JPMartinlaw

05/25/2026

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

- A couple of takeaways on Memorial Day. a US Senator (and other things) Edward Everett spoke in the dedication of this National Cemetery, followed by Pres. Lincoln. Sen. Everett's speech was 2 hours in duration. Pres. Lincoln's address was roughly 2 minutes. A good reminder to me that clear, concise words can be delivered quickly for powerful effect. I take today as a somber "holiday" to remember all those who served and are no longer with us. The freedoms we endure are not always available around the world. Our heroes have died to preserve freedoms domestic and abroad. We should not take these freedoms for granted.

05/03/2026

There is a real question as to whether the Pres. can continue in the same fashion he currently does in Iran under the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act allows a "war" or conflict to go up to 60 days without a declaration from Congress. The Constitution says only Congress has a right to declare war under its enumerated powers.

The War Powers Act was passed by a 2/3 majority overriding the President Nixon's veto (bipartisan). Pres. Trump still blockades the Straight, and claims that because of a "ceasefire" there is no war. Yet he stated in the beginning of this conflict it was a "war." (his words).

I do not opine whether I support the President in limiting the military and power of Iran, and/or stopping or delaying Iran's development of a nuclear missile. (Def. Secretary Hegseth has had conflicting testimony-the material is buried, but they were days away from getting nuclear weapons). Certainly, they were developing drones and selling them to Russia, and building mid range missiles (which reached Diego Garcia, which is nowhere near Iran). It is not the purpose here to criticize or praise, but merely to reflect a legal analysis. If you blockade a waterway preventing Iran from exporting anything, is it an act of war? If Iran could block the East Coast, would that be? When the British did that and impressed sailors (in a conflict w Napoleon) which led to the War of 1812, was that an act of war? (Congress felt so, and declared war against Great Britain-Congress, not the President).

Is there a different legal analysis on this issue?

04/01/2026

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Today, Pres. Trump briefly attended to hear arguments on his executive order denying citizenship to people whose parents were illegally in this country. This is just my legal analysis, and not necessarily the US Supreme Court (but one in which they have followed in the past) See US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Murray v. Charming Betsey (1804)- children of non citizens born in the US are entitled to citizens (even children of foreign diplomats). To my knowledge, this is never been overturned.

Certainly, the American people CAN modify this by way of a Constitutional Amendment. If we as a society can pass by 2/3 vote Prohibition, and then 12 years later, decide it was a bad idea and pass by 2/3 vote to REPEAL it, we can certainly propose and pass a clarification to reflect that if you are not born to at least 1 US parent, you are not automatically a citizen. Make the case. Change. But do not by executive decree make it so. Originally, the clause was intended to overrule the Dred Scott decision (that African Americans were not entitled in 1857 to federal protection, despite having been born in the US). But the amendment has widely been taken to its literal words for everyone. If you are born in the US or naturalized, you ARE a US citizen. I don't expect the court to change this interpretation. We shall see. (its not their job to change the law, its their job to interpret and "check and balance" and tell us what the law IS, and its been that way since the Marbury v. Madison case way back).

03/26/2026

https://hoodline.com/2026/03/uber-s-ballot-brawl-aims-to-cut-lawyer-fees-and-rewrite-bay-area-crash-payouts/

Uber’s petition would cap lawyers’ fees and limit medical payouts — sparking a major fight in California.

10/16/2025

Know you case and your facts. Certainly, a lot of cases have "pros" and "cons" that support a particular claim or defense. The Latin term for "discover" is invenio or dispicio, which, according to disctionary.com is to "know or come to know something for the first time."

If you know the pros and cons of your opponent's case, you are more likely to weight the pros and cons of settlement (which occurs in some 98% of the cases in civil). But give, when requested, the honest answers to the other side, as you expect to be given the honest answers to YOUR questions that you need answered.

Examples can include (in employment) prior work history, was your application answered honestly, did you understand the arbitration agreement when you applied for the job, etc. In personal injury, it would be fault based, what did you know and when did you know it, were you under the influence of any drugs or alcohol when the "incident", prior medical or psychological history related to your claims etc.

But answer (with objections if appropriate), and if you object, makes sure you have a firm foundation, and work with the other side to see if a solution can be raised, and support your argument with caselaw and statutes (such as privacy objections, which would be waived unless raised).

A good example of what may happen is Morales v City and County of San Francisco. (1st Dist Ct of app, 2025) 114 Cal App. 5th 43. A scooter allegedly hit a pothole, and the rider fell and sued. The city sought discovery on the riders level of intoxication, and sought an independent medical exam. When both were not provided, the city successfully brought two motions to compel and sanctions, which were granted in the sum of 6,500.00 (which is fairly high in this attorney's view). The case settled, and Plaintiff's counsel appealed the sanctions. The sanctions were UPHELD and he was sanctioned AGAIN for the cost of appeal for filing a "frivolous appeal." So, I do not say that you shouldn't stick to your objections in some cases, but didn't the city have to right to know certain facts that might hurt the Plaintiff's case? Nobody is perfect. Attorneys should be able to handle negative facts in the case. But be careful failing to respond, or meet in good faith to resolve issues. Court's hate motions to compel, but they hate it even more when they find that one party is hiding something or trying to pull something.

I was not involved of course, in the facts in the case cited. But be careful to be honest, or have a valid strong objection to facts that may not help you OR your defense in a case. You may pay for it in the end, or look bad in front of a judge that may ultimately hear your case at trial.

07/02/2025

No s*x trafficking; no RICO against Diddy Combs; used emails and texts; the jury found transporting prostitution. It was a huge win for Combs; Combs has been incarcerated for months; most of it went away; he walks I think with conditions; overall a big win for defense. The charges caused him to stay in jail. After the verdict, he is not a danger to society. He walks. First time offender. The law should look to the facts and circumstances. The charges against P Diddy (RICO) and potentially life and his resources caused him to be in jail during the trial, but now most of the not guilty verdicts shift that burden. We shall see how the judge reacts. I think he gets out of jail with conditions before sentencing. (and of course, defense might appeal the verdicts in any case).

05/10/2025

RIP Justice David Souter. Justice Souter had a major impact in my view while on the court. He was appointed by Pres. Bush, and is regarded as a "liberal". He wrote several books in part to counter Justice Scalia's books on the US Constitution. Justice Souter was an advocate for a "living Constitution" vs. a "strict constructionalist." But at times, he had a practical hands on approach. For example, he sided with or had a test for religious "church and state" items still used today (factors such as the length of time the religious symbol has been on a public property). In that case, he ruled in favor of the State. On the newly built 10 Commandments in Alabama, he did not because it was newly added to the courthouse.

He seemed a very good man, and his mind was keen. He should be missed, and his contributions should not be overstated.

04/05/2025

03/18/2025

The question of whether the Trump Administration can deport "illegals" and "criminals" without a hearing puts the Executive directly against the Judicial. Who decides who is a criminal? Is it a felony or multiple felonies? Has there been a trial? If you are illegally in the country, do you have less rights than a citizen? Are you entitled to DUE PROCESS, something in the 5th and 14th Amendments?

12/09/2024

I am not surprised on the "subway" NY case of "acquittal." (which may or may not be not guilty-it means some at least had reasonable doubt he committed the crime). PLENTY of doubt; the bystanders said they felt threatened with their lives by this crazy guy; the hero said call 911 while i restrain him; the CORONER, the prosecution witness said the crazy guy had drugs in his system, and there were other factors that caused his death NOT the "chokehold" grip, and many other factors all calls into doubt charging in the first place. But, in my view Bragg charged him for political reasons, to "get a conviction" because perhaps the color of the crazy guy vs. the color of the accused (perhaps). It was political, not legal. A prosecutor should look to whether a crime was comitted, the facts in support of it, and whether a conviction will serve the interest of justice or not. Certainly, the crazy guy had relatives, which will mourn his loss (but obvsiously, they did not restrain him from using the subway or threatening people).

I'm glad of the acquittal. The facts support not guilty (particularly based on the coroner's testimony AND the testimony of nearby passengers that felt their lives were in danger).