as the truth.
Under the criminal law of most states, arson is committed when a person intentionally burns almost any kind of structure or building, not just a house or business. Many states recognize differing degrees of arson, based on such factors as whether the building was occupied and whether insurance fraud was intended.
To enforce state fire and forest laws, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s 300 plus officers are busy year round investigating fire causes, interviewing witnesses, issuing citations and setting up surveillance operations. Additionally, law enforcement staff provides assistance when requested by local fire and law enforcement agencies in arson, bomb, fireworks, and fire extinguisher investigations, as well as disposal of explosives. Office of the State Fire Marshal Arson and Bomb Specialists provide fire and bomb investigation services to state-owned facilities, and provide assistance to local government fire and law agencies. The Department’s investigators have a very successful conviction rate.
Criminal defense attorneys who defend those accused of arson understand that the laws governing arson are strict and harsh. According to California Penal Code 451.5. (a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, deliberately, with premeditation, and with intent to cause injury to one or more persons or to cause damage to property under circumstances likely to produce injury to one or more persons or to cause damage to one or more structures or inhabited dwellings, sets fire to, burns, or causes to be burned, or aids, counsels, or procures the burning of any residence, structure, forest land, or property is guilty of aggravated arson if one or more of the following aggravating factors exists:
(1) The defendant has been previously convicted of arson on one or more occasions within the past 10 years.
(3) The fire caused damage to, or the destruction of, five or more inhabited structures. (b) Any person who is convicted under subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years to life. (c) Any person who is sentenced under subdivision (b) shall not be eligible for release on parole until 10 calendar years have elapsed.

Source: Law Blog

Every year in Southern California, wildfires burn in one or more of the cities, costing millions of dollars and sometimes even the lives of the people who live there. This year was no different, with fires burning in Sylmar, Santa Barbara and other cities. While some fires are caused by the combination of hot winds, lack of rainfall and the bright sun, other fires are caused by humans. Arson is a serious crime, usually charged as a felony, and unfortunately it has become a serious matter in Los Angeles.

A homeless man has been sentenced to nearly four years in prison and ordered to pay more than $101 million for starting two fires, including one that burned more than 163,000 acres in California two years ago. Fifty-year-old Steven Emory Butcher was convicted in February of starting blazes in the Los Padres National Forest in 2002 and 2006.

The 2006 fire raged for more than a month and cost more than $78 million to suppress. It injured 18 people, destroyed 11 structures and was the fifth-largest fire in California history, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Under the criminal law of most states, arson is committed when a person intentionally burns almost any kind of structure or building, not just a house or business. Many states recognize differing degrees of arson, based on such factors as whether the building was occupied and whether insurance fraud was intended.

CALIFORNIA CODES PENAL CODE

451. A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property.

(a) Arson that causes great bodily injury is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven, or nine years. (b) Arson that causes an inhabited structure or inhabited property to burn is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or eight years. (c) Arson of a structure or forest land is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years. (d) Arson of property is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, two, or three years. For purposes of this paragraph, arson of property does not include one burning or causing to be burned his or her own personal property unless there is intent to defraud or there is injury to another person or another person’s structure, forest land, or property. (e) In the case of any person convicted of violating this section while confined in a state prison, prison road camp, prison forestry camp, or other prison camp or prison farm, or while confined in a county jail while serving a term of imprisonment for a felony or misdemeanor conviction, any sentence imposed shall be consecutive to the sentence for which the person was then confined.

Los Angeles arson defense attorneys have to handle not only a court, but popular opinion. When television stations and news outlets show the mass fires, the smoke filling the air and houses burned to the ground, it makes regular people have a very low opinion of anyone who starts a fire - whether intentionally or unintentionally. This can make it a real battle for any Los Angeles arson defense attorney, in court and before charges are filed.

If you’ve been charged with or accused of arson, the best thing to do is contact a competent Los Angeles arson defense attorney immediately; because he/she will be able to help you sort through the matter and get to the real details.

Source: Law Blog

Throughout Southern California the latest economic hardships have begun to affect crime prevention. Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys have seen a drop in police budgets, crime prevention budgets, gang prevention budgets and so on. Belt-tightening has already begun in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, which have both been particularly hard hit by the recession.
The millions of dollars in budget cuts throughout California, such programs as child abuse prevention are being cut. The Los Angeles Times reports that Orange County alone is cutting $5.2 million from the sheriff and coroner’s budget and $4.3 million from the public defender’s budget. That means that while there may be less law enforcement officers to arrest people, once arrested there will be a much lower level of criminal defense provided by the county.
Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to find adequate Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys throughout Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Gabriel and other counties in Southern California. If you believe that criminal charges are about to be filed against you, it is always to your benefit to speak with a reputable criminal defense attorney. Even if criminal charges never get filed by the District Attorney, you will benefit immensely from the advice and guidance of a skilled defense lawyer.
Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, LLP is a Southern California criminal defense law firm that is dedicated to providing reliable legal representation for clients located throughout Los Angeles and surrounding counties. At Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, our reputable lawyers have over 50 years courtroom experience, and specialize in all criminal and DUI matters. Martindale-Hubbell, a national lawyers’ review company, has recognized year after year that Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin LLP is a “Preeminent Law Firm,” designating it to be a Top 5% U.S. Law Firm. When our clients decide to retain our services, they can be confident that they have hired a knowledgeable, distinguished, and tenacious legal team that will place every effort into helping them avoid a criminal conviction and keep them out of custody.

Source: Law Blog

An accused low-level mob associate who was convicted earlier this year of killing an off-duty police officer during a botched burglary was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The co-defendant, a former “Sopranos” actor, goes on trial this week.
The murder was committed two years ago, but the lead defendant wasn’t convicted of the violent crime until October. The two men were accused of braking into a Bronx apartment to steal prescription drugs after a night of drinking at a strip club. The off-duty officer cam to investigate and was shot in the heart. The off-duty officer fired back and wounded both men.
The actor, Lillo Brancato, was the star of Robert DeNiro’s “A Bronx Tale” and has had many parts in movies since then. Over the years, many celebrities have faced various criminal charges and needed experienced violent crime defense attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys who work on high-profile violent crime trials, such as the OJ Simpson trial and the Scott Peterson murder, know the challenges of defending someone whose name is widely known.
In Los Angeles, violent crime defense attorneys regularly defend celebrities and well-known personalities in all manner of offenses, including DUI, theft, violent crime, domestic violence and drugs.
As Former Los Angeles Prosecutors, our firm specializes in aggressive Criminal Defense work in Southern California Courts - in the area of Violent Crimes. We promise that only the three firm partners work on your case, rather than young attorneys, contract lawyers, or case managers. Our law firm has been recognized as a Top 5% U.S. Law Firm based on peer reviews from other attorneys, judges, and prosecutors, in the area of legal ethics, professionalism, and judgment. We have more than 50 years experience in defending all criminal matters.

Source: Law Blog

While the sales of cigarettes appears to be a mundane activity, some businesses attempt to avoid paying government taxes on the import and sales of cigarettes. The federal and state government then steps in to enforce the tax laws and prosecute the violations including RICO and conspiracy criminal laws.

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorneys should be familiar with a recent decision in the area of Cigarette Trafficking, which dealt with an exemption to the enforcement of the tax laws. Members of the Yakama Indian tribe in Washington may be exempt from prosecution for trafficking in contraband cigarettes, but they face racketeering charges if they conspire with nonmembers to do so, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. Recognizing that an 1855 treaty prevented the government from prosecuting Roger Fiander for transporting cigarettes without state tax stamps, the court nevertheless upheld Fiander’s conviction for conspiring to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act because some of his coconspirators in the illegal enterprise did not share his immunity.

The Defendant, a member of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation located in south central Washington, was part of an organization which purchased cigarettes from wholesalers and then sold them to tribal retailers in Washington without paying the state’s cigarette tax. His role was to transport the cigarettes from the Coeur d’Alene Indian reservation in Idaho to the retailers. The State of Washington, in order to enforce its cigarette tax, requires cigarettes to have a stamp showing payment of taxes or tax-exempt status, and Fiander was eventually charged in a multi-count indictment filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington with transporting “contraband” cigarettes without stamps in violation of the federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act.

In addition to several co-defendants, the Defendant was also charged with conspiracy to violate the trafficking act and RICO, as well as money laundering, and he agreed to plead guilty to one county of conspiracy to violate RICO in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts. Shortly thereafter, however, the Ninth Circuit decided in United States v. Smiskin (2007) 487 F.3d 1260 that the application of the trafficking act to Yakama Indians transporting unstamped cigarettes violated the Yakama Treaty of 1855’s guarantee of the “right to transport goods to market over public highways without payment of fees for that use,” and U.S. District Judge Robert H. Whaley dismissed the indictment naming Fiander.

On the government’s appeal, the judge agreed that Smiskin precluded prosecution of the Defendant for a substantive violation of the trafficking act, but the court opined that defendant did not need to commit the substantive offense of contraband cigarette trafficking in order to be guilty of the RICO conspiracy. Turning to principles of conspiracy law, the judge said it was sufficient that defendant knew about and agreed to facilitate the scheme, and that the allegations in the indictment survived dismissal.

The court exaplained: “The indictment alleged that Defendant entered into an agreement to commit the substantive offense of contraband cigarette trafficking. At least several of his coconspirators…are not members of the Yakama Nation; therefore their conduct is ‘indictable’ under the CCTA…. The indictment further alleges, and the plea agreement indicates, that Fiander knew about the objective of the enterprise and knowingly agreed to facilitate it.” Noting that the coconspirators agreed to commit violations of the CCTA that are indictable as substantive RICO offenses, the court concluded that Defebdant’s agreement to facilitate the commission of contraband cigarette trafficking by others whose acts were indictable under the trafficking left him open to the RICO conspiracy charge, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Source: Law Blog

As child pornography prosecutions have become more visible in Southern California courts, Los Angeles Criminal Lawyers should be aware of a recent decision in this area.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the seizure of child pornography and other evidence of an elderly man’s involvement in sex tourism from a FedEx shipping facility was valid as the equivalent of a border search - which requires almost no government justification to be lawful. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial judge should have suppressed the contents of the packages he attempted to ship to the Philippines.The court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and 20-year prison sentence for attempting to travel in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct, using interstate facilities to entice a minor into engaging in criminal sexual activity, and possessing and producing child pornography.

Between 2002 and 2003, testimony showed that Defedant sent three FedEx packages to the Philippines. As required by the shipper, he signed a statement agreeing to conditions, including allowing FedEx to inspect the contents and an acknowledgment that the package had to “clear customs” before leaving the United States. U.S. Custom Service inspectors later inspected all packages bound for the Philippines through FedEx’s Oakland hub as part of a currency interdiction operation. Seljan’s package was found to contain U.S. and Philippine currency, as well as a sexually suggestive letter to an 8-year-old girl. A second package containing similar contents was intercepted eight months later. Inspectors allowed FedEx to deliver both packages. Interviews with one of Defendant’s former neighbors and a former property manager revealed that he traveled to the Philippines, and that he said he did so to “have sex with kids.” He was shown to have traveled to the Philippines 42 times between 1992 and 2003.

Defendant was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport while attempting to board a flight to the Philippines. After signing a Miranda waiver, he said he had been “sexually educating” children for approximately 20 years. After his arrest, a search warrant was executed at his residence, and pornography as well as business and travel documents were discovered.

Defendant argued in support of his suppression motion that the search did not fall under any exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The motion was denied by the trial judge, who held “that inspections at the airport facility were tantamount to an inspection at the international border.” The court relied on a prior case ruling, in which the high court held that border agents did not, under the Fourth Amendment, need reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and remove and disassemble its gas tank.

The Court reasoned: “We agree with the defense that there was intrusion into his privacy, but the degree of intrusion must be viewed in perspective. defendant voluntarily gave the package containing the letter to FedEx for delivery to someone in the Philippines, with knowledge that it would have to cross the border and clear customs,” the judge wrote. “The reasonable expectation of privacy for that package was necessarily tempered.”

Source: Law Blog

Penal Code Section 69 and 148(a) both make it unlawful to fail to follow lawful police orders. The former is a felony which carries the possibility of prison, while the latter is a misdemeanor that usually results in a defendant having to perform community service. The big difference between the criminal charges, as the case below demonstrates, is the use of force by a defendant.

The Court of Appeals ruled in a recent case that a Defendant who claimed he resisted police officers because their efforts to subdue him during an arrest caused him pain was entitled to an alternate jury instruction on a lesser charge that did not involve use of force or violence (Penal Code Section 148) The court concluded that the trial judge must instruct on both theories because a jury could reasonably have found defendant guilty of the lesser offense if it believed his testimony. The Appeals Court thus conditionally reversed the convictions for forcibly resisting the officers (Penal Code Section 69).

Defendant was apprehended in November of 2006 by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were responding to a report of a prowler in San Pedro. After a citizen told the first officer on the scene that a man matching the prowler’s description was attempting to break into vehicles nearby, the officer radioed for assistance and initiated contact with the suspect, who began to walk up a flight of stairs leading to an apartment patio approximately 30 feet above the ground surrounded by a chainlink fence. Defendant told the officer that he lived at the apartment, but two other officers who arrived said that he refused their orders to show his hands and, while refusing to turn around, attempted to open the apartment door. When one of officers handcuffed his right wrist, the officers said that Defendant “really went off” and began to struggle while calling out for his mother.

Saying that Defendant was “stronger than anybody that I’ve ever had to be in [an] altercation with,” and that she was afraid that someone would respond to his calls for help, one of the responding officers testified that she began punching him in the back when he grabbed the handle of another officer’s gun. The other responding officer testified that he put a carotid restraint hold on the suspect and pepper sprayed him twice in the face while neighbors watched before the officers were able to subdue him when Port of Los Angeles police officers arrived.

In a vehicle parked nearby, officers found his identification, a cellular telephone, a glass pipe and a pouch containing 8.12 grams of methamphetamine. Defendant was charged with three counts of resisting an executive officer by force or violence in violation of Penal Code Sec. 69, and one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. At trial, Defendant acknowledged that he did not live at the apartment and claimed that the officers had rushed him on the patio, saying that he was thrown to the ground before he had a chance to comply with the commands to stop resisting. He also told the court that he only he moved while on the ground to relieve the tension caused when the officers twisted his arm and choked him.

A jury convicted Defendant of the three resisting counts and a lesser charge count of possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, Defendant contended that the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of resisting an officer without the use of force or violence under Sec. 148(a)(1) in addition to an instruction under Sec. 69. The Court of Appeal concluded that Defendant was correct and conditionally reversed the convictions, giving the prosecution the option of retrying Defendant on the greater offense, or accepting a reduction in the convictions to the lesser offense.

“Defendant’s testimony presented a plausible version of the incident which, if believed by the jury, permitted a conviction of resisting arrest in violation of Sec. 148(a)(1),” the court wrote, pointing to the jury’s conviction on the lesser drug charge despite expert testimony, and reasoning that the result demonstrated the jury’s acceptance of defedant’s testimony that the methamphetamine was for personal consumption.

Source: Law Blog

A Tennessee man convicted in the violent fatal shooting of his teacher wife’s student lover will spend 47 more days in jail, followed by 12 years on probation, a judge ruled at a sentencing. The man faced life in prison when he was tried for the violent crime of murder in the 2007 slaying of 18-year-old Sean Powell, the lover of his now ex-wife. But a Knox County jury in September convicted him of the lesser charge of reckless homicide.
If the man, who hopes to finish his college degree and become a high school band director, violates probation in the next 12 years, he could have to serve the full four-year sentence in prison.
The criminal defense attorney was frustrated with the unusually long probation term of 12 years, and blamed prosecutors for trying to “salvage something from what the evidence and the jury said this was” — not a murder, but an accidental killing. The criminal defense attorney said he will appeal the sentence.
The convicted man admitted shooting Powell, whom he caught having sex with his wife. But he said the shooting on March 10, 2007, was an accident. He said he pointed a high-powered rifle at Powell to get him to leave his home. The teen reached for the gun, it went off and killed the teen instantly. Instead of trying to help the victim, the man fled.
Skilled criminal defense attorneys can assist the accused, even in the most heinous violent crime trials. Violent crimes are criminal acts that involve the use or threat of violence. In most cases, violence is used as a means to an end, especially during crimes such as rape and robbery. During the commission of a violent crime, the offender may or may not use a weapon. If the offender uses a weapon while committing a violent crime, the offense will usually be classified as felony.
Once a person is convicted a violent crime, he/she may be punished with:
- imprisonment
- large fines
- community service
- probation
- parole
- court ordered anger management classes
If the defendant has a prior criminal offense on his/her record, or if the defendant used a weapon while committing the crime, he/she may be subject to enhanced criminal charges and sentencing if convicted. Due to the life-altering legal consequences that are involved, it is always in a person’s best interest to obtain the services of a criminal defense attorney who has the legal background and knowledge it takes to successfully fight violent crime charges.

Source: Law Blog

In America, the economic challenges have had impacts in all walks of life. When it comes to crime, Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys have found themselves defending more and more alleged theft crime offenders. According to the Federal Government, property theft crimes have falled drastically over the last 30 plus years. However, the current economic crisis is driving more and more people away from stable jobs to acts of desparation.
These theft crimes will increase in the specific areas where people have lost, or are losing, their jobs, homes and possessions.
A theft crime is a criminal act of taking another individual’s personal property without the individual’s consent. In California, theft crimes are classified as grand theft or petty theft. Petty theft is taking another person’s property (valued at below $400) without the person’s consent. In most cases, petty theft is considered a misdemeanor. Grand theft is taking another person’s property (valued at $400 or greater) without the person’s consent. Many grand theft crimes are considered felonies; which means that the offender can be sentenced with over a year of jail time if convicted.
Frequently committed theft crimes include: shoplifting, carjacking, burglary, robbery, armed robbery, credit card fraud, identity theft, vehicular theft, embezzlement, larceny, and money laundering.
In places where foreclosures are on the rise, criminal defense attorneys across the country have seen property damage, petty theft and even grand larceny on the rise. In Los Angeles, the foreclosures have hit some neighborhoods worse than others, and the crime rate over the next 12 months will most likely mirror the foreclosure rates.

Source: Law Blog

Two warrants were issued for the acting and hip-hop star Mos Def, real name Dante Smith, in connection to a clash with a fashion photographer in August. Mos Def faces charges of felony robbery and malicious destruction of private property after photographer Volker Corell claimed the rap star ripped a camera from his neck, smashed it to the ground and then took off with it.

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by and on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual. Warrants are typically issued by courts but can also be issued by one of the chambers of the United States Congress or other legislatures (via the call of the house motion) and other political entities.

In the United States, an arrest warrant must be supported by a signed and sworn affidavit showing probable cause that:

- a specific crime has been committed, and
- the person(s) named in the warrant committed said crime.

An arrest warrant differs from a bench warrant in that a bench warrant is a court order that is issued after a person has failed to appear in court. If a person fails to appear in court, the judge may issue a bench warrant, which will allow law enforcement to detain the person. The purpose of a bench warrant is to achieve the court appearance of a defendant who is involved in a pending criminal action.

Once a person is aware that a bench warrant or arrest warrant has been issued in his/her name, it is always in his/her best interest to retain the services of a qualified criminal defense attorney. A warrant can lead to enhanced legal consequences such as jail time, fines, and probation. For this reason, it is always advisable that people consult with a defense attorney once a warrant has been issued for their arrests or detainment.

Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, LLP is a criminal defense law firm that has been helping clients throughout Southern California contest their criminal charges and obtain superior results for years. Our skilled warrant attorneys have over 50 years of collective court room experience and we are fully prepared to undertake our clients’ cases. When we work with our clients, we do everything possible to make sure that they receive the attention, resources, and dedicated legal counsel that they deserve.

Source: Law Blog