The 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, Massachusetts ruled today (Thursday, May 31st, 2012) that the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DoMA) is unconstitutional. The Massachusetts law denies a range of federal benefits to same-sex married couples in Massachusetts. Until now.
The DoMA defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This 1st Circuit Court ruled that it discriminates against gay couples.
The DoMA law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.
The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.
The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn’t be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.
During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DoMA.
An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.
[msnbc.com, May 31, 2012; The Associated Press (AP), May 31, 2012]
Thursday, May 31, 2012
LEGAL UPDATES:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPBB) released a "draft" rule on May 24, 2012 outlining how it plans to supervise debt collectors, consumer credit reporting agencies, money services companies and other small nonbanks that engage in "activities that pose risks to consumers."
International judges (ICC) have sentenced former Liberian President Charles Taylor to an unprecedented 50 years imprisonment (on Wednesday, May 30, 2012), ruling that he was responsible for "some of the most heinous and brutal crimes recorded in human history" by arming and supporting Sierre Leone rebels in return for "blood diamonds".
[The Legal Times, Wednesday, 5/30/2012]
Maryland: Murder Conviction Overturned.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has ordered a new trial for a man convicted of felony murder 36 years ago in the killing of a Hagerstown, Maryland police officer.
In the process the high court has reopened the courthouse door, so to speak, to the state's inmates (for new trials) convicted of violent crimes prior to 1980, when Maryland judges' jury instructions were merely "advisory".
[The Daily Record, Tuesday, May 29, 2012]
GRAND ROUNDS: JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MEDICINE
Symposium: "The Marriage of Current Law with Current Medicine"; Speaker: Attorney Charles Jerome Ware; 10:00 AM, Wednesday, November 7, 2012; Johns Hopkins University Hospital Baltimore, Maryland
International judges (ICC) have sentenced former Liberian President Charles Taylor to an unprecedented 50 years imprisonment (on Wednesday, May 30, 2012), ruling that he was responsible for "some of the most heinous and brutal crimes recorded in human history" by arming and supporting Sierre Leone rebels in return for "blood diamonds".
[The Legal Times, Wednesday, 5/30/2012]
Maryland: Murder Conviction Overturned.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has ordered a new trial for a man convicted of felony murder 36 years ago in the killing of a Hagerstown, Maryland police officer.
In the process the high court has reopened the courthouse door, so to speak, to the state's inmates (for new trials) convicted of violent crimes prior to 1980, when Maryland judges' jury instructions were merely "advisory".
[The Daily Record, Tuesday, May 29, 2012]
GRAND ROUNDS: JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MEDICINE
Symposium: "The Marriage of Current Law with Current Medicine"; Speaker: Attorney Charles Jerome Ware; 10:00 AM, Wednesday, November 7, 2012; Johns Hopkins University Hospital Baltimore, Maryland
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
GRANDROUNDS: JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MEDICINE
"The Marriage of Current Law with Current Medicine", Speaker: Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, Wednesday, November 7th, 2012
Zayed 2119A Auditorium
Zayed 2119A Auditorium
"FACEBOOK" LEGAL UPDATE: 5 NUMBERS THAT SHOULD TROUBLE FACEBOOK INVESTORS
(One) The number 23:
23: Number of pages in the IPO prospectus describing "risks related to [Facebook's] business and industry.
(Two) The percentage 15:
15%: Percentage of revenues derived attributable to Zynga (NAS: ZNGA) and third parties advertising on pages generated by Zynga apps. Everyone is familiar with Zynga's dependency on Facebook, but I've never heard anyone mention Facebook's dependency on Zynga. The social-networking game developer has to run just to stay in place, by constantly coming up with new games that will capture the attention, time, and dollars of its users, who I suspect are very fickle. Very tough business. I wouldn't classify this as a stable long-term revenue source.
(Three) The percentage 57.3:
57.3%: Voting power concentrated in a single person -- CEO Mark Zuckerberg -- following the IPO. Is that a risk? You don't need to take it from me, just listen to what the company has to say on the matter in the prospectus:
"As a board member and officer, Mr. Zuckerberg owes a fiduciary duty to our stockholders and must act in good faith in a manner he reasonably believes to be in the best interests of our stockholders. As a stockholder, even a controlling stockholder, Mr. Zuckerberg is entitled to vote his shares, and shares over which he has voting control as a result of voting agreements, in his own interests, which may not always be in the interests of our stockholders generally."
This is the very definition of a conflict of interest. If Zuckerberg finds himself in a situation where a conflict arises, whose interests do you think he's going to put first: yours or his?
(Four) The percentage 50:
50%: Underwriters used three methods in estimating the value of Facebook shares, one of which is simply looking at the recent prices at which the shares changed hands in private markets. Fifty percent represents the weighting the bankers assigned to this methodology.
But surely, all of the investors who bought the shares in the private markets did so based on a considered assessment of Facebook's business value. Just ask the technology fund manager who was quoted in The Wall Street Journal at the end of February -- only a few days after having bought 50,000 shares, bringing his holdings to 200,000: "Whatever you think Facebook is worth today, it's going to be worth more once it's publicly tradable."
(Five) The number 71.4:
71.4: Price-to-earnings ratio of Facebook shares based on a 12 months' earnings per share to March 2012 and a $35 share price -- somewhere in the middle of the most recent pricing range. Does using $35 sound like an aggressive assumption? According to a Reuters report from Friday, the offering is already oversubscribed, and the underwriters could well lift the pricing range.
This number is actually only marginally higher than the 67.5 P/E ratio of Google's (NAS: GOOG) shares when they were priced at $85 on their August 2004 IPO. Google's shares went on to do very well, but keep in mind that we look back at Google's share performance with hindsight. That performance happens to coincide with a period of superlative execution by the company; Google continues to dominate its market. Facebook, on the other hand, has a lower-quality business and is coming to market later in its growth trajectory. Whether it can sustain its growth and remain dominant over the next five years -- let alone the next eight -- is very much an open question.
[Recommendation by The Motley Fool, www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/05/18/5-numbers-that]:
Your best course of action: doing nothing
Facebook's IPO will almost certainly represent a poor long-term investment at or above the IPO price. If you're looking for a little excitement, why not consider the dog races? If you're looking for an informed speculation, I suggest you wait until Facebook's IPO is "busted" and the shares trade below the IPO price. Either way, you're better off sitting out this media/i-banking/technology love-fest.
[http://www.fool.com/server/printarticle.aspx?file=/investing/general/2012/05/18/5-number]
23: Number of pages in the IPO prospectus describing "risks related to [Facebook's] business and industry.
(Two) The percentage 15:
15%: Percentage of revenues derived attributable to Zynga (NAS: ZNGA) and third parties advertising on pages generated by Zynga apps. Everyone is familiar with Zynga's dependency on Facebook, but I've never heard anyone mention Facebook's dependency on Zynga. The social-networking game developer has to run just to stay in place, by constantly coming up with new games that will capture the attention, time, and dollars of its users, who I suspect are very fickle. Very tough business. I wouldn't classify this as a stable long-term revenue source.
(Three) The percentage 57.3:
57.3%: Voting power concentrated in a single person -- CEO Mark Zuckerberg -- following the IPO. Is that a risk? You don't need to take it from me, just listen to what the company has to say on the matter in the prospectus:
"As a board member and officer, Mr. Zuckerberg owes a fiduciary duty to our stockholders and must act in good faith in a manner he reasonably believes to be in the best interests of our stockholders. As a stockholder, even a controlling stockholder, Mr. Zuckerberg is entitled to vote his shares, and shares over which he has voting control as a result of voting agreements, in his own interests, which may not always be in the interests of our stockholders generally."
This is the very definition of a conflict of interest. If Zuckerberg finds himself in a situation where a conflict arises, whose interests do you think he's going to put first: yours or his?
(Four) The percentage 50:
50%: Underwriters used three methods in estimating the value of Facebook shares, one of which is simply looking at the recent prices at which the shares changed hands in private markets. Fifty percent represents the weighting the bankers assigned to this methodology.
But surely, all of the investors who bought the shares in the private markets did so based on a considered assessment of Facebook's business value. Just ask the technology fund manager who was quoted in The Wall Street Journal at the end of February -- only a few days after having bought 50,000 shares, bringing his holdings to 200,000: "Whatever you think Facebook is worth today, it's going to be worth more once it's publicly tradable."
(Five) The number 71.4:
71.4: Price-to-earnings ratio of Facebook shares based on a 12 months' earnings per share to March 2012 and a $35 share price -- somewhere in the middle of the most recent pricing range. Does using $35 sound like an aggressive assumption? According to a Reuters report from Friday, the offering is already oversubscribed, and the underwriters could well lift the pricing range.
This number is actually only marginally higher than the 67.5 P/E ratio of Google's (NAS: GOOG) shares when they were priced at $85 on their August 2004 IPO. Google's shares went on to do very well, but keep in mind that we look back at Google's share performance with hindsight. That performance happens to coincide with a period of superlative execution by the company; Google continues to dominate its market. Facebook, on the other hand, has a lower-quality business and is coming to market later in its growth trajectory. Whether it can sustain its growth and remain dominant over the next five years -- let alone the next eight -- is very much an open question.
[Recommendation by The Motley Fool, www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/05/18/5-numbers-that]:
Your best course of action: doing nothing
Facebook's IPO will almost certainly represent a poor long-term investment at or above the IPO price. If you're looking for a little excitement, why not consider the dog races? If you're looking for an informed speculation, I suggest you wait until Facebook's IPO is "busted" and the shares trade below the IPO price. Either way, you're better off sitting out this media/i-banking/technology love-fest.
[http://www.fool.com/server/printarticle.aspx?file=/investing/general/2012/05/18/5-number]
Friday, May 25, 2012
Legal Update: Buying Your First Home?
Four (4) Important Steps:
(1) Real Estate Agent. Retain a competent real estate agent who will be loyal to you as a homebuyer.
This is the professional you will be working most closely with in your homebuying process.
(2) Mortgage Broker or Lender. Not all mortgage brokers or lenders are the same. Some are good, and others are horrible.
A competent mortgage broker's role is to shop around to find you the very best loan and lender to suit your needs.
(3) Appraiser. Prior to getting approval for your home loan, the lender (bank, etc.) will hire an appraiser to look at your proposed home and assess its value to see if the home is worth the money.
Since the basic home appraisals are generally affordable, I recommend the homeowners engage in their own due diligence by hiring their appraiser to make sure they are getting the home value they want.
(4) Attorney. Prior to signing any legal documents in purchase of a home, hire an attorney competent in reviewing home purchase real estate documents for legal advice.
As with appraisers, this process should be affordable.
[Sources: "Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets", by Charles Jerome Ware (2011); "Understanding the Law", by Charles Jerome Ware (2008); realestate.msn.com/a-whos-who-guide-to-buying-your-first-home, 5/25/2012]
(1) Real Estate Agent. Retain a competent real estate agent who will be loyal to you as a homebuyer.
This is the professional you will be working most closely with in your homebuying process.
(2) Mortgage Broker or Lender. Not all mortgage brokers or lenders are the same. Some are good, and others are horrible.
A competent mortgage broker's role is to shop around to find you the very best loan and lender to suit your needs.
(3) Appraiser. Prior to getting approval for your home loan, the lender (bank, etc.) will hire an appraiser to look at your proposed home and assess its value to see if the home is worth the money.
Since the basic home appraisals are generally affordable, I recommend the homeowners engage in their own due diligence by hiring their appraiser to make sure they are getting the home value they want.
(4) Attorney. Prior to signing any legal documents in purchase of a home, hire an attorney competent in reviewing home purchase real estate documents for legal advice.
As with appraisers, this process should be affordable.
[Sources: "Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets", by Charles Jerome Ware (2011); "Understanding the Law", by Charles Jerome Ware (2008); realestate.msn.com/a-whos-who-guide-to-buying-your-first-home, 5/25/2012]
LEGAL UPDATE: DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE IN JEOPARDY?
What do you think?
[Washington, D.C.; Thursday, 05/24/2012]
In a 6 to 3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, an Arkansas man, Alex Blueford, can now be retried for capital murder after a jury in his 2009 trial voted to acquit him of a capital murder but deadlocked on lesser charges.
Blueford was charged with murdering his girlfriend's 20-month-old son, who died of a head injury.
Prosecutors had waived the death penalty but charged Mr. Blueford with capital murder in order to seek life in prison without the possibility of parole, alleging he injured the child intentionally. The defendant said he knocked the boy down by accident.
The trial judge told jurors that if they didn't believe Mr. Blueford was guilty on the capital-murder charge, they should consider whether he was guilty of a series of lesser offenses: first-degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.
The jury forewoman reported that the jury was "hopelessly" deadlocked. Jurors were "unanimous against" a conviction for capital murder or first-degree murder, she said, but deadlocked 9-3 on whether to convict the defendant of manslaughter. After another 30 minutes, jurors returned again to say they couldn't reach a verdict. The judge declared a mistrial.
When the state moved to retry Mr. Blueford, he sought dismissal of the murder charges, while conceding he could be retried for manslaughter. The case turned into a battle over the interpretation of the Constitution's double-jeopardy clause, which protects a defendant from being tried for the same offense twice.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a 6-3 opinion for the court, said the forewoman's report on the state of deliberations wasn't a formal finding of acquittal on the capital-murder or first-degree-murder charges. He observed that the jury had continued to deliberate after the forewoman's report, and said jurors were free to reconsider whether Mr. Blueford was guilty of a greater offense. The jury, he said, didn't exercise either of the two options provided by Arkansas law: convict Mr. Blueford on one of the offenses or acquit him on all them.
"When the jury was unable to return a verdict, the trial court properly declared a mistrial and discharged the jury," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a 10-page opinion. "As a consequence, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not stand in the way of a second trial on the same offenses."
The court's four other conservative justices and one member of the court's liberal wing, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined the decision.
Mr. Blueford and his supporters relied on two earlier Supreme Court rulings, from 1957 and 1970, in which the court ruled that a defendant is implicitly acquitted of more severe charges when a jury chooses to convict only of a lesser offense. The court said in both decisions that the protection against double jeopardy prohibits a second trial on the greater offense.
Mr. Blueford argued that the double-jeopardy clause should afford him even more protection because he wasn't convicted of the lesser offense either. Chief Justice Roberts said those cases were different because they involved final jury verdicts, while this case did not.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissenters, said the decision unfairly gave prosecutors a "second bite at the apple" because the jury "unmistakably announced acquittal" on the capital and first-degree murder charges. "That ought to be the end of the matter," she wrote.
Justice Sotomayor said the court's ruling departed from the "long-established" principle that double jeopardy could come into play even if an initial prosecution didn't result in a conviction or acquittal.
[WSJ, Friday, 05/25/2012]
What do you think about this story?
[Washington, D.C.; Thursday, 05/24/2012]
In a 6 to 3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, an Arkansas man, Alex Blueford, can now be retried for capital murder after a jury in his 2009 trial voted to acquit him of a capital murder but deadlocked on lesser charges.
Blueford was charged with murdering his girlfriend's 20-month-old son, who died of a head injury.
Prosecutors had waived the death penalty but charged Mr. Blueford with capital murder in order to seek life in prison without the possibility of parole, alleging he injured the child intentionally. The defendant said he knocked the boy down by accident.
The trial judge told jurors that if they didn't believe Mr. Blueford was guilty on the capital-murder charge, they should consider whether he was guilty of a series of lesser offenses: first-degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.
The jury forewoman reported that the jury was "hopelessly" deadlocked. Jurors were "unanimous against" a conviction for capital murder or first-degree murder, she said, but deadlocked 9-3 on whether to convict the defendant of manslaughter. After another 30 minutes, jurors returned again to say they couldn't reach a verdict. The judge declared a mistrial.
When the state moved to retry Mr. Blueford, he sought dismissal of the murder charges, while conceding he could be retried for manslaughter. The case turned into a battle over the interpretation of the Constitution's double-jeopardy clause, which protects a defendant from being tried for the same offense twice.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a 6-3 opinion for the court, said the forewoman's report on the state of deliberations wasn't a formal finding of acquittal on the capital-murder or first-degree-murder charges. He observed that the jury had continued to deliberate after the forewoman's report, and said jurors were free to reconsider whether Mr. Blueford was guilty of a greater offense. The jury, he said, didn't exercise either of the two options provided by Arkansas law: convict Mr. Blueford on one of the offenses or acquit him on all them.
"When the jury was unable to return a verdict, the trial court properly declared a mistrial and discharged the jury," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a 10-page opinion. "As a consequence, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not stand in the way of a second trial on the same offenses."
The court's four other conservative justices and one member of the court's liberal wing, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined the decision.
Mr. Blueford and his supporters relied on two earlier Supreme Court rulings, from 1957 and 1970, in which the court ruled that a defendant is implicitly acquitted of more severe charges when a jury chooses to convict only of a lesser offense. The court said in both decisions that the protection against double jeopardy prohibits a second trial on the greater offense.
Mr. Blueford argued that the double-jeopardy clause should afford him even more protection because he wasn't convicted of the lesser offense either. Chief Justice Roberts said those cases were different because they involved final jury verdicts, while this case did not.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissenters, said the decision unfairly gave prosecutors a "second bite at the apple" because the jury "unmistakably announced acquittal" on the capital and first-degree murder charges. "That ought to be the end of the matter," she wrote.
Justice Sotomayor said the court's ruling departed from the "long-established" principle that double jeopardy could come into play even if an initial prosecution didn't result in a conviction or acquittal.
[WSJ, Friday, 05/25/2012]
What do you think about this story?
UNABOMBER CELEBRATES 50TH HARVARD REUNION
Legal Update: 50 years after graduating from Harvard University the infamous "Unabomber", Ted Kaczynski, celebrated the event with his own personal entry in the prestigious university's alumni reunion book, "The Harvard and Radcliffe Classes of 1962 -- Fiftieth Anniversary Report."
Kaczynski is currently serving life imprisonment in the Federal "Supermax" prison in Colorado for killing 3 people and injuring 23 others during a 17-year reign of terror involving a nationwide bombing spree between 1978 and 1995.
In the alumni directory, the "Unabomber" lists the following as his personal entry, inter alia:
Described as "brilliant" by some of his classmates, Ted Kaczynski entered Harvard University as a freshman at age 16.
He subsequently, after earning his 3 degrees at Harvard and the University of Michigan, lived as a recluse in a remote Montana one-room cabin where he railed against modern technology and brazenly led law enforcement authorities on America's longest and costliest manhunt.
Kaczynski was finally caught in 1996 when his brother recognized his idiosyncratic writings and informed law enforcement officers.
CJW Comments: "Brains, but no sense."
[usnews.msnbc.msn.com/news/2012/05/24/11859547]
Kaczynski is currently serving life imprisonment in the Federal "Supermax" prison in Colorado for killing 3 people and injuring 23 others during a 17-year reign of terror involving a nationwide bombing spree between 1978 and 1995.
In the alumni directory, the "Unabomber" lists the following as his personal entry, inter alia:
Occupation: "Prisoner".
Awards: "Eight life sentences, issued by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California,
1998".
Publication(s): "Technological Slavery",
Published by Feral House, 2010.
Education: Undergraduate Degree (BS), in
Mathematics, Harvard University , 1962; Graduate Degrees (Masters and
Doctoral Degrees in Mathematics, University
of Michigan
Described as "brilliant" by some of his classmates, Ted Kaczynski entered Harvard University as a freshman at age 16.
He subsequently, after earning his 3 degrees at Harvard and the University of Michigan, lived as a recluse in a remote Montana one-room cabin where he railed against modern technology and brazenly led law enforcement authorities on America's longest and costliest manhunt.
Kaczynski was finally caught in 1996 when his brother recognized his idiosyncratic writings and informed law enforcement officers.
CJW Comments: "Brains, but no sense."
[usnews.msnbc.msn.com/news/2012/05/24/11859547]
RAPE CONVICTION THROWN OUT!
[Long Beach, California; Thursday, May 24, 2012]
As with so many people, especially black males, the criminal justice system failed for Brian Banks.
A lying and malicious so-called "rape victim", criminally ineffective assistance of defense counsel, an uncaring prosecutor, and a general failure by the California judicial system caused irreversible and unpardonable harm to the young life of Mr. Banks, who was only 16 years old at the time of his fraudulent conviction.
Mr. Banks, now 26, was a superstar football player at Long Beach Polytechnic High School whose dreams of a professional football career were destroyed ten years ago (2002) when a fifteen-year old woman, Wanetta Gibson, falsely charged that he raped her on their high school campus. He was also convicted of kidnapping.
To make matters worse, young Banks' incompetent defense attorney at the time convinced the 16-year old to plead "no contest", after which he was made to serve over 5 years in California's horrendous prison system.
Branded a sex offender, Banks has been required to wear an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet since his release from jail.
Further, it gets even worse. The lying alleged victim, now 25, Wanetta Gibson, was paid a whopping $1.5 million from a civil lawsuit brought by her thieving mother against the Long Beach school system.
Fortunately, with Ms. Gibson's current admission that she lied on Mr. Banks, assistance from Professor Justin Brooks and his California Innocence Project at California Western School of Law in San Diego, as well as cooperation of the prosecutors, this tragedy was finally ended with a dismissal of the conviction by California Superior Court judge Mark C. Kim.
CJW Comments: Though Wanetta Gibson's actions against Brian Banks were legally and morally wrong, it is appreciated that she at least came forward and confessed to her extreme wrongdoing and finally cooperated in clearing Banks' record. One can only imagine the thousands of cases each year in which lies are told in court and innocent lives are ruined as a result --- with no subsequent correction. I believe there must be some consequences imposed on Ms. Gibson in this case, however.
What do you think?
[espn.go.com/espn/7967794]
As with so many people, especially black males, the criminal justice system failed for Brian Banks.
A lying and malicious so-called "rape victim", criminally ineffective assistance of defense counsel, an uncaring prosecutor, and a general failure by the California judicial system caused irreversible and unpardonable harm to the young life of Mr. Banks, who was only 16 years old at the time of his fraudulent conviction.
Mr. Banks, now 26, was a superstar football player at Long Beach Polytechnic High School whose dreams of a professional football career were destroyed ten years ago (2002) when a fifteen-year old woman, Wanetta Gibson, falsely charged that he raped her on their high school campus. He was also convicted of kidnapping.
To make matters worse, young Banks' incompetent defense attorney at the time convinced the 16-year old to plead "no contest", after which he was made to serve over 5 years in California's horrendous prison system.
Branded a sex offender, Banks has been required to wear an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet since his release from jail.
Further, it gets even worse. The lying alleged victim, now 25, Wanetta Gibson, was paid a whopping $1.5 million from a civil lawsuit brought by her thieving mother against the Long Beach school system.
Fortunately, with Ms. Gibson's current admission that she lied on Mr. Banks, assistance from Professor Justin Brooks and his California Innocence Project at California Western School of Law in San Diego, as well as cooperation of the prosecutors, this tragedy was finally ended with a dismissal of the conviction by California Superior Court judge Mark C. Kim.
CJW Comments: Though Wanetta Gibson's actions against Brian Banks were legally and morally wrong, it is appreciated that she at least came forward and confessed to her extreme wrongdoing and finally cooperated in clearing Banks' record. One can only imagine the thousands of cases each year in which lies are told in court and innocent lives are ruined as a result --- with no subsequent correction. I believe there must be some consequences imposed on Ms. Gibson in this case, however.
What do you think?
[espn.go.com/espn/7967794]
Thursday, May 24, 2012
CRUISE SHIP LAW UPDATE: Maritime Law Firm News
Undeterred by its tragic "Costa Concordia" cruise ship accident earlier this year in Europe, as well as the recent allegations of negligent failure to rescue 3 Panamanian fisherman (two of who died prior to rescue by Ecuadorian fishermen of the third one) in the Pacific, Carnival/Costa Cruise Line is rushing ahead with the inaugural cruise this month of its brand new 114,500 tons, 3800 passengers-accommodating cruise ship, "Costa Fascinosa".
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
U.S. "FREE TRADE" with COLOMBIA
It's official. The U.S. now has a "free trade" pact (deal) with the South American country of COLOMBIA.
The "free trade" agreement with COLOMBIA became active on May 14th, 2012 when, just before midnight a cargo planeload of freshly cut multi-colored carnations, roses and lilies took off from Bogota, Colombia and landed in Miami, Florida. This was the beginning of the U.S./Colombia "free trade" agreement.
In fact the flowers would have avoided tariffs anyway, thanks to decade-long trade preferences under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. This already covered nearly 80% of Colombian exports, in exchange for efforts to reduce the supply of drugs. The new pact makes those benefits permanent, and extends them to almost everything else. Meanwhile American farm products such as soyabeans, top-quality beef, bacon, cotton and most fruit and vegetables can now enter Colombia duty-free, as can machinery, some vehicles, and textiles. The deal should also encourage investment in Colombia, both by American companies and by firms using the country as a base from which to export to the United States.
It has been a long time coming. The pact was signed in 2006 under George Bush and Álvaro Uribe. A change of administration in Washington held it up, as campaigners in both countries pressed their governments to make the deal conditional on better treatment of Colombia’s trade unionists.
[The Economist, May 19th-25th, 2012]
The "free trade" agreement with COLOMBIA became active on May 14th, 2012 when, just before midnight a cargo planeload of freshly cut multi-colored carnations, roses and lilies took off from Bogota, Colombia and landed in Miami, Florida. This was the beginning of the U.S./Colombia "free trade" agreement.
In fact the flowers would have avoided tariffs anyway, thanks to decade-long trade preferences under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. This already covered nearly 80% of Colombian exports, in exchange for efforts to reduce the supply of drugs. The new pact makes those benefits permanent, and extends them to almost everything else. Meanwhile American farm products such as soyabeans, top-quality beef, bacon, cotton and most fruit and vegetables can now enter Colombia duty-free, as can machinery, some vehicles, and textiles. The deal should also encourage investment in Colombia, both by American companies and by firms using the country as a base from which to export to the United States.
It has been a long time coming. The pact was signed in 2006 under George Bush and Álvaro Uribe. A change of administration in Washington held it up, as campaigners in both countries pressed their governments to make the deal conditional on better treatment of Colombia’s trade unionists.
[The Economist, May 19th-25th, 2012]
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Legal Update: The Catholics Are Coming!!!
In a cohesive pattern various Catholic groups sued the Federal government in 12 federal courts all over the country on Monday, May 21st, 2012, challenging the health-care-overhaul law's requirement that employers cover contraception in workers' health plans.
The "Catholic" lawsuits were brought by the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York, Catholic University of America and, among 36 others, archdioceses serving Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Dallas.
The Catholic plaintiffs challenge a provision in the healthcare law that requires most employers )including religious institutions) to cover all preventative health services, including contraception as part of their insurance policies, without out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Sterilization is one of the methods of birth control included, as is the so-called "morning-after" pill. After heavy criticism, the Administration said last February (2012) it would modify the requirement to permit Catholic employers to avoid directly providing birth control in their policies. Instead, insurance companies would be required to provide contraception for participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker. Federal officials are still working out how to implement its proposal.
But the Catholics have also expressed broader concerns, saying that even if a compromise is worked out for religiously affiliated institutions, it wouldn't address the objections of employers who are Catholic and run secular businesses.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department adopted the rule to improve health care for women. In 2011, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the Federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, in part because the rule promoted maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies.
[USA Today, May 21, 2012; WSJ, May 22, 2012]
The "Catholic" lawsuits were brought by the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York, Catholic University of America and, among 36 others, archdioceses serving Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Dallas.
The Catholic plaintiffs challenge a provision in the healthcare law that requires most employers )including religious institutions) to cover all preventative health services, including contraception as part of their insurance policies, without out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Sterilization is one of the methods of birth control included, as is the so-called "morning-after" pill. After heavy criticism, the Administration said last February (2012) it would modify the requirement to permit Catholic employers to avoid directly providing birth control in their policies. Instead, insurance companies would be required to provide contraception for participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker. Federal officials are still working out how to implement its proposal.
But the Catholics have also expressed broader concerns, saying that even if a compromise is worked out for religiously affiliated institutions, it wouldn't address the objections of employers who are Catholic and run secular businesses.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department adopted the rule to improve health care for women. In 2011, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the Federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, in part because the rule promoted maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies.
[USA Today, May 21, 2012; WSJ, May 22, 2012]
THE PERILS OF HAITI: MASSIVE RESERVES OF GOLD, OIL AND OTHER RESOURCES, BUT NO FOOD AND WATER
Discussion is growing again now concerning the vexing perils of Haiti. New studies and investigations indicate what many have said for years: Haiti contains massive reserves of gold, oil, silver, copper, zinc and other natural resources.
But, since the enormous tragedy of the killer 7.0 earthquake on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, that basically destroyed the Caribbean nation, the well-recognized "poorest nation on earth" continues to be starving for food and drinkable water.
Local and international politics, greed, internal and foreign ruthlessness, as well as malicious exploitation of the Haitian people appear to be contributing factors to the country's lack of progress despite its inherent riches.
["Are We Really Rolling on Gold?", Tuesday, May 22, 2012; www.haitiantreasures.com; "Massive Reserves of Gold And Oil In Haiti?", January 25, 2010, http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com]
But, since the enormous tragedy of the killer 7.0 earthquake on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, that basically destroyed the Caribbean nation, the well-recognized "poorest nation on earth" continues to be starving for food and drinkable water.
Local and international politics, greed, internal and foreign ruthlessness, as well as malicious exploitation of the Haitian people appear to be contributing factors to the country's lack of progress despite its inherent riches.
["Are We Really Rolling on Gold?", Tuesday, May 22, 2012; www.haitiantreasures.com; "Massive Reserves of Gold And Oil In Haiti?", January 25, 2010, http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com]
Monday, May 21, 2012
VOTING RIGHTS UPDATE: U.S. Court of Appeals Rejects Alabama Argument
[Washington, D.C.; Friday, May 18, 2012]
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 continues to be constitutional; reaffirming that the U.S. Congress acted lawfully and properly in 2006 when it reauthorized the law in order to protect minority voters.
As background, Section 5 requires sections at least, or all, of 16 states (mainly in the South) with a history of racial bias in elections to seek federal government approval, or preclearance, before altering voting procedures.
Alabama is just on of those 16 states under federal voting rights scrutiny.
This decision came as a result of a challenge to the Act by Shelby County, Alabama, and it was viewed as an important test of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 "suggested" in an opinion that, given some changes in voting patterns, Section 5 may in "some" circumstances no longer be required.
The U.S. Court of Appeals panel stated it weighed concerns about whether Section 5 remains "congruent and proportional" to the problem it seeks to prevent. It determined that "Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered" and acted in accordance with the Constitution in "ensuring that the right to vote…—surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution—is not abridged on account of race." Congress deserved deference in making the judgment, the court said.
The county indicated it plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Shelby County, which includes suburbs of Birmingham, argued Section 5 places an undue burden on local governments. The provision could only be justified if there were current evidence the jurisdiction was carrying out the "unremitting and ingenious defiance" that existed in 1965 when the original law was passed, the county said.
[WSJ, May 18-19, 2012]
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 continues to be constitutional; reaffirming that the U.S. Congress acted lawfully and properly in 2006 when it reauthorized the law in order to protect minority voters.
As background, Section 5 requires sections at least, or all, of 16 states (mainly in the South) with a history of racial bias in elections to seek federal government approval, or preclearance, before altering voting procedures.
Alabama is just on of those 16 states under federal voting rights scrutiny.
This decision came as a result of a challenge to the Act by Shelby County, Alabama, and it was viewed as an important test of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 "suggested" in an opinion that, given some changes in voting patterns, Section 5 may in "some" circumstances no longer be required.
The U.S. Court of Appeals panel stated it weighed concerns about whether Section 5 remains "congruent and proportional" to the problem it seeks to prevent. It determined that "Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered" and acted in accordance with the Constitution in "ensuring that the right to vote…—surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution—is not abridged on account of race." Congress deserved deference in making the judgment, the court said.
The county indicated it plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Shelby County, which includes suburbs of Birmingham, argued Section 5 places an undue burden on local governments. The provision could only be justified if there were current evidence the jurisdiction was carrying out the "unremitting and ingenious defiance" that existed in 1965 when the original law was passed, the county said.
[WSJ, May 18-19, 2012]
Friday, May 18, 2012
MARYLAND HIGH COURT AFFIRMS LESBIAN DIVORCE: Law Update
[Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, May 18, 2012]
Maryland's Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has decided that a lesbian couple married in a 2008 civil ceremony in San Francisco can legally file for divorce in Maryland.
The state's high court has ruled this lesbian divorce action to be permissible in Maryland even though Maryland's own very recent same-sex marriage law does not go into effect until 2013.
The key issue before the court for consideration was whether states without legalized same-sex marriage can recognize gay or lesbian weddings outside of their state borders. The appeal to Maryland's highest court here involved a Prince George's County lesbian couple, Jessica Port and Virginia Anne Cowan.
Maryland's Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has decided that a lesbian couple married in a 2008 civil ceremony in San Francisco can legally file for divorce in Maryland.
The state's high court has ruled this lesbian divorce action to be permissible in Maryland even though Maryland's own very recent same-sex marriage law does not go into effect until 2013.
The key issue before the court for consideration was whether states without legalized same-sex marriage can recognize gay or lesbian weddings outside of their state borders. The appeal to Maryland's highest court here involved a Prince George's County lesbian couple, Jessica Port and Virginia Anne Cowan.
"Maryland courts will withhold recognition of a valid foreign marriage only if that marriage is 'repugnant' to state public policy. This threshold, a high bar, has not been met yet," the seven state Court of Appeals justices said in their 21-page opinion. "The present case will be treated no differently. "
The couple were married in a 2008 civil ceremony in San Francisco, during a short window when California recognized same-sex marriage.
A voter referendum in California later outlawed same-sex marriage, but a federal appeals court recently ruled against that ban. It said such a ban was unconstitutional and singled out gays and lesbians for discrimination. The case appears to be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The couple, who did not have children, settled in suburban Washington. They eventually separated and filed for divorce in Maryland when their relationship went sour, their attorneys have said.
But a Maryland judge denied the couple's filing, ruling in 2010 that the divorce could not be recognized under the current state constitution.
The "same sex marriage in which parties hereto participated is not valid pursuant to Maryland law," the judge said. "To recognize the alleged marriage would be contrary to public policy of Maryland."
Port and Cowan appealed, and the justices unanimously ordered the county court to grant the divorce, saying that "a valid out-of-state same-sex marriage should be treated by Maryland courts as worthy of divorce."
Gay rights group praised the ruling.
"There are many same-sex spouses who married elsewhere who now live in Maryland," said National Center for Lesbian Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. "This ruling ensures that they have all the same rights as any other married couple in Maryland. This is a powerful decision that will provide enormous security and protection to thousands of families."
Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal, said, "The high court of Maryland confirmed today in this divorce case that out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples are entitled to legal recognition under longstanding principles of comity, allowing this couple the same access to a divorce as other married couples whose relationships have ended."
While the case highlights state differences in the recognition of same-sex marriages, analysts have said it will probably have little influence outside Maryland because federal law allows states to ignore how other states define marriage.
"This is simply going to be a case about the Maryland state constitution," said Mark A. Graber, a law professor at the University of Maryland School of Law.
Gay rights activists say the matter often leaves same-sex couples in legal limbo when moving between states, claiming that Maryland state courts have also inconsistently ruled on issues relating to same-sex marriages.
"Divorce is never easy, but when a couple has made the decision to end their marriage, there is no reason why the state should prevent them from ending their legal relationship and moving on with their lives," said Erik Olvera, a spokesman for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed into law a bill that allowed same-sex couples to wed. The law, however, isn't scheduled to take effect until January 1.
The measure's opponents have pledged to challenge it by holding a referendum during November's election.
The Maryland Marriage Alliance group says it's gathered thousands of signatures and is approaching the threshold required to put the issue on the ballot, adding further uncertainty to the Port and Cowan case.
"If anything, it shows the nuttiness of the interim period," Graber said of the unclear nature of Maryland state law in apparent transition.
A recent public opinion poll conducted by Annapolis-based firm OpinionWorks found that a slight majority of residents would vote for repealing the new law.
Of those responding, 43% "would vote to make same-sex marriage illegal in Maryland, while 40% would vote to make it legal," the poll said. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 4%.
"Although this result is within the poll's margin of error, it is the intensity of feeling among same-sex marriage opponents that causes the overall result to lean slightly towards repeal," said Steve Raabe, OpinionWorks president.
Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In February, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire signed a bill into law that legalizes same-sex marriage, but it does not take effect until June. Opponents there have pledged to block the bill, also calling for a referendum.
Five states -- Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island -- allow civil unions that provide rights similar to marriage.
North Carolina residents voted this month to outlaw same-sex marriage, which was already prohibited in the state.
A 1996 federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act would not force states to recognize same-sex marriages allowed in other states. That law -- now being challenged in federal court -- was not the case in the current dispute, the Maryland high court said.
"Some states have elected not to recognize valid foreign same-sex marriages for purposes of domestic divorce proceedings," the court said. "Those states, unlike Maryland, expressed clear public policies."
[CNN, Washington Wire Staff, May 18, 2012; www.wfmz.com/news/LesbianCoupleDivorce]
Thursday, May 17, 2012
In Memoriam: La Donna Adrian Gaines
In Memoriam: La Donna Adrian Gaines
(aka "Donna Summer")
- December 31, 1948 - May 17, 2012 -
PANAMA CANAL UPDATE: The New "BIG DIG"
[Panama City, Panama, March 30th, 2012, Report by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware]
The multi-billion dollar shipping industry has outgrown the almost 100-year-old Panama Canal, which was started by the French in 1880 and completed by the United States in 1914. Therefore, the Panama Canal Authority is adding a much larger 3rd canal lane with wider, deeper, and longer locks to accommodate much larger ships.
The 51-mile long canal in the country of Panama connects the Atlantic Ocean (by way of the Caribbean Sea) to the Pacific Ocean. Considered to be one of the largest, most dangerous, and most difficult engineering projects ever undertaken, the Panama Canal makes it possible for ships to travel between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans more safely and in half the time previously needed before its completion by the Americans in 1914.
The new, ongoing 8-year, $5.25 billion third-lane construction project will eventually add three 1,400-foot-long, 60-foot-deep chambers to each end of the 51-mile route, and substantially increase lucrative and key commercial passages between Asia (principally China with its new giant ships) and the Eastern United States.
[also see, Fortune Magazine, April 30th, 2012, page 13]
The multi-billion dollar shipping industry has outgrown the almost 100-year-old Panama Canal, which was started by the French in 1880 and completed by the United States in 1914. Therefore, the Panama Canal Authority is adding a much larger 3rd canal lane with wider, deeper, and longer locks to accommodate much larger ships.
The 51-mile long canal in the country of Panama connects the Atlantic Ocean (by way of the Caribbean Sea) to the Pacific Ocean. Considered to be one of the largest, most dangerous, and most difficult engineering projects ever undertaken, the Panama Canal makes it possible for ships to travel between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans more safely and in half the time previously needed before its completion by the Americans in 1914.
The new, ongoing 8-year, $5.25 billion third-lane construction project will eventually add three 1,400-foot-long, 60-foot-deep chambers to each end of the 51-mile route, and substantially increase lucrative and key commercial passages between Asia (principally China with its new giant ships) and the Eastern United States.
[also see, Fortune Magazine, April 30th, 2012, page 13]
RELATIONSHIPS: 5 Rules To Improve Your Daily Interaction With Others
[Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, May 17, 2012]
(1) Get Along with Yourself--The one relationship you will have until you die is with yourself. Treat yourself with the respect and love you deserve.
(2) Value People--You cannot make another person feel important if you secretly feel that he or she is a nobody. Recognize that everyone has innate value and treat them accordingly.
(3) Make the Effort to Form Relationships--The result of a person who has never served others? Loneliness. Chuck Swindoll said, "It's like they say in the Army, when you dig a foxhole, make enough room for two." Reach out, make room and enjoy new relationships.
(4) Understand the Reciprocity Rule--What you put into the lives of others comes back into your own. Give generously, love unfailingly and show respect to everyone.
(5) Follow the Golden Rule--Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If every person made more decisions based on the Golden Rule, we would all make more right decisions.
If you're not doing something with your life, it doesn't matter how long it is. If you're doing something with your life, it doesn't matter how long it is. Life does not consist of years lived, but of its usefulness. If you are giving, loving, serving, helping, encouraging and adding value to others, you have a useful life!
[John C. Maxwell, Success Magazine, August 2010]
(1) Get Along with Yourself--The one relationship you will have until you die is with yourself. Treat yourself with the respect and love you deserve.
(2) Value People--You cannot make another person feel important if you secretly feel that he or she is a nobody. Recognize that everyone has innate value and treat them accordingly.
(3) Make the Effort to Form Relationships--The result of a person who has never served others? Loneliness. Chuck Swindoll said, "It's like they say in the Army, when you dig a foxhole, make enough room for two." Reach out, make room and enjoy new relationships.
(4) Understand the Reciprocity Rule--What you put into the lives of others comes back into your own. Give generously, love unfailingly and show respect to everyone.
(5) Follow the Golden Rule--Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If every person made more decisions based on the Golden Rule, we would all make more right decisions.
If you're not doing something with your life, it doesn't matter how long it is. If you're doing something with your life, it doesn't matter how long it is. Life does not consist of years lived, but of its usefulness. If you are giving, loving, serving, helping, encouraging and adding value to others, you have a useful life!
[John C. Maxwell, Success Magazine, August 2010]
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Unreconstructed and Unapologetic Southern Conservative Jesse Helms is Alive: NORTH CAROLINA BANS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Deceased former North Carolina U.S. Senator Jesse Helms would be proud of North Carolina today --- if he were alive. The racial segregationist and unreconstructed southern conservative died in 2008 after serving a record 5 terms as Republican U.S. Senator for North Carolina.
On Tuesday, May 8th, 2012, the obdurate North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly between a male and a female.
North Carolina joins 30 other states in approving this constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Polls, however, show that the nation's mood is softening on the issue.
[WSJ, Wednesday, May 8th, 2012]
On Tuesday, May 8th, 2012, the obdurate North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly between a male and a female.
North Carolina joins 30 other states in approving this constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Polls, however, show that the nation's mood is softening on the issue.
[WSJ, Wednesday, May 8th, 2012]
SUCCESS UPDATE: 10 Actions To Take To Turn Your Knowledge Into Power
1. Think about what you are doing that you think is a waste of your time. Then, think about what you would rather be doing with your time instead. LIST at least 3 activities you are passionate about, and then make a list of at least 3 "time-wasters" you could replace with your 3 passionate activities [Ken Dychtwald, "Live Your Purchase", by Sandra Bienkowski, page 30, SUCCESS Magazine, August 2010].
2. Make a list of your excuses for not accomplishing something (example: too old, too tired, not enough education, etc.). Now, write down the reasons you think those excuses are weak [Brian Tracy, Success, page 42, August 2010].
3. Listen to your gut. Follow your instincts. Write down 1 big change your gut (or instinct) is telling you to make, and then write down 3 actions tips you think you can take to make the change happen [Jaclyn Smith, page 60, Success Magazine, August 2010].
4. It is never too late to start a business. This is true regardless of your age, status, education, etc. [page 52, Success Magazine, August 2010]. And, think BIG.
5. Negative feedback can be very important in helping you transition into power. Use negative feedback to help you with your plan of attack [Mel Robbins, page 18, Success Magazine, August 2010]. Do it now.
6. Social Media and Websites can be helpful in providing useful content (information) to followers and communities. They should not be just about you. Brainstorm 5 ways your website and other social media can be helpful to your clients, customers and prospects now [Chris Brogan, page 40, Success Magazine, August 2010].
7. Get involved, and be involved in what you read. Read and listen now to the information that educates and informs you on the subjects and industries that motivate you to achieve [Magic Johnson, page 46, Success Magazine, August 2010].
8. Ask yourself this question twice a year: "What would I do if my main revenue-generator stopped generating revenue for me?" Then, write down 3 new ideas that could fill the void for you [Pamela Mitchell, page 69, Success Magazine, August 2010].
9. Be well-rounded. Zig Ziglar, a master salesperson, has said that success is never about acquiring what you want in one area of life, but in every area of life. List one goal and one actions tip for each area of your life, including your business, wealth, health, relationships and philanthropy [page 76, Success Magazine, August 2010].
10. Exercise regularly. For example, walk 10,000 steps a day and do interval training for your muscles. Physical activity increases brain cell creation and connections. Anything you physically do counts, including walking, bike riding, dancing, etc. Do it now. [Drs. Mehmett Oz & Mike Roizen, Success Magazine, page 22, August 2010].
2. Make a list of your excuses for not accomplishing something (example: too old, too tired, not enough education, etc.). Now, write down the reasons you think those excuses are weak [Brian Tracy, Success, page 42, August 2010].
3. Listen to your gut. Follow your instincts. Write down 1 big change your gut (or instinct) is telling you to make, and then write down 3 actions tips you think you can take to make the change happen [Jaclyn Smith, page 60, Success Magazine, August 2010].
4. It is never too late to start a business. This is true regardless of your age, status, education, etc. [page 52, Success Magazine, August 2010]. And, think BIG.
5. Negative feedback can be very important in helping you transition into power. Use negative feedback to help you with your plan of attack [Mel Robbins, page 18, Success Magazine, August 2010]. Do it now.
6. Social Media and Websites can be helpful in providing useful content (information) to followers and communities. They should not be just about you. Brainstorm 5 ways your website and other social media can be helpful to your clients, customers and prospects now [Chris Brogan, page 40, Success Magazine, August 2010].
7. Get involved, and be involved in what you read. Read and listen now to the information that educates and informs you on the subjects and industries that motivate you to achieve [Magic Johnson, page 46, Success Magazine, August 2010].
8. Ask yourself this question twice a year: "What would I do if my main revenue-generator stopped generating revenue for me?" Then, write down 3 new ideas that could fill the void for you [Pamela Mitchell, page 69, Success Magazine, August 2010].
9. Be well-rounded. Zig Ziglar, a master salesperson, has said that success is never about acquiring what you want in one area of life, but in every area of life. List one goal and one actions tip for each area of your life, including your business, wealth, health, relationships and philanthropy [page 76, Success Magazine, August 2010].
10. Exercise regularly. For example, walk 10,000 steps a day and do interval training for your muscles. Physical activity increases brain cell creation and connections. Anything you physically do counts, including walking, bike riding, dancing, etc. Do it now. [Drs. Mehmett Oz & Mike Roizen, Success Magazine, page 22, August 2010].
DONOVAN McNABB UPDATE: Wants to Play
NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb, who led the Philadelphia Eagles football team to 4 National Football Conference Championship Games has declared his intention to return to the National Football League in the 2012-2013 season and play at "an elite level". ["The Waddle & Silvy Show", ESPN 1000 Radio, Friday, May 11th, 2012]
McNabb spent the 2010 NFL season with the hapless and ill-coached Washington Redskins, where he was benched twice by mediocre coach Mike Shanahan.
After playing six games in 2011 with the Minnesota Vikings before being released from the team, McNabb, age 35, failed to secure another NFL team to play for.
"I love the game... I have a passion for the game... I sort of have some unfinished business", McNabb said on "The Waddle & Silvy Show", on ESPN Radio, 1000.
[espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/donovanmcnabbwantsplaynfl2012]
McNabb spent the 2010 NFL season with the hapless and ill-coached Washington Redskins, where he was benched twice by mediocre coach Mike Shanahan.
After playing six games in 2011 with the Minnesota Vikings before being released from the team, McNabb, age 35, failed to secure another NFL team to play for.
"I love the game... I have a passion for the game... I sort of have some unfinished business", McNabb said on "The Waddle & Silvy Show", on ESPN Radio, 1000.
[espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/donovanmcnabbwantsplaynfl2012]
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
PRINCESS CRUISE LINE ALLEGEDLY IGNORES STRANDED FISHERMEN
[Cruise Line Update, Tuesday, May 15, 2012]
Carnival Corporation, owners of the tragic cruise ship "Costa Concordia", as well as subsidiary Princess Cruise Line's "Star Princess", has new problems.
The cruise company is investigating allegations by three of its bird-watching passengers that employees of the "Star Princess" ignored the passengers' pleas to rescue 3 stranded-at-sea Panamanian fishermen adrift in the Pacific Ocean in March of this year.
Two of the 3 young men died of exposure and dehydration on the small boat that started out to sea from Rio Hato, Panama on February 24th, 2012.
The survivor, 18-year-old hotel worker Adrian Vasquez, survived for 28 days aboard his 10-foot boat, named the "Fifty Cents".
Nine days after he had to push his 2 friends' dead bodies overboard, Vasquez was rescued near the Galapagos Islands. While all three men were still alive and saw the "Star Princess" pass them, they thought they were saved. But the cruise ship kept going despite the men's frantic waving at it.
Vasquez was eventually rescued by other fishermen working off another ship, the "Duarte V".
It is expected that a lawsuit has been filed, or will be filed, against the Carnival Corporation in Miami, Florida.
[overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/news/2012/04/18]
Carnival Corporation, owners of the tragic cruise ship "Costa Concordia", as well as subsidiary Princess Cruise Line's "Star Princess", has new problems.
The cruise company is investigating allegations by three of its bird-watching passengers that employees of the "Star Princess" ignored the passengers' pleas to rescue 3 stranded-at-sea Panamanian fishermen adrift in the Pacific Ocean in March of this year.
Two of the 3 young men died of exposure and dehydration on the small boat that started out to sea from Rio Hato, Panama on February 24th, 2012.
The survivor, 18-year-old hotel worker Adrian Vasquez, survived for 28 days aboard his 10-foot boat, named the "Fifty Cents".
Nine days after he had to push his 2 friends' dead bodies overboard, Vasquez was rescued near the Galapagos Islands. While all three men were still alive and saw the "Star Princess" pass them, they thought they were saved. But the cruise ship kept going despite the men's frantic waving at it.
Vasquez was eventually rescued by other fishermen working off another ship, the "Duarte V".
It is expected that a lawsuit has been filed, or will be filed, against the Carnival Corporation in Miami, Florida.
[overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/news/2012/04/18]
BASIC PERSONAL INJURY 101: What to do!
[Columbia, Howard County, Maryland; May 15, 2012]
1. If you or a loved one have been injured in an accident, get immediate medical attention and then contact an attorney for advice and consultation in making a claim for damages.
2. After you have retained an attorney, make every effort to help him or her help you.
3. Keep copies of all of the information about your accident, including police reports, medical bills, records about lost wages, and information sent to you by insurance companies. If you need to see your attorney, make an appointment, and be sure to keep all of the appointments that you make. If you move, be sure to give your attorney your new address and telephone number.
4. Once you have hired an attorney, inform the adjuster that you have done so, and give the adjuster your attorney’s name and telephone number. After you have given this information to the adjuster, let your attorney handle all discussions with the adjuster.
5. Remember that the adjuster working for the insurance company of the person who caused the accident is not your friend. The adjuster may make it sound like he or she is trying to help you, but the adjuster’s job is to make sure that you receive as little compensation as possible, or even nothing.
6. Get all the medical treatment you need for your injuries caused by the personal injury accident.
Be sure to keep all of your appointments with your doctors and/or physical therapists. Do everything that they tell you to do, whether it is to take medicine, do exercises, or get some rest. If they ask, tell your doctors or therapists that you have an attorney, but do not feel as though you have to volunteer information about your case or claim. Their focus is your health, and the question of how your legal case is going should not be any concern of theirs.
7. Understandably, family and friends often want to help you out if you have been hurt.
This is great, but if they are giving you advice about your legal case, remember that they are not your attorney. Usually, it is not a good idea to take this inexpert advice—always consult your attorney first.
1. If you or a loved one have been injured in an accident, get immediate medical attention and then contact an attorney for advice and consultation in making a claim for damages.
2. After you have retained an attorney, make every effort to help him or her help you.
3. Keep copies of all of the information about your accident, including police reports, medical bills, records about lost wages, and information sent to you by insurance companies. If you need to see your attorney, make an appointment, and be sure to keep all of the appointments that you make. If you move, be sure to give your attorney your new address and telephone number.
4. Once you have hired an attorney, inform the adjuster that you have done so, and give the adjuster your attorney’s name and telephone number. After you have given this information to the adjuster, let your attorney handle all discussions with the adjuster.
5. Remember that the adjuster working for the insurance company of the person who caused the accident is not your friend. The adjuster may make it sound like he or she is trying to help you, but the adjuster’s job is to make sure that you receive as little compensation as possible, or even nothing.
6. Get all the medical treatment you need for your injuries caused by the personal injury accident.
Be sure to keep all of your appointments with your doctors and/or physical therapists. Do everything that they tell you to do, whether it is to take medicine, do exercises, or get some rest. If they ask, tell your doctors or therapists that you have an attorney, but do not feel as though you have to volunteer information about your case or claim. Their focus is your health, and the question of how your legal case is going should not be any concern of theirs.
7. Understandably, family and friends often want to help you out if you have been hurt.
This is great, but if they are giving you advice about your legal case, remember that they are not your attorney. Usually, it is not a good idea to take this inexpert advice—always consult your attorney first.
Monday, May 14, 2012
ELDER ABUSE UPDATE: "Chemical Restraint: Drugging of the Elderly Is on the Rise"
[Howard County, Maryland, May 14, 2012]
As the population continues to grow and to get older, the number of residents in nursing homes is on the rise. Nursing homes are a growth industry, and more and more for‑profit nursing homes are opening.
Although some of these facilities are very good, some of them put profits ahead of patient care. A recent study shows that the average for‑profit nursing home has 30% fewer nurses and 45% more problems than its nonprofit counterpart has.
One of the unfortunate side effects of this lower level of staffing is a rise in the “chemical restraint” of elderly nursing home residents.
Increasingly, nursing homes are using drugs (usually some kind of antipsychotic medication) on their residents. These drugs, which are intended to be prescribed to people suffering from psychoses or other mental illnesses, have many side effects, causing those who take them to become drowsy, docile, inactive, or confused. This allows a larger number of residents to be watched by a smaller number of staff members.
The degree to which chemical restraints are being used is staggering. Research done in one state shows that more than 70% of new nursing home residents were put on some kind of psychoactive drug within three months of moving into the nursing home and that many residents were placed on a cocktail of different drugs.
The overwhelming majority of these patients had not been diagnosed before they moved into a nursing home with a mental illness that required such treatment, and the suspicion is that they were being given these drugs solely to make them easier for the nursing home staff to manage.
In many cases, these drugs are being given to nursing home residents without a doctor’s prescription, and those who refuse to take them have the drugs forced on them. Not only is it unethical to sedate the elderly with drugs that they do not need just to keep them quiet, but the practice can also have serious effects on the physical health of the person taking the pills.
Patients who have been drugged are less active and can lose muscle mass and develop bedsores. The depressive effect that these drugs have on patient behavior may cause other injuries, such as fainting or falls. They may also react with other drugs that the nursing home residents are legitimately taking, such as blood pressure medication. Finally, these drugs have been linked to an increased risk of death when they are given to people suffering from dementia, a common problem among the elderly.
Reaction to the growth of this problem of chemical restraint has been slow in coming. Some laws have been passed that are intended to crack down on the improper use of antipsychotic drugs in nursing homes, but these laws are so filled with gray areas and loopholes that the use of these medications has actually increased since the laws were passed.
Additionally, nursing homes that are found to violate these laws (and others) are usually given a chance to come into compliance with the rules within a certain period of time. If they do so, they are not fined for the violations found. This leads to sketchy nursing home operators “yo‑yoing” in and out of compliance, fixing problems only when forced to by regulators, to the detriment of the residents.
The best defense against a loved one’s being mistreated in a nursing home is a family that is involved and not afraid to ask questions. Nursing homes are less likely to drug a resident if they know the family might drop in at any time. If you have any questions about whether a loved one is being chemically restrained in a nursing home, don’t be afraid to ask, and don’t be afraid to consult our firm if you don’t like the answer that you receive.
As the population continues to grow and to get older, the number of residents in nursing homes is on the rise. Nursing homes are a growth industry, and more and more for‑profit nursing homes are opening.
Although some of these facilities are very good, some of them put profits ahead of patient care. A recent study shows that the average for‑profit nursing home has 30% fewer nurses and 45% more problems than its nonprofit counterpart has.
One of the unfortunate side effects of this lower level of staffing is a rise in the “chemical restraint” of elderly nursing home residents.
Increasingly, nursing homes are using drugs (usually some kind of antipsychotic medication) on their residents. These drugs, which are intended to be prescribed to people suffering from psychoses or other mental illnesses, have many side effects, causing those who take them to become drowsy, docile, inactive, or confused. This allows a larger number of residents to be watched by a smaller number of staff members.
The degree to which chemical restraints are being used is staggering. Research done in one state shows that more than 70% of new nursing home residents were put on some kind of psychoactive drug within three months of moving into the nursing home and that many residents were placed on a cocktail of different drugs.
The overwhelming majority of these patients had not been diagnosed before they moved into a nursing home with a mental illness that required such treatment, and the suspicion is that they were being given these drugs solely to make them easier for the nursing home staff to manage.
In many cases, these drugs are being given to nursing home residents without a doctor’s prescription, and those who refuse to take them have the drugs forced on them. Not only is it unethical to sedate the elderly with drugs that they do not need just to keep them quiet, but the practice can also have serious effects on the physical health of the person taking the pills.
Patients who have been drugged are less active and can lose muscle mass and develop bedsores. The depressive effect that these drugs have on patient behavior may cause other injuries, such as fainting or falls. They may also react with other drugs that the nursing home residents are legitimately taking, such as blood pressure medication. Finally, these drugs have been linked to an increased risk of death when they are given to people suffering from dementia, a common problem among the elderly.
Reaction to the growth of this problem of chemical restraint has been slow in coming. Some laws have been passed that are intended to crack down on the improper use of antipsychotic drugs in nursing homes, but these laws are so filled with gray areas and loopholes that the use of these medications has actually increased since the laws were passed.
Additionally, nursing homes that are found to violate these laws (and others) are usually given a chance to come into compliance with the rules within a certain period of time. If they do so, they are not fined for the violations found. This leads to sketchy nursing home operators “yo‑yoing” in and out of compliance, fixing problems only when forced to by regulators, to the detriment of the residents.
The best defense against a loved one’s being mistreated in a nursing home is a family that is involved and not afraid to ask questions. Nursing homes are less likely to drug a resident if they know the family might drop in at any time. If you have any questions about whether a loved one is being chemically restrained in a nursing home, don’t be afraid to ask, and don’t be afraid to consult our firm if you don’t like the answer that you receive.
Seven (7) Signs of Elder Abuse and Neglect
What are the signs of nursing home abuse or neglect to look out for? Although a number of things might indicate that there are problems, common signs of possible trouble include the following:
1. Bedsores;
2. Soiled bed linen or the smell of feces or urine;
3. Unexplained bruises or cuts;
4. Use of physical or chemical restraints;
5. Changes in mood or disorientation, often due to improper medication;
6. Weight loss; and
7. Unexplained fear or anxiety
Trust your feelings. People can often sense trouble before they can identify a specific problem. Don't ignore your instincts.
1. Bedsores;
2. Soiled bed linen or the smell of feces or urine;
3. Unexplained bruises or cuts;
4. Use of physical or chemical restraints;
5. Changes in mood or disorientation, often due to improper medication;
6. Weight loss; and
7. Unexplained fear or anxiety
Trust your feelings. People can often sense trouble before they can identify a specific problem. Don't ignore your instincts.
Monday, May 7, 2012
LEGAL UPDATE: Maryland High Court Rules PIT BULLS "INHERENTLY DANGEROUS"
Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has decided that pit bull owners in the state of Maryland are absolutely accountable for the behavior of their dogs.
The Court's newest ruling in the case of Tracey vs. Solesky (No. 53, Sept. Term 2012) declares that pit bulls as a breed are "inherently dangerous", and that the owner of a pit bull or a cross-bred pit dog that attacks humans is strictly liable for damages, as is any landlord in Maryland who rents to a pit bull owner.
The Maryland Court of Appeals decision came out of a case involving a young boy who suffered life-threatening injuries when he was attacked by a pit bull.
In Prince George's County, Maryland, next to Washington, D.C., pit bulls have been banned in the County since 1997.
In Prince George's County, if a person happens to have a pit bull in their company they could be arrested. The maximum penalty for violating this law is 6 months in prison and a $1,000 fine.
In Maryland now, pit bulls are included in the category of "dangerous animals".
[usnews.msnbc.com/news/2012/05/02/Marylandcourtfindpitbulls"inherentlydangerous"; and see Maryland Court of Appeals case, Tracey vs Solesky, No. 53, September Term 2012: Strict Liability Adopted In Respect To Attacks On Humans By Pit Bull Dogs and Cross-Bred Pit Bull Dogs]
The Court's newest ruling in the case of Tracey vs. Solesky (No. 53, Sept. Term 2012) declares that pit bulls as a breed are "inherently dangerous", and that the owner of a pit bull or a cross-bred pit dog that attacks humans is strictly liable for damages, as is any landlord in Maryland who rents to a pit bull owner.
The Maryland Court of Appeals decision came out of a case involving a young boy who suffered life-threatening injuries when he was attacked by a pit bull.
In Prince George's County, Maryland, next to Washington, D.C., pit bulls have been banned in the County since 1997.
In Prince George's County, if a person happens to have a pit bull in their company they could be arrested. The maximum penalty for violating this law is 6 months in prison and a $1,000 fine.
In Maryland now, pit bulls are included in the category of "dangerous animals".
[usnews.msnbc.com/news/2012/05/02/Marylandcourtfindpitbulls"inherentlydangerous"; and see Maryland Court of Appeals case, Tracey vs Solesky, No. 53, September Term 2012: Strict Liability Adopted In Respect To Attacks On Humans By Pit Bull Dogs and Cross-Bred Pit Bull Dogs]
Friday, May 4, 2012
NFL Update: More Former Players Sue Over Brain Damage
More than 100 former players sued the National Football League (NFL) on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, in Atlanta, alleging that the NFL covered-up the dangers of (brain) concussions.
At least 1500 former players are already involved in lawsuits against the NFL over health issues, especially head (brain) injuries suffered during their playing days.
Some are speculating that the recent suicide death of the former great NFL linebacker Tiana Bail "Junior" Seau, Jr. may be tied to injuries suffered during his playing days in the league.
This latest lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, alleges, among other things, that the NFL "repeatedly refuted the connection between concussions and brain injury" and "downplayed and misrepresented the issues, and misled the players concerning the risks associated with concussions."
Other similar lawsuits by players against the NFL have been consolidated for a trial in Philadelphia, but no trial date has been set as yet. Former great player-turned actor Alex Karras, who now suffers from dementia, has the Philadelphia plaintiffs.
The filing in Atlanta cites scientific evidence connecting concussions and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease that results in memory loss, mood swings and symptoms similar to Alzheimer's disease. It points out CTE can only be diagnosed after a patient's death, and 12 cases of CTE have been detected in deceased former players.
[www.upi.com/SportsNew/2012/05/03/MorePlayersSueNFL]
At least 1500 former players are already involved in lawsuits against the NFL over health issues, especially head (brain) injuries suffered during their playing days.
Some are speculating that the recent suicide death of the former great NFL linebacker Tiana Bail "Junior" Seau, Jr. may be tied to injuries suffered during his playing days in the league.
This latest lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, alleges, among other things, that the NFL "repeatedly refuted the connection between concussions and brain injury" and "downplayed and misrepresented the issues, and misled the players concerning the risks associated with concussions."
Other similar lawsuits by players against the NFL have been consolidated for a trial in Philadelphia, but no trial date has been set as yet. Former great player-turned actor Alex Karras, who now suffers from dementia, has the Philadelphia plaintiffs.
The filing in Atlanta cites scientific evidence connecting concussions and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease that results in memory loss, mood swings and symptoms similar to Alzheimer's disease. It points out CTE can only be diagnosed after a patient's death, and 12 cases of CTE have been detected in deceased former players.
[www.upi.com/SportsNew/2012/05/03/MorePlayersSueNFL]
Thursday, May 3, 2012
In Memoriam: Charles "Skip" Pitts
In Memoriam: Charles "Skip" Pitts
Iconic Guitarist
Memphis "Stax" Sound
1947 - 2012
In Memoriam: Tiana Baul "Junior" Sean, Jr.
In Memoriam: Tiana Baul "Junior" Sean, Jr.
January 19, 1969 - May 2, 2012
American Football Gladiator
"Pumzka Kwa Amani"
WAL-MART SETTLES WAGE COMPLAINT WITH U.S.
Giant retailer WAL-MART, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, settled the Federal Government's wage complaint against it by agreeing to pay more than 4,500 of its employees $4.8 million in back wages and damages, as well as $464,000 in civil penalties.
The U.S. Department of Labor found that Wal-Mart had failed to pay overtime to many of its workers.
Though the modest fine pales in comparision to the $352 million the Bentoville, Arkansas behemoth company paid in 2008 to settle 63 lawsuits across the United States over allegations it failed to provide workers with proper rest and meal breaks, this settlement still highlights the continuing complaints Wal-Mart faces everyday over how it treats its workers.
In this settlement, the Labor Department found that workers employed as Wal-Mart or Sam's Club security guards or as managers in the stores' vision departments between 2004 and 2007 were denied overtime pay when they were incorrectly classified as exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime laws.
The act mandates employees be paid at least a $7.25 minimum wage, plus time-and-one-half their regular rates for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Some employees, such as executives and administrative workers who are paid a salary of more than $455 a week, are exempt from overtime rules.
Although the suit was resolved only recently, Wal-Mart said it had adjusted its pay practices and reclassified its employees in 2007 when the Labor Department alerted the company to the problem. It has also employed electronic systems to document compliance with state and federal labor laws.
The settlement will award workers payments ranging from $30 to $10,800.
Wal-Mart is one of many large retailers that have been accused of committing wage and hour violations, often paying out millions of dollars to settle class-action lawsuits. Cases range from failing to pay minimum wage and off-the-clock work to unpaid overtime and misclassification of workers.
In 2010, Staples Inc., the office-supply company, paid $42 million to settle with 5,000 managers over unpaid overtime.
[WSJ, Wed. 5/2/2012, p. B3]
The U.S. Department of Labor found that Wal-Mart had failed to pay overtime to many of its workers.
Though the modest fine pales in comparision to the $352 million the Bentoville, Arkansas behemoth company paid in 2008 to settle 63 lawsuits across the United States over allegations it failed to provide workers with proper rest and meal breaks, this settlement still highlights the continuing complaints Wal-Mart faces everyday over how it treats its workers.
In this settlement, the Labor Department found that workers employed as Wal-Mart or Sam's Club security guards or as managers in the stores' vision departments between 2004 and 2007 were denied overtime pay when they were incorrectly classified as exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime laws.
The act mandates employees be paid at least a $7.25 minimum wage, plus time-and-one-half their regular rates for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Some employees, such as executives and administrative workers who are paid a salary of more than $455 a week, are exempt from overtime rules.
Although the suit was resolved only recently, Wal-Mart said it had adjusted its pay practices and reclassified its employees in 2007 when the Labor Department alerted the company to the problem. It has also employed electronic systems to document compliance with state and federal labor laws.
The settlement will award workers payments ranging from $30 to $10,800.
Wal-Mart is one of many large retailers that have been accused of committing wage and hour violations, often paying out millions of dollars to settle class-action lawsuits. Cases range from failing to pay minimum wage and off-the-clock work to unpaid overtime and misclassification of workers.
In 2010, Staples Inc., the office-supply company, paid $42 million to settle with 5,000 managers over unpaid overtime.
[WSJ, Wed. 5/2/2012, p. B3]
IMMIGRATION UPDATE
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed (on Monday, April 30th, 2012) to hear an appeal from immigrant Roselva Chaidez on whether to apply retroactively the Court's 2010 decision that immigrants have the right to be informed that a guilty plea could lead to their deportation.
Ms. Chaidez was in the process of being deported from the United States when the court made that decision in March 2010.
Chaidez pleaded guilty to fraud in 2004 after falsely claiming to be a passenger in a car wreck. Authorities started deportation procedures while she was applying for U.S. citizenship in 2007.
Her lawyer never told her that her fraud conviction may lead to her deportation. Chaidez says she should be able to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision that cemented that principle.
[www.breakinglegalnews.com]
Ms. Chaidez was in the process of being deported from the United States when the court made that decision in March 2010.
Chaidez pleaded guilty to fraud in 2004 after falsely claiming to be a passenger in a car wreck. Authorities started deportation procedures while she was applying for U.S. citizenship in 2007.
Her lawyer never told her that her fraud conviction may lead to her deportation. Chaidez says she should be able to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision that cemented that principle.
[www.breakinglegalnews.com]
CONSUMERS NOW CHOOSING SMALL FIRMS
According to a new study by an international public-relations group, consumers worldwide are increasingly choosing small, local firms and businesses for services and products.
According to the Weber Shandwick consumer survey, 60% of consumers said they have lost respect for large companies while their admiration for small firms and businesses has increased over the past several years.
[WSJ, Wed., 5/2/2012, p. B8]
According to the Weber Shandwick consumer survey, 60% of consumers said they have lost respect for large companies while their admiration for small firms and businesses has increased over the past several years.
[WSJ, Wed., 5/2/2012, p. B8]
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
ENFORCEMENT OF NEW MEDICARE REPORTING RULES
Insurance companies are reporting that, even though the situation is improving substantially, there are still many attorneys who appear to be unaware of the new Medicare reporting rules (Medicare Secondary Payer) which require them, insurance companies, and even the client (plaintiff) to report any personal injury settlement, judgment or other money award to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
This requirement since 2010 applies in all cases where Medicare has rendered payments or could render future payments for care based on the injury alleged in the personal injury case.
Failure to comply could result not only in CMS placing a lien on the award for Medicare reimbursement, but also imposing fines of up to $1,000 a day.
[www.breakinglegalnews.com/category/Elder]
This requirement since 2010 applies in all cases where Medicare has rendered payments or could render future payments for care based on the injury alleged in the personal injury case.
Failure to comply could result not only in CMS placing a lien on the award for Medicare reimbursement, but also imposing fines of up to $1,000 a day.
[www.breakinglegalnews.com/category/Elder]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)