White Cloud, MI Criminal Defense Law Firms & Lawyers

If you are an attorney, you can represent him. No one else can. If not, then hire him one, if he thinks there are grounds for an appeal. That is his remedy. You are wasting your time and theirs sending missives to police. If this is in SoCal courts, feel free to contact me.

Cops have guns and will do things that they are not allowed. So, he can and you cannot stop him. All you can say is, I do not consent to a search. And, I want you to leave my house NOW. Be clear and firm. But, do not physically obstruct nor argue law or right with him. You might audio or video record what is happening. If the cop does violate your request, you can contest the results of the search in court. You can also sue him for a civil rights violation. If you are over 21, why does it matter if you have pot in your house? It is not contraband so there is no reason to invade your privacy.

I have handled matters involving embezzlement from nonprofits and your question includes many of the questions that boards investigating embezzlement need to ask and find the answers to. The first step is to determine how much was embezzled and the period of time that the embezzlement occurred. It would be advisable to have an outside audit to help with this determination. While not necessarily required, the outside audit will allow the board to keep the investigation somewhat confidential. To aid in the protection of the audit and any findings, I would advise that you have your attorney hire the accountant who performs the audit. Having your attorney hire the auditor may make the audit attorney work product and could keep the audit from being discovered in court proceedings or otherwise (note that the attorney work product doctrine is not an absolute privilege). Once you have assessed the scope of the embezzlement, and you have determined there was only one embezzler, the board can determine its next step. This may involve reporting the matter to local law enforcement or negotiating a repayment schedule with the embezzler (the Secretary of State is not one of the parties that would be notified in any case). The board has a fiduciary duty to the nonprofit corporation to act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances, so the decision here will depend on all the circumstances. The audit will help, but another issue the board may want to consider is publicity- scandals relating to embezzlement often deter donors from giving money to the charity in the future. Additionally, previous donors may demand refunds of prior donations when details of the embezzlement become public (whether donors can force returns of their donations is questionable, but can be a public relations nightmare that a nonprofit cannot afford to endure). The board may also consider tendering the embezzlement to an insurance company if the corporation was ensured. One nonprofit I represented operated in a small field of service and was largely funded by a single government contract and the board had to determine whether to report the embezzlement of tens of thousands of dollars to the local police department and the government agency that provided funding (in the end they chose to notify both). One serious concern I usually address with nonprofits is that a large embezzlement, in theory, could result in violation of the prohibition on "private inurement" and "excess benefits." Assuming your organization is tax exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) , the assets of the nonprofit cannot be used for the benefit of any individual and that includes a prohibition on paying excessive salaries. There are specific rules relating to prohibited transactions with certain "disqualified individuals" to help enforce the prohibition on private inurement. The determination of whether this is any kind of excessive benefit will depend on the amount of embezzlement, the salary of the embezzler, and whether there is an repayment of the stolen funds. Whether the other board members have any liability depends largely on how they respond to this information and whether they knew or should have known about the embezzlement in the past. From your question it sounds like there were suspicions for some time. Liability could arise where the board members did not act reasonably, but California law significantly limits a volunteer director's liability unless there is "self-dealing" involved.