https://youtu.be/q3E_04UyYPA
Eric Sanders, Esq., of 腦瞳憫. explains why he is your voice for justice handling your legal issues

The post The Sanders Firm, P. C. Your voice for justice! first appeared on 腦瞳憫..

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New York Civil Rights Lawyer Eric Sanders, Esq., of 腦瞳憫., alleges in a $50 Mil. Notice of Claim filing that Police Officer Blanche O’Neal, was ‘falsely’ accused of forging a property deed in a conspiracy to ‘steal’ her Brooklyn home

New York, September 19, 2016 ��� O’Neal, is an African-American female appointed to the position of police officer, City of New York (NYPD). According to the claim, O’Neal alleges based upon the bias and corrupt investigation by New York City Sheriff Investigator Theresa Russo and supported by her management, she was falsely arrested on October 19, 2015, for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree and Perjury in the First Degree.

O’Neal claims she is the owner of 23A Vernon Avenue, which is a 3 family home built in 1899, located in the Bedford Stuyvesant Section of Brooklyn. This area and other similarly situated areas are undergoing significant gentrification with African-Americans and other persons of color losing their homes to unscrupulous Jewish investors, according to the claim. The property have a fair market value of approximately $2 million dollars.

On July 25, 2012, O’Neal acquired title via Bargain and Sale Deed with good consideration ($10,000 USC and to settle a default judgment of $5 million dollars obtained against the Estate of Lillian Hudson, the owner of 23A Vernon Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11206) from now deceased distributee Colie Gallman, Jr, according to the claim. O’Neal  claims at the time of the sale, Decedent Gallman claimed he was the SOLE heir of Lillian Hudson’s estate. Immediately after the sale and recording of the deed, O’Neal began to rehabilitate the dilapidated property and remove squatters from the premise.

O’Neal claims since April 2013, ‘Ruben’ and ‘Tom’ representatives of Yotam Michaeli threatened to take her job because they ‘knew people in the Department and DA’S Office’ if she does not sell the property to them.

On July 24, 2014, 23A Vernon Avenue, LLC, Melville, New York, is allegedly owned and managed by Yotam Michaeli, according to the claim. O’Neal claims Mr. Michaeli is a Jewish investor, specifically targeting areas such as Bedford Stuyvesant. O’Neal claims Mr. Michaeli uses governmental agencies, its enforcement powers through biased and corrupt employees’ such as Investigator Russo to in essence ‘steal’ high value real estate properties for pennies on the dollar from African-Americans and other persons of color, according to the claim.

According to the claim, between August 6, 2014, and October 30, 2014, 23A Vernon LLC, filed several false instruments (Quitclaim Deeds) with the New York City Department of Finance claiming they received an interest in her property from distributees from The Estate of Lillian Hudson.

O’Neal alleges on March 16, 2016, three (3) of four (4) criminal charges were dismissed. The sole reaming criminal charge relates to one (1) count of perjury for alleging she owned 23A Vernon Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11206 after filing a burglary complaint. The matter is scheduled for trial on September 21, 2016.

O’Neal claims based upon the actions of the City of New York, and Theresa Russo in collusion with 23A Vernon Avenue LLC and Yotam Michaeli she sustained substantial damages.

���Ms. O’Neal is experiencing her civil rights being trampled upon by government officials, she isn’t alone. Unfortunately, throughout the history of this country, despite laws created to protect one’s civil rights, persons of color continue to experience gentrification with little protection from government agencies. With the filing of this notice and subsequent lawsuit, Ms. O’Neal fully intends to hold these parties accountable for their ‘unlawful’ actions,��� says Eric Sanders.

Eric Sanders, Esq., of 腦瞳憫., filed the Notice of Claim with The City of New York, et al., on September 19, 2016.

About 腦瞳憫.

腦瞳憫. offers those in the New York City area legal services related and connected to civil rights, civil service rights, criminal law and discrimination. We firmly believe in everyone���s individual rights that are described and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. We understand that our freedoms and liberties are sacrosanct and that they have been won in many and various hard-fought battles. We are committed in every way to protecting your civil rights. We are your voice for justice!

Contact

Eric Sanders, Esq.
President and Owner, 腦瞳憫.
Business Phone: 212-808-6515

###

The post NYPD Cop ���Falsely��� Accused of Forging Deed, Files Claim to Sue first appeared on 腦瞳憫..

Eric Sanders, Esq., of 腦瞳憫. discusses what constitutes a crime

The post What Constitutes A Crime first appeared on 腦瞳憫..

Eric Sanders, Esq., of 腦瞳憫. discusses whether it is legal to carry pepper spray

The post Is It Legal to Carry Pepper Spray first appeared on 腦瞳憫..

The post Handling DWI Stop first appeared on 腦瞳憫..

Eric Sanders, Esq., of 腦瞳憫., discussing a person impersonating as a NYPD officer allowed to drive around police vehicle

The post Fake NYPD Officer Drives Police Vehicle first appeared on 腦瞳憫..

Eric Sanders, Esq., of 腦瞳憫. discussing problems related to teenagers driving while impaired
 

The post Problems of Teenage Driving While Impaired first appeared on 腦瞳憫..

The most commonly repeated phrase in police drama television shows or movies from police officers prior to or after affecting an arrest is ���you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney��色�� These statements are part of the ��� or Warnings��� which derives from that protects an individual against self-incrimination which reads:

���nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law���

The Miranda Rights are warnings that are given by law enforcement personnel to individuals in police custody but prior to arrest, arrested but prior to questioning, during arrest while questioning and after arrest along with post arrest questioning. The manner in which Miranda Rights are depicted in police drama television shows or movies mislead the public.

While the phrases ���you have the right to remain silent��� and ���you have a right to an attorney��� is often heard, most citizens do not have a clear understanding of how those statements relate to the Miranda Rights, as well as the interplay of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the . A common misconception is that the Miranda Rights must be read to each and every person arrested. That is not legally correct. The police must give a person their Miranda Rights only if the person is in police custody and they intend to question such person about their alleged crimes. Remember, there are three levels of police questioning, they are: common law right of inquiry, stop and question (sometimes frisk) and Miranda Rights.

Under the Common Right of Inquiry, an exception to the , the police can ask you basic questions such as name, address, and the nature of your conduct. However, the police cannot use physical force to forcibly stop such individual and that individual has an absolute right to walk away without answering the officer���s questions. This is generally true throughout the country. Under , aka Stop, Question and Frisk (New York Criminal Procedure Law 140.50), and exception to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the police can use physical force to forcibly stop and question such an individual about the nature of their conduct that they reasonably suspect is about to commit, has committed or is committing any felony or misdemeanor in the New York State Penal Law. The person can be detained for a ���reasonable period of time��� and is not free to leave. Depending upon the brief investigation, the person may be released or arrested. The issues surrounding Stop and Question are complex, not for this blog discussion but, will be addressed in a separate blog discussion. Finally, the Miranda Rights are warnings that are given by law enforcement personnel to individuals in police custody but prior to arrest, arrested but prior to questioning, during arrest while questioning and after arrest along with post arrest questioning. Both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution are applicable. It is important to note, that an individual who is in police custody MUST refuse to answer questions and request legal counsel for all of the protections to apply.

Over the years, there have been several court decisions that focused on when and if Miranda even applies. Some courts have allowed statements to be used against an individual prior to being read his Miranda rights and prior to a request for counsel. But, with a recent Supreme , , the Court ruled that individuals in police custody that answer questions then suddenly remain silent essentially waives their Miranda Rights. In other words, silence is a statement of guilt. Now, that is a very scary proposition indeed.

In this case, Genovevo Salinas of Houston, the police requested him to voluntarily come to the police station. Once he arrived at the police station, he was questioned about the double murder of two brothers with whom he had been seen with the night before. He was not in police ���custody.��� Hmm, we will save that one for later. Anyway, Salinas ���voluntarily��� answered police questioning for about an hour. Prior to his questioning, he was not read his Miranda Rights. Later in the questioning, the police asked him about some shotgun shells found at the murder scene. They asked him, if they performed Ballistic Tests on the shotgun shells, would they match his shotgun, Salinas remained silent. Based upon his silence, and a subsequent Ballistic match, Salinas was charged with murder, tried, and convicted in part by the court allowing the prosecutor to use his silence on some pre-arrest questions as evidence of his guilt. Salinas appealed on the grounds that his pre-arrest silence should not be admitted as evidence against him because the questioning and alleged statement (silence) violated the of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On appeal, two state appellate courts upheld the murder conviction. One court citing a previous decision written by John Paul Stevens who reasoned that the Fifth Amendment is ���simply irrelevant to a citizen’s decision to remain silent when he is under no official compulsion to speak.���

The Supreme Court granted Salinas���s petition for writ of certiorari (a document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking court to review the decision of a lower court). However, the Court upheld Salinas���s murder conviction ruling ���that before petitioner could rely on the privilege against self- incrimination, he was required to invoke it. Because he failed to do so, the judgment of the is affirmed.���

The Court���s decision now makes it absolutely necessary for individuals who find themselves in a pre-arrest, pre-Miranda situation to specifically state that they wish to invoke their right to remain silent and request legal counsel, failure to do so, will result in silence being used as evidence of guilt.

Quite frankly, my personal view is that the Court upheld the unlawful custodial questioning of Salinas because other evidence connected him to the crime. If you review prior Supreme Court precedent, this decision makes no logical sense.

The post Silence As Evidence of Guilt? first appeared on 腦瞳憫..

It is a constitutional right of every accused person to have a fair criminal trial of accusations filed against him. Many accused persons are convicted due to lack of a fair trial. An individual has a right to be represented by counsel of his or her choice in both civil and criminal cases unless the accused or the defendant expresses to his or her constitutional right to appear for his or herself. Historically, persons who could not afford the fees of legal counsel were tried without any representation. This resulted in an unfair advantage over the accused. Today, courts consider such trials as patently unfair. The landmark case the changed the Court���s view is , 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

In this case, was unable to afford the fees of legal counsel to represent him before the Florida . He requested that the court appoint him legal counsel. The court denied the request stating that under State laws the court is allowed to appoint a counsel only in cases of capital offenses. Gideon had no other choice but to defend himself in court. Since he was a layperson, his defense was not very effective. Gideon was subsequently convicted and imprisoned. He filed for writ of habeas corpus before the stating that his conviction was in violation of the . The State Supreme Court denied habeas corpus to him. Gideon subsequently appealed his conviction to the .

The United States Supreme Court reversed the order of lower courts. The Court ruled that the right to be heard includes the right of an accused to be assisted by legal counsel. The Court���s ruling referenced sections of the , which reads:

���In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.���

Further, the Court ruled that the right of an accused to be assisted by legal counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed by . Hence, depriving the accused the right to assisted by legal counsel is depriving him of his life and liberty guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, such violation deprives the accused his .

Moreover, the Court rejected the reasoning of the lower court that the court can appoint legal counsel only in capital offenses. The Court ruled that since the right of the accused to be heard is a fundamental right, the same shall be applicable to all cases. The United States Constitution does not make any distinction between capital and non-capital offenses. While deciding this matter the Court considered that the accused is a layman who is not familiar with legal proceedings and will require legal assistance from counsel at every step of the proceeding. Therefore, legal assistance was mandatory to ensure that Gideon receives a fair criminal trial.

If you are facing a criminal trial contact 腦瞳憫. in New York. We will review your criminal charges thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Right to Assistance of Legal Counsel first appeared on 腦瞳憫..