DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 2012 The undF amentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Thomas C. Horne; Bruce R. Wisan; Mark Shurtleff; Hon. Denise Posse Lindberg, and Richard Jeeop Ream, Thomas Samuel Steed; Don Ronald Fischer, Dean Joseph Barlow, Watler Scott iF scher, Richard Gilbert, and Brent Jeffs : Brief of Defendant-Appellant Thomas FCollo. wH thiors andne add Aitionralizon works aat :Atthttps://dorinegitalcyommon Gesne.law.bryal'u.edu/bs Oyu_ca3pening BrPiefart of the Law Commons OrUtahigin Calour Brtief of SAubmittppealsed to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Kenneth A. Okazaki, Stephen C. Clark; Jones, Waldo, Holbrook and McDonough; Rodney R. Parker, Rick Van Wagoner, Frederick Mark Gedicks; Snow, Christensen and Martineau; Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee. Thomas C. Horne; Attorney General; Mark P. Bookholder; Assistant Attorney General; Attorney for Defendat-appellant Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, The Fundamentalist Church v. Wisan, No. 20120158 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2012). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca3/3048 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF No. 20120158-SC JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Plaintiff-Appellee, THOMAS C. HORNE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPENING BRIEF THOMAS C. HORNE; BRUCE R. WISAN; MARK SHURTLEFF; HON. DENISE POSSE LINDBERG, Matter on Certified Question Defendants-Appellants, and RICHARD JESSOP REAM, THOMAS SAMUEL STEED, DON RONALD FISCHER, DEAN JOSEPH BARLOW, WALTER SCOTT FISCHER, RICHARD GILBERT, and BRENT JEFFS, Intervenors-Appellants. Kenneth A. Okazaki Thomas C. Home Stephen C. Clark Attorney General Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough SLC Firm State Bar No. 14000 170 S. Main Street, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 45444 Mark P. Bookholder Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0444 Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 025374 Richard A. Van Wagoner 1275 W. Washington Rodney R. Parker Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Frederick M. Gedicks (602) 542-8346 Snow Christensen & Martineau (602) 542-3393 (fax) tH 10 Exchange Place, 11 Floor [email protected] P.O. Box 45000 Salt Lake City, UT 84145 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant Thomas C. Home, Arizona Attom^vGe^raf'"-^^ Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee LLATE COURTS APR 1 9 2012 Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF No. 20120158-SC JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Plaintiff-Appellee, THOMAS C. HORNE v. ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPENING BRIEF THOMAS C. HORNE; BRUCE R. WISAN; MARK SHURTLEFF; HON. DENISE POSSE LINDBERG, Matter on Certified Question Defendants-Appellants, and RICHARD JESSOP REAM, THOMAS SAMUEL STEED, DON RONALD FISCHER, DEAN JOSEPH BARLOW, WALTER SCOTT FISCHER, RICHARD GILBERT, and BRENT JEFFS, Intervenors-Appellants. Kenneth A. Okazaki Thomas C. Home Stephen C. Clark Attorney General Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough SLC Firm State Bar No. 14000 170 S. Main Street, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 45444 Mark P. Bookholder Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0444 Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 025374 Richard A. Van Wagoner 1275 W. Washington Rodney R. Parker Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Frederick M. Gedicks (602) 542-8346 Snow Christensen & Martineau (602) 542-3393 (fax) 10 Exchange Place, 11th Floor [email protected] P.O. Box 45000 Salt Lake City, UT 84145 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant Thomas C. Home, Arizona Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee \ Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITATIONS ii STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION CERTIFIED 1 CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS 1 STATEMENT OF CASE 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 8 ARGUMENT 9 I. The Court Should Answer the Certified Question Affirmatively to Preserve the Purposes of Claim Preclusion - Ensuring Finality, Judicial Economy, and Avoiding Inconsistent Judicial Outcomes 9 II. A Determination that a Claim is Barred by Laches is a Detennination "On the Merits'5 Precluding Later Adjudication of the Same Claim 10 A. Under Rule 41(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, a Dismissal on the Basis of Laches Constitutes an "Adjudication Upon the Merits." 10 B. To Operate As an Adjudication "on the Merits," a Determination that Claims Are Barred by Laches Need Not Address Whether or Not the Plaintiff Would Have Succeeded on Their Claims in the Absence of the Prejudicial Delay 13 i C. A Written Decision Dismissing a Petition for Extraordinary Writ on the Basis that the Claim Is Barred By Laches Is a Decision "on the Merits" Barring Subsequent Litigation of the Same Claim 19 CONCLUSION 20 < CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 24(f)(1) 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 22 i Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. J TABLE OF CITATIONS Page Cases Allen v. Moyer, 2011 UT44, 259 P.3d 1049 9 American Nat 7 Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, 826F.2d 1547 (7th Cir. 1987) 14, 19 Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183 (1947) 14 Bichler v. DEISys., Inc., 2009 UT 635 220 P.3d 1203 11 Cannon v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago, 784 F.2d 777 (7th Cir. 1986) 12 Charlie Brown Const. Co. v. Leisure Sports Inc., 740 P.2d 1368 (Utah App. 1987) 18 Charlie Brown Const. Co. v. Leisure Sports Inc., 765 P.2d 1277 (Table) (Utah 1987) 18 Country Meadows Convalescent Ctr. v. Utah Dep't of Health, 851 P.2d 1212 (Utah App. 1993) 12 Curry v. Educoa Preschool Inc., 580 P.2d 222 (Utah 1978) 14 Dayv. WiswalVs Estate, 93 Ariz. 400, 381 P.2d 217 (1963) 13 Donahue v. Smith, 2001 UT 46, 27 P.3d 552 15 Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Lindberg, 2010 UT 51, 238 P.3d 1054 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 ii Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Gates v. Taylor, 2000 UT 33, 997 P.2d 903 19 Int 7 Res. v. Dunfield, 599 P.2d 515 (Utah 1979) 10 Jeffs v. Stubbs, 970 P.2d 1234 (Utah 1998) 8 Knoll v. Springfield Township Sch. Dist., 699 F.2d 137 (3d Cir. 1983) 17 Mackv. Utah Dep't of Commerce, 2009 UT 47, 221 P.3d 194 9 Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245 (Utah 1988) 10 Miller v. USAACas.Ins. Co., 2002 UT 6, 44 P.3d 663 10, 12 Murphy v. Klein Tools, Inc., 935 F.2d 1127 (10th Cir. 1991) 17 Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863 (8th Cir. 1979) 17 Nathan v. Rowan, 651 F.2d 1223 (6th Cir. 1981) 17 Papanikolas Bros. Enters v. Sugarhouse Shopping Ctr. Assocs., 535 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1975) 13 Paxtonv. Ward, 199 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1999) 12 Plautv. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 115 S.Ct. 1447(1995) 16 PRCHarris, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 700 F.2d 894 (2d Cir. 1983) 16 Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Rose v. Harwich, 778 F.2d 77 (1st Cir. 1985) 16 Shoup v. Bell & Howell Co., 872 F.2d 1178 (4th Cir. 1989) 17 Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 17 Smith v. Chicago, 820 F.2d 916 (7th Cir. 1987) 12 State v. Walker, 2011UT53,267P.3d21 9 Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 880 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1989) 17 Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg 7 Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) 17 Tucker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 54, 53 P.3d 947 11 Wakefield v. Cordis Corp., 304 Fed. Appx. 804, 2008 WL 5381432 (11th Cir. 2008) 17 Rules Utah R. Civ. P. 41(b) 10, 15 Other Authorities 18A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4435 (2d ed. 2012) 14, 16 Black's Law Dictionary 1117 (7th ed. 1999) 12 Statutes 23U.S.C. §1257 6 iv Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION CERTIFIED Under Utah preclusion law, is the Utah Supreme Court's discretionary review of a petition for extraordinary writ and subsequent dismissal on laches grounds a decision "on the merits" when it is accompanied by a written opinion, such that later adjudication of the same claim is barred? CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS Utah R. Civ. P. 19. Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication. (a) Persons to be joined if feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 113 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 113 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 159 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2013 No. 64 House of Representatives The House met at 9 a.m. and was last day’s proceedings and announces Wednesday, April 24, 2013, the House called to order by the Speaker pro tem- to the House his approval thereof. stands in recess subject to the call of pore (Mr. MEADOWS). Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour- the Chair. f nal stands approved. Accordingly, (at 9 o’clock and 4 min- f utes a.m.), the House stood in recess DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER subject to the call of the Chair. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRO TEMPORE f The SPEAKER pro tempore. The The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- b 1022 fore the House the following commu- Chair will lead the House in the Pledge nication from the Speaker: of Allegiance. JOINT MEETING TO HEAR AN AD- The SPEAKER pro tempore led the DRESS BY HER EXCELLENCY WASHINGTON, DC, Pledge of Allegiance as follows: May 8, 2013. PARK GEUN-HYE, PRESIDENT OF I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the I hereby appoint the Honorable MARK R. THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA United States of America, and to the Repub- MEADOWS to act as Speaker pro tempore on During the recess, the House was this day. lic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. called to order by the Speaker at 10 JOHN A.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Women's Walk Oral Histories Directed by Michele Welch
    UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY Utah Valley University Library George Sutherland Archives & Special Collections Oral History Program Utah Women’s Walk Oral Histories Directed by Michele Welch Interview with Melissa (Missy) Larsen by Anne Wairepo December 7, 2018 Utah Women’s Walk TRANSCRIPTION COVER SHEET Interviewee: Melissa Wilson Larsen Interviewer: Anne Wairepo Place of Interview: George Sutherland Archives, Fulton Library, Utah Valley University Date of Interview: 7 December 2018 Recordist: Richard McLean Recording Equipment: Zoom Recorder H4n Panasonic HD Video Camera AG-HM C709 Transcribed by: Kristiann Hampton Audio Transcription Edit: Kristiann Hampton Reference: ML = Missy Larsen (Interviewee) AW= Anne Wairepo (Interviewer) SD = Shelli Densley (Assistant Director, Utah Women’s Walk) Brief Description of Contents: Missy Larsen describes her experiences growing up in Salt Lake City, Utah during the time her dad, Ted Wilson, was the mayor. She also explains her own experiences serving in student government during her school years. Missy talks about being a young wife and mother while working as the press secretary for Bill Orton. She further explains how she began her own public relations company, Intrepid. Missy details how she helped Tom Smart with publicity during the search for his daughter Elizabeth Smart who was abducted from her home in 2002. She talks about her position as chief of staff to Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and her involvement in developing the SafeUT app, which is a crisis intervention resource for teens. She concludes the interview by talking about the joy she finds in volunteering her time to help refugees in Utah. NOTE: Interjections during pauses or transitions in dialogue such as uh and false starts and stops in conversations are not included in this transcript.
    [Show full text]
  • Law ([email protected]) Kevin Deeley, Acting Associate General Counsel ([email protected]) Harry J
    Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB Document 36 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 21 Daniel A. Petalas, Acting General Counsel ([email protected]) Lisa J. Stevenson, Deputy General Counsel – Law ([email protected]) Kevin Deeley, Acting Associate General Counsel ([email protected]) Harry J. Summers, Assistant General Counsel ([email protected]) Kevin P. Hancock, Attorney ([email protected]) Claudio J. Pavia, Attorney ([email protected]) FOR THE PLAINTIFF FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street NW Washington, DC 20463 (202) 694-1650 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION _______________________________________ ) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:15CV00439 DB ) v. ) ) AMENDED JEREMY JOHNSON ) COMPLAINT ) and ) ) District Judge Dee Benson JOHN SWALLOW, ) ) Defendants. ) ) PLAINTIFF FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTY, DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF Plaintiff Federal Election Commission (“Commission” or “FEC”), for its Complaint against defendants Jeremy Johnson and John Swallow, alleges as follows: Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB Document 36 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 21 INTRODUCTION 1. During the 2009-2010 campaign cycle for federal elections, Utah businessman Jeremy Johnson knowingly and willfully made campaign contributions that violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA” or “Act”) because they exceeded applicable limits and were made in the names of other persons, and former Utah Attorney General John Swallow knowingly and willfully violated FECA by making contributions in the name of another when he caused, helped, and assisted Johnson to advance or reimburse the contributions of straw donors to a candidate for United States Senate. 2. In 2009 and 2010, FECA provided that no person could contribute in excess of $2,400 per election to any federal candidate.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Creditors in the Ccaa Proceedings of the Arctic Glacier Parties
    CONSOLIDATED LIST OF CREDITORS IN THE CCAA PROCEEDINGS OF THE ARCTIC GLACIER PARTIES CREDITOR NAME CREDITOR NOTICE NAME ADDRESS 1 ADDRESS 2 CITY STATE ZIP COUNTRY AMOUNT ($) 14A 6 DISTRICT COURT 4133 WASHTENAW AVE ANN ARBOR MI 48107 UNITED STATES * 14B DISTRICT COURT 7200 HURON RIVER DR YPSILANTI MI 48197-7007 UNITED STATES * C/O JAMES HUGHES 1625 RENTAL PARTNERSHIP MANAGING PARTNER 2924 ST JAMES CRESCENT REGINA SK S4V 2Z1 CANADA * 17TH DISTRICT COURT 15111 BEECH DALY REDFORD MI 48239 UNITED STATES * 190 STATESMAN HOLDINGS LTD 67 SELBY RD BRAMPTON ON L6W 1X7 CANADA * 1ST DISTRICT COURT SOUTH 12277 SOUTH US24 ERIE MI 48133 UNITED STATES * 2266588 ONTARIO INC 4233 OLIVER RD MURILLO ON P0T 2G0 CANADA * 33RD DISTRICT COURT 19000 VAN HORN RD WOODHAVEN MI 48183 UNITED STATES * 39TH DISTRICT COURT 29733 GRATIOT ROSEVILLE MI 48066 UNITED STATES * 401 K PLAN – PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP 111 WEST STATE ST MASON CITY IA 50401 UNITED STATES * 41B DISTRICT COURT 1 CROCKER BLVD MT CLEMENS MI 48043 UNITED STATES * 4TH DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION RE SONOMA MARIN FAIR 175 FAIRGROUNDS DR PETALUMA CA 94952 UNITED STATES * 55TH5 STAR DISTRICT REFURBISHING COURT CHARLOTTE 16203 ZERKER RD FRESNO CA 93718 UNITED STATES * MI 1045 INDEPENDENCE BLVD CHARLOTTE MI 48813 UNITED STATES * 55TH DISTRICT COURT MASON MI 700 BUHL MASON MI 48854 UNITED STATES * 5635 COMMERCE DRIVE LLC MARK KERRINS MEMBER PO BOX 14073 LANSING MI 48901 UNITED STATES * 67TH DISTRICT COURT 17100 SILVER PKWY FENTON MI 48430 UNITED STATES * 7 11 NO 39103 31401 8 MILE RD LIVONIA MI 48152-1359
    [Show full text]
  • VAWA”) Has Shined a Bright Light on Domestic Violence, Bringing the Issue out of the Shadows and Into the Forefront of Our Efforts to Protect Women and Families
    January 11, 2012 Dear Members of Congress, Since its passage in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) has shined a bright light on domestic violence, bringing the issue out of the shadows and into the forefront of our efforts to protect women and families. VAWA transformed the response to domestic violence at the local, state and federal level. Its successes have been dramatic, with the annual incidence of domestic violence falling by more than 50 percent1. Even though the advancements made since in 1994 have been significant, a tremendous amount of work remains and we believe it is critical that the Congress reauthorize VAWA. Every day in this country, abusive husbands or partners kill three women, and for every victim killed, there are nine more who narrowly escape that fate2. We see this realized in our home states every day. Earlier this year in Delaware, three children – ages 12, 2 ½ and 1 ½ − watched their mother be beaten to death by her ex-boyfriend on a sidewalk. In Maine last summer, an abusive husband subject to a protective order murdered his wife and two young children before taking his own life. Reauthorizing VAWA will send a clear message that this country does not tolerate violence against women and show Congress’ commitment to reducing domestic violence, protecting women from sexual assault and securing justice for victims. VAWA reauthorization will continue critical support for victim services and target three key areas where data shows we must focus our efforts in order to have the greatest impact: • Domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault are most prevalent among young women aged 16-24, with studies showing that youth attitudes are still largely tolerant of violence, and that women abused in adolescence are more likely to be abused again as adults.
    [Show full text]
  • Entire Issue (PDF)
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 113 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 159 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2013 No. 64 House of Representatives The House met at 9 a.m. and was last day’s proceedings and announces Wednesday, April 24, 2013, the House called to order by the Speaker pro tem- to the House his approval thereof. stands in recess subject to the call of pore (Mr. MEADOWS). Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour- the Chair. f nal stands approved. Accordingly, (at 9 o’clock and 4 min- f utes a.m.), the House stood in recess DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER subject to the call of the Chair. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRO TEMPORE f The SPEAKER pro tempore. The The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- b 1022 fore the House the following commu- Chair will lead the House in the Pledge nication from the Speaker: of Allegiance. JOINT MEETING TO HEAR AN AD- The SPEAKER pro tempore led the DRESS BY HER EXCELLENCY WASHINGTON, DC, Pledge of Allegiance as follows: May 8, 2013. PARK GEUN-HYE, PRESIDENT OF I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the I hereby appoint the Honorable MARK R. THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA United States of America, and to the Repub- MEADOWS to act as Speaker pro tempore on During the recess, the House was this day. lic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. called to order by the Speaker at 10 JOHN A.
    [Show full text]
  • Katie Shafer V. State of Utah : Brief of Appellant Utah Supreme Court
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Supreme Court Briefs 2002 Katie Shafer v. State of Utah : Brief of Appellant Utah Supreme Court Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Peter W. Summerill; Attorney for Appellant/Plaintiff. Nancy Kemp; Assistant Attorney General; Mark Shurtleff; Attorney General; Attorneys for Appellees/Defendants. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, Shafer v. Utah, No. 20020120.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 2002). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2/2113 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme Court Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT KATIE SHAFER, Case No. 20020120-SC Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Priority No. 11 STATE OF UTAH, Defendant/Appellee. BRIEF OF APPELLANT KATIE SHAFER Appeal From the Third District Court, Salt Lake Department Judge Leslie Lewis Presiding Nancy Kemp Peter W. Summerill Assistant Attorney General The Mclntyre Building Mark Shurtleff, Attorney General 68 South Main, 8th Floor 160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor Salt Lake City, Ut 84101 Mail Stop 140856 Attorney for Appellant/Plaintiff Salt Lake City, Ut.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource, Information Assistance Manual
    Helping Individuals with criminal records Re-enter through Employment RESOURCE, INFORMATION & ASSISTANCE MANUAL Established by the Legal Action Center, the National HIRE Network’s mission is to increase the number and quality of job opportunities available to people with criminal records by improving employment practices and public policies, and changing public opinion. HIRE engages in a number of activities that promote the hiring and retention of people w ho have criminal histories: Policy/Advocacy: The HIRE Network plays key roles in state and federal policy initiatives that affect people who have criminal records. The HIRE Network helps state and local policymakers make informed workforce and criminal justice decisions: HIRE w orked w ith Illinois and Delaw are legislators and advocates to successfully pass legislation that allows people who have criminal records to earn occupational licenses and certification. Our Washington, DC staff see to it that job seekers w ho have criminal records are considered in discussion of federal legislation—such as the Workforce Investment Act, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the Higher Education Act—that influence labor and criminal justice policies and practices nationw ide. Employer Support: The HIRE Netw ork understands that businesses seek to attract and retain a skilled w orkforce, keep costs dow n, and improve productivity. We also understand that although a job applicant may be highly qualified, an arrest or conviction record may make the applicant appear to be a liability rather than an asset. HIRE addresses these concerns by helping employers access qualified workers, secure liability protection, perform background checks, assess compliance with relevant state and federal laws that govern the hiring of people w ho have conviction records, and make fair and appropriate employment decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 12-11564-CSS Doc 1805 Filed 09/11/13 Page 1 of 18 Case 12-11564-CSS Doc 1805 Filed 09/11/13 Page 2 of 18 Allied Systems Holdings, Inc
    Case 12-11564-CSS Doc 1805 Filed 09/11/13 Page 1 of 18 Case 12-11564-CSS Doc 1805 Filed 09/11/13 Page 2 of 18 Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. Case- U.S. Mail 12-11564-CSS Doc 1805 Filed 09/11/13 Page 3 of 18 Served 9/10/2013 20 OAK HOLLOW OFFICE BUILDING ADP INC. ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL C/O FRIEDMAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY PO BOX 9001006 LUTHER STRANGE ATTN: TEANNA L. LIESS FILE # 00030-F79105 PO BOX 300152 34975 W. 12 MILE ROAD LOUISVILLE, KY 40290-1006 MONTGOMERY, AL 36130-0152 FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48331 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ALABAMA DEPT OF REVENUE ALASKA ATTORNEY GENERAL PO BOX 327435 PO BOX 327950 MICHAEL C. GERAGHTY MONTGOMERY, AL 36132-7435 MONTGOMERY, AL 36132-7950 PO BOX 110300 JUNEAU, AK 99811-0300 ALASKA DEPT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEV ALBERTA FINANCE ALCENTRAL, INC EMPLOYMENT SECURITY TAX TAX AND REVENUE ADMINISTRATION ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT PO BOX 115509 9811 – 109 STREET 10877 WILLSHIRE BLVD SUITE 1550 JUNEAU, AK 99811-5509 EDMONTON, AB T5K 2L5 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 CANADA ALLEN COUNTY TREASURER ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 2540 TOM HORNE DUSTIN MCDANIEL FT. WAYNE, IN 468012540 1275 WEST WASHINGTON STREET 323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 PHOENIX, AZ 85007-2926 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AVENUE CAPITAL GROUP AVENUE CAPITAL GROUP PO BOX 9941 ATTN: HEATHER KAISER ATTN: HEATHER KAISER LITTLE ROCK AR 72203-9941 399 PARK AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR 535 MADISON AVE, 15TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10022 NEW YORK, NY 10022 AVL LOAN FUNDING, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • February 22, 2012 Mr. Larry Page Chief Executive Officer Google, Inc
    February 22, 2012 Mr. Larry Page Chief Executive Officer Google, Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 Dear Mr. Page: We, the undersigned Attorneys General, write to express our strong concerns with the new privacy policy that Google announced it will be adopting for all of its consumer products. Until now, users of Google’s many products could use different products in different ways, expecting that information they provide for one product, such as YouTube, would not be synthesized with information they provide for another product, such as Gmail and Maps. The new policy forces these consumers to allow information across all of these products to be shared, without giving them the proper ability to opt out. Google’s new privacy policy is troubling for a number of reasons. On a fundamental level, the policy appears to invade consumer privacy by automatically sharing personal information consumers input into one Google product with all Google products. Consumers have diverse interests and concerns, and may want the information in their Web History to be kept separate from the information they exchange via Gmail. Likewise, consumers may be comfortable with Google knowing their Search queries but not with it knowing their whereabouts, yet the new privacy policy appears to give them no choice in the matter, further invading their privacy. It rings hollow to call their ability to exit the Google products ecosystem a “choice” in an Internet economy where the clear majority of all Internet users use – and frequently rely on – at least one Google product on a regular basis. This invasion of privacy will be costly for many users to escape.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes Continues a Legacy of Corruption
    Rantt Exclusive: Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes Continues A Legacy Of Corruption medium.com/rantt/utah-attorney-general-sean-reyes-continues-legacy-of-corruption-ead8281014c May 8, 2017 Part One of Our Investigation into Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes Utah AG, and Trump’s potential FTC nominee, appears to have used human trafficking busts as political props and contaminated a child pornographer’s crime scene Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer) Utah is a state dominated by Republican politics, both at the local, state, and Congressional levels. And while the pervasiveness of a single party might allow for the effective advancement of legislation in deep red or blue states like California and Texas, it comes with its own inherent drawbacks. One of those is a lack of accountability and an increased 1/19 risk of corruption among state and local officials, whose focus becomes advancing the party agenda and retaining a lock-step majority rather than serving the interests of their constituents. The Utah Office of Attorney General may have become an unfortunate victim of this kind of corruption, helmed by a string of attorneys whose primary objectives appear to be either personal or political. When the current Utah Attorney General, Sean Reyes was sworn in on December 30th, 2013 at the State Capitol, he promised to usher in a new era of transparency and accountability to the office. His predecessor, John Swallow, resigned amid allegations of bribery and evidence tampering that had dogged every step of his tenure as AG. Reyes, appointed by Governor Herbert, became the new sheriff in town, charged with rolling up his sleeves and cleaning house in an office that had become infamous for corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Essays
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Essays in American Political Behavior A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Robert Bond Committee in charge: Professor James Fowler, Chair Professor Charles Elkan Professor David Huber Professor Thad Kousser Professor Gary Jacobson 2013 Copyright Robert Bond, 2013 All rights reserved. The dissertation of Robert Bond is approved, and it is accept- able in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2013 iii DEDICATION My grandparents – Harry Bycroft, Betty Bycroft, Ronald Bond, and Lucy Stockton – did not live to see the completion of this dissertation. It is dedicated to their lives and their memory. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page . iii Dedication . iv Table of Contents . v List of Figures . vii List of Tables . x Acknowledgements . xii Vita and Publications . xiii Abstract of the Dissertation . xiv Chapter 1 Social Information and Participation . 1 1.1 Introduction . 2 1.2 Social norms and voting behavior . 4 1.3 Experimental Process and Results . 6 1.4 Discussion . 18 Chapter 2 The Dynamic Spread of Voting . 21 2.1 Introduction . 22 2.2 Peer effects and voting . 23 2.3 Data and methods . 24 2.4 Matching . 26 2.5 Calculation of Treatment Effect . 28 2.6 Results . 28 2.7 Discussion . 32 2.8 Conclusion . 33 Chapter 3 Estimating Ideology using Facebook’s ‘Like’ Data . 36 3.1 Introduction . 37 3.2 Facebook ‘Like’ Data . 39 3.3 Using Facebook data to scale ideological positions . 42 3.3.1 Model of liking .
    [Show full text]