In RE MARRIAGE CASES California Courts State of California Courts Ca Form

You are stuck with the California filings unless you can get the judge to approve a change of venue. Your ex has to agree or it stays where it is.

As a UC gradute student I was told that the following steps would establish residency: Open a bank account at a local branch with my CA address as contact info, and if possible, change or cancel other accountsRegister to vote in CaliforniaGet a CA drivers license.I did the first two within a week of arriving, and delayed getting a drivers license until February because I did not drive a car. I was able to be approved as a CA resident after the first year. (I think you are asking for undergraduates, so this may not be pertinent  to you specifically, but it also answers the question)

On principle (Commerce Clause, etc.,) I expect it to be overturned by the judiciary. In backlash, especially if ISPs actually begin to violate Net Neutrality in any signNow way, I expect future congress to resolve the issue in favor of Net Neutrality. The only alternative would be for new and independent ISPs to arise that will adhere to Net Neutrality, or be thwarted from arising by anti-competitive acts that will fall under the Monopoly and Anti-Trust laws.The fundamental issue: Although the anti-Net-Neutrality forces want ISPs to be classified as information providers (addressable under Title I, able to accept payment from producers and thus editorialize and select content like TV and Movie production sites), their content is still carried nationally and globally through “big pipes” that are operated (sometimes by the SAME companies) as telecommunications providers, restricted under Title II to be content and endpoint neutral. Thus, if present ISP need not behave neutrally due to being designated as “information providers”, then citizens must be allowed to access the “raw Internet” directly, or else the Title II protections afforded to the public over TelCo services will become meaningless.In other words, if ISPs are rendered information providers with relation to Title I, then the public MUST be able to access the Internet in ways that are independent of these ISPs, just as you or I can presently engage the Internet and ignore ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, or ignore Google, Facebook, Amazon in favor of alternative information and commerce sites. As popular as Google may be, they cannot prevent you from using Bing for searches. As popular as Facebook may be, they cannot prevent you from using MySpace as a social media platform, and as popular as Amazon may be, they cannot prevent you from using Jet as a commercial goods and services site. There is no way that ISPs such as AT&T, Comcast, Verizon or Charter can act to restrict your choices of Internet sites, as if THEY are themselves the Internet sites you are visiting.When I visit a website, I am not visiting my ISP, I am using them. Likewise, when I pick up my phone to call a plumber or pharmacy, I am not visiting my phone company, I am using them. The people will not stand to be treated otherwise.

The best state to create an out-of-state LLC when you live in California depends on how much complexity your LLC requires. If you anticipate getting investment, or doing more than $1Million in revenue the first year, or something akin to these types of complexities, then Delaware is probably the best state.If you realistically expect a couple of hundred thousand in revenue the first year at the most, will not have a lot of contracts to negotiate and enter into, etc., then Nevada is the place to go.You can avoid registering this LLC in California as a foreign company by not operating or doing business in California. You can sell in California, for example, as long as you are drop shipping from out of state or selling through a 3PL warehouse and the order receipt and fulfillment happens from outside of California.

My suspicion is that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s decision that FRCP 12(b)(6) applied.“Failure to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted”If you read the actual writ of certiorari, which is available at a number of sites, including the following one:ROTHERY v. BLANASYou’ll see that the claimed cause of action is a RICO violation based on a failure to issue a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit, with a further allegation that the failure to issue was a result of a conspiracy involving local election fraud and corruption, not under federal jurisdiction.Specifically, one of the claims alleged was:Plaintiffs alleged they were denied CCW permits by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department because they had not contributed to the Sheriff's election campaign, and that if they had contributed to the campaign, they would have been granted CCW permits.This is a matter solely for state jurisdiction, as election of count officials is based on elections managed by the Secretary of State for the state in which the elections are held.The federal government has no jurisdiction in local election disputes not rising to the level of a violation of federal law.While this was also alleged:Plaintiffs also claimed that County Defendants were involved in RICO activities which affected their rights.That’s really a separate motion, and needed to be adjudicated separately.The Supreme Court is unlikely to hear questions unless they turn on a single Constitutional turning point, and they are unlikely to hear matters of law, unless they regard matters of Constitutional interpretation of the law in question.FRCP 12(b)(6) is often used to turn down such cases in lower courts, and that turn-down is usually upheld.The problem in this specific case is that it is not fully “baked”.Specifically, all of the other matters at law really needed to be adjudicated in other courts, leaving on the constitutional issue.This was not done, and therefore, the case, as presented, was not a matter of Constitutional Interpretation of either the cause of action, or of a law under which the cause of action was being presented, and whose Constitutionality was therefore being brought into question.This case, on the face of it, has some merit, although the RICO motion substantially muddies the water, and seems like a “Hail Mary” to keep the case alive locally.This case could be petitioned again, should the other matters of law be adjudicated, and it still not fall in the plaintiffs favor.More “baking” is required, in other words.As it stands, the case is, at best, “half baked”.Personally, I would not have granted the petition, either, and I would have expected it to be turned around at the level of a Supreme Court clerk, before even rising to the attention of a justice.That’s typically how these things are handled.

According to the information I can find, it was a Superior Court ruling, which means that it's highly likely that it will wind its way into the appellate system.  With a matter as controversial as this, it's also likely it will make it all the way to the state supreme court.

I will disagree a little bit with Matthew Olmedo on the housing cost in the bay area. The bay area is a nice place in terms of weather but the commute and housing prices are awful and the extra salary you get here is not going to make up for the fact that the cheapest, smallest house in a reasonable location is at least a million dollars now.In terms of relocating somewhere else, just apply for jobs in that area as anybody else would. Most companies will pay for you to fly out and interview if they find you to be an attractive enough candidate. Or visit the area on your own dime and fill your time up with multiple interviews.