(1) The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law making it a crime to lie about receiving the Medal of Honor and other prized military awards, with justices branding the false claim “contemptible” but nonetheless protected by the First Amendment.
The court voted 6-3 in favor of Xavier Alvarez, a former local elected official in California who falsely said he was a decorated war veteran and had pleaded guilty to violating the 2006 law, known as the Stolen Valor Act. The law, enacted when the U.S. was at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, was aimed at people making phony claims of heroism in battle.
The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ordered that the conviction be thrown out.
(2) The Supreme Court has turned down media companies' plea to lift a prohibition on owning both a newspaper and a television station in the same market.
The justices on Friday denied the companies' appeal without comment. The media outlets say the restrictions no longer make sense in the Internet era.
The appeal also sought to get rid of other ownership limits including how many local television stations one company can control.
(3) The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a plea to revisit its 2-year-old campaign finance decision in the Citizens United case and instead struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.
The same five conservative justices in the Citizens United majority that freed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts in federal elections joined Monday to reverse a Montana court ruling upholding the state's century-old law. The four liberal justices dissented.
"The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does," the court said in an unsigned opinion.
The Citizens United decision paved the way for unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions in elections for Congress and the president, as long as the dollars are independent of the campaigns they are intended to help. The decision, grounded in the freedom of speech, appeared to apply equally to state contests.
But Montana aggressively defended its 1912 law against a challenge from corporations seeking to be free of spending limits, and the state Supreme Court sided with the state. The state court said a history of corruption showed the need for the limits, even as Justice Anthony Kennedy declared in his Citizens United opinion that independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
[www.breakinglegalnews.com]
Friday, June 29, 2012
INSURANCE COMPANY ABUSES versus OBAMACARE HEALTH BENEFITS
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Thursday, June 28th, 2012 to uphold the March 23rd, 2010 "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (PPACA), also known as "Obamacare", the "Affordable Care Act", and "Healthcare Reform", assists in the protection of Americans from some of the worst health insurance company abuses as follows:
1. The Law lets millions of young adults stay on parent's insurance until age 26.
2. The Law ends insurance company power to cap the amount of care a person can receive in their lifetime.
3. The Law stops insurance companies from canceling coverage when someone gets sick.
4. The Law lowers the cost of care for those on Medicare and helps seniors save money on their medication.
5. The Law requires insurance companies to cover preventive services like mammograms free of charge.
6. The Law strengthens and protects Medicare by increasing penalties for fraud.
7. The Law stops insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
8. The Law ends insurance company power to jack up rates without justification.
9. The Law provides Americans with rebates from insurers who spend too much on CEO bonuses or ads.
10. The Law gives tax credits to small business owners so they can afford to offer quality health care for employees.
11. The Law builds and improves hundreds of community helath centers.
12. The Law gives hard-working Americans tax credits so they can afford insurance beginning in 2014.
13. The Law ends discrimination against adults with pre-existing conditions beginning in 2014.
14. The Law prevents insurance companies from charging women more than men, and overcharging those who need care the most beginning in 2014.
15. The Law creates state-based marketplaces where people can easily compare and shop for insurance beginning in 2014.
[see, My Tweets on Thursday, June 28, 2012; "Attorney Charles Ware's Blog", Thursday, June 28, 2012; "The Lawyer's Mailbox" blog, Thursday June 28, 2012; U.S. Supreme Court case opinion: National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., October Term, 2011, U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 11-393 (June 28, 2012)]
1. The Law lets millions of young adults stay on parent's insurance until age 26.
2. The Law ends insurance company power to cap the amount of care a person can receive in their lifetime.
3. The Law stops insurance companies from canceling coverage when someone gets sick.
4. The Law lowers the cost of care for those on Medicare and helps seniors save money on their medication.
5. The Law requires insurance companies to cover preventive services like mammograms free of charge.
6. The Law strengthens and protects Medicare by increasing penalties for fraud.
7. The Law stops insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
8. The Law ends insurance company power to jack up rates without justification.
9. The Law provides Americans with rebates from insurers who spend too much on CEO bonuses or ads.
10. The Law gives tax credits to small business owners so they can afford to offer quality health care for employees.
11. The Law builds and improves hundreds of community helath centers.
12. The Law gives hard-working Americans tax credits so they can afford insurance beginning in 2014.
13. The Law ends discrimination against adults with pre-existing conditions beginning in 2014.
14. The Law prevents insurance companies from charging women more than men, and overcharging those who need care the most beginning in 2014.
15. The Law creates state-based marketplaces where people can easily compare and shop for insurance beginning in 2014.
[see, My Tweets on Thursday, June 28, 2012; "Attorney Charles Ware's Blog", Thursday, June 28, 2012; "The Lawyer's Mailbox" blog, Thursday June 28, 2012; U.S. Supreme Court case opinion: National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., October Term, 2011, U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 11-393 (June 28, 2012)]
OBAMA CARE UPDATE: THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (PPACA) of 2010
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), popularly referred to as Obamacare, is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The law (along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) is the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress. PPACA requires individuals not covered by employer- or government-sponsored insurance plans to maintain minimal essential health insurance coverage or pay a penalty unless exempted for religious beliefs or financial hardship, a provision commonly referred to as the individual mandate. The Act also reforms certain aspects of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs, increases insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions, expands access to insurance to an additional 30 million Americans, and increases projected national medical spending while reducing the national deficit, slowing health care cost inflation, and lowering projected Medicare spending.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld all provisions of this health care law, with conservative republican Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion stating clearly that the law is a valid and proper exercise of Congress' power to tax.
Among the many provisions in the Law, the following 15 address the issue of health insurance company abuses:
1. The Law lets millions of young adults stay on parent's insurance until age 26.
2. The Law ends insurance company power to cap the amount of care a person can receive in their lifetime.
3. The Law stops insurance companies from canceling coverage when someone gets sick.
4. The Law lowers the cost of care for those on Medicare and helps seniors save money on their medication.
5. The Law requires insurance companies to cover preventive services like mammograms free of charge.
6. The Law strengthens and protects Medicare by increasing penalties for fraud.
7. The Law stops insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
8. The Law ends insurance company power to jack up rates without justification.
9. The Law provides Americans with rebates from insurers who spend too much on CEO bonuses or ads.
10. The Law gives tax credits to small business owners so they can afford to offer quality health care for employees.
11. The Law builds and improves hundreds of community helath centers.
12. The Law gives hard-working Americans tax credits so they can afford insurance beginning in 2014.
13. The Law ends discrimination against adults with pre-existing conditions beginning in 2014.
14. The Law prevents insurance companies from charging women more than men, and overcharging those who need care the most beginning in 2014.
15. The Law creates state-based marketplaces where people can easily compare and shop for insurance beginning in 2014.
[see, My Tweets on Thursday, June 28, 2012; "Attorney Charles Ware's Blog", Thursday, June 28, 2012; "The Lawyer's Mailbox" blog, Thursday June 28, 2012; U.S. Supreme Court case opinion: National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., October Term, 2011, U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 11-393 (June 28, 2012)]
On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld all provisions of this health care law, with conservative republican Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion stating clearly that the law is a valid and proper exercise of Congress' power to tax.
Among the many provisions in the Law, the following 15 address the issue of health insurance company abuses:
1. The Law lets millions of young adults stay on parent's insurance until age 26.
2. The Law ends insurance company power to cap the amount of care a person can receive in their lifetime.
3. The Law stops insurance companies from canceling coverage when someone gets sick.
4. The Law lowers the cost of care for those on Medicare and helps seniors save money on their medication.
5. The Law requires insurance companies to cover preventive services like mammograms free of charge.
6. The Law strengthens and protects Medicare by increasing penalties for fraud.
7. The Law stops insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
8. The Law ends insurance company power to jack up rates without justification.
9. The Law provides Americans with rebates from insurers who spend too much on CEO bonuses or ads.
10. The Law gives tax credits to small business owners so they can afford to offer quality health care for employees.
11. The Law builds and improves hundreds of community helath centers.
12. The Law gives hard-working Americans tax credits so they can afford insurance beginning in 2014.
13. The Law ends discrimination against adults with pre-existing conditions beginning in 2014.
14. The Law prevents insurance companies from charging women more than men, and overcharging those who need care the most beginning in 2014.
15. The Law creates state-based marketplaces where people can easily compare and shop for insurance beginning in 2014.
[see, My Tweets on Thursday, June 28, 2012; "Attorney Charles Ware's Blog", Thursday, June 28, 2012; "The Lawyer's Mailbox" blog, Thursday June 28, 2012; U.S. Supreme Court case opinion: National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., October Term, 2011, U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 11-393 (June 28, 2012)]
Thursday, June 28, 2012
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT'S HEALTH CARE DECISION
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today (Thursday, June 28, 2012) to uphold President Obama's 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), enacted to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and to decrease the cost of health care, means:
1. People with pre-existing conditions must be covered by insurance companies. Further, children under the age of 19 can no longer be restricted to limited benefits or be denied benefits because of a pre-existing condition.
2. Beginning in 2014, it will be illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on health insurance coverage.
3. Small Business Owners with more than 50 full-time employees will need to provide health insurance coverage or face fines, as of 2014.
4. Doctors who receive "goodies" (gifts) from medical supply companies will be required to report them to the proper authorities.
5. The Uninsured, under the "individual mandate", will in 2014 be required to have or purchase health insurance or face a penalty. Many, however, will be exempt.
The penalty, in 2014, will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
So-called "health care exchanges" remain in place.
7. The Insured will probably avoid a "spike" in health insurance premiums.
8. Millions of Young Adults up to age 26 who have gained health insurance due to the law will be able to keep it. The PPACA requires insurers to cover the children of those they insure up to age 26.
9. Taxpayers Funding of Health Care
The federal government is set to spend more than $1 trillion over the next decade to subsidize coverage and expand eligibility for Medicaid.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the law could reduce deficits modestly in the first 10 years and then much more significantly in the second decade.
The CBO said a repeal of the mandate could reduce deficits by $282 billion over 10 years, because the government would be subsidizing insurance for fewer people. But the nation faces costs in various ways for having people who are uninsured. The Urban Institute's Health Policy Center estimated that without a mandate, 40 million Americans would remain uninsured.
Meanwhile, the Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) that millions of Americans use to save money tax-free for medical expenses will be sliced under the law. FSAs often allow people to put aside up to $5,000 pre-tax; as of 2013; they were to face an annual limit of $2,500.
[www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health]
1. People with pre-existing conditions must be covered by insurance companies. Further, children under the age of 19 can no longer be restricted to limited benefits or be denied benefits because of a pre-existing condition.
2. Beginning in 2014, it will be illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on health insurance coverage.
3. Small Business Owners with more than 50 full-time employees will need to provide health insurance coverage or face fines, as of 2014.
4. Doctors who receive "goodies" (gifts) from medical supply companies will be required to report them to the proper authorities.
5. The Uninsured, under the "individual mandate", will in 2014 be required to have or purchase health insurance or face a penalty. Many, however, will be exempt.
The penalty, in 2014, will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
So-called "health care exchanges" remain in place.
7. The Insured will probably avoid a "spike" in health insurance premiums.
8. Millions of Young Adults up to age 26 who have gained health insurance due to the law will be able to keep it. The PPACA requires insurers to cover the children of those they insure up to age 26.
9. Taxpayers Funding of Health Care
The federal government is set to spend more than $1 trillion over the next decade to subsidize coverage and expand eligibility for Medicaid.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the law could reduce deficits modestly in the first 10 years and then much more significantly in the second decade.
The CBO said a repeal of the mandate could reduce deficits by $282 billion over 10 years, because the government would be subsidizing insurance for fewer people. But the nation faces costs in various ways for having people who are uninsured. The Urban Institute's Health Policy Center estimated that without a mandate, 40 million Americans would remain uninsured.
Meanwhile, the Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) that millions of Americans use to save money tax-free for medical expenses will be sliced under the law. FSAs often allow people to put aside up to $5,000 pre-tax; as of 2013; they were to face an annual limit of $2,500.
[www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health]
HEALTH CARE LAW: President Obama Wins Again!
For the second time this week, President Barack Obama has won a major victory in the U.S. Supreme Court.
First, it was the High Court's ruling in the Arizona immigration law (S.B. 1070) case [see my twitter, on June 25th, 2012; and my blog, the lawyersmailbox.blogspot.com, 06/25/2012], in which the court reaffirms the authority of the Federal Government to set immigration policy and laws --- and not the states.
Secondly, in dramatic "high noon shoot-out" fashion, the Court has upheld President Obama's entire 2010 health care law (the 2010 affordable Care Act); the President's landmark legislative achievement.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion in this case was written by conservative republican Chief Justice John Roberts, who explained that the law was a valid exercise of Congress' power to tax. In other words, according to Chief Justice Roberts, Congress is "increasing taxes" on those who choose to go uninsured.
[msnbc.com, Tom Curry, National Affairs writer; msnbc.msn.com; scotu_opinion_on_ACA-from-msnbc.com.pdf-AdobeReader; www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-effects/index.html]
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was enacted by Congress (and President Obama) in 2010 in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key (and apparently controversial_ provision of the law is the so-called "individual mandate", which requires most Americans to maintain "minimum essential" health insurance coverage [26 U.S.C.§ 5000A].
The official U.S. Supreme Court case cite is:
National Federal of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Appeal from the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, October Term, 2011, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 11-393, Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012 - Decided June 28, 2012.
First, it was the High Court's ruling in the Arizona immigration law (S.B. 1070) case [see my twitter, on June 25th, 2012; and my blog, the lawyersmailbox.blogspot.com, 06/25/2012], in which the court reaffirms the authority of the Federal Government to set immigration policy and laws --- and not the states.
Secondly, in dramatic "high noon shoot-out" fashion, the Court has upheld President Obama's entire 2010 health care law (the 2010 affordable Care Act); the President's landmark legislative achievement.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion in this case was written by conservative republican Chief Justice John Roberts, who explained that the law was a valid exercise of Congress' power to tax. In other words, according to Chief Justice Roberts, Congress is "increasing taxes" on those who choose to go uninsured.
[msnbc.com, Tom Curry, National Affairs writer; msnbc.msn.com; scotu_opinion_on_ACA-from-msnbc.com.pdf-AdobeReader; www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-effects/index.html]
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was enacted by Congress (and President Obama) in 2010 in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key (and apparently controversial_ provision of the law is the so-called "individual mandate", which requires most Americans to maintain "minimum essential" health insurance coverage [26 U.S.C.§ 5000A].
The official U.S. Supreme Court case cite is:
National Federal of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Appeal from the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, October Term, 2011, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 11-393, Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012 - Decided June 28, 2012.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
MARYLAND: LAWSUIT AT FIRST BITE!?!?
In the aftermath of the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision a few weeks ago that pit bull dogs are "inherently dangerous" and therefore subject to strict liability in civil suits for bites [see, my Twitter report and "Attorney Charles Ware's Blog, Monday, May 7, 2012], the so-called "first bite" could soon cost owners of all dogs in Maryland.
A 10-member task force of Maryland's Senate and House of Delegates members heard testimony in response to the Court of Appeals ruling. It excludes pit bulls and pit bull mixes from the state’s so-called “one-bite law,” which only holds dog owners responsible for a bite or attack if the dog previously had bitten or threatened another person.
Many animal-rights advocates call the ruling unfair discrimination against the pit bull dogs and their owners, and the task force could recommend legislation that would effectively cancel out the decision.
One option they discussed was to get rid of the one-bite law and hold all owners liable from the first violent incident — a move that many lawmakers and activists said would put pit bulls back on equal footing with other breeds and force all dog owners to be more responsible.
Many other states already hold owners of all breeds liable from the first bite, and the proposal appeared to draw near-unanimous approval from supporters and opponents of the Court of Appeals ruling.
Stay tuned for this debate.
[The Washington Times, Tuesday, June 19, 2012, "Ruling on Pit Bulls Prompted Change"]
A 10-member task force of Maryland's Senate and House of Delegates members heard testimony in response to the Court of Appeals ruling. It excludes pit bulls and pit bull mixes from the state’s so-called “one-bite law,” which only holds dog owners responsible for a bite or attack if the dog previously had bitten or threatened another person.
Many animal-rights advocates call the ruling unfair discrimination against the pit bull dogs and their owners, and the task force could recommend legislation that would effectively cancel out the decision.
One option they discussed was to get rid of the one-bite law and hold all owners liable from the first violent incident — a move that many lawmakers and activists said would put pit bulls back on equal footing with other breeds and force all dog owners to be more responsible.
Many other states already hold owners of all breeds liable from the first bite, and the proposal appeared to draw near-unanimous approval from supporters and opponents of the Court of Appeals ruling.
Stay tuned for this debate.
[The Washington Times, Tuesday, June 19, 2012, "Ruling on Pit Bulls Prompted Change"]
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Charles Ware's Blog: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 --- What's Happening Now?
(1) Will the Supreme Court's Decision in the Arizona immigration law (S.B. 1070) case impact Alabama's recent immigration statute?
Answer: Probably. The legal reasoning put forth by the High Court in the Arizona case applies equally as well to similar immigration laws and court rulings in other states.
(2) Justice Department Hotline for Arizona Civil Rights Concerns.
The U.S. Justice Department has set up a hotline for the public to report potential civil rights concerns regarding the Arizona law that requires police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons.
The hotline phone number is 1-855-353-100. The email is: SB1070(at)usdoj.gov.
[hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/06/26/justice-dept-sets-up-federal-hotline]
(3) John Edwards and his mistress, Rielle Hunter, have broken up. No surprise.
This story is probably no surprise.
Democratic politician John Edwards and the mistress who bore his child have ended their relationship, it was announced on Good Morning America this morning.
Rielle Hunter, the mother of former vice-presidential nominee John Edwards' four-year-old daughter, announced during an appearance on the ABC morning show that she and Edwards are no longer a couple.
Are you surprised?
["ABC Good Morning", ABC Television, June 26, 2012; newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/26/edwards-and-mistress]
Answer: Probably. The legal reasoning put forth by the High Court in the Arizona case applies equally as well to similar immigration laws and court rulings in other states.
(2) Justice Department Hotline for Arizona Civil Rights Concerns.
The U.S. Justice Department has set up a hotline for the public to report potential civil rights concerns regarding the Arizona law that requires police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons.
The hotline phone number is 1-855-353-100. The email is: SB1070(at)usdoj.gov.
[hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/06/26/justice-dept-sets-up-federal-hotline]
(3) John Edwards and his mistress, Rielle Hunter, have broken up. No surprise.
This story is probably no surprise.
Democratic politician John Edwards and the mistress who bore his child have ended their relationship, it was announced on Good Morning America this morning.
Rielle Hunter, the mother of former vice-presidential nominee John Edwards' four-year-old daughter, announced during an appearance on the ABC morning show that she and Edwards are no longer a couple.
Are you surprised?
["ABC Good Morning", ABC Television, June 26, 2012; newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/26/edwards-and-mistress]
Monday, June 25, 2012
IMMIGRATION LAW UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court Chastises Arizona
The Case: ARIZONA, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, United States Supreme Court, October Term 2011; Appeal from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, No. 11-182, Argued April 25, 2012 - Decided June 25, 2012; Cite as: 567 U.S. _____________ (2012).
___________________________________________________________
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled principally in favor of President Obama and the Federal Government's position on Arizona's controversial immigration law, and largely against Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, and the state's legislature.
The High Court, in a 5-3 decision, essentially struck down the key parts of the law whose goal was to deter illegal immigration, but it let stand a controversial provision that allows Arizona police to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The decision reaffirms the authority of the Federal Government to set immigration policy and laws.
The Arizona immigration statute at issue in this case (S.B. 1070) was enacted in 2010 to address issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens present in Arizona. The Federal Government intervened to enjoin the new law as preempted.
In effect, the Federal Government won.
[www.cnn.com, 6/25/2012, "Blow To Immigration Law"; online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527..., "Supreme Court Allows Immigration Checks"]
___________________________________________________________
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled principally in favor of President Obama and the Federal Government's position on Arizona's controversial immigration law, and largely against Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, and the state's legislature.
The High Court, in a 5-3 decision, essentially struck down the key parts of the law whose goal was to deter illegal immigration, but it let stand a controversial provision that allows Arizona police to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The decision reaffirms the authority of the Federal Government to set immigration policy and laws.
The Arizona immigration statute at issue in this case (S.B. 1070) was enacted in 2010 to address issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens present in Arizona. The Federal Government intervened to enjoin the new law as preempted.
In effect, the Federal Government won.
[www.cnn.com, 6/25/2012, "Blow To Immigration Law"; online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527..., "Supreme Court Allows Immigration Checks"]
Friday, June 22, 2012
CONSUMER UPDATE!!!
The best-selling consumer book, "LEGAL CONSUMER TIPS AND SECRETS: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States", iUniverse Publishers (2011), is available in bookstores and at all Internet book-purchasing sites such as Amazon.
[www.iuniverse.com; www.amazon.com, www.barnesandnoble.com; Nookbooks; Barnes and Noble Bookstores; Book-A-Million; www.booksamillion.com, among others]
[www.iuniverse.com; www.amazon.com, www.barnesandnoble.com; Nookbooks; Barnes and Noble Bookstores; Book-A-Million; www.booksamillion.com, among others]
Charles Jerome Ware, Esquire
Charles Jerome Ware, Esquire
Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors
One Thousand
Century Plaza
Building
10630 Little Patuxent
Parkway
PH: (410)
730-5016
FAX: (410)
730-7603
EMAIL: CHARLESJEROMEWARE@MSN.COM
Personal
Injury. Medical Malpractice. Criminal Defense. Civil Litigation.
Class Action
Lawsuits. Antitrust. Corporate Law. Family Law. Entertainment Law.
Immigration
Law. DWI/Traffic. Estate Planning. Elder Law.
CHARLES
JEROME WARE is the consummate trial
attorney. He litigates on both the state
and federal levels throughout the United States
every year: including Maryland , Washington , DC , California , New Jersey , Pennsylvania , Virginia , Massachusetts , New York , Texas , Georgia ,
Alabama , Kentucky Talladega College (B.A., With Honors, 1970); Howard University
School Member , U.S. Boston
University Boston College
Law School United States Maryland State Saint Paul Houston Award for Outstanding Trial
Advocacy, by the Minority Business Enterprise
SOURCES OF LEGAL NEWS:
Thursday, June 21, 2012
LEGAL TENACITY: Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
"Charles [Ware] is a tenacious advocate for his clients. He will fight for the last breath for his clients. And what more can a client ask for?" --- Melvin White, Partner, Trial Department of McDermott Willand Emery, President of the District of Columbia Bar Association.
[articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-01-25/features/1995025; The Baltimore Sun, January 25, 1995, By Sandra Crockett, Staff Writer, "Good Counsel: Lawyer is boss, friend, family to client on eve of parole"]
_______________________________________________________________
[articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-01-25/features/1995025; The Baltimore Sun, January 25, 1995, By Sandra Crockett, Staff Writer, "Good Counsel: Lawyer is boss, friend, family to client on eve of parole"]
_______________________________________________________________
MARYLAND LEGAL
NEWS!
SOURCES OF LEGAL NEWS:
HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND ATTORNEY: Attorney Charles Ware
"The Lawyer's Mailbox"
For eight years in the 1990s, Attorney Charles Ware hosted the extremely popular legal advice radio program "The Lawyer's Mailbox"; the Number One (#1) legal advice radio program in the Mid-Atlantic Region, on WEAA - 88.9 FM, Morgan State University Radio in Baltimore, Maryland.
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
_______________________________________________________________
For eight years in the 1990s, Attorney Charles Ware hosted the extremely popular legal advice radio program "The Lawyer's Mailbox"; the Number One (#1) legal advice radio program in the Mid-Atlantic Region, on WEAA - 88.9 FM, Morgan State University Radio in Baltimore, Maryland.
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
_______________________________________________________________
MARYLAND LEGAL NEWS!
SOURCES OF LEGAL NEWS:
WEAA - 88.9 FM MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RADIO
"The Lawyer's Mailbox"
For eight years in the 1990s, Attorney Charles Ware hosted the extremely popular legal advice radio program "The Lawyer's Mailbox"; the Number One (#1) legal advice radio program in the Mid-Atlantic Region, on WEAA - 88.9 FM, Morgan State University Radio in Baltimore, Maryland.
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
_______________________________________________________________
For eight years in the 1990s, Attorney Charles Ware hosted the extremely popular legal advice radio program "The Lawyer's Mailbox"; the Number One (#1) legal advice radio program in the Mid-Atlantic Region, on WEAA - 88.9 FM, Morgan State University Radio in Baltimore, Maryland.
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
_______________________________________________________________
MARYLAND LEGAL NEWS!
SOURCES OF LEGAL NEWS:
REVERSE DISCRIMINATION: Maryland, The Daily Record (Archives 2001)
"Fired Poverty-Agency Chief Sues, Alleging Reverse Discrimination: She's white, 14 codefendants black; claim of child-shaking led to her termination by UCAP in Prince George's County".
__________________________________________________________________________
Claim a false allegation of child abuse led to her unlawful termination, the former executive director of the private, nonprofit poverty agency UCAP (United Communities Against Poverty) in Capitol Heights, Maryland is suing her former employer for discrimination.
Doris Adams, who is white, has hired attorney Charles J. Ware of Columbia to pursue her case; claiming she was discriminated against on the basis of her race (white) and on the basis of her age and gender. All of the co-defendants are black.
Adams, who was hired as UCAP's executive director in 1991, is seeking $2 million in compensatory damages from UCAP and $1 million each from 14 co-defendants.
Among other things, Adams claims that current executive director Michael E. Young made up the allegation of child abuse in order to take her job for himself.
"Young alleged Adams grabbed and shook a boy on the [UCAP] premises," said Charles J. Ware, Adams' attorney. "It was fictitious. It didn't happen. But Young reported it to some other people on the board who were having difficulty with her and they ran with it.
"No charges were ever filed and the incident was never confirmed," Ware continued. "It's like being accused of beating your wife - it's a negative charge that sticks."
Ware said after Adams was fired, Young was made executive director of UCAP, which offers emergency food, housing counseling, senior citizen programs and other services to low-income residents of Prince George's County.
[The Daily Record, "Maryland Law", Tuesday, April 24, 2001]
__________________________________________________________________________
Claim a false allegation of child abuse led to her unlawful termination, the former executive director of the private, nonprofit poverty agency UCAP (United Communities Against Poverty) in Capitol Heights, Maryland is suing her former employer for discrimination.
Doris Adams, who is white, has hired attorney Charles J. Ware of Columbia to pursue her case; claiming she was discriminated against on the basis of her race (white) and on the basis of her age and gender. All of the co-defendants are black.
Adams, who was hired as UCAP's executive director in 1991, is seeking $2 million in compensatory damages from UCAP and $1 million each from 14 co-defendants.
Among other things, Adams claims that current executive director Michael E. Young made up the allegation of child abuse in order to take her job for himself.
"Young alleged Adams grabbed and shook a boy on the [UCAP] premises," said Charles J. Ware, Adams' attorney. "It was fictitious. It didn't happen. But Young reported it to some other people on the board who were having difficulty with her and they ran with it.
"No charges were ever filed and the incident was never confirmed," Ware continued. "It's like being accused of beating your wife - it's a negative charge that sticks."
Ware said after Adams was fired, Young was made executive director of UCAP, which offers emergency food, housing counseling, senior citizen programs and other services to low-income residents of Prince George's County.
[The Daily Record, "Maryland Law", Tuesday, April 24, 2001]
BLACK FEMALE PROMOTIONS FOR THE US CAPITOL POLICE
It has been almost eleven years after Charles Jerome Ware, the nationally-recognized trial attorney who first represented the U.S. Capitol Black Police Association in 2001, filed the landmark discrimination complaint in U.S. District Court against the Capitol Hill Police department.
Now, in the year 2012, the U.S. Capitol Police has promoted its first two black female captains: Yogananda Pittman and Monique Moore.
The promotions were significant not only for the two women but also for the department. Nearly one-third of the department's sworn workforce is African-American.
Approximately 300 or so black male and female officers were named plaintiffs in Ware's 2001 civil lawsuit.
[www.deseretnews.com/article/765564771/Milestone-promotions-for-the-US-CapitolPolice; Associated Press (AP), 03/31/2012, Eric Tucker; newsone.com/us-capitolpolice-promter-1st-black-female-officers, 04-02-2012]
Now, in the year 2012, the U.S. Capitol Police has promoted its first two black female captains: Yogananda Pittman and Monique Moore.
The promotions were significant not only for the two women but also for the department. Nearly one-third of the department's sworn workforce is African-American.
Approximately 300 or so black male and female officers were named plaintiffs in Ware's 2001 civil lawsuit.
[www.deseretnews.com/article/765564771/Milestone-promotions-for-the-US-CapitolPolice; Associated Press (AP), 03/31/2012, Eric Tucker; newsone.com/us-capitolpolice-promter-1st-black-female-officers, 04-02-2012]
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
BLACK OFFICERS FILE [ANOTHER] LAWSUIT AGAINST CAPITOL [HILL] POLICE
By Danielle Wright
Posted: 02/08/2012 11:54 AM EST
Filed UnderNYPD, Racism, Police, Washington D.C., Unemployment, Court, Employment
[http://www.bet.com/news/nation/2012/08/02/black-officers]
[Eleven years after Charles Jerome Ware, the nationally known trial attorney who first represented the U.S. Capitol Black Police Association in 2001] filed the first class-action lawsuit a fourth class-action lawsuit has been leveled against the Capitol Police Department.
Approximately fifty officers, civilians and employees have filed a suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They allege that they have been subjected to “continuous, pervasive and egregiously discriminatory actions” by the Capitol Police, as expressed in a statement released Wednesday by the U.S. Capitol Black Police Association.
Hostile work environments, reprisals, denial of promotions, age discrimination and denial of career-enhancing opportunities are just some of the allegations of discrimination outlined in the lawsuit [These are similar allegations to the complaint filed in 2001].
“The Chief of Police, Phillip Morse, and members of the Capitol Police Board, have done little, if anything, to eliminate the obvious inequities that have negatively impacted the careers of African-American officers and employees,” the association claims in its statement.
In 2001, nearly 300 Black Capitol Hill police officers and employees filed a lawsuit citing discrimination by the Capitol Police Board. The current action lawsuit comes more than a decade after the unresolved dispute.
"You have, basically, a renegade police department up here, that's been operating under the protection of Congress," Charles J. Ware, the attorney who first represented the U.S. Capitol Black Police Association, said at the time the suit was announced in 2001.
Who's Who In Black Baltimore: CHARLES WARE
Charles Jerome Ware is president of the national law firm Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors. He is a renowned trial attorney, with several celebrity clients and numerous successful cases to his credit. Headquartered in nearby Columbia, Maryland, and with multiple offices throughout the country, the firm specializes in complex civil and criminal litigation, and catastrophic injury, wrongful death and class action lawsuits.
Ware is a former federal administrative law judge, and he was the youngest immigration judge in the history of the U.S. Additionally, he has served as chief legal and antitrust counsel to the chairman of the U.S. Federal District of Virginia, and senior trial attorney in both the antitrust and criminal divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as executive vice president and general counsel for St. Paul's College, among other positions.
Charles Ware is rated one of the "best lawyers in the United States".
[Who's Who In Black Baltimore: The Inaugural Edition, page 112 (2010)]
Ware is a former federal administrative law judge, and he was the youngest immigration judge in the history of the U.S. Additionally, he has served as chief legal and antitrust counsel to the chairman of the U.S. Federal District of Virginia, and senior trial attorney in both the antitrust and criminal divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as executive vice president and general counsel for St. Paul's College, among other positions.
Charles Ware is rated one of the "best lawyers in the United States".
[Who's Who In Black Baltimore: The Inaugural Edition, page 112 (2010)]
Developer JAMES ROUSE: New City of Columbia, Maryland
Columbia [Maryland] in the 1980s
Chapter 9 of the book: New City Upon A Hill: A History of Columbia, Maryland, Published 2007, pages 124-138.
When Jim Rouse left the company he founded and loved, he was replaced by a meaner and less-sensitive Rouse Company. As Jim Rouse went on to engage in new and more civic-minded projects, the Rouse-less Rouse Company began hardening its corporate ways.
EXCERPT: "...A similar situation occurred with [small businessman] Robert Harper, who operated a dry cleaning establishment in one of [Columbia's] village centers, and [Harper responded by hiring a top antitrust trial attorney, Charles Jerome Ware, who resided in the community]. Ware filed a $28-million antitrust lawsuit against the [Rouse] company. The civil lawsuit accused the company of refusing to renew [Harper's] lease or allow him to retire by selling his store." [page 126]
The case, filed and litigated in the Howard County Circuit Court in conservative Ellicott City, brought unfavorable publicity to the Rouse company, a situation compounded by the fact that Harper was a minority entrepreneur. Someone that Jim Rouse would have tried to help.
MARYLAND LEGAL NEWS!
SOURCES OF LEGAL
NEWS:
___________________________________________________
(1) The Shame of North Carolina :
North Carolina
The Act is the first such law in the nation to allow death
row inmates to have their sentence reduced to life without parole if the
inmates show that their sentences were tainted by racial bias.
What do you think?
[www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/opinion]
(2) Alligator Eats Elderly Woman In Georgia Gated Community: Georgia
This summary of today's Georgia Supreme Court decision, in a
gruesome fight over who is responsible for local wildlife, just rolled out:
In a split 4-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Georgia has reversed a Georgia Court of Appeals ruling in a high-profile Chatham County case involving an elderly woman who was partially eaten by an alligator.
As a result of today's decision, written by Justice Harold Melton, the woman's family has lost its attempt to have a jury try their case against the owners of the gated community where Gwyneth Williams was killed.
"Because the record shows that Williams had equal knowledge of the threat of alligators within the community, we reverse," today's majority decision says.
[blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-gallerway/2012/06/18]
(3) IN MARYLAND: THE PIT BULLS ARE BACK!
Organized and unorganized opponents of the Maryland Court of Appeals' [Maryland's highest court's] decision last month (May 2012) that pit bull dogs are "inherently dangerous" are unleashing (pardon the pun :) ) their criticism.
[thedailyrecord.com/06/19/2012]
(4) IN MARYLAND: Alexander Kinyua, aka "The Cannibalism Suspect", Ordered to STATE MENTAL HOSPITAL.
On Tuesday, June 19th, 2012, 21-year old Alexander (aka "Hannibal the Cannibal") Kinyua was ordered to be transferred from the Harford County, Maryland detention center to the state's Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center for a psychiatric evaluation.
The evaluation was requested by Kinyua's defense attorneys.
Kinyua has been indicted on a first-degree murder as well as a weapons charge in the death of a "family friend", Kujoe Bonsafo Agyei-Kodie.
Kinyua, it is reported, told investigators that he killed Mr. Agyei-Kodie, ate his heart and portions of his brain.
[thedailyrecord.com/06-19-2012]
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Actor HUGH GRANT ("Unrepentant" and "Without Apologies") and Attorney CHARLES WARE ("No Way Out"): GQ Magazine, October 1998
Excerpts:
"Our lives have been a little duller since Hugh Grant took a brief hiatus from the American scene, but take heart-he's back, and happy to share naughty family photos, his views about the press and a legendary pint of wee-wee at the local gay pub." BY LUCY KAYLIN [page 226].
"[Charles Ware] is sitting in an office in Columbia, Maryland, a clean, intentionally non-descript town suspended halfway between Baltimore and Washington. Columbia's only attitude is its determination to have no attitude at all, and so Columbia is a good place for Charles Ware, who allies himself with no cause. His eclectic uniform says so: blue blazer, bow tie and cowboy boots-none of the accessories a black lawyer with any Sharpton to him would ever consider wearing." BY PETER RICHMOND [pages 237-238].
"Our lives have been a little duller since Hugh Grant took a brief hiatus from the American scene, but take heart-he's back, and happy to share naughty family photos, his views about the press and a legendary pint of wee-wee at the local gay pub." BY LUCY KAYLIN [page 226].
"[Charles Ware] is sitting in an office in Columbia, Maryland, a clean, intentionally non-descript town suspended halfway between Baltimore and Washington. Columbia's only attitude is its determination to have no attitude at all, and so Columbia is a good place for Charles Ware, who allies himself with no cause. His eclectic uniform says so: blue blazer, bow tie and cowboy boots-none of the accessories a black lawyer with any Sharpton to him would ever consider wearing." BY PETER RICHMOND [pages 237-238].
Columbia [Maryland] in the 1980s
Chapter 9 of the book: New City Upon A Hill: A History of Columbia, Maryland, Published 2007, pages 124-138.
When Jim Rouse left the company he founded and loved, he was replaced by a meaner and less-sensitive Rouse Company. As Jim Rouse went on to engage in new and more civic-minded projects, the Rouse-less Rouse Company began hardening its corporate ways.
EXCERPT: "...A similar situation occurred with [small businessman] Robert Harper, who operated a dry cleaning establishment in one of [Columbia's] village centers, and [Harper responded by hiring a top antitrust trial attorney, Charles Jerome Ware, who resided in the community]. Ware filed a $28-million antitrust lawsuit against the [Rouse] company. The civil lawsuit accused the company of refusing to renew [Harper's] lease or allow him to retire by selling his store." [page 126]
The case, filed and litigated in the Howard County Circuit Court in conservative Ellicott City, brought unfavorable publicity to the Rouse company, a situation compounded by the fact that Harper was a minority entrepreneur. Someone that Jim Rouse would have tried to help.
When Jim Rouse left the company he founded and loved, he was replaced by a meaner and less-sensitive Rouse Company. As Jim Rouse went on to engage in new and more civic-minded projects, the Rouse-less Rouse Company began hardening its corporate ways.
EXCERPT: "...A similar situation occurred with [small businessman] Robert Harper, who operated a dry cleaning establishment in one of [Columbia's] village centers, and [Harper responded by hiring a top antitrust trial attorney, Charles Jerome Ware, who resided in the community]. Ware filed a $28-million antitrust lawsuit against the [Rouse] company. The civil lawsuit accused the company of refusing to renew [Harper's] lease or allow him to retire by selling his store." [page 126]
The case, filed and litigated in the Howard County Circuit Court in conservative Ellicott City, brought unfavorable publicity to the Rouse company, a situation compounded by the fact that Harper was a minority entrepreneur. Someone that Jim Rouse would have tried to help.
Monday, June 18, 2012
"DREAMERS" AND THE DREAM ACT: Immigration Law Update
President Barack Obama announced in the White House Rose Garden on Friday, June 15th, 2012 that, effective immediately, his administration will not deport younger illegal (undocumented) immigrants who came to the United States as children and who do not pose a security threat the to U.S.
Consequently, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to ensure that young, undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents, and who have followed the law since then, will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings -- and will be allowed to apply for authorization to work in this country.
These young immigrants are collectively a group that have come to be called the "Dreamers" and President Obama's new rules provide much of the relief this group wants despite the setback the Dream Act suffered in late 2010 when it was blocked by Republicans in the U.S. Senate.
[WSJ, Sat/Sun., 2012, pp. A1 & A5; my.barackobama.com/Dreamers]
Consequently, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to ensure that young, undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents, and who have followed the law since then, will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings -- and will be allowed to apply for authorization to work in this country.
These young immigrants are collectively a group that have come to be called the "Dreamers" and President Obama's new rules provide much of the relief this group wants despite the setback the Dream Act suffered in late 2010 when it was blocked by Republicans in the U.S. Senate.
[WSJ, Sat/Sun., 2012, pp. A1 & A5; my.barackobama.com/Dreamers]
FORECLOSURES: May 2012 Update
RealtyTrac reported on Thursday, June 14th, 2012, that home foreclosure filings increased by 9% in May 2012 from April 2012. There were an astounding 205,990 total real estate properties that were subject to foreclosures: including default notices, scheduled home auctions or bank/mortgage lender repossessions. [RealtyTrac]
Georgia has the unfortunate distinction of leading the field, posting the highest foreclosure rate of 1 in 300 housing units subject to some types of foreclosure proceeding. Traditionally, this depressing recognition has gone to the sunshine states of Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona.
Nationally, one in 639 homes was subject to foreclosure during May 2012. However, in the metropolitan Atlanta area, 1 in 224 housing units was tagged for either repossession or outright foreclosure.
But, the news is not all bad in the housing market. The managing director of the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, Eric Belsky, reports that "a floor is beginning to form under home prices."
Record-low mortgage rates could be providing a boost for the housing market. Freddie Mac said last week that the average rate on a 30-year loan dropped to 3.67 percent. A record.
[www.ajc.com/business/firm-georgia-foreclosure-rate; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Friday, June 15, 2012; Harvard University Join Center for Housing Studies; economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/news/2012/0614/12203711-foreclosure-activity; cpf.cleanprint.net/cpf/6/14/2012]
Georgia has the unfortunate distinction of leading the field, posting the highest foreclosure rate of 1 in 300 housing units subject to some types of foreclosure proceeding. Traditionally, this depressing recognition has gone to the sunshine states of Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona.
Nationally, one in 639 homes was subject to foreclosure during May 2012. However, in the metropolitan Atlanta area, 1 in 224 housing units was tagged for either repossession or outright foreclosure.
But, the news is not all bad in the housing market. The managing director of the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, Eric Belsky, reports that "a floor is beginning to form under home prices."
Record-low mortgage rates could be providing a boost for the housing market. Freddie Mac said last week that the average rate on a 30-year loan dropped to 3.67 percent. A record.
[www.ajc.com/business/firm-georgia-foreclosure-rate; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Friday, June 15, 2012; Harvard University Join Center for Housing Studies; economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/news/2012/0614/12203711-foreclosure-activity; cpf.cleanprint.net/cpf/6/14/2012]
GEORGIA FORECLOSURES
During May 2012, Georgia had the unfortunate distinction of being number 1 in home foreclosures in U.S., posting the highest foreclosure rate of 1 in 300 housing units.
Traditionally, the highest foreclosure figures have been attained by the sunshine states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.
Nationally, 1 in 639 homes was subject to foreclosure during May 2012.
In the metropolitan Atlanta area, 1 in 224 homes was subject to foreclosure in May 2012.
[RealtyTrac; www.ajc.com; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Friday, 6/15/2012]
Traditionally, the highest foreclosure figures have been attained by the sunshine states of California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.
Nationally, 1 in 639 homes was subject to foreclosure during May 2012.
In the metropolitan Atlanta area, 1 in 224 homes was subject to foreclosure in May 2012.
[RealtyTrac; www.ajc.com; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Friday, 6/15/2012]
HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND ACCUSED OF RACIAL BIAS
[From the Archives of the Baltimore Business Journal, March 18, 1994: "Minority Business Liaison Officer Files Discrimination Complaint"]:
An African-American employee in Howard County's economic development office has filed a discrimination complaint against the county, alleging racial bias in a decision to abolish her position.
Deborah L. Jenkins began work as a minority business liaison officer for the county in August 1993, according to the complaint. She filed the documents with the state's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Baltimore March 10.
Jenkins' attorney, Charles Ware, said his client challenged a poor performance review and was told soon after that her job would be eliminated March 31.
Ware said county officials were not interested in pursuing minority business and therefore were not receptive to Jenkins.
An African-American employee in Howard County's economic development office has filed a discrimination complaint against the county, alleging racial bias in a decision to abolish her position.
Deborah L. Jenkins began work as a minority business liaison officer for the county in August 1993, according to the complaint. She filed the documents with the state's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Baltimore March 10.
Jenkins' attorney, Charles Ware, said his client challenged a poor performance review and was told soon after that her job would be eliminated March 31.
Ware said county officials were not interested in pursuing minority business and therefore were not receptive to Jenkins.
IMMIGRATION UPDATE: BREAKING NEWS!
"President Obama Eases Rules for Young Illegal Immigrants". No more deportations for about 800,000 immigrants!
President Barack Obama announced on Friday, June 15, 2012 that the United States during his administration will stop deporting many young illegal immigrants.
Under his new rules, which side-step Congress after years of stalemate over the country's immigration policies, approximately 800,000 or so young people brought to the United States as children could apply for work permits ("green cards") and enjoy a safe haven from deportation. Unlike the "Dream Act" however, a bill supported by President Obama that has stalled in Congress, these immigrants would not be eligible for American citizenship. Without a doubt, however, this is a huge success for the immigrant community --- and particularly the Hispanic community, which comprises the majority of illegal or undocumented aliens.
Many Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have criticized these new rules from President Obama: declaring the rules are an "amnesty for law breakers" and an overreach of administrative authority. Romney has declared many times that he would veto the "Dream Act" if it was voted out of Congress.
“These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag,” Obama said Friday from the Rose Garden of the White House. “They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper.”
Mr. Romney, speaking to reporters in Milford, N.H., criticized the president's actions as a short-term fix that could be "reversed by subsequent presidents," but he didn't respond to questions about whether he would do that.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), author of the Dream Act, called the announcement a "historic humanitarian moment."
Questions and Answers About the New Rules:
Q: The Obama administration said it wouldn’t deport certain illegal immigrants. Who is eligible?
A: People who are eligible to apply came to the U.S. when they were under age 16, have lived here for at least five years, are currently under age 30 and haven’t been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, multiple misdemeanors or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
Q: What advantages will they receive?
A: The government would grant two years of “deferred action,” essentially a commitment not to deport the applicant under normal circumstances. Those granted deferred action could apply for a work permit. The two-year period is renewable.
Q: Does the process lead to permanent residency?
A: No. Only Congress could provide that. The administration says it is using its “prosecutorial discretion” in choosing not to deport people. They are still in limbo: The deferred-action grant “can be terminated at any time,” the Department of Homeland Security says.
Q: To apply, illegal immigrants must step up and identify themselves to the government. Why would they want to do that?
A: Some may not. Advocates for undocumented immigrants were divided on whether everyone should apply. However, successful applicants would win the right to work legally and a measure of freedom from the daily fear of being deported.
Q: How many people are eligible?
A: The Obama administration estimates 800,000.
Q: Could a future president revoke the policy?
A: In principle, yes. However, supporters of the plan said it was unlikely a future administration would try to deport those who stepped up in good faith to receive deferred action.
Q: Will those receiving deferred action get a card or certificate showing their status?
A: No, officials said.
Q: Can people granted deferred action visit relatives in their native country and come back to the U.S.?
A: No, the grant doesn’t confer any new right to leave and re-enter the U.S. from a foreign country.
[WSJ, Sat.-Sun., June 16-17, 2012; "U.S. to Stop Deporting Some Illegal Immigrants", page A1 and A5; and see the book, "THE IMMIGRATION PARADOX: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases", by former U.S. Immigration Judge Charles Jerome Ware]
President Barack Obama announced on Friday, June 15, 2012 that the United States during his administration will stop deporting many young illegal immigrants.
Under his new rules, which side-step Congress after years of stalemate over the country's immigration policies, approximately 800,000 or so young people brought to the United States as children could apply for work permits ("green cards") and enjoy a safe haven from deportation. Unlike the "Dream Act" however, a bill supported by President Obama that has stalled in Congress, these immigrants would not be eligible for American citizenship. Without a doubt, however, this is a huge success for the immigrant community --- and particularly the Hispanic community, which comprises the majority of illegal or undocumented aliens.
Many Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have criticized these new rules from President Obama: declaring the rules are an "amnesty for law breakers" and an overreach of administrative authority. Romney has declared many times that he would veto the "Dream Act" if it was voted out of Congress.
“These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag,” Obama said Friday from the Rose Garden of the White House. “They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper.”
Mr. Romney, speaking to reporters in Milford, N.H., criticized the president's actions as a short-term fix that could be "reversed by subsequent presidents," but he didn't respond to questions about whether he would do that.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), author of the Dream Act, called the announcement a "historic humanitarian moment."
Questions and Answers About the New Rules:
Q: The Obama administration said it wouldn’t deport certain illegal immigrants. Who is eligible?
A: People who are eligible to apply came to the U.S. when they were under age 16, have lived here for at least five years, are currently under age 30 and haven’t been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, multiple misdemeanors or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
Q: What advantages will they receive?
A: The government would grant two years of “deferred action,” essentially a commitment not to deport the applicant under normal circumstances. Those granted deferred action could apply for a work permit. The two-year period is renewable.
Q: Does the process lead to permanent residency?
A: No. Only Congress could provide that. The administration says it is using its “prosecutorial discretion” in choosing not to deport people. They are still in limbo: The deferred-action grant “can be terminated at any time,” the Department of Homeland Security says.
Q: To apply, illegal immigrants must step up and identify themselves to the government. Why would they want to do that?
A: Some may not. Advocates for undocumented immigrants were divided on whether everyone should apply. However, successful applicants would win the right to work legally and a measure of freedom from the daily fear of being deported.
Q: How many people are eligible?
A: The Obama administration estimates 800,000.
Q: Could a future president revoke the policy?
A: In principle, yes. However, supporters of the plan said it was unlikely a future administration would try to deport those who stepped up in good faith to receive deferred action.
Q: Will those receiving deferred action get a card or certificate showing their status?
A: No, officials said.
Q: Can people granted deferred action visit relatives in their native country and come back to the U.S.?
A: No, the grant doesn’t confer any new right to leave and re-enter the U.S. from a foreign country.
[WSJ, Sat.-Sun., June 16-17, 2012; "U.S. to Stop Deporting Some Illegal Immigrants", page A1 and A5; and see the book, "THE IMMIGRATION PARADOX: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases", by former U.S. Immigration Judge Charles Jerome Ware]
Friday, June 15, 2012
CYNTHIA McKINNEY (D-Ga.): "The McKinney Affair - Rampaging Racism and a Cowardly [Black] Caucus" (2006)
[Source: Milfuegos, milfuegos.blogspot.com/2006-04-09-archive.html]:
__________________________________________________________
QUOTE (2006-04-09):
Nobody knows better than Black officers that racism is rampant in the Capitol Police force. Of the 1,200 officers, 29 percent are Black, and many still have racial bias suits outstanding. "You have, basically, a renegade police department up here, that’s been operating under the protection of Congress," said Charles J. Ware, an attorney representing the Capitol Black Police Association.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
QUOTE (2006-04-09):
Nobody knows better than Black officers that racism is rampant in the Capitol Police force. Of the 1,200 officers, 29 percent are Black, and many still have racial bias suits outstanding. "You have, basically, a renegade police department up here, that’s been operating under the protection of Congress," said Charles J. Ware, an attorney representing the Capitol Black Police Association.
__________________________________________________________
There are profound lessons to be learned from the ongoing travails
of Congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney (D-GA), under siege by white America at large, the leadership of
her own party, and the chairman of her own caucus.
In the aftermath of McKinney’s run-in with a Capitol Hill police
officer, we have witnessed an orgy of unadulterated defamation that is actually
directed at Black women in general. In rejecting and denouncing McKinney’s
defense, her tormentors demonstrate that the very concept of racial profiling
was never sincerely accepted among most white Americans, and that 9/11 is just
an excuse for undoing decades of legal and political struggles against the
abominable practice.
So virulent and shameless have been the attacks on McKinney –
spewing caricatures of the six-term lawmaker that reflect whites’ own
hallucinatory visions of Black people – it leads us to conclude that racists are
conducting a kind of ritual, an exorcism to cast the “militant Black” out of the
national polity, once and for all. Disgustingly, a number of Black voices have
joined mob, in order to prove that they are reasonable and trustworthy Negroes
who won’t intrude on white folks’ illusions of innocence.
Most distressingly, the McKinney affair dramatically demonstrates
that the Congressional Black Caucus CBC has been eviscerated as a body. The CBC is
revealed as collectively gutless, devoid of any semblance of Black solidarity,
without which it has no reason for being.
CBC Hits New Low
[Also read: www.blackcommentator.com/179/179_cover_mckinney_cowardly_caucus.html; www.dailykos.com/story/2006/08/01/232446/-Black-Capitol-Hill-Police-Officers]
CHARLES WARE: From the Baltimore Sun Archives (2002)
["Legal Eagles: Attorney Charles Jerome Ware", July 17, 2002; articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-07-17/news]
Howard High educator alleges `smear' campaign
Mary J. Day, who has served as principal of Howard High School since 1995, names the Howard County Education Association and its president, Joseph R. Staub Jr., and the Maryland State Teachers Association and its union business agent assigned to Howard County, Marius Ambrose in her lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks $1 million in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages for each of several counts alleging breach of contract, negligence and civil conspiracy. The suit also asks for a restraining order prohibiting the defendants from "further illegal acts against her" and repayment of the union dues she has paid to the county and state organizations during her career.
The lawsuit alleges that Staub took a "malice-inspired" "confidence/no confidence survey" in May 2001, asking Howard High teachers to assess Day's performance as a result of concerns that had been raised by union members.
"This campaign by the Defendants was the latest in an ongoing, long-term campaign of using smear tactics and other illegal actions to attack plaintiff Mary J. Day, specifically, and other African-American administrators and teachers in the Howard County Public Schools, generally," the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit also alleges that Ambrose was "directly and indirectly" responsible for complaints filed against Day and that Staub wrote a "misleading, malicious and damaging" letter to the editor for local papers. The lawsuit further alleges that both were trying to distract Day and force school officials to fire her.
Staub said he was told not to comment on the lawsuit until his attorneys had reviewed it. "She has a right to file lawsuits when she wants to. I guess that's why we have attorneys to respond to this kind of thing," he said.
Day referred all questions to her lawyer, Charles Jerome Ware, who did not respond to messages left yesterday.
"2 unions, officials sued by principal"
Howard High educator alleges `smear' campaign
She asks $1.5 million in damages
Howard County
Mary J. Day, who has served as principal of Howard High School since 1995, names the Howard County Education Association and its president, Joseph R. Staub Jr., and the Maryland State Teachers Association and its union business agent assigned to Howard County, Marius Ambrose in her lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks $1 million in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages for each of several counts alleging breach of contract, negligence and civil conspiracy. The suit also asks for a restraining order prohibiting the defendants from "further illegal acts against her" and repayment of the union dues she has paid to the county and state organizations during her career.
The lawsuit alleges that Staub took a "malice-inspired" "confidence/no confidence survey" in May 2001, asking Howard High teachers to assess Day's performance as a result of concerns that had been raised by union members.
"This campaign by the Defendants was the latest in an ongoing, long-term campaign of using smear tactics and other illegal actions to attack plaintiff Mary J. Day, specifically, and other African-American administrators and teachers in the Howard County Public Schools, generally," the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit also alleges that Ambrose was "directly and indirectly" responsible for complaints filed against Day and that Staub wrote a "misleading, malicious and damaging" letter to the editor for local papers. The lawsuit further alleges that both were trying to distract Day and force school officials to fire her.
Staub said he was told not to comment on the lawsuit until his attorneys had reviewed it. "She has a right to file lawsuits when she wants to. I guess that's why we have attorneys to respond to this kind of thing," he said.
Day referred all questions to her lawyer, Charles Jerome Ware, who did not respond to messages left yesterday.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
CHARLES WARE: From the Baltimore Sun Archives (1991)
Ex-Atlanta mayor's son charges that D.C. police beat him Howard University student Andrew Young Jr. retains Columbia lawyer.
The son of former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young is charging that officers of the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington yanked him from his car and severely beat him during an incident early Sunday, his attorney says.
Andrew Young Jr., 18, a freshman at Howard University, told attorney Charles Jerome Ware yesterday that five or six officers attacked him near the university and broke his leg.
The attorney, who practices in Columbia and Washington, said he expects Young to file police brutality charges against the officers this week with the District's civilian complaint review board.
[Source: articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/howard-university]
The son of former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young is charging that officers of the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington yanked him from his car and severely beat him during an incident early Sunday, his attorney says.
Andrew Young Jr., 18, a freshman at Howard University, told attorney Charles Jerome Ware yesterday that five or six officers attacked him near the university and broke his leg.
The attorney, who practices in Columbia and Washington, said he expects Young to file police brutality charges against the officers this week with the District's civilian complaint review board.
[Source: articles.baltimoresun.com/keyword/howard-university]
DENTAL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE VERDICTS: Legal Updates for June 2012
[Columbia, Howard County, Maryland; June 13th, 2012]
(1) $17,426,000 VERDICT: Dental malpractice - Failure to halt tooth extraction upon multiple drops in blood pressure - Stroke - Brain damage - Attendant care required.
The plaintiff was a 49-year-old veteran who suffered a debilitating stroke after leaving the office of an oral surgery resident employed by the veterans’ administration. The plaintiff brought suit against the United States alleging that the veterans’ administration oral surgeon committed dental malpractice by failing to halt the tooth extraction when the plaintiff’s blood pressure dropped sharply.
U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania (186348)
(2) Over $1,000,000 VERDICT:
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – DENTAL – SEVERANCE OF LINGUAL NERVE DURING REMOVAL OF WISDOM TOOTH – PERMANENT PARASTHESIA TO ONE HALF OF TONGUE AND FLOOR OF MOUTH – LOSS OF TASTE – SEVERE PAIN UPON TONGUE CONTACTING AREA OF EXTRACTION.
(1) $17,426,000 VERDICT: Dental malpractice - Failure to halt tooth extraction upon multiple drops in blood pressure - Stroke - Brain damage - Attendant care required.
The plaintiff was a 49-year-old veteran who suffered a debilitating stroke after leaving the office of an oral surgery resident employed by the veterans’ administration. The plaintiff brought suit against the United States alleging that the veterans’ administration oral surgeon committed dental malpractice by failing to halt the tooth extraction when the plaintiff’s blood pressure dropped sharply.
U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Pennsylvania (186348)
(2) Over $1,000,000 VERDICT:
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – DENTAL – SEVERANCE OF LINGUAL NERVE DURING REMOVAL OF WISDOM TOOTH – PERMANENT PARASTHESIA TO ONE HALF OF TONGUE AND FLOOR OF MOUTH – LOSS OF TASTE – SEVERE PAIN UPON TONGUE CONTACTING AREA OF EXTRACTION.
In this dental malpractice action, the plaintiff, in her mid-20s, who underwent the extraction of a wisdom tooth, contended that the defendant dentist negligently transected the lingual nerve during the procedure. The plaintiff contended that as a result, she suffered permanent paresthesia to the right side of the tongue and to the right side of the floor of the mouth.
Hudson County, NJ (186055)
(3) Up to $499,999 VERDICT:
Medical Malpractice – Dental – negligent extraction of additional teeth from agreed upon dental plan – Liability admitted – Damages disputed.
In this dental malpractice matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant dentist was negligent in extracting additional teeth other than those agreed upon and to which the plaintiff had given informed consent. The defendant admitted liability but disputed the plaintiff’s allegations of damages.
Essex County, MA (185835)
(4) Up to $99,999
CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY FOLLOWING MEDIATION: Medical Malpractice – Dental – Failure to inform – Breach of warranty – Negligent performance of procedures – Plaintiff alleges substandard dental care and fraudulent insurance billing by the defendant – Cavities and substantial periodontal breakdown.
In this dental negligence matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant dentist failed to properly perform dental work which resulted in the necessity for additional work and billing of the plaintiff and her insurance company. Further, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to properly inform her of the work he was performing and fraudulently billed her and her insurance company.
(Withheld County) MA (185901)
(5) Up to $99,999
CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY Medical Malpractice – Dental – Woman sues after an infected jaw leaves her with parasthesia – Parasthesia of the lip.
In this matter, a woman sued her endodontist after an apicoectomy left her with paresthesia of the lip and cheek. She brought suit for a failure to do follow-up X-rays prior to the subject procedure. The defendant denied a second X-ray would have displayed the problem infection or changed the outcome.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County (186017)
[WWW.CHARLESJEROMEWARE.COM; the lawyersmailbox.blogspot.com; charlesware.blogspot.com; open.salon.com/blog/charlesjware; www.jvra.com/verdict, 6/13/2012]
SUNTRUST SETTLES $21 MILLION U.S. BIAS COMPLAINT
"At the core of the [discrimination] complaint is a simple story: If you were African-American or Latino, you likely paid more for a SunTrust [home] loan than a similarly qualified white borrower simply because of your skin color... you paid what amounted to a racial surtax that ranged from hundreds to thousands of dollars" --- Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
Richmond, Virginia-based SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. has agreed to pay $21 million to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit alleging biased and predatory home lending practices against African-Americans and Latinos.
It is the second-largest fair lending [Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act] settlement ever obtained by the U.S. Department of Justice. The largest settlement occurred in 2011 with the record $335 million fair-lending settlement with Countrywide, a subsidiary of Bank of America.
The Justice Department's complaint against SunTrust was filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia and alleged that SunTrust Mortgage had charged more than 20,000 Black and Hispanic home loan borrowers more than similarly qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers between 2005-2009.
Minority borrowers in 75 geographic markets stretching from Virginia Beach to San Francisco paid more in loan fees or higher interest rates based solely on race or national origin, according to the complaint.
As part of the settlement SunTrust, like Bank of America's Countrywide, is required to adopt policies that would prevent discrimination in the future.
[Maryland Lawyer, Monday, June 4, 2012; Huffington Post, June 14, 2012; jurist.org/paperchasenewsburst, Friday, June 1, 2012; www.cleveland.com/business/SunTrust/ May 31, 2012]
Richmond, Virginia-based SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. has agreed to pay $21 million to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit alleging biased and predatory home lending practices against African-Americans and Latinos.
It is the second-largest fair lending [Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act] settlement ever obtained by the U.S. Department of Justice. The largest settlement occurred in 2011 with the record $335 million fair-lending settlement with Countrywide, a subsidiary of Bank of America.
The Justice Department's complaint against SunTrust was filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia and alleged that SunTrust Mortgage had charged more than 20,000 Black and Hispanic home loan borrowers more than similarly qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers between 2005-2009.
Minority borrowers in 75 geographic markets stretching from Virginia Beach to San Francisco paid more in loan fees or higher interest rates based solely on race or national origin, according to the complaint.
As part of the settlement SunTrust, like Bank of America's Countrywide, is required to adopt policies that would prevent discrimination in the future.
[Maryland Lawyer, Monday, June 4, 2012; Huffington Post, June 14, 2012; jurist.org/paperchasenewsburst, Friday, June 1, 2012; www.cleveland.com/business/SunTrust/ May 31, 2012]
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
"CHRISTIAN CANDY CANE": U.S. Supreme Court Throws Out Case
The U.S. Supreme Court this past Monday, June 11th, 2012, declined to hear the so-called "Christian Candy Cane" case out of Plano, Texas.
The case, Morgan, et al. v. Swanson, et al., No. 09-40373 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), follows an earlier decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that two Plano, Texas school principals accused of restricting the free speech of elementary students were shielded from being sued based upon the defense of qualified immunity.
The case began in 2004 when self-described evangelical elementary students from the Plano Independent School District (Plano ISD) and their parents filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Plano ISD and some of its employees based on claims that elementary school administrators restricted their rights to free speech by prohibiting the students from distributing religious-themed gifts at their schools, such as candy=cane shaped pens along with a card which read, "So, every time you see a candy cane, remember the message of the candy maker: Jesus Is The Christ!"
In other instances, the school principals prevented students from distributing "Passion of the Christ" play )theater) tickets and pencils with the message, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" on public school grounds.
In 2011, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the principals were within their rights in stopping the candy canes, but also found restrictions on student speech unconstitutional.
The principals were exempt under "qualified immunity," which protects government officials from violating a law that is not "clearly established."
The Supreme Court's decision not to intervene means that ruling stands.
[www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-supreme-court; June 11, 2012; www.baptiststandard.com/index.php, June 13, 2012]
The case, Morgan, et al. v. Swanson, et al., No. 09-40373 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), follows an earlier decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that two Plano, Texas school principals accused of restricting the free speech of elementary students were shielded from being sued based upon the defense of qualified immunity.
The case began in 2004 when self-described evangelical elementary students from the Plano Independent School District (Plano ISD) and their parents filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Plano ISD and some of its employees based on claims that elementary school administrators restricted their rights to free speech by prohibiting the students from distributing religious-themed gifts at their schools, such as candy=cane shaped pens along with a card which read, "So, every time you see a candy cane, remember the message of the candy maker: Jesus Is The Christ!"
In other instances, the school principals prevented students from distributing "Passion of the Christ" play )theater) tickets and pencils with the message, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" on public school grounds.
In 2011, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the principals were within their rights in stopping the candy canes, but also found restrictions on student speech unconstitutional.
The principals were exempt under "qualified immunity," which protects government officials from violating a law that is not "clearly established."
The Supreme Court's decision not to intervene means that ruling stands.
[www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-supreme-court; June 11, 2012; www.baptiststandard.com/index.php, June 13, 2012]
WELLS FARGO: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACK COMMUNITIES
Beth Jacobson, a former top subprime-loan broker for Wells Fargo, now works to help consumers whose homes are subject to foreclosure because of shoddy Wells Fargo mortgages.
For nearly ten years, Ms. Jacobson worked as a highly successful insider at Wells Fargo --- becoming rich --- as the bank targeted black communities for shoddy home mortgages in such urban areas as Baltimore City, Prince Georges County, and Washington, D.C., among others.
In her scathing sworn court testimony (Affidavit) against Wells Fargo's discriminatory lending practices in heavily black communities, Beth Jacobson describes, among other things, watching Wells Fargo loan officers comb through heavily black communities such as Baltimore and Prince George's County, forging relationship with churches and community groups to sell their members shoddy and predatory mortgages. Her testimony is a key component of the groundbreaking civil lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore against Wells Fargo for its discriminatory and predatory mortgage lending practices: Mayor and City Council of Baltimore versus Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc., Civil No. JFM1: 08CV-00062, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (2009).
The city of Baltimore case against Wells Fargo has spawned several copycat lawsuits across the country against the lender, and federal law enforcement regulators have launched several investigations with similar allegations.
For nearly ten years, Ms. Jacobson worked as a highly successful insider at Wells Fargo --- becoming rich --- as the bank targeted black communities for shoddy home mortgages in such urban areas as Baltimore City, Prince Georges County, and Washington, D.C., among others.
In her scathing sworn court testimony (Affidavit) against Wells Fargo's discriminatory lending practices in heavily black communities, Beth Jacobson describes, among other things, watching Wells Fargo loan officers comb through heavily black communities such as Baltimore and Prince George's County, forging relationship with churches and community groups to sell their members shoddy and predatory mortgages. Her testimony is a key component of the groundbreaking civil lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore against Wells Fargo for its discriminatory and predatory mortgage lending practices: Mayor and City Council of Baltimore versus Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc., Civil No. JFM1: 08CV-00062, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (2009).
The city of Baltimore case against Wells Fargo has spawned several copycat lawsuits across the country against the lender, and federal law enforcement regulators have launched several investigations with similar allegations.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
CLIENTS SCHEDULE UPDATES:
Deepak Chopra: "Journey into Healing", Mind-Body Wellness Workshop, August 16-19, 2012; The Chopra Center, Carlsbad, California.
Danny Glover: "Lethal Weapon", Spike TV; Sunday, June 17th, 2012.
Charles Ware: The Washington Economic Club; Friday, August 3rd, 2012; Washington, D.C.
Charles Ware: GRAND ROUNDS, Johns Hopkins University Medicine; "The Marriage of Current Law with Contemporary Medicine"; Wednesday, November 7th, 2012; Baltimore, Maryland.
Danny Glover: "Lethal Weapon", Spike TV; Sunday, June 17th, 2012.
Charles Ware: The Washington Economic Club; Friday, August 3rd, 2012; Washington, D.C.
Charles Ware: GRAND ROUNDS, Johns Hopkins University Medicine; "The Marriage of Current Law with Contemporary Medicine"; Wednesday, November 7th, 2012; Baltimore, Maryland.
Attorney Charles Ware Speaks: The Washington Economic Club
Attorney Charles Ware Speaks: The Washington Economic Club
Friday August 3rd, 2012; Washington, D.C.
Monday, June 11, 2012
"BATH SALTS": Imminent Threat To Public Safety
The drug commonly known as "bath salts" has become so frighteningly powerful that medical experts are now saying it creates "zombie-like" effects on users.
"Bath salts", a so-called designer drug, also goes by such colorful street names as "Bliss", "Vanilla Sky", "Ivory Wave" and "Purple Wave".
Citing an "imminent threat to public safety", the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), in October 2011, made illegal the possession and sale of 3 of the chemical ingredients commonly used to make bath salts: the synthetic stimulants mephredone, MDPV, and methylone. The ban is, for now, effective for one year.
Traffickers of "bath salts" market or sell this dangerous drug on the street under this name ("bath salts") and cunningly label the drug "not for human consumption" as a devious way of avoiding the drug being specifically labelled as illegal.
The bottom line for this powerful drug is that it is extremely dangerous when ingested. Typical symptoms include: (1) agitation, (2) paranoia, (3) hallucination, (4) chest pain, (5) suicidal tendencies, (6) high blood pressure, (7) increased pulse rate, (8) outright aggressiveness, and (9) psychoses.
Thousands of calls all over the United States have been made, and are being made on a daily basis, to poison centers because of the dangerous use of bath salts.
[www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/bath-salts; wbaltv.com/6/11/2012/experts:BathSalts; www.street-insider.com/Presses+Releases]
What do you think?
"Bath salts", a so-called designer drug, also goes by such colorful street names as "Bliss", "Vanilla Sky", "Ivory Wave" and "Purple Wave".
Citing an "imminent threat to public safety", the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), in October 2011, made illegal the possession and sale of 3 of the chemical ingredients commonly used to make bath salts: the synthetic stimulants mephredone, MDPV, and methylone. The ban is, for now, effective for one year.
Traffickers of "bath salts" market or sell this dangerous drug on the street under this name ("bath salts") and cunningly label the drug "not for human consumption" as a devious way of avoiding the drug being specifically labelled as illegal.
The bottom line for this powerful drug is that it is extremely dangerous when ingested. Typical symptoms include: (1) agitation, (2) paranoia, (3) hallucination, (4) chest pain, (5) suicidal tendencies, (6) high blood pressure, (7) increased pulse rate, (8) outright aggressiveness, and (9) psychoses.
Thousands of calls all over the United States have been made, and are being made on a daily basis, to poison centers because of the dangerous use of bath salts.
[www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/bath-salts; wbaltv.com/6/11/2012/experts:BathSalts; www.street-insider.com/Presses+Releases]
What do you think?
STOCKS WATCH: June 11-15, 2012
The following are 10 stocks to watch in the week ahead, as listed and recommended by Stock Scouter's, money.msn.com/stock-broker-guided/10stock-to-watch-in-the-week-ahead.aspx; 6/7/2012; MSN Money Staff. There are, of course, other stocks to watch as well, but these are the 10 stocks recommended by MSN Money, as referenced:
- CA(CA). Information Technology/Dividend Yield: 3.9%/ Forward p/E: 10/Stock Scouter's score: 10 out of 10.
- Cisco Systems (CSCO). Network Equipment/1.9%/9.6/10 out of 10.
- Huntington Bancshares (HBAN). Banking/2.6%/9.4/10 out of 10.
- Apple (AAPL). Hardware and Software/N/A/10/5/10 out of 10.
- Broadcom (BRCM). Semiconductors/1.2%/15/10 out of 10.
- Oracle (ORCL). Software/0.9%/10.7/10 out of 10.
- Symantec (SYMC). Computer Security/N/A/8.7/10 out of 10.
- McDonald's (MCD). Fast Food Restaurants/3.2%/14.1/9 out of 10.
- Wal-Mart Stores (WMT). Discount Retail/2.4%/12.3/9 out of 10.
and
- Abbot Laboratories (ABT). Healthcare/3.3%/11.4/9 out of 10.
[Note: We make no recommendations either way regarding these stocks nor any other stocks]
- CA(CA). Information Technology/Dividend Yield: 3.9%/ Forward p/E: 10/Stock Scouter's score: 10 out of 10.
- Cisco Systems (CSCO). Network Equipment/1.9%/9.6/10 out of 10.
- Huntington Bancshares (HBAN). Banking/2.6%/9.4/10 out of 10.
- Apple (AAPL). Hardware and Software/N/A/10/5/10 out of 10.
- Broadcom (BRCM). Semiconductors/1.2%/15/10 out of 10.
- Oracle (ORCL). Software/0.9%/10.7/10 out of 10.
- Symantec (SYMC). Computer Security/N/A/8.7/10 out of 10.
- McDonald's (MCD). Fast Food Restaurants/3.2%/14.1/9 out of 10.
- Wal-Mart Stores (WMT). Discount Retail/2.4%/12.3/9 out of 10.
and
- Abbot Laboratories (ABT). Healthcare/3.3%/11.4/9 out of 10.
[Note: We make no recommendations either way regarding these stocks nor any other stocks]
CHARLES WARE: Grand Rounds, Johns Hopkins University Medicine
Seminar: "The Marriage of Current Law with Contemporary Medicine", Speaker: Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, 10:00 AM, Wednesday, November 7th, 2012; Johns Hopkins University Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Friday, June 8, 2012
PROFITING FROM THE GREAT GREEK TRAGEDY OF 2012
[From WSJ, Tuesday, June 5th, 2012]:
Henry Dunant Hospital, a gleaming, state-of-the-art facility in central Athens, is one of the best medical centers in Greece. But ... the hospital's 1,150 employees, doctors included, have yet to be paid any of their 2012 salaries. Employees just received the final payment of their 2011 salaries at the end of May ...
Henry Dunant is one of a sharply growing number of Greek institutions and companies that aren't paying because they haven't been paid. Many employees aren't receiving their salaries -- certainly not on time and sometimes not at all. Businesses aren't paying each other. And the government isn't paying its suppliers or refunds owed to taxpayers. ... 'What is happening in this hospital is a microcosm of what is happening in Greece.'
[From The Motley Fool, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/06/06/how-to-profit-from-the-great-greek-bankruptcy-of-.aspx]:
There are parallels between Greece in 2012 and Russia 14 years ago in 1998.
The Great Russian Default of 1998
When the Russian president went on national television on Aug. 14, 1998, and "firmly and clearly" declared that there would be no devaluation of the ruble, we knew we were in trouble. (Governments don't often "firmly and clearly" deny something unless they're actually seriously considering it.)
Therefore, it was no great surprise when, three days after the denial, Russia devalued the ruble, defaulted on its debts, and declared a moratorium on all payments to foreign creditors. Within two weeks, the ruble had lost two-thirds of its value. Banks collapsed, savings accounts were vaporized, and price inflation soared to 84% by year-end. As for the Russian stock market, the RTS Exchange had already started sliding in anticipation of the default ... but within six months had fallen a further 67%.
After the fall
In a thinly veiled warning from the Wall Street establishment last month, the Wall Street Journal complained that: "The idea that the money that has flowed out of Greece would flow back post-devaluation is fanciful, particularly given the current political instability." Likewise, 14 years ago, angry creditors warned Russia to forget about accessing international capital markets "for decades." ("You'll never work in this town again!") But greed is a funny thing.
Situated atop rich reserves of oil, natural gas, platinum, gold, and all sorts of other tasty commodities, Russia proved a prize bankers could not resist. And with its newly devalued currency, the ruble, making imports unaffordable, and exports incredibly cheap, it wasn't long before Russia was once again rolling in foreign-exchange reserves -- a fact investors were quick to notice.
Working off of a lowly base of 38 points, the RTS rebounded quickly. Within a year, it nearly quadrupled to hit 146 ... before continuing to shoot straight up. 750 points (April 2004). 1,740 (May 2006). And ultimately, 2,500 points (May 2008).
Granted, Russia's stock market has come down a bit since. Whose hasn't? But at last report, the Russian RTS Exchange was hovering around 1,240, a 3,200% increase off its post-default lows.
Could it happen again, in Greece? The parallels are all there: Crushing debt. Economic dysfunction. A mathematical impossibility of making good on obligations to foreign creditors. Greek Socialist leader Alexis Tsipras looks at all these troubles, and sees only one solution: surrender. Default on the country's debts, exit the euro, and revert to a default (pun intended) currency, the drachma, instead.
But what happens then? Relieved of its debt burden -- whether through outright default, or by conversion of euro-denominated obligations into drachmae that Greece could print at will -- Greece might finally win itself some breathing room.
With its currency devalued, the cost of Greek goods would swiftly decline to the point where they could compete on the international mar ket. Businesses would thrive and hiring turn upward. It seems only logical that the Greek stock market would follow suit.
So how can investors position themselves to profit from all this, if events play out according to plan? First and foremost: with patience. The Athens Stock Exchange Index has fallen far already -- down about 63% over the past year. But Russia's RTS Exchange took a pounding prior to its default, too, and that didn't save it from sliding further post-default.
The low P/E ratios on stocks like National Bank of Greece (NYS: NBG) or Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling (NYS: CCH) may tempt investors today, but have no doubt: They could get even cheaper in the event of an official exit from the euro. A "Grexit" could likewise spark selling of foreign-listed but Athens-based shipping companies such as DryShips (NAS: DRYS) , Diana Shipping (NYS: DSX) , and Excel Maritime (NYS: EXM) .
[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/06/06/how-to-profit-from-the-great-greek-bankruptcy-of-.aspx]
Henry Dunant Hospital, a gleaming, state-of-the-art facility in central Athens, is one of the best medical centers in Greece. But ... the hospital's 1,150 employees, doctors included, have yet to be paid any of their 2012 salaries. Employees just received the final payment of their 2011 salaries at the end of May ...
Henry Dunant is one of a sharply growing number of Greek institutions and companies that aren't paying because they haven't been paid. Many employees aren't receiving their salaries -- certainly not on time and sometimes not at all. Businesses aren't paying each other. And the government isn't paying its suppliers or refunds owed to taxpayers. ... 'What is happening in this hospital is a microcosm of what is happening in Greece.'
[From The Motley Fool, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/06/06/how-to-profit-from-the-great-greek-bankruptcy-of-.aspx]:
There are parallels between Greece in 2012 and Russia 14 years ago in 1998.
The Great Russian Default of 1998
When the Russian president went on national television on Aug. 14, 1998, and "firmly and clearly" declared that there would be no devaluation of the ruble, we knew we were in trouble. (Governments don't often "firmly and clearly" deny something unless they're actually seriously considering it.)
Therefore, it was no great surprise when, three days after the denial, Russia devalued the ruble, defaulted on its debts, and declared a moratorium on all payments to foreign creditors. Within two weeks, the ruble had lost two-thirds of its value. Banks collapsed, savings accounts were vaporized, and price inflation soared to 84% by year-end. As for the Russian stock market, the RTS Exchange had already started sliding in anticipation of the default ... but within six months had fallen a further 67%.
After the fall
In a thinly veiled warning from the Wall Street establishment last month, the Wall Street Journal complained that: "The idea that the money that has flowed out of Greece would flow back post-devaluation is fanciful, particularly given the current political instability." Likewise, 14 years ago, angry creditors warned Russia to forget about accessing international capital markets "for decades." ("You'll never work in this town again!") But greed is a funny thing.
Situated atop rich reserves of oil, natural gas, platinum, gold, and all sorts of other tasty commodities, Russia proved a prize bankers could not resist. And with its newly devalued currency, the ruble, making imports unaffordable, and exports incredibly cheap, it wasn't long before Russia was once again rolling in foreign-exchange reserves -- a fact investors were quick to notice.
Working off of a lowly base of 38 points, the RTS rebounded quickly. Within a year, it nearly quadrupled to hit 146 ... before continuing to shoot straight up. 750 points (April 2004). 1,740 (May 2006). And ultimately, 2,500 points (May 2008).
Granted, Russia's stock market has come down a bit since. Whose hasn't? But at last report, the Russian RTS Exchange was hovering around 1,240, a 3,200% increase off its post-default lows.
Could it happen again, in Greece? The parallels are all there: Crushing debt. Economic dysfunction. A mathematical impossibility of making good on obligations to foreign creditors. Greek Socialist leader Alexis Tsipras looks at all these troubles, and sees only one solution: surrender. Default on the country's debts, exit the euro, and revert to a default (pun intended) currency, the drachma, instead.
But what happens then? Relieved of its debt burden -- whether through outright default, or by conversion of euro-denominated obligations into drachmae that Greece could print at will -- Greece might finally win itself some breathing room.
With its currency devalued, the cost of Greek goods would swiftly decline to the point where they could compete on the international mar ket. Businesses would thrive and hiring turn upward. It seems only logical that the Greek stock market would follow suit.
So how can investors position themselves to profit from all this, if events play out according to plan? First and foremost: with patience. The Athens Stock Exchange Index has fallen far already -- down about 63% over the past year. But Russia's RTS Exchange took a pounding prior to its default, too, and that didn't save it from sliding further post-default.
The low P/E ratios on stocks like National Bank of Greece (NYS: NBG) or Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling (NYS: CCH) may tempt investors today, but have no doubt: They could get even cheaper in the event of an official exit from the euro. A "Grexit" could likewise spark selling of foreign-listed but Athens-based shipping companies such as DryShips (NAS: DRYS) , Diana Shipping (NYS: DSX) , and Excel Maritime (NYS: EXM) .
[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/06/06/how-to-profit-from-the-great-greek-bankruptcy-of-.aspx]
MAJOR NFL RETIREES "CONCUSSION" LAWSUIT IN PHILADELPHIA
In the continuing battle between retired National Football League (NFL) players and the League, more than 2,300 retired players in 86 ongoing lawsuits have consolidated their efforts for relief into on major complaint filed on Thursday, June 7th, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia.
The new lawsuit highlights the dangers of head injuries and alleges that the NFL, for decades, hid the risks of these injuries to players and ignored mounting evidence of the long-term effects that head concussions can have on players, including dementia and chronic depression.
A panel of federal judges in January 2012 directed the NFL-retiree plaintiffs to consolidate all of the 86 or so lawsuits together into a single civil complaint, the one filed on Thursday in Philadelphia where a large number of these actions have already been brought.
The new federal civil lawsuit seeks the following from the NFL: coverage of the health-care costs, unspecified monetary damages, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action status (as well as 28 USCA § 1332 (d)).
The NFL has until August 9th, 2012 to move for dismissal of the lawsuit, or otherwise answer it. The League may request an extension of time in which to respond to the complaint since, as NFL officials allegedly state, the League wants to settle this matter through collective bargaining.
[WSJ, Friday, 6/8/2012; msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/over-2k-ex-players]
The new lawsuit highlights the dangers of head injuries and alleges that the NFL, for decades, hid the risks of these injuries to players and ignored mounting evidence of the long-term effects that head concussions can have on players, including dementia and chronic depression.
A panel of federal judges in January 2012 directed the NFL-retiree plaintiffs to consolidate all of the 86 or so lawsuits together into a single civil complaint, the one filed on Thursday in Philadelphia where a large number of these actions have already been brought.
The new federal civil lawsuit seeks the following from the NFL: coverage of the health-care costs, unspecified monetary damages, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action status (as well as 28 USCA § 1332 (d)).
The NFL has until August 9th, 2012 to move for dismissal of the lawsuit, or otherwise answer it. The League may request an extension of time in which to respond to the complaint since, as NFL officials allegedly state, the League wants to settle this matter through collective bargaining.
[WSJ, Friday, 6/8/2012; msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/over-2k-ex-players]
Thursday, June 7, 2012
GAMBLING IN MARYLAND: Update
As observers, we were among several thousand curiosity-seekers, high-rollers and regular gambling-types who attended the "Maryland Live" casino opening at Arundel Mills shopping center in Anne Arundel County, Maryland last evening (Wednesday, June 6th, 2012).
Among the huge crowd in attendance at the casino's grand opening were dozens of legislators and other elected officials, numerous and various dignitaries, and of course the media; "all-in" to celebrate and participate in the facility's new slots, electronic table games, new eateries, and other entertainment.
Many at the event went home in frustration because they could not get in because of the huge crowds in attendance. The capacity for the new "Maryland Live" casino is 15,000 people.
No more trips to Atlantic City, New Jersey or Dover, Delaware said many in attendance.
The "Maryland Live" casino sits on 12 acres, will eventually house more than 4,700 slot machines, utilized 160,000 square feet for gaming, and is, right now, one of the largest casinos in the United States.
[www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/maryland-live-draws]
Among the huge crowd in attendance at the casino's grand opening were dozens of legislators and other elected officials, numerous and various dignitaries, and of course the media; "all-in" to celebrate and participate in the facility's new slots, electronic table games, new eateries, and other entertainment.
Many at the event went home in frustration because they could not get in because of the huge crowds in attendance. The capacity for the new "Maryland Live" casino is 15,000 people.
No more trips to Atlantic City, New Jersey or Dover, Delaware said many in attendance.
The "Maryland Live" casino sits on 12 acres, will eventually house more than 4,700 slot machines, utilized 160,000 square feet for gaming, and is, right now, one of the largest casinos in the United States.
[www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/maryland-live-draws]
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Supreme Court Rejects Cheney Critic's Lawsuit
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man who said Secret Service agents arrested him in retaliation for criticizing former Vice President Dick Cheney to his face.
Steven Howards had touched Mr. Cheney on the shoulder during the 2006 encounter in a Colorado shopping mall, then denied doing so when questioned by a Secret Service agent, Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle.
In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that the agents couldn't be sued because they had probable cause to arrest Mr. Howards for lying to a federal agent. It was unclear whether the arrest violated Mr. Howards's right to free speech, the court said.
The court chose not to answer the underlying question of whether retaliatory arrests in such circumstances actually do violate the First Amendment, deciding only that the state of the law remains uncertain, and therefore law-enforcement officers can't be sued.
The vote was 8-0. Justice Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general during earlier stages of the case, recused herself.
Under Supreme Court precedent, federal officials can be sued in some circumstances for violating an individual's rights. But the justices haven't made it easy, granting "qualified immunity" to officials unless prior case law "clearly established" that they would be liable for their contested acts.
"This Court has never recognized a First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause; nor was such a right otherwise clearly established at the time of Howards' arrest," Justice Thomas wrote.
Even if an officer held "animus" toward a suspect's speech, there still could be legitimate reason to arrest him, the court said. The suspect's remarks could provide "evidence of a crime or [suggest] a potential threat," Justice Thomas wrote.
The qualified-immunity principle "protects the balance between vindication of constitutional rights and government officials' performance of their duties by ensuring" that authorities don't hold back from fear of lawsuits, he continued.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with the result for narrower reasons, citing the "on the spot" decisions Secret Service officers must make.
In a different context, the qualified immunity doctrine has shielded several Bush administration officials from lawsuits over what plaintiffs contend were abuses of authority after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Last month a federal appeals court in San Francisco dismissed a lawsuit filed by inmate Jose Padilla—once classified as an enemy combatant and held in a military brig—against former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo. The suit alleged that Mr. Yoo told officials to violate Mr. Padilla's rights through coercive interrogation methods and harsh conditions of confinement. Mr. Yoo has said he stands by his opinion and has done nothing wrong.
Monday's case began in June 2006, when Mr. Howards was talking on his cellphone in a mall near Vail, Colo., and saw Mr. Cheney greeting shoppers.
"Mr. Howards stated into his cellphone, 'I'm going to ask him [Mr. Cheney] how many kids he's killed today,'" according to a lower-court account. A Secret Service agent heard the remark, and agents watched Mr. Howards approach the vice president and call his Iraq policy "disgusting."
"Thank you," Mr. Cheney replied.
"As he departed, Mr. Howards touched the vice president's right shoulder with his open hand," the court said, noting some dispute over whether it was an "open-handed pat" or a "slap." When questioned later by agents, Mr. Howards denied having touched the vice president, something he later admitted was untrue.
Mr. Howards was held for several hours by the local sheriff and charged with harassment. The case was later dropped.
The court also refused to review the bribery convictions of former HealthSouth Corp. Chairman Richard Scrushy and ex-Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman after their second appeal.
The defendants were convicted in 2006 based on allegations that Mr. Scrushy gave $500,000 in contributions to a campaign for a state lottery that Mr. Siegelman favored in exchange for a seat on a state health-care board. Mr. Scrushy contended that the case raised First Amendment concerns because he was convicted based on his financial contributions to a campaign.
[WSJ, Tuesday, A4, 6-5-2012]
Steven Howards had touched Mr. Cheney on the shoulder during the 2006 encounter in a Colorado shopping mall, then denied doing so when questioned by a Secret Service agent, Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle.
In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that the agents couldn't be sued because they had probable cause to arrest Mr. Howards for lying to a federal agent. It was unclear whether the arrest violated Mr. Howards's right to free speech, the court said.
The court chose not to answer the underlying question of whether retaliatory arrests in such circumstances actually do violate the First Amendment, deciding only that the state of the law remains uncertain, and therefore law-enforcement officers can't be sued.
The vote was 8-0. Justice Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general during earlier stages of the case, recused herself.
Under Supreme Court precedent, federal officials can be sued in some circumstances for violating an individual's rights. But the justices haven't made it easy, granting "qualified immunity" to officials unless prior case law "clearly established" that they would be liable for their contested acts.
"This Court has never recognized a First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause; nor was such a right otherwise clearly established at the time of Howards' arrest," Justice Thomas wrote.
Even if an officer held "animus" toward a suspect's speech, there still could be legitimate reason to arrest him, the court said. The suspect's remarks could provide "evidence of a crime or [suggest] a potential threat," Justice Thomas wrote.
The qualified-immunity principle "protects the balance between vindication of constitutional rights and government officials' performance of their duties by ensuring" that authorities don't hold back from fear of lawsuits, he continued.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with the result for narrower reasons, citing the "on the spot" decisions Secret Service officers must make.
In a different context, the qualified immunity doctrine has shielded several Bush administration officials from lawsuits over what plaintiffs contend were abuses of authority after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Last month a federal appeals court in San Francisco dismissed a lawsuit filed by inmate Jose Padilla—once classified as an enemy combatant and held in a military brig—against former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo. The suit alleged that Mr. Yoo told officials to violate Mr. Padilla's rights through coercive interrogation methods and harsh conditions of confinement. Mr. Yoo has said he stands by his opinion and has done nothing wrong.
Monday's case began in June 2006, when Mr. Howards was talking on his cellphone in a mall near Vail, Colo., and saw Mr. Cheney greeting shoppers.
"Mr. Howards stated into his cellphone, 'I'm going to ask him [Mr. Cheney] how many kids he's killed today,'" according to a lower-court account. A Secret Service agent heard the remark, and agents watched Mr. Howards approach the vice president and call his Iraq policy "disgusting."
"Thank you," Mr. Cheney replied.
"As he departed, Mr. Howards touched the vice president's right shoulder with his open hand," the court said, noting some dispute over whether it was an "open-handed pat" or a "slap." When questioned later by agents, Mr. Howards denied having touched the vice president, something he later admitted was untrue.
Mr. Howards was held for several hours by the local sheriff and charged with harassment. The case was later dropped.
The court also refused to review the bribery convictions of former HealthSouth Corp. Chairman Richard Scrushy and ex-Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman after their second appeal.
The defendants were convicted in 2006 based on allegations that Mr. Scrushy gave $500,000 in contributions to a campaign for a state lottery that Mr. Siegelman favored in exchange for a seat on a state health-care board. Mr. Scrushy contended that the case raised First Amendment concerns because he was convicted based on his financial contributions to a campaign.
[WSJ, Tuesday, A4, 6-5-2012]
Monday, June 4, 2012
NATIONAL LEGAL NEWS SUMMARY
Question: What do you think about the following news stories?
(1) "George Zimmerman, killer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, ordered to return to jail."
Florida state judge Kenneth Lester, Jr. on Friday, June 1st, 2012 revoked the $150,000 bond of killer George Zimmerman, a self-professed "neighborhood-watch volunteer", who has been charged with murder in the shooting death of unarmed 17-year old teenager Trayvon Martin. The judge has ordered Zimmerman to surrender to law enforcement authorities within 48 hours.
Prosecutors filed a motion asking Judge Lester for the revocation, arguing that Mr. Zimmerman and his wife deceived the court about their access to money raised by a website he set up.
During the hearing, Mr. Zimmerman's attorney described his client's actions as an "innocent misunderstanding," rather than a devious attempt to mislead the court.
Prosecutors also raised questions about a second U.S. passport that Mr. Zimmerman failed to surrender, but the judge dismissed their concerns because it was in Zimmerman's defense attorney's possession, and his defense attorney volunteered that it was his fault for failing to submit passport via his oversight.
Mr. Zimmerman, 28 years old, has been charged with second-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin at a townhouse complex in Sanford, Fla., in February. He has pleaded not guilty, claiming he acted in self-defense, and has been living in an undisclosed location.
Mr. Zimmerman, who was ordered to turn himself in to the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, is expected to return to jail while he awaits a hearing to explain himself to the court. At that point, the judge could decide against granting bond or set it higher. Bond had been set at $150,000.
At an April 20 bond hearing, Mr. Zimmerman's wife testified by phone that she was essentially indigent. Mr. O'Mara made similar claims about Mr. Zimmerman at the hearing.
Yet on Friday, assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda presented evidence showing that at the time of the bond hearing, the couple had more than $135,000 raised through the website.
Mr. de la Rionda said prosecutors reviewed phone calls between the couple made on a recorded line while Mr. Zimmerman was in jail.
[WSJ, Saturday/Sunday, June 2-3, 2012; www.chron.com/news/article/Zimmerman, 6/2/2012; AP, Hightower and Schneider, 6/2/2012]
(2) JOHN EDWARDS: A Politician Only His Children Could Respect?
David Recchion, the jury foreman in the federal campaign-finance trial of former U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards, said this past week (Friday, June 1st, 2012) that most jurors agreed "at a gut-check level" that Edwards was guilty of wrong doing, but they did not have enough evidence to convict him of anything.
After nine days of deliberations at the federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., where the month long trial was held, the jury acquitted the former North Carolina Democratic senator on a count related to a 2008 payment from a longtime donor, banking heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, to an aide of Mr. Edwards who was hiding his mistress and child. Edwards' wife was dying from cancer at the time of his affair with his mistress, Rielle Hunter.
But the jurors couldn't reach a unanimous decision on the other five counts, prompting U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles to declare a mistrial Thursday on those counts, which included a conspiracy charge and two charges related to donations from another wealthy donor, the late Fred Baron. The government is not likely to retry the case, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Recchion, a 51-year-old financial adviser from High Point, N.C., said the jury saw campaign-finance law as murky on whether more than $900,000 from the two wealthy donors was a gift to help Mr. Edwards conceal his affair with former campaign worker Rielle Hunter, or a contribution meant to further Mr. Edwards's political viability.
[newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/LegalNews, 6/1/2012; "The Social Reader", dailycaller.com/buzz/JohnEdwards; WSJ, Saturday/Sunday, June 2-3, 2012]
(3) MENSA: Dr. Lancelot Lionel Ware.
(Born June 5th, 1915; Died August 15, 2000).
English barrister, biochemist, and co-founder of MENSA, the international society for intellectually gifted people.
Happy Birthday!
(4) Client Update: Dr. Deepak Chopra.
Deepak Quotes: "Lightness of being in the body is the best sign of a happy mind."
Dr. Deepak Chopra is an Indian-born American physician, public speaker and prolific writer. He runs his own conglomerate of activities which focus successfully on mind-body medicine.
(1) "George Zimmerman, killer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, ordered to return to jail."
Florida state judge Kenneth Lester, Jr. on Friday, June 1st, 2012 revoked the $150,000 bond of killer George Zimmerman, a self-professed "neighborhood-watch volunteer", who has been charged with murder in the shooting death of unarmed 17-year old teenager Trayvon Martin. The judge has ordered Zimmerman to surrender to law enforcement authorities within 48 hours.
Prosecutors filed a motion asking Judge Lester for the revocation, arguing that Mr. Zimmerman and his wife deceived the court about their access to money raised by a website he set up.
During the hearing, Mr. Zimmerman's attorney described his client's actions as an "innocent misunderstanding," rather than a devious attempt to mislead the court.
Prosecutors also raised questions about a second U.S. passport that Mr. Zimmerman failed to surrender, but the judge dismissed their concerns because it was in Zimmerman's defense attorney's possession, and his defense attorney volunteered that it was his fault for failing to submit passport via his oversight.
Mr. Zimmerman, 28 years old, has been charged with second-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin at a townhouse complex in Sanford, Fla., in February. He has pleaded not guilty, claiming he acted in self-defense, and has been living in an undisclosed location.
Mr. Zimmerman, who was ordered to turn himself in to the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, is expected to return to jail while he awaits a hearing to explain himself to the court. At that point, the judge could decide against granting bond or set it higher. Bond had been set at $150,000.
At an April 20 bond hearing, Mr. Zimmerman's wife testified by phone that she was essentially indigent. Mr. O'Mara made similar claims about Mr. Zimmerman at the hearing.
Yet on Friday, assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda presented evidence showing that at the time of the bond hearing, the couple had more than $135,000 raised through the website.
Mr. de la Rionda said prosecutors reviewed phone calls between the couple made on a recorded line while Mr. Zimmerman was in jail.
[WSJ, Saturday/Sunday, June 2-3, 2012; www.chron.com/news/article/Zimmerman, 6/2/2012; AP, Hightower and Schneider, 6/2/2012]
(2) JOHN EDWARDS: A Politician Only His Children Could Respect?
David Recchion, the jury foreman in the federal campaign-finance trial of former U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards, said this past week (Friday, June 1st, 2012) that most jurors agreed "at a gut-check level" that Edwards was guilty of wrong doing, but they did not have enough evidence to convict him of anything.
After nine days of deliberations at the federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., where the month long trial was held, the jury acquitted the former North Carolina Democratic senator on a count related to a 2008 payment from a longtime donor, banking heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, to an aide of Mr. Edwards who was hiding his mistress and child. Edwards' wife was dying from cancer at the time of his affair with his mistress, Rielle Hunter.
But the jurors couldn't reach a unanimous decision on the other five counts, prompting U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles to declare a mistrial Thursday on those counts, which included a conspiracy charge and two charges related to donations from another wealthy donor, the late Fred Baron. The government is not likely to retry the case, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Recchion, a 51-year-old financial adviser from High Point, N.C., said the jury saw campaign-finance law as murky on whether more than $900,000 from the two wealthy donors was a gift to help Mr. Edwards conceal his affair with former campaign worker Rielle Hunter, or a contribution meant to further Mr. Edwards's political viability.
[newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/LegalNews, 6/1/2012; "The Social Reader", dailycaller.com/buzz/JohnEdwards; WSJ, Saturday/Sunday, June 2-3, 2012]
(3) MENSA: Dr. Lancelot Lionel Ware.
(Born June 5th, 1915; Died August 15, 2000).
English barrister, biochemist, and co-founder of MENSA, the international society for intellectually gifted people.
Happy Birthday!
(4) Client Update: Dr. Deepak Chopra.
Deepak Quotes: "Lightness of being in the body is the best sign of a happy mind."
Dr. Deepak Chopra is an Indian-born American physician, public speaker and prolific writer. He runs his own conglomerate of activities which focus successfully on mind-body medicine.
HUD and CFPB "Spanked" By Supreme Court
[Washington, D.C.; June 4th, 2012]
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a recent unanimous (9-0) decision of Freeman v. Quicken Loans, has struck a major blow to overreaching federal regulatory discretion by agencies.
Writing for High Court, Justice Antonin Scalia expressed the Court's view that the Department of Housing and Urban Development's as well as the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's aggressive assertion of their regulatory authority was "manifestly inconsistent with ["the 1974 federal law known as Respa, for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act"]".
Respa forbids providers of real-estate services—title insurance, appraisals and the like—from taking kickbacks or splitting the fees they receive. In 2001 HUD quietly expanded the law's reach by declaring it wasn't limited to "situations where at least two persons split or share an unearned fee."
The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining in Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion that the little-known 1974 Respa law's text "clearly describes two distinct exchanges", not an exchange of fees of a company with itself.
In the main case, Freeman v. Quicken Loans, three aggrieved married couples (plaintiffs) sued, alleging that Quicken Loans had illegally split fees with itself.
The Solicitor General sided with them, arguing that HUD indeed had the right to interpret the statute, had done so properly, and the Court should give deference to its decision. Also chiming in was the senior litigator from the new consumer protection bureau, who was a signatory to the government's amicus brief on the side of the plaintiffs. (The consumer bureau now enforces Respa, thanks to the federal Dodd-Frank Law).
The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, however, disagreed strongly with this argument, stressing the point that the U.S. Congress makes the laws and the federal bureaucracy implements the laws. Nothing more.
[WSJ, Monday, 6-4-2012]
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a recent unanimous (9-0) decision of Freeman v. Quicken Loans, has struck a major blow to overreaching federal regulatory discretion by agencies.
Writing for High Court, Justice Antonin Scalia expressed the Court's view that the Department of Housing and Urban Development's as well as the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's aggressive assertion of their regulatory authority was "manifestly inconsistent with ["the 1974 federal law known as Respa, for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act"]".
Respa forbids providers of real-estate services—title insurance, appraisals and the like—from taking kickbacks or splitting the fees they receive. In 2001 HUD quietly expanded the law's reach by declaring it wasn't limited to "situations where at least two persons split or share an unearned fee."
The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining in Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion that the little-known 1974 Respa law's text "clearly describes two distinct exchanges", not an exchange of fees of a company with itself.
In the main case, Freeman v. Quicken Loans, three aggrieved married couples (plaintiffs) sued, alleging that Quicken Loans had illegally split fees with itself.
The Solicitor General sided with them, arguing that HUD indeed had the right to interpret the statute, had done so properly, and the Court should give deference to its decision. Also chiming in was the senior litigator from the new consumer protection bureau, who was a signatory to the government's amicus brief on the side of the plaintiffs. (The consumer bureau now enforces Respa, thanks to the federal Dodd-Frank Law).
The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, however, disagreed strongly with this argument, stressing the point that the U.S. Congress makes the laws and the federal bureaucracy implements the laws. Nothing more.
[WSJ, Monday, 6-4-2012]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)