#MICHAEL GOLAND TRIAL#
#MICHAEL GOLAND FREE#

On August 14, 2009, the Februinjunction was modified to require prior court approval before Goland (individually or through counsel or friends) could file any action or encumbrance against Dog At Home, etc. and its shareholders, officers, directors, agents, employees and attorneys, including, but not limited to, Susan Marlowe and Jack Shlush. (and Dog at Home, Inc.'s shareholders, officers, directors, agents, employees and attorneys, including, but not limited to, Susan Marlowe and Jack Shlush.) Such adverse action includes, but is not limited to, harassing, bothering, contacting, communicating with, signing documents on behalf of, encumbering property of, recording liens and/or lis pendens against property of, Dog at Home, Inc. This judgment declared the deed of trust recorded against the Burbank Property void ab initio and also enjoined Goland from adverse actions against Dog at Home and related parties (including its attorneys and Marlowe): Defendant Michael Goland, and his agents, employees, attorneys, representatives, and those working with him, on behalf of him, and/or in concert with him, are permanently enjoined from taking any action adverse to Plaintiff Dog at Home, Inc. On February 10, 2006, a default judgment was entered against Goland in favor of Dog at Home. Dog at Home is a charity that is administered by Marlowe and represented by Lewis. ('Dog at Home') filed a complaint against Goland, seeking to remove an allegedly fraudulent deed of trust on the real property located at 421 N.

LA Superior Court SC088376 (the 'Contempt Matter') This proceeding involves claims arising out two of the many lawsuits among Lewis, Susan Marlowe (Goland's ex-wife and Lewis' client 'Marlowe'), Goland, and their respective friends and affiliates. Lewis and Goland have a long, litigious history. Plaintiff Brett Lewis ('Lewis') moves for summary judgment on his В§523(a)(6) cause of action against debtor/defendant Michael Goland ('Goland'). Evidence probative of that intent should not have been excluded.MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (dkt. For the reasons stated above, Goland's intent is a key issue in this case. The FEC's own conclusion supports Goland's theory of defense here that he believed his tactics to promote Cranston were an independent expenditure. The FEC terminated its inquiry because it found no evidence of unlawful coordination. Goland used similar tactics in that election as he used here against Zschau. A few years earlier, the FEC conducted an inquiry into Goland's efforts against Senator Percy in the 1984 Illinois Republican primary.

#MICHAEL GOLAND TRIAL#

Although evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial judge, evidence probative of a defendant's state of mind in a case in which intent is contested is presumed to be relevant. Under these principles, I cannot conclude that Goland acted in concert or cooperated with agents of Vallen under the terms of the provisions in question.Д®vidence raising doubts about Goland's intent to violate the election laws was excluded from the jury's consideration. 'o ensure that a legislature speaks with special clarity when marking the boundaries of criminal conduct, courts must decline to impose punishment for actions that are not 'plainly and unmistakably' proscribed.' Id. Rather, it is rooted in fundamental principles of due process which mandate that no individual be forced to speculate, at peril of indictment, whether his conduct is prohibited.' Id. 'This practice reflects not merely a convenient maxim of statutory construction.

It is well settled that questions concerning the ambit of a criminal statute are resolved in favor of lenity. The doctrine of lenity offers additional support for reversing Goland's conviction.

#MICHAEL GOLAND FREE#

Limits on independent expenditures tend to exclude all citizens and groups except candidates, political parties, and the institutional press 'from any significant use of the most effective modes of communication,' while campaign contribution limits place only a 'marginal restriction' upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication. at 644-49, but upheld the limitations on campaign contributions. The Court prohibited dollar limitations on independent expenditures, Buckley v. In Buckley, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between monetary limits on independent expenditures and campaign contributions. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, independent expenditures must be made 'without cooperation or consultation with any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate, and made in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate.' 2 U.S.C.

Michael goland