I just completed the new interactive mapping feature for our web site. It includes:
- Custom map icon;
- Firm detail information on the icon;
- Custom photograph;
- Bicycle routes to the office; and,
- Driving directions from your location.
I-9 Employment Information — Does It Really Have to Be Filled Out?
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement audited Ketchikan Drywall Services, Inc. (“KDS”) personnel records — the I-9 Employment Information form. The ICE determined that KDS violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. ICE proved 225 of the 271 alleged violations of § 1324a(b) and the issued a bill for the resulting civil penalty of $173,250.00. KDS argued that it substantially complied with the requirements of the statute. KDS had copies of the employees documents containing the relevant information. ICE refused to consider those documents. The court upheld the penalties. The court held that retaining copies of the underlying documents was neither necessary nor did it comply with the regulations.
Don’t skimp on filling out the I-9.
To discuss this issue or other business or legal matters call us at 907-375-9226.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KETCHIKAN DRYWALL SERVICES, INC.,
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
Submitted April 8, 2013* Seattle, Washington
Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, A. Wallace Tashima, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.
Have a plan — Hit Your Target
Force used in Self Defense must be Proportional to the Threat
Force used in Self Defense must be Proportional to the Threat
On June 25, 2010, the defendant, Andrea Santoyo, and Jessica Fratis became involved in an argument. Apparently, during this argument, Santoyo flipped a cigarette at Fratis. (The cigarette did not hit her, but went by her head.) Fratis became angry and started hitting Santoyo. As the fight continued, Santoyo pulled out a knife and stabbed Fratis several times. Miguel Slats intervened in the fight and received a cut on his side that was five inches long, as well as a one-inch cut to his left arm.
Bystanders called 911, and Santoyo fled the area. But she was apprehended by the police a few blocks away. Fratis was taken to the hospital where she received emergency surgery. She was in the hospital for approximately six weeks recovering from her wounds. Slats was hospitalized for four or five days for his wounds.
The State charged Santoyo with one count of assault in the first degree for assaulting Jessica Fratis and one count of assault in the first degree for assaulting Miguel Slats. In a jury trial, Santoyo argued that she had acted in self-defense. The jury rejected Santoyo’s self-defense argument, convicting her of both counts of assault in the first degree.
At sentencing, Santoyo proposed the mitigating factor that, in committing the offense, she had “acted with serious provocation from the victim.” In order to establish a mitigating factor, the defendant must prove the mitigating factor to the court by clear and convincing evidence. In order to prove the serious-provocation mitigating factor, the defendant must show provocation “sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation, other than a person who is intoxicated, under the circumstances as the defendant reasonably believed them to be … .” In addition, the defendant’s response must be proportional to the provocation. Whether the response is proportional “involves a common sense balancing of the seriousness of the defendant’s crime against the seriousness of the provocation.”
In rejecting the mitigating factor, the superior court concluded that Santoyo’s conduct of inflicting serious physical injury with a knife was disproportionate to any provocation that she had received. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.
Clayton Walker, JD
907-375-9226
[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
If you don’t take care of details the first time — it may cost you more later.
If you don’t take care of details the first time — it may cost you more later.
A couple divorced in 1992. The divorce decree did not divide the parties’ property. The man now receives military retirement benefits from over 22 years of service in the United States military. In October 2010 the woman filed a motion seeking a post. The man opposed, arguing that the woman’s claim was barred by (1) the statute of limitations; (2) laches; and (3) estoppel. The superior court concluded that the woman could properly bring her motion, that her motion was not barred by the statute of limitations, and that laches barred only the retrospective division of the man’s retirement benefits. The man appealed. The court affirmed the decision on the merits, although it remanded on other issues. If you don’t get the Alaska court to issue a property decree when you divorce your spouse can return decades later and ask for more.
[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
Statutes of Limitations in Alaska
Petro Alaska v. Davis Wright Tremaine
Corporation’s shareholders brought a derivative suit against a shareholder-director and the corporation’s former attorneys for fiduciary fraud, fraudulent conveyance, legal malpractice, and civil conspiracy. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court ruled all the claims were time-barred. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of all claims accept two claims against the law firms. Thirty five pages of information on statutes of limitations, tolling, discovery rule, and the distinction between attorney fee awards as damages versus costs.
Statutes of Limitations in Alaska
[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
Alaska License Revocation Hearings
CLAYTON WALKER, JD
JULY 20, 2013
Patrick
v.
Municipality of Anchorage,
Anchorage Transportation Commission
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
S-14360
No. 1464 – July 19, 2013
The Alaska Supreme Court issued another decision concerning Alaska administrative board process of revoking chauffeur’s licenses. The case doesn’t break new ground. However, it stands as a reminder
NO ATV ACCESS on Butterfly Lake Trail
CLAYTON WALKER, JD
Original Opinion JULY 20, 2013
Rehearing October 10, 2011
SOP, INC.
v.
STATE OF ALASKA,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Supreme Court No. S-14541
OPINION No. 6800 – July 19, 2013
The Alaska Supreme Court revoked Nancy Lakes area homeowner’s motorized ground based access to their properties along ATV trails by invalidating their special use permits as unlawfully issued easements.
Anchorage Municipality Property Tax Valuation Appeals
CLAYTON WALKER, JD
JULY 20, 2013
C. Walker 2013, all rights reserved.
Varilek
v.
Municipality of Anchorage,
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
S-14448
The Alaska Supreme Court issued another decision addressing Alaska municipal real property tax valuation appeal. The case doesn’t break new ground. However, it stands as a reminder of the the appellate process on municipal tax appeals and the standards of review used by the courts. The matter arose from the Anchorage Municipalities appraisal assessment in January 2010. You can expect that the full appeal process from filing through a Supreme Court opinion may take as long as 42 months as it did in this case. That fact, combined with the review standards addressed in the opinion make it clear that the boards opinion is likely to stand if it is based on based on substantial evidence applied on a reasonable basis involving the agency’s expertise. These facts underscore why engaging tax counsel is necessary. Counsel can advise you on the merits of your case. Counsel can assist in determining the valuation method used by the municipality in your matter. Counsel can assist in creating a strategic plan for accumulating and presentation of your evidence before the board. They can also keep you from spending 42 months pressing a legal theory that was repeatedly rejected.
For an appointment call
907-375-9226
Expansive Business Attorney Views from Wolverine Peak
It’s good to get out and take in the views on a sunny day. From Wolverine Peak across the Chugach Range. Lots of people were out for the adventure. I wound up meeting with a judge, a former board member and client at various points along the hike.