"car computers seem to fall under the "vehicle exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant -requirement.
Under that exception, which the Court invented in 1925 to facilitate enforcement of alcohol prohibition, police may search a car without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe they will find contraband or other evidence of illegal activity. A bill with bipartisan support in the House and Senate would prevent police from using that exception to grab information on a car's computer.
The Closing Warrantless Digital Car Search Loophole Act would require a warrant for such a search unless operating the vehicle requires a commercial driver's license. Any vehicle data obtained without a warrant could not be used as a basis for probable cause or as evidence considered by courts, grand juries, or regulatory agencies."
Read more reason
The Grandville Jenison Chamber Of Commerce "Member Spotlight" for the week of Aug. 8 features Paul Ledford!
See the spotlight here
Case coming before the U.S. Supreme Court touching on unreasonable searches and seizures. I *hope* they act to protect privacy and liberty against an ever expanding power of government to intrude. If they do not act to protect individual liberties...
"Thanks to overcriminalization, prosecutors could potentially file far more criminal charges over “a staggering array of everyday conduct,” including “doodling on a dollar bill, selling snacks without a license, spitting in public, eavesdropping, littering (including on your own property), jaywalking, and possession of a felt tip marker by a person under twenty-one.” As a result, “millions of Americans unwittingly commit a misdemeanor every day.”
“Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government,” Justice Robert H. Jackson warned more than seven decades ago. “Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart...the human personality deteriorates and dignity and self-reliance disappear where homes, persons and possessions are subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police.”
Read more at Forbes
Pres. Biden has floated the idea of getting rid of something called "stepped-up basis". What is this and how does this affect you?
When your parents pass and leave you the family house (or any asset), for instance, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today, regardless of the cost that your parents acquired it.
So, for instance, if your parents purchased their home for $40,000.00 thirty years ago (the "basis"), and if, at their death (the last parent to die) the house is worth $200,000, and then, after inheriting it, you were to sell that house today (for, say, $205,000), you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth at the time your last surviving parent died and what it sells for (gain=$5,000.00 in this example - see outline below). This is because the "stepped-up basis" automatically increases the "basis" from the original purchase price ($40,000.00) to what it is valued at upon the last owner to die ($200,000.00).
If Biden does away with a "stepped-up basis," a policy/law that has been in place for many, many decades, you will inherit the property at the value your parents paid for the property (this is called the "basis" - $40,000.00). If you decide to sell (at $205,000.00) you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price (the "basis" = $40,000.00) and what it sells for today ($205,000.00 = taxable value: $165,000.00). If you choose to try to keep the property, the IRS could still determine a value as of the date of the last to die and tax you on the gain (depending upon how the law and IRS regulation might be effected by such legislation).
Current Policy with a step-ups in basis:
Biden proposed Policy:
If your parent were to have sold this property prior to passing they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence. This will be, if Biden goes forward with this plan, a massively huge tax on the middle and lower classes, as well as forcing people to incur additional cost and time expenditures attempting to determine the original purchase price of the asset (houses are easier to track down this information than, say, stocks).
Paul A. Ledford, Esq.
Ledford & Associates
In April 2020, inside a local, Ottawa County, MI sandwich shop, my client expressed his opinion regarding the Governor's COVID orders .... and was charged with "disturbing the peace," a misdemeanor under MCL 750.170. We moved to dismiss the charge on 1st Amendment grounds arguing that the statute was unconstitutionally applied against my client in a manner that unconstitutionally punished his 1st Amendment rights of free speech and expression in a public place.
In its opinion regarding our motion to dismiss, the Court denied our motion, but limited the prosecution to only presenting evidence of his "threatening" conduct (of which the State's witness had already testified in an evidentiary hearing Mr. Steffes did not threaten her).
The prosecution continued its case against my client despite the court's opinion and order.
We then moved to limit the prosecution from using any expressive, non-violent words during trial, arguing, again, that any testimony discussing his non-violent expressive conduct necessarily required testimony about what he was communicating by means of his expressive conduct. This was based upon the Court's prior order and the testimony of the State's witness that she had not been threatened by Mr. Steffes (she did testify that she felt threatened by the content of his speech, but the Court ordered that this was protected speech and could not be used against him in the prosecution's case).
Today we were back in Court to argue the motion. Prior to the commencement of arguments, the Prosecution admitted that due to the Court's order it "could not proceed" and therefore dismissed the case.
This is a HUGE win for proponents of First Amendment civil rights, but, once again, the "forgotten man" suffers under the financial strain of protecting that interest. We are asking once again (and thanking you in advance) for any assistance to help cover his attorney fee costs.
To donate and help, go to this GoFundMe page
An article from October 2020 provides good information for estate planning purposes:
"...the official estate and gift tax limits for 2020: The estate and gift tax exemption is $11.58 million per individual, up from $11.4 million in 2019. That means an individual can leave $11.58 million to heirs and pay no federal estate or gift tax, while a married couple will be able to shield $23.16 million.
The annual gift exclusion amount remains the same at $15,000.
Warning: The $23.16 million number per couple isn’t automatic. An unlimited marital deduction allows you to leave all or part of your assets to your surviving spouse free of federal estate tax. But to use your late spouse’s unused exemption—a move called “portability” — you must elect it on the estate tax return of the first spouse to die, even when no tax is due. The problem is if you don’t know what portability is and how to elect it, you could be hit with a surprise federal estate tax bill.
While Republican death tax foes hope to make the doubled exemption permanent, Democratic presidential hopefuls say they’ll bring it back to its 2009 level of $3.5 million, with a graduated tax rate up to 77%, compared to today’s flat 40% rate.
If you are interested in exploring your estate planning options, please feel free to contact me: 616-257-3300.
We have created a GoFundMe page to help with the expenses of the criminal defense of my client charged with exercising his First Amendment right to express his opinion regarding COVID-19 restrictions, Gov. Whitmer's Executive Orders and people that follow them without thinking for themselves.
We are moving forward, seeking to dismiss the case on constitutional principles. Please consider how you may be to help: a donation of any amount will help, but so will getting this shared EVERYWHERE.
Thank you in advance!
Link to GoFundMe page
It's an interesting argument: can the governor by executive order modify insurance contracts? There's an argument that she cannot under the "Contracts Clause" of the U.S. Constitution. This will be an interesting one to watch. Clearly she believes that she can, via regulatory power through the Michigan Insurance Commissioner.
Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services Director Anita Fox has ordered all auto insurers in Michigan to issue refunds or premium waivers to consumers as a result of insurance companies’ reduced risk during the COVID-19 crisis.
Read more at mLive.com
Congratulations! To my client and his company... we obtained a full dismissal of him personally and his construction company from a Mason County civil law suit brought against him and others claiming all sorts of damages based upon state and federal causes of action. My clients are dismissed based on a written waiver AND, in (our and) the Judge's opinion that the Plaintiff failed to support the case with sufficient evidence. At the hearing on our Motion, the Plaintiff's attorney actually claimed to the Judge that it wasn't Plaintiff's job to prove who was at fault, but rather the various defendants' burden to determine blame among and between themselves. All defendants, of course, were claiming that they were not at fault, or that some other defendant might be at fault.
Now.... for a motion seeking my clients' attorney fees based upon our Offer of Judgment that Plaintiff rejected..... *fist pump*
Per the Governor's orders, as of 11:00 a.m., March 23, 2020, our office is now CLOSED to the public. We are still operating and conducting business, but it is now purely and solely via email, telephone and telecommunications (Skype, Zoom and other internet meeting options).