Ct Probate Forms: Fill & Download for Free

That depends…if you say to a person that you used to be a cop and you do not expect anything from them or attempt to assert any will over them, you should be ok. Not sure why you would want to say that you used to be a cop but whatever, lol. You will get in to trouble if you attempt to assert your will on someone or attempt to detain them in any way while using a fake badge, or fake police ID or by making your vehicle look like a police car.Here in my state of Florida if you do assert your will or force someone to assist you while pretending to be a cop you are committing a crime.843.08 False personation.—A person who falsely assumes or pretends to be a firefighter, sheriff, officer of the Florida Highway Patrol, officer of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, fire or arson investigator of the Department of Financial Services, officer of the Department of Financial Services, officer of the Department of Corrections, correctional probation officer, deputy sheriff, state attorney or assistant state attorney, statewide prosecutor or assistant statewide prosecutor, state attorney investigator, coroner, police officer, lottery special agent or lottery investigator, beverage enforcement agent, or watchman, or any member of the Florida Commission on Offender Review and any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission, or any personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement, or a federal law enforcement officer as defined in s. 901.1505, and takes upon himself or herself to act as such, or to require any other person to aid or assist him or her in a matter pertaining to the duty of any such officer, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, a person who falsely personates any such officer during the course of the commission of a felony commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If the commission of the felony results in the death or personal injury of another human being, the person commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The term “watchman” means a security officer licensed under chapter 493.

There is a big difference.Executive privilege, though it doesn’t appear in the Constitution or any federal statue, is an actual privilege courts have recognized as protecting some presidential and executive branch communications in certain circumstances. Arguably, it can be traced back to the very first presidency.Conversely…“Presidential adviser absolute immunity from subpoenas” doesn’t exist.They made it up.No provision in the U.S. Constitution says it’s a thing.No federal or state law says it’s a thing.No court has ever said it’s a thing.Not even if you put the words in a different order.Not even if you say it confidently, or loudly, or with a really serious face.Not even if you get indignant about it.It still doesn’t suddenly exist.It’s a brand new claim that would represent an enormous increase in presidential power, completely undermining the system of checks and balances set up by our Constitution.The administration has lost recent court battles claiming immense new power; that they don’t need to cooperate with Congressional subpoenas, nor do third parties, and that Congress has no right to investigate corruption in the executive branch. They’ve been making bold assertions about limitations of Congressional powers and blanket refusals to cooperate that are basically unprecedented.John Yoo was the deputy assistant US attorney general in the George W. Bush DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, and is famous (or perhaps infamous) for having one of the most expansive views of executive power of anyone, yet even he says the Trump administration is going way beyond historical precedent:The thing that’s unusual is the blanket refusal. It would be extraordinary if the president actually were to try to stop all congressional testimony on subpoenaed issues. That would actually be unprecedented if it were a complete ban.[1]The court ultimately slapped down the Trump team’s weak arguments. It was a 41 page ruling that utterly dismantled their assertions, containing fun phrases like, “flies in the face of decades of legislation covering the President.” It’s not precisely the same issue so I won’t get too deeply into it, but it’s instructive that their brazen claim that Congress couldn’t even investigate the president for unlawful conduct was declared unfathomable:It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.[2]This should give you a sense of where things are headed when the administration starts making up new legal concepts like “presidential adviser absolute immunity” or whatever they’re calling it. It’s about as real as “double secret probation.”[3]Back to executive privilege:As George Mason University professor Mark Rozell explained in a 1999 article for the Minnesota Law Review, executive privilege is “the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public.” This power can be used in two circumstances: “(1) certain national security needs and (2) protecting the privacy of White House deliberations when it is in the public interest to do so.” The second part is especially valuable, as it allows presidential advisors to freely speak their minds without the threat of a subpoena.[4]To home in a little more on the point, executive privilege is a thing that exists, but it has limits. The issue is far more complicated than we have time or space for here, and I don’t claim to be an expert by any means, but it’s worth looking at one of the most important cases on the topic for a taste of its limits. For that, we turn to Richard Nixon’s fight with Congress during the Watergate investigation:When Congress sought to obtain White House tapes containing Oval Office conversations, Nixon refused to turn them over, claiming that the tapes were subject to absolute executive privilege and asserting that the judiciary had no authority to order their production or inspection. Eventually the dispute reached the Supreme Court, where, in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974), the Court ruled against Nixon.While acknowledging the importance of the president's claims, the Court stated that "neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."In its opinion, therefore, the Court explicitly recognized the president's authority to assert executive privilege but ruled that the use of executive privilege is limited, not absolute. Furthermore, the Court maintained that the judiciary, not the president, has the power to determine the applicability of executive privilege. [5][6]Above I put the most relevant part in bold. Nixon’s absolute immunity claim did not even hold up for himself, the president, so clearly subordinate advisers don’t have “absolute” immunity, either.Executive privilege is a real thing, derived from the two elements referenced above, the doctrine of separation of powers and the need for confidentiality of high level communications. However, those underpinnings of executive privilege are clearly not absolute, especially when it comes to investigating possible criminal activity.We could stop there but let’s take note of another example, one that is both more recent and one where the political parties were reversed: Bill Clinton.Executive branch officials under presidents William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush have sought to limit dissemination of information through executive privilege, though these efforts were often unsuccessful. When Clinton was investigated by Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr about whether Clinton lied in a deposition regarding an affair with a former White House intern, Starr subpoenaed Secret Service agents to testify before a Grand Jury about Clinton's actions. Several agents refused to testify. This forced Starr to file a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel their testimony. The agents asserted they were protected by a "protective function" privilege that allowed them to conceal what they observe in the protection of the president.U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson declined to recognize the privilege, holding that there was no support for it in the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or the Common Law. Johnson cited federal statutes that require the president to accept Secret Service protection and require executive branch personnel, which includes Secret Service agents, to report criminal activity that they observe. The absence of a protective function privilege in those statutes suggested that Congress did not intend to create one.[7]In this case, we once again see there’s no absolute immunity for people working in close proximity to the president, nor can people simply assert privileges that have never been mentioned before and assume they’ll hold up.An agent isn’t the same as an adviser, but it’s yet another example that executive privilege has its limits and presidents don’t just get to snap their fingers and invent new immunities to protect themselves from any and all investigation.The closest the courts ever came to ruling on whether an adviser would have to testify was only about a decade ago, and it didn’t go well for the Bush administration:Notwithstanding the length and breadth of executive branch practice, however, the only judge to have addressed the issue of “testimonial immunity”—Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—roundly rejected the theory as “without any support in case law.”[8][9]Yet another contrived executive branch immunity—this one pretty close to what Trump’s lawyers are claiming—shot down by the courts.As Judge Mehta recently stated in his ruling against the Trump administration, citing both the Nixon and Clinton cases, among others, “Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a President, before and after taking office. This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”[10]For more answers like this, check out: Political Clarity, Demystifying U.S. Politics.Footnotes[1] Clash Between Trump and House Democrats Poses Threat to Constitutional Order[2] Judge Mehta’s Ruling in the Mazars Case: A Swift Victory for Congress[3] Double Secret Probation - Animal House[4] When Presidents use executive privilege[5] executive privilege[6] United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 93 – CourtListener.com[7] executive privilege[8] Judge Mehta’s Ruling in the Mazars Case: A Swift Victory for Congress[9] COMMITTEE ON JUD., US HOUSE OF REPRES. v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 – CourtListener.com[10] Judge Mehta’s Ruling in the Mazars Case: A Swift Victory for Congress

The laws related to mandated reporting vary from state to state. If, for example, a mother uses drugs while pregnant:in South Carolina:giving birth to a drug-exposed infant is a criminal offense; a conviction may send the mother to prison (State v. Whitner, 328 S.C. 1, 492; S.E. 2d 777 [1997], cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1857 [1998])while in New York:"[a] report which shows only a positive toxicology for a controlled substance [in the newborn] generally does not in and of itself prove that a child has been [neglected]" (Nassau County Department of Social Services v. Denise J., 87 N.Y. 2d 73, 661 N.E. 2d 138, 637 NYS 2d 666 [1995]).In the case of drug-exposed infants in California (where I practice) the law says:...a positive toxicology screen at the time of the delivery of an infant is not in and of itself a sufficient basis for reporting child abuse or neglect. However, any indication of maternal substance abuse shall lead to an assessment of the needs of the mother and child pursuant to Section 123605 of the Health and Safety Code. If other factors are present that indicate risk to a child, then a report shall be made. However, a report based on risk to a child which relates solely to the inability of the parent to provide the child with regular care due to the parent's substance abuse shall be made only to a county welfare or probation department, and not to a law enforcement agency.In California substance abuse all by itself does not trigger a report. A report is triggered when a child is abused, as defined in awful detail here: CA Codes (pen:11164-11174.3). It doesn't matter if substance abuse, lack of skill or a personality disorder or an unfortunate astrological chart are the cause of the abuse. In the fifteen years I have been in this field I have had only a handful of cases that triggered mandated reporting.The part of the psyche that becomes dependant on drugs can sometimes be desperate and self-centered. Nonetheless many addicts can and often do access their better nature on behalf of their children. The majority of parents who seek treatment are working hard to see that their children are safe from abuse.It's also important to realize that 80% of mandated reports do not result in findings of abuse. If an addicted parent considering treatment is concerned enough to forgo treatment to avoid CPS, perhaps they are present enough to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that CPS would find that the kids are ok.The actual law in California: CA Codes (pen:11164-11174.3)SAMSHA [Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US)] of mandated reporting: Chapter 6-Legal Responsibilities and RecourseOne of many trainings for Mandated Reporting in CA: General Training HomepageHealth and Human Resources Report on Child Maltreatment: Page on Hhs