All posts by abogadoaly

The Law Offices of Abogado Aly are located in Houston, Texas. Each attorney in the office is specialized in a specific area of the law so that all clients needs are met and questions answered.

Legal Battle Sparked With Texas Student Who Sat During Pledge

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

On October 2nd, 2017 India Landry, a senior at Windfern High School near Houston, Texas, refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. This was not the first time Landry, refused to stand when the Pledge of Allegiance came on during the morning announcements.

Prior to the instance in October, Landry was kicked out of class on five separate occasions. However, on that day in October, she was expelled from school. In total, Landry had sat through the morning pledge in protest more than 200 times.

Both her English teacher and Principal explained to Landry that not standing during the pledge was disrespectful. According to court documents, even the principal’s secretary told Landry “This is not the NFL”. This statement sparked a legal battle with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The has been a media frenzy surrounding NFL football players who kneel during the national anthem at televised games. This has sparked major controversy within Texas. In response to this event, many students have been protesting the Pledge of Allegiance. Landry and Randall Kallinene, Landry’s lawyer, both argue that the law requiring students to stand during the Pledge is a violation of the First Amendment, the right to free speech.

According to the Texas Education Code, students are required to recite the pledge at least once a day, unless they receive a written excuse from a parent or guardian.

Enforcing the education code, the principal of Windfern High School expressed that sitting during the Pledge would not be tolerated. Kallinen however, argues that the law goes against students right to free speech even if it gives an option for parents for parents to excuse their child.

Since 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that that student did not need to recite the pledge based on the notion that it was a violation to the first amendment because free speech includes not speaking against your beliefs. 20 years later, public schools also noted that students are allowed to express their opinions through actions, symbolic speech, as long as they aren’t being disruptive to the learning environment.

Although the Supreme Court has not addressed the recent issue of standing for the pledge, it falls under the category of symbolic speech.

Kallinen offered a hypothetical law where students had to donate their organs unless their parents said no. Although it is an extreme example, Kallinen explained that it would unconstitutional whether or not the parents approved.

Landry’s has been set to take place in a year from now in 2019.

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2QtkQGL

Legal Battle Sparked With Texas Student Who Sat During Pledge

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

On October 2nd, 2017 India Landry, a senior at Windfern High School near Houston, Texas, refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. This was not the first time Landry, refused to stand when the Pledge of Allegiance came on during the morning announcements.

Prior to the instance in October, Landry was kicked out of class on five separate occasions. However, on that day in October, she was expelled from school. In total, Landry had sat through the morning pledge in protest more than 200 times.

Both her English teacher and Principal explained to Landry that not standing during the pledge was disrespectful. According to court documents, even the principal’s secretary told Landry “This is not the NFL”. This statement sparked a legal battle with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The has been a media frenzy surrounding NFL football players who kneel during the national anthem at televised games. This has sparked major controversy within Texas. In response to this event, many students have been protesting the Pledge of Allegiance. Landry and Randall Kallinene, Landry’s lawyer, both argue that the law requiring students to stand during the Pledge is a violation of the First Amendment, the right to free speech.

According to the Texas Education Code, students are required to recite the pledge at least once a day, unless they receive a written excuse from a parent or guardian.

Enforcing the education code, the principal of Windfern High School expressed that sitting during the Pledge would not be tolerated. Kallinen however, argues that the law goes against students right to free speech even if it gives an option for parents for parents to excuse their child.

Since 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that that student did not need to recite the pledge based on the notion that it was a violation to the first amendment because free speech includes not speaking against your beliefs. 20 years later, public schools also noted that students are allowed to express their opinions through actions, symbolic speech, as long as they aren’t being disruptive to the learning environment.

Although the Supreme Court has not addressed the recent issue of standing for the pledge, it falls under the category of symbolic speech.

Kallinen offered a hypothetical law where students had to donate their organs unless their parents said no. Although it is an extreme example, Kallinen explained that it would unconstitutional whether or not the parents approved.

Landry’s has been set to take place in a year from now in 2019.

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2QtkQGL

Legal Battle Sparked With Texas Student Who Sat During Pledge

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

On October 2nd, 2017 India Landry, a senior at Windfern High School near Houston, Texas, refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. This was not the first time Landry, refused to stand when the Pledge of Allegiance came on during the morning announcements.

Prior to the instance in October, Landry was kicked out of class on five separate occasions. However, on that day in October, she was expelled from school. In total, Landry had sat through the morning pledge in protest more than 200 times.

Both her English teacher and Principal explained to Landry that not standing during the pledge was disrespectful. According to court documents, even the principal’s secretary told Landry “This is not the NFL”. This statement sparked a legal battle with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The has been a media frenzy surrounding NFL football players who kneel during the national anthem at televised games. This has sparked major controversy within Texas. In response to this event, many students have been protesting the Pledge of Allegiance. Landry and Randall Kallinene, Landry’s lawyer, both argue that the law requiring students to stand during the Pledge is a violation of the First Amendment, the right to free speech.

According to the Texas Education Code, students are required to recite the pledge at least once a day, unless they receive a written excuse from a parent or guardian.

Enforcing the education code, the principal of Windfern High School expressed that sitting during the Pledge would not be tolerated. Kallinen however, argues that the law goes against students right to free speech even if it gives an option for parents for parents to excuse their child.

Since 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that that student did not need to recite the pledge based on the notion that it was a violation to the first amendment because free speech includes not speaking against your beliefs. 20 years later, public schools also noted that students are allowed to express their opinions through actions, symbolic speech, as long as they aren’t being disruptive to the learning environment.

Although the Supreme Court has not addressed the recent issue of standing for the pledge, it falls under the category of symbolic speech.

Kallinen offered a hypothetical law where students had to donate their organs unless their parents said no. Although it is an extreme example, Kallinen explained that it would unconstitutional whether or not the parents approved.

Landry’s has been set to take place in a year from now in 2019.

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2QtkQGL

Legal Battle Sparked With Texas Student Who Sat During Pledge

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

On October 2nd, 2017 India Landry, a senior at Windfern High School near Houston, Texas, refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. This was not the first time Landry, refused to stand when the Pledge of Allegiance came on during the morning announcements.

Prior to the instance in October, Landry was kicked out of class on five separate occasions. However, on that day in October, she was expelled from school. In total, Landry had sat through the morning pledge in protest more than 200 times.

Both her English teacher and Principal explained to Landry that not standing during the pledge was disrespectful. According to court documents, even the principal’s secretary told Landry “This is not the NFL”. This statement sparked a legal battle with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The has been a media frenzy surrounding NFL football players who kneel during the national anthem at televised games. This has sparked major controversy within Texas. In response to this event, many students have been protesting the Pledge of Allegiance. Landry and Randall Kallinene, Landry’s lawyer, both argue that the law requiring students to stand during the Pledge is a violation of the First Amendment, the right to free speech.

According to the Texas Education Code, students are required to recite the pledge at least once a day, unless they receive a written excuse from a parent or guardian.

Enforcing the education code, the principal of Windfern High School expressed that sitting during the Pledge would not be tolerated. Kallinen however, argues that the law goes against students right to free speech even if it gives an option for parents for parents to excuse their child.

Since 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that that student did not need to recite the pledge based on the notion that it was a violation to the first amendment because free speech includes not speaking against your beliefs. 20 years later, public schools also noted that students are allowed to express their opinions through actions, symbolic speech, as long as they aren’t being disruptive to the learning environment.

Although the Supreme Court has not addressed the recent issue of standing for the pledge, it falls under the category of symbolic speech.

Kallinen offered a hypothetical law where students had to donate their organs unless their parents said no. Although it is an extreme example, Kallinen explained that it would unconstitutional whether or not the parents approved.

Landry’s has been set to take place in a year from now in 2019.

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2QtkQGL

Legal Battle Sparked With Texas Student Who Sat During Pledge

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

On October 2nd, 2017 India Landry, a senior at Windfern High School near Houston, Texas, refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. This was not the first time Landry, refused to stand when the Pledge of Allegiance came on during the morning announcements.

Prior to the instance in October, Landry was kicked out of class on five separate occasions. However, on that day in October, she was expelled from school. In total, Landry had sat through the morning pledge in protest more than 200 times.

Both her English teacher and Principal explained to Landry that not standing during the pledge was disrespectful. According to court documents, even the principal’s secretary told Landry “This is not the NFL”. This statement sparked a legal battle with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The has been a media frenzy surrounding NFL football players who kneel during the national anthem at televised games. This has sparked major controversy within Texas. In response to this event, many students have been protesting the Pledge of Allegiance. Landry and Randall Kallinene, Landry’s lawyer, both argue that the law requiring students to stand during the Pledge is a violation of the First Amendment, the right to free speech.

According to the Texas Education Code, students are required to recite the pledge at least once a day, unless they receive a written excuse from a parent or guardian.

Enforcing the education code, the principal of Windfern High School expressed that sitting during the Pledge would not be tolerated. Kallinen however, argues that the law goes against students right to free speech even if it gives an option for parents for parents to excuse their child.

Since 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that that student did not need to recite the pledge based on the notion that it was a violation to the first amendment because free speech includes not speaking against your beliefs. 20 years later, public schools also noted that students are allowed to express their opinions through actions, symbolic speech, as long as they aren’t being disruptive to the learning environment.

Although the Supreme Court has not addressed the recent issue of standing for the pledge, it falls under the category of symbolic speech.

Kallinen offered a hypothetical law where students had to donate their organs unless their parents said no. Although it is an extreme example, Kallinen explained that it would unconstitutional whether or not the parents approved.

Landry’s has been set to take place in a year from now in 2019.

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2QtkQGL

The Ins and Outs of a Civil Lawsuit

Abogado Aly Most Recent Blog Post

How Does a Civil Lawsuit Work?

Civil lawsuits emerge out of disagreements between people, business, and other entities like the government. Generally speaking, civil lawsuits follow four significant steps; pleadings, discovery, trial, and a possible appeal. Keep in mind that not all lawsuits will go to trial.  

Pleadings

To capture each party’s side, every lawsuit begins with pleadings. Litigation will begin once the plaintiff files a complaint with the court. The complaint will then be normally delivered to the defendant. Within the complaint, the document will explain the plaintiff’s reason for taking legal action. The defendant will then have a deadline to answer the complaint and provide their side of the story.

Discovery

The longest part of a civil lawsuit is the discovery. Discovery begins as soon as the lawsuit is filed and will continue until right before the trial.  During discovery, the parties will gather facts and issues about the case by asking the opposing parties and third parties.

Information is also gathered by interrogatories (formal written questions)m requesting documents, and by conducting depositions. Dispositions are often used during trial to show inconsistencies or credibility of the witness. A claim or defense often requires support from witnesses to either support an argument or explain technical information.

Trial

If the case makes it to trial, each party will present evidence in front of a jury and/or judge that supports their claim or defense. Before the trail starts, each party will provide the judge with a “brief” that outlines both the arguments and evidence that will be used in the trial. During the actual trial, each party will present an opening statement and the present their evidence such as calling a witness or introducing a document. After one party calls a witness, the opposing side is allowed to cross-examined the witness.

When both parties have presented their evidence, each party will provide closing statements. The court will then as the jury to deliberate until they reach a decision or verdict.

Appeal

If a party is not happy with the result, they may appeal. When a party appeals, the case will go to higher court to review. The parties will present their arguments in briefs which will then be sent to the appellate court. The purpose of the appellate court is to determine if the law was correctly applied in the trial court. The court typically only reviews the case for legal error and unless under unusual circumstances will not override the jury’s decision or verdict. If the appellate courts find that was an error, the appellate court can either reverse the verdict or order the court to begin a new trial.

Alternatives to Litigation

Alternatives to litigation help save time and money. However, they don’t always result in a complete resolution of the dispute. Three alternatives to litigation include settlement, mediation, and arbitration.

A settlement is a cost-effective alternative to trial.  A settlement can be discussed at any time by any party.

Mediation is when an unbiased third party member helps the parties agree on settlements. The mediator will meet with both parties and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the case. The mediator will point out risks and talk about how the risks may affect their goals.

Lastly, attribution is when the parties selected an unbiased third party to resolve the dispute for the, Both the parties will presents evidence and the arbitrator will decide which party wins. The process is more casual than a formal trial and is usually done privately.

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2LJ2XSn

Know the Basics of Texan Self-Defense Laws

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

 

The morning of July 4th erupted in an argument between 41-year-old Jason Roche and 19-year-old Devonte Ortiz. What started as an argument over fireworks ended in gunfire and first-degree murder. Roche fatally shot Ortiz, however, Roche claimed the shooting was in self-defense. Although Roche was ultimately found guilty, the shooting raised the questions of how self-defense laws work in Texas. If you find yourself questioning about self-defense laws, the following are the top three things that you need to know.

 

  1. Self-defense laws have broadened.

 

In 1973, Texas enforced a “duty to retreat” law in regards to self-defense. The law stated that an individual needed to prove that they had could not walk away from an altercation. After proving that they exhausted all options before defending themselves with violence, then the individual could be freed of the charge.

 

The law was loosened in 1995 by adding a “castle doctrine”. The doctrine stated that an individual did not need to run away if they were defending their own property. The law again expanded in 2007 to state that individuals don’t need to retract at all. Instead, they only need to prove that they have a legal right to present during the act of defense. This policy is otherwise known as “Stand Your Ground” law.

 

  1. The defendant must prove self-defense.

 

Claiming self-defense does not grant you immunity. The argument of self-defense typically comes into play after the arrest, charge, an indictment of an individual. In a traditional criminal proceeding, we often see the prosecution responsible for providing evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the criminal committed a crime. When a person claims self-defense, it is up to the defendant to provide the evidence.

 

  1. Self-defense cases don’t always go to trial.

 

In 2015, 146 self-defense shooting across the country occurred, and only 12 of the shooters were charged. That year, Texas had the most self-defense shooting, 45, but only two of the people were actually charged. Police and district attorneys have a wide discretion of what cases they should pursue. If a district attorney finds that there is a clear path of self-defense they may be likely to drop the case.

 

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2Nrq7Nq

Know the Basics of Texan Self-Defense Laws

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

 

The morning of July 4th erupted in an argument between 41-year-old Jason Roche and 19-year-old Devonte Ortiz. What started as an argument over fireworks ended in gunfire and first-degree murder. Roche fatally shot Ortiz, however, Roche claimed the shooting was in self-defense. Although Roche was ultimately found guilty, the shooting raised the questions of how self-defense laws work in Texas. If you find yourself questioning about self-defense laws, the following are the top three things that you need to know.

 

  1. Self-defense laws have broadened.

 

In 1973, Texas enforced a “duty to retreat” law in regards to self-defense. The law stated that an individual needed to prove that they had could not walk away from an altercation. After proving that they exhausted all options before defending themselves with violence, then the individual could be freed of the charge.

 

The law was loosened in 1995 by adding a “castle doctrine”. The doctrine stated that an individual did not need to run away if they were defending their own property. The law again expanded in 2007 to state that individuals don’t need to retract at all. Instead, they only need to prove that they have a legal right to present during the act of defense. This policy is otherwise known as “Stand Your Ground” law.

 

  1. The defendant must prove self-defense.

 

Claiming self-defense does not grant you immunity. The argument of self-defense typically comes into play after the arrest, charge, an indictment of an individual. In a traditional criminal proceeding, we often see the prosecution responsible for providing evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the criminal committed a crime. When a person claims self-defense, it is up to the defendant to provide the evidence.

 

  1. Self-defense cases don’t always go to trial.

 

In 2015, 146 self-defense shooting across the country occurred, and only 12 of the shooters were charged. That year, Texas had the most self-defense shooting, 45, but only two of the people were actually charged. Police and district attorneys have a wide discretion of what cases they should pursue. If a district attorney finds that there is a clear path of self-defense they may be likely to drop the case.

 

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2Nrq7Nq

Know the Basics of Texan Self-Defense Laws

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

 

The morning of July 4th erupted in an argument between 41-year-old Jason Roche and 19-year-old Devonte Ortiz. What started as an argument over fireworks ended in gunfire and first-degree murder. Roche fatally shot Ortiz, however, Roche claimed the shooting was in self-defense. Although Roche was ultimately found guilty, the shooting raised the questions of how self-defense laws work in Texas. If you find yourself questioning about self-defense laws, the following are the top three things that you need to know.

 

  1. Self-defense laws have broadened.

 

In 1973, Texas enforced a “duty to retreat” law in regards to self-defense. The law stated that an individual needed to prove that they had could not walk away from an altercation. After proving that they exhausted all options before defending themselves with violence, then the individual could be freed of the charge.

 

The law was loosened in 1995 by adding a “castle doctrine”. The doctrine stated that an individual did not need to run away if they were defending their own property. The law again expanded in 2007 to state that individuals don’t need to retract at all. Instead, they only need to prove that they have a legal right to present during the act of defense. This policy is otherwise known as “Stand Your Ground” law.

 

  1. The defendant must prove self-defense.

 

Claiming self-defense does not grant you immunity. The argument of self-defense typically comes into play after the arrest, charge, an indictment of an individual. In a traditional criminal proceeding, we often see the prosecution responsible for providing evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the criminal committed a crime. When a person claims self-defense, it is up to the defendant to provide the evidence.

 

  1. Self-defense cases don’t always go to trial.

 

In 2015, 146 self-defense shooting across the country occurred, and only 12 of the shooters were charged. That year, Texas had the most self-defense shooting, 45, but only two of the people were actually charged. Police and district attorneys have a wide discretion of what cases they should pursue. If a district attorney finds that there is a clear path of self-defense they may be likely to drop the case.

 

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2Nrq7Nq

Will Texas Enact Red Flag Laws?

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

In the first six months of 2018, there have been a total of 134 mass shooting incidents (as of June 18th). After these mass shootings occur, investigators search for “red flags”. Investigators look at the past history of the gun assailant and consider prior convictions as well as mental stability.

In order to take preventative measures, lawmakers are in the process of discussing possible “red flag” legislation to help prevent future gun violence. Red flag laws would restrict access to firearms to those who show signs of being a danger to the public or themselves. Enacting this law would allow law enforcers to take firearms away from those deemed as a threat or danger by a mental health professional and judge.

Some argue that enacting a red flag law could go against the second amendment, the right to bear arms. Ed Scruggs of Texas Gun Sense explains that a red flag law would not only provide public safety but protect the second amendment.

Scruggs assures that with red flag laws in place, law enforcement will not be able to seize guns from just anyone without reason. For a red flag law to take action, it would require a full due process. The person under scrutiny would be fully examined for any alarming mental health factors before their rights would be jeopardized.

Within the next few days, the Texas House of Representatives will review the current gun legislation in Texas. The review is taking place at the request of Governor Greg Abbott. Since the Santa Fe High School shooting, that occurred in May, Abbott has created a 40 plus page list of recommendations to improve school safety. Abbott believes that enacting red flag laws, will help to enforce his school and gun safety plan.

However, there are those who are against red flag legislature. Michael Cargill, pro-gun activist, voices that the current legislation is already sufficient enough for the state. Cargill expresses that approving red flag legislation is the wrong approach and that Texas needs to work on offensive measures not defensive.

Since the rise of mass shootings, states across the country have adopted red flag laws. Already 11 states have enacted this legislature, and 6 states currently have the bill under consideration. Will Texas be the next state to join the list?

 

from Abogado Aly Law https://ift.tt/2Kmliar