Law Office of Camron Hoorfar, PC

Recently, the Supreme Court of Missouri found out about a campaign mailer of Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s that features a photograph of Schmitt with three of the Court’s judges. The photograph was taken at a public event that the judges attended during the state’s bicentennial celebration last August. The judges attended the event as a celebration of the different branches of state government working together. The photo was taken with neither the Court nor its judges knowledge that it would go one to be distributed in a political context.

None of the judges did – or ever would – consent to their names, titles or likenesses being used in any political context. The Court hopes that Missouri citizens know that no Supreme Court judge would or could endorse a political candidate, and this photo should not be taken as such an endorsement despite the implication of the mailer.

Article V, section 25(f) of the Missouri Constitution prohibits Supreme Court judges from engaging in any political activity. They are reporting the incident as required by their judicial code of conduct and legal ethics. Meanwhile, the Court has asked the attorney general’s office to delete this photograph and any others like it from the office’s public or social media accounts to help prevent any further inappropriate use of such images.

Interested in speaking with an attorney? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.

Absent other exceptions, the only circuit court ruling that is subject to appeal is a final judgment, meaning a writing denominated as a judgment that addresses all claims as to all parties. Judgment addressed all claims as to all parties except each party’s claim for attorney fees. “An unresolved claim for attorney’s fees can arrest the finality of a judgment, and defeat appellate jurisdiction.” Appeal, cross-appeal, and claims for attorney fees on appeal dismissed.  

David & Amy Schmidt vs. Dart Bein, LC 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD84253, WD84490, and WD84491

“In Missouri, it is unlawful for any student to attend school unless he or she is properly immunized and can provide satisfactory evidence of such immunization or unless he or she is properly exempted.” Nothing requires the State to provide an exemption to a neutral and generally applicable mandate on religious grounds, but Missouri has elected to do so, through statutes providing that proper exemption is subject to regulations of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. Those regulations require the use of a prescribed form. That regulation is within statutory authority, does not violate the Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has a rational relationship to the State’s interest in preventing childhood disease, does not bar the expression of religious beliefs, and does not compel complicity in vaccination in violation of any constitutional provision.

For plaintiff to state a claim against defendant, plaintiff must describe a justiciable controversy. A justiciable controversy in an action for declaratory judgment, bringing a pre-enforcement challenge to a provision of law, includes the defendant’s authority to enforce the challenged provision against the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs did not allege that defendant local health authorities had any authority over, or made any attempt to enforce, the use of a form for exemption to vaccination requirements prescribed by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. Judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the petition, affirmed. 

Audrey Baker, et al. vs. Crossroads Academy-Central Street, et al. 

If you are in need of legal help, call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.

The price of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies plummeted Monday after a major cryptocurrency lender effectively failed and halted all withdrawals from its platform, citing “extreme market conditions.” It’s the latest high-profile collapse of a pillar of the cryptocurrency industry. These meltdowns have erased tens of billions of dollars of investors’ assets and spurred urgent calls to regulate the freewheeling industry. Bitcoin was trading at roughly $22,400 late Monday, down more than 16% in the past day. Ethereum, another widely followed cryptocurrency, was down roughly 17%.

Investors have been selling riskier assets such as digital currencies and technology stocks as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to combat high inflation. On Sunday, the cryptocurrency lending platform Celsius Network announced that it was pausing all withdrawals and transfers between accounts in order to “honor, over time, withdrawal obligations.” Celsius, with roughly 1.7 million customers and more than $10 billion in assets, gave no indication in its announcement when it would allow users to access their funds.

Struggling financially? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation to discuss your options.

The delay from charges to trial did not reach the threshold of a presumptive violation of the right to a speedy trial, so no further analysis of other factors was necessary, and circuit court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. “The State has the burden of production and persuasion to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant’s motion to suppress should be overruled at trial.” A confession is involuntary and subject to exclusion when obtained by coercion, determined by a totality of circumstances, either physical or psychological.

Physical factors include length of detention, duration of questioning, and deprivation of food or sleep. Psychological factors include age, experience, intelligence, gender, degree of education, infirmity, unusual susceptibility to coercion, advisement of rights, demeanor of interrogators, and restraints on defendant. Deception does not render defendant’s confession involuntary “unless the deception offends societal notions of fairness or is likely to produce an untrustworthy confession.” Promises of leniency render a confession involuntary but defendant’s hope for leniency, or divine forgiveness, does not. Circuit court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. 

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. ERIC A. HINES, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD37164

If you’re interested in speaking with an attorney, call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.