Criminal Defense Attorney - Law Offices of Jerry Jenkins

Representing clients in Central Florida, Sanford, Tavares, Orlando, and surrounding areas, Jerry Jenkins is an intelligent criminal defense attorney who is dedicated to providing excellent representation to his clients. Jerry understands that once a person is involved in the criminal justice system each and every decision matters. The decisions a person within the criminal justice makes will have lifelong consequences not only on the person making it, but their family and friends too. These decisions should not be taken lightly as they can affect every aspect of your life from employment to housing. 

You need an attorney who will fight for you and protect your rights

You need an attorney who knows their way around the criminal justice system.

You need Jerry Jenkins.

Jerry understands each case and situation is unique. After providing him the facts, Jerry will give the advice and counsel you need to make an informed decision. With Jerry by your side, no stone will be left unturned. He will explore every avenue and make sure that your case is presented to the court. Jerry always strives to provide the best representation for his clients and he will defend you against all charges and any state crime allegations. After all, the government has experienced prosecutors targeting you, so you should have a defense attorney with the necessary experience fighting back.

Every situation is different, but the one piece of advice that will never change is to not waive any of your rights. If authorities begin grilling you with questions regarding a crime, be polite and decline to speak without a lawyer present. They will try to strong arm and intimidate you, but remain firm in your request to have a criminal defense lawyer present.

If you need any more information regarding criminal defense in Florida, contact Jerry Jenkins for a free case evaluation.

Playwright David Adjmi wins New York infringement court case

A playwright who was accused of copyright infringement by lawyers representing the TV show "Three's Company" over his parody of 1970s sitcoms has won a victory in court.

Loretta A. Preska, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled Tuesday that David Adjmi, whose play "3C" had a run at Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre in 2012, is protected under the doctrine of fair use.

"The play is a highly transformative parody of the television series that, although it appropriates a substantial amount of 'Three's Company,' is a drastic departure from the original that poses little risk to the market for the original," the judge wrote, noting that copyright law "is designed to foster creativity."

Adjmi had the backing of many theater community heavyweights, including Jon Robin Baitz, Stephen Sondheim, Tony Kushner, John Guare and Terrence McNally.

The play is about two girls — one a tomboy, the other a sexy ditz — and a guy who spontaneously become roommates in a rundown Santa Monica apartment after a wild party.

They clash with a dislikable landlord who makes offensive, homophobic jokes. The playwright is exploring the idea of a culture avoiding difficult issues and problems by retreating into sex and drugs.

5 arrested in protest inside Supreme Court

Protesters disrupted Supreme Court proceedings on Wednesday for the second time this year with shouted criticism of the court's previous rulings on campaign finance.
 
Supreme Court police swiftly removed five people from the courtroom after they rose, one after another, to interrupt the start of the court's session.

The advocacy group 99rise, which opposes the influence of money in elections, took responsibility for the protest, as it did for similar episodes in January and last year. The group said in a statement that six of its members took part Wednesday, though court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said only five people were arrested.

Arberg said all five have been charged under a law that prohibits making "a harangue or oration" or uttering "loud, threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court Building. They also were charged with conspiracy-related offenses and sent to a holding cell at Washington, D.C., police headquarters.

The first protester rose from his seat among spectators in the courtroom just after the justices took the bench at 10 a.m. "I rise to claim our democracy, one person, one vote," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially joked that he didn't think the court's scheduled arguments in bankruptcy cases "would attract such attention." But Roberts turned serious as the protests continued and warned that anyone disrupting proceedings could be charged with criminal contempt.

In the two previous protests, at least one person from 99rise carried a camera and recorded the disruption in violation of the court's ban on cameras in the courtroom. The surreptitiously recorded video was later posted online.

The group said in a statement that the protest was tied to the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the justices struck down the overall federal limit on individual campaign contributions. The anniversary is on Thursday, when the court will not be in session.

Freed Al Jazeera journalist hopeful about Egypt court case

Freed Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste says it is too soon to celebrate because his two colleagues still face retrial in Egypt.

Greste was freed from an Egyptian prison earlier this month and his two colleagues were released last week. He told BBC on Thursday that the controversial court cases seem to be moving in the right direction.

Greste had initially been sentenced to seven years in jail for spreading false information and helping the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. He was deported from Egypt on his release.

Colleagues Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed are still in Egypt and are required to report regularly to the police in advance of a retrial expected to begin next week.

Their imprisonment for more than a year sparked numerous protests throughout the world.

NC Appeals Court says DOT must pay landowners

The North Carolina Court of Appeals says the state transportation department must pay some landowners whose property is in the path of a proposed road in Forsyth County.
 
Multiple media outlets reported that a three-judge panel of the court ruled Tuesday that a lower court was wrong to refuse to hear a lawsuit by 11 landowners who said the state's designation of their land in the proposed road's path hurt their property values.

There is no indication when the road might be built.

The 11 landowners say the state's designation of their property in the path of the planned road limits what they can do with the land.

The state attorney general's office is consulting with transportation officials on the ruling. They could appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care

Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme Court.

This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.

Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.

And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.

Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.

The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.

The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.

Court dismisses 3rd lawsuit against hen cage law

A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a decision to dismiss a lawsuit by a farmer that challenged a law banning the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2012 decision by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit by egg farmer William Cramer. Cramer's lawsuit said the law is unconstitutionally vague.

It's the third time courts have rejected lawsuits by egg farmers against California's landmark Proposition 2.

"We are thrilled that the court sided with the millions of California voters who supported this measure and chose to end extreme and reckless factory farming practices," said Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for the Humane Society of the United States.

The initiative approved in 2008 bans the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages so small the animals cannot stretch their limbs, lie down or turn around.Since its passage, farmers have complained that the measure lacks specific language designating appropriate cage size and as a result puts them at risk of misdemeanor charges and fines up to $1,000.

In addition, they say they are on the hook for millions of dollars in upgrades but can't get bank loans without knowing whether new cages will be in compliance.