Court officials say the New Jersey mom accused of taking her then-5-year-old daughter into a tanning booth is no longer on probation in a separate case.
Patricia Krentcil is free on $2,500 bond on the child endangerment charge.
The arrest in Nutley got the attention of authorities in Camden County. That's where Krentcil was sentenced to five years' probation in 1999 for credit card theft, forgery and theft for writing bad checks. In 2001, a bench warrant was issued for her failure to appear at a probation hearing.
Court officials in Camden County on Friday say her probation had been terminated and she would not be required to appear in court.
Krentcil is due back in court next month in the tanning case. She says she never took her daughter into a booth.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Sydney Criminal Lawyers - Section 10 states a No Conviction case.
Section 10 states a No Conviction case. It is when you are guilty or a criminal offence or a major traffic offence but the Court establishes not to charge you with a criminal conviction or licence disqualification. Section 10 of the Crimes Act 1999 is a powerful sentencing procedure and gives the courts the power to deal with guilty individuals by:
- dismissing the charges completely
- discharging the individual into a good behaviour bond for 2 years or less or
- discharging the individual into an intervention program such as a drug and alcohol program or a traffic offender program.
This essential eliminates all high penalties and indicates that there is no criminal conviction, no fines, and in driving cases, no licence disqualitication.
All criminal charges and driving charges are available to get a section 10. However, the court considers many factors when making their decision whether to grant a section 10 to an individual:
(a) the person's character and history, age, health, and mental condition,
(b) the trivial nature of the offence,
(c) the extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed, and
(d) any other matter that the court thinks proper to consider.
Your chances of getting a section 10 are better if you can provide some materials in court that show you are otherwise of good characther, the offence was convicted during a difficult time in your life, or you have taken steps on improving underlying issues which may have led you to commit the crime or traffic violation from the beginning.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers can help with a no conviction recorded for a criminal or traffic charge you have been convicted of. If you are trying to gain a section 10 on your criminal defence charge, and believe you have extenuating circumstances, our attorneys can help. Call us at (02) 9261 8881 to find out your penalty, make an appointment or have a lawyer call you! Visit us at http://www.criminallaw.com.au/section-10-dismissal for more information.
- dismissing the charges completely
- discharging the individual into a good behaviour bond for 2 years or less or
- discharging the individual into an intervention program such as a drug and alcohol program or a traffic offender program.
This essential eliminates all high penalties and indicates that there is no criminal conviction, no fines, and in driving cases, no licence disqualitication.
All criminal charges and driving charges are available to get a section 10. However, the court considers many factors when making their decision whether to grant a section 10 to an individual:
(a) the person's character and history, age, health, and mental condition,
(b) the trivial nature of the offence,
(c) the extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed, and
(d) any other matter that the court thinks proper to consider.
Your chances of getting a section 10 are better if you can provide some materials in court that show you are otherwise of good characther, the offence was convicted during a difficult time in your life, or you have taken steps on improving underlying issues which may have led you to commit the crime or traffic violation from the beginning.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers can help with a no conviction recorded for a criminal or traffic charge you have been convicted of. If you are trying to gain a section 10 on your criminal defence charge, and believe you have extenuating circumstances, our attorneys can help. Call us at (02) 9261 8881 to find out your penalty, make an appointment or have a lawyer call you! Visit us at http://www.criminallaw.com.au/section-10-dismissal for more information.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Miss. high court takes ex-gov pardons case
The Mississippi Supreme Court said Wednesday it will take up the legal
challenge to the pardons ex-Gov. Haley Barbour gave out in his last days
in office.
State Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, wants to invalidate dozens of the 198 pardons that Barbour, a Republican, handed out before his second four-year term ended Jan. 10. Ten of the people were still incarcerated when they received reprieves.
Only about two dozen of the people pardoned followed the Mississippi Constitution's requirement to publish a notice about their reprieves in their local newspapers for 30 days, said Hood, who wants the others invalidated. Barbour has said the pardons are valid and that he gave them because he's a Christian and believes in second chances.
Most of the people who could lose their pardons already served their sentences and have been out of prison for years. Some of them were convicted of comparatively minor crimes as far back as the 1960s and 1970s and have never been in trouble again.
Five of the pardoned are being held on a temporary restraining order issued by Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green. The Supreme Court extended that order until it can rule on the matter. It set a hearing for Feb. 9 and said it would try to rule quickly.
State Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, wants to invalidate dozens of the 198 pardons that Barbour, a Republican, handed out before his second four-year term ended Jan. 10. Ten of the people were still incarcerated when they received reprieves.
Only about two dozen of the people pardoned followed the Mississippi Constitution's requirement to publish a notice about their reprieves in their local newspapers for 30 days, said Hood, who wants the others invalidated. Barbour has said the pardons are valid and that he gave them because he's a Christian and believes in second chances.
Most of the people who could lose their pardons already served their sentences and have been out of prison for years. Some of them were convicted of comparatively minor crimes as far back as the 1960s and 1970s and have never been in trouble again.
Five of the pardoned are being held on a temporary restraining order issued by Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green. The Supreme Court extended that order until it can rule on the matter. It set a hearing for Feb. 9 and said it would try to rule quickly.
Appeals court set to hear Alabama trademark suit
A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in the trademark
infringement case between sports artist Daniel Moore and the University
of Alabama, whose football program is portrayed in a number of his
works.
They present their cases to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Thursday.
The university filed suit in 2005 alleging that Moore violated trademark law in painting scenes from football games by showing Crimson Tide players in their crimson and white uniforms without permission.
The suit also contends that Moore reissued previously licensed prints without paying royalties.
A federal judge's ruling in 2009 found that Moore's paintings and prints were protected but that other items ? like coffee mugs ? weren't. Both sides appealed.
"The University of Alabama believes the court ruled correctly when it found that Daniel Moore and his company engaged in activities that infringe on the University's trademarks," university spokeswoman Deborah Lane said in a statement. "While we regret the necessity of having to involve the courts in this matter, the lawsuit was necessary since UA must protect the value and reputation of our trademarks, name, colors, indicia and logos, by determining who uses them, as well as when and how they are used."
Moore denied violating trademark laws and said his art constitutes free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution.
They present their cases to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Thursday.
The university filed suit in 2005 alleging that Moore violated trademark law in painting scenes from football games by showing Crimson Tide players in their crimson and white uniforms without permission.
The suit also contends that Moore reissued previously licensed prints without paying royalties.
A federal judge's ruling in 2009 found that Moore's paintings and prints were protected but that other items ? like coffee mugs ? weren't. Both sides appealed.
"The University of Alabama believes the court ruled correctly when it found that Daniel Moore and his company engaged in activities that infringe on the University's trademarks," university spokeswoman Deborah Lane said in a statement. "While we regret the necessity of having to involve the courts in this matter, the lawsuit was necessary since UA must protect the value and reputation of our trademarks, name, colors, indicia and logos, by determining who uses them, as well as when and how they are used."
Moore denied violating trademark laws and said his art constitutes free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Accused White House shooter to appear in DC court
A man accused of firing an assault rifle at the White House is expected
to appear in court in Washington. Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez is
scheduled to appear in federal court Monday at 1:45 p.m.
Ortega was arrested last week in Pennsylvania. The Idaho Falls, Idaho, resident is accused of driving by the White House on the evening of Nov. 11 and firing at the White House from his vehicle. Authorities say one of the rounds he fired cracked a window of the first family's living quarters.
President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama were away, and no one was injured.
Ortega was arrested last week in Pennsylvania. The Idaho Falls, Idaho, resident is accused of driving by the White House on the evening of Nov. 11 and firing at the White House from his vehicle. Authorities say one of the rounds he fired cracked a window of the first family's living quarters.
President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama were away, and no one was injured.
Guilty plea planned in Palin lawyer harassment
A 20-year-old Pennsylvania man has agreed to plead guilty to a federal
charge of making harassing phone calls in a case involving Sarah Palin's
lawyers.
Shawn Christy filed notice Monday in U.S. District Court that he intends to plead guilty in an expected plea agreement with federal prosecutors.
Christy plans to plead guilty and be sentenced Dec. 1, according to the document filed by Mary Geddes, assistant federal defender.
Federal prosecutors were not immediately reachable by phone late Monday. Earlier, Assistant U.S. Attorney Retta-Rae Randall said the harassing telephone calls charge carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Christy and his father, Craig Christy, both of McAdoo, Pa., face accusations of placing harassing interstate phone calls to the former Alaska governor's lawyers in early August. Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, had been granted state restraining orders against them.
Both men pleaded not guilty in the case in September.
Shawn Christy filed notice Monday in U.S. District Court that he intends to plead guilty in an expected plea agreement with federal prosecutors.
Christy plans to plead guilty and be sentenced Dec. 1, according to the document filed by Mary Geddes, assistant federal defender.
Federal prosecutors were not immediately reachable by phone late Monday. Earlier, Assistant U.S. Attorney Retta-Rae Randall said the harassing telephone calls charge carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Christy and his father, Craig Christy, both of McAdoo, Pa., face accusations of placing harassing interstate phone calls to the former Alaska governor's lawyers in early August. Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, had been granted state restraining orders against them.
Both men pleaded not guilty in the case in September.
NY top court clears probe of inflated appraisals
New York's top court has cleared the state attorney general to pursue
allegations that First American Corp. and subsidiary eAppraiseIT
inflated property appraisals under pressure from client Washington
Mutual.
The Court of Appeals says federal regulations do not pre-empt state claims alleging fraud and violations of real estate appraisal rules.
Then-Attorney General Andrew Cuomo brought the 2007 civil suit alleging the practice contributed to the national subprime mortgage crisis.
Washington Mutual collapsed in 2008 and became the nation's largest bank failure ever.
Six top court judges ruled that Congress envisioned "a robust partnership with the states" in aiming to prevent real estate appraisal abuse.
In a dissent, Judge Susan Read says the suit challenges a bank's federally regulated mortgage practices.
The Court of Appeals says federal regulations do not pre-empt state claims alleging fraud and violations of real estate appraisal rules.
Then-Attorney General Andrew Cuomo brought the 2007 civil suit alleging the practice contributed to the national subprime mortgage crisis.
Washington Mutual collapsed in 2008 and became the nation's largest bank failure ever.
Six top court judges ruled that Congress envisioned "a robust partnership with the states" in aiming to prevent real estate appraisal abuse.
In a dissent, Judge Susan Read says the suit challenges a bank's federally regulated mortgage practices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)