MARYLAND CHURCH LAW & LITIGATION, www.charlesjeromeware.com

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P. A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is headquartered conveniently in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is nationally-renowned and well-respected for its constructive and successful efforts in resolving church law and litigation issues. For a courtesy consultation, please contact us at (410) 730-5016 and (410) 720-6129, or www.charlesjeromeware.com. We are " here to make a difference".

THER ARE AT LEAST 10 LEGAL RISKS FACING CHURCHES AND CHURCH LEADERS IN THE MARYLAND AND THE UNITED STATES TODAY:          

1.  Negligent Selection of Church Workers.
2.  Negligent Retention of Church Staff.
3.  Negligent Supervision of Church Staff and Activities.
4.   Counseling.
5.  Child Abuse Reporting.
6.  Securities Law Violations.
7.  Employment Law.
8.  Undue Influence.
9.  Personal Liability of Church Board Members.
10. Punitive Damages.

Churches should note and remember that they exist in an increasingly litigious and regulated environment that makes an awareness of legal risks more important than ever before. In a recent year, 7 percent of churches having attendance of 1,ooo or more people in attendance at their principal weekly worship service were sued.

[ see, UNDERSTANDING THE LAW: A PRIMER, by Attorney & Author Charles Jerome Ware;
 www.charlesjeromeware.com; enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200401/Richard R. Hammar, Attorney & CPA]

DEFENDING BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT POISONING CASES, www.charlesjeromeware.com

Charles Jerome Ware, P. A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a nationally renowned and respected lead paint poisoning defense law firm that is conveniently headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.

For an initial courtesy consultation , you are encouraged to contact the firm at (410) 730-5016, (410), 720-6129, and www.charlesjeromeware.com. We are " here to make a difference".

DEFENDING BALTIMORE LEAD PAINT POISONING CASES :

Generally, it is believed by many that Baltimore ranks among the more hazardous cities in the United States for lead poisoning.  The figures show that a majority of Baltimore lead paint poisoning cases occur in the Park Heights, Sandtown and Middle East communities. A major reason for this is the large number of older ( pre- 1950, and even pre-1978) houses and other building structures.

When it comes to lead paint poisoning exposure all of Baltimore City, as well as most of the Eastern Shore counties and some of the Western counties, are generally considered to be " at risk areas".

If you have been sued in a lead paint poisoning case, you should know that you DO have defenses.
As experienced and successful professionals in the business of defending property owners, landlords, property managers and other defendants, we can assert these defenses.

The Lawyer's Mailbox: BREAKING NEWS!-- "ICE" AGENCY SHOULD NOT DETAIN A...

The Lawyer's Mailbox: BREAKING NEWS!-- "ICE" AGENCY SHOULD NOT DETAIN A...: From the DESK of Attorney & Author Charles Jerome Ware, former Uniteed States Immigration Judge. Mr. Ware can be reached at www.charlesj...

BREAKING NEWS!-- "ICE" AGENCY SHOULD NOT DETAIN ALIEN PARENTS OF DOCUMENTED CHILDREN,www.charlesjeromeware.com

From the DESK of Attorney & Author Charles Jerome Ware, former Uniteed States Immigration Judge. Mr. Ware can be reached at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016. 

NEW  OBAMA  ADMINISTRATION POLICY STATES : the U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency ( ICE ) should not try to arrest and deport undocumented immigrant parents of documented minor children.

The new ICE agency  policy was issued on August 23, 2013, and it is titled :  11064.1 : FACILITATING PARENTAL INTERESTS IN THE COURSE OF CIOVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES; Federal Enterprise Architecture Number : 306-112-002b.

The new policy expands the categories and numbers of people the administration is trying not to deport. However, the reader is cautioned to be aware of the discretion reserved foe ICE in this new policy.

 In the 9-page policy memorandum, U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE )  says that ICE agents should use " prosecutorial discretion" in trying to avoid detaining parents and, if parents are detaained, agents should make sure the parents have the ability to visit with their children or participate in family court proceedings.

For additional information and consultation the reader is advised to contact the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P. A., Attorneys & Counsellors, at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.charlesjeromeware.com.

DEFENSE FIRM UPDATE : BALTIMORE & D.C. LEAD POISONING CDC REPORT,www.charlesjeromeware.com

CHARLES JEROME WARE, P. A., Attorneys & Counsellors, a well-respected and highly regarded national lead poisoning defense law firm headquartered conveniently in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. We successfully represent
defendants in lead paint and lead poisoning lawsuits in Maryland and Washington, D. C. Our clients generally are Baltimore and D. C. area real estate property owners, landlords, property managers, insurers and others who have been sued for lead-damage liability.

For a courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.

UPDATE:  Commercial, family, friends, neighbors and other child-care providers in Baltimore and D.C. should be aware that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) advises that a child who spends more than 10 hours a week at a facility or residence built before 1978 may be particularly at risk of lead poisoning. Therefore, the provider is strongly urged to have the facility or residence professionally checked for lead hazards as expediantly as possible.

We are " here to make a difference".

PREDICTIVE POLICING ALGORITHMS AND THE 4TH AMENDMENT, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/09-01-2013/by Leslie A Gordon/"Predictive Policing May Help Bag Burglars- But It May Also Be A [4th Amendment] Constitutional Problem"; Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, "Predictive Policing And Reasonable Suspicion", Emory Law Journal, Vol. 62, page 259 (2012); Craig D. Uchida, Natl. Inst. of Justice, No. NCJ230404, "A National Discussion On Predictive Policing: Defining Our Terms And Mapping Successful Implementation Strategies 1" (2009); Beth Pearsall, "Predictive Policing: The Future of Law Enforcement?", Natl. Inst. Justice J. June 2010; United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981) (observing that the question of reasonable suspicion deal "with probabilities")]

COL., HO. CO., MD. JOB LAW UPDATE: MERRILL LYNCH BIAS CASE SETTLEMENT, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The national employment law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is conveniently headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.  The firm is nationally renowned, well-respected, and highly-regarded for its many successful cases and efforts in the areas of employment and discrimination law.

For a courtesy legal consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.

MERRILL LYNCH TO PAY BIG IN BIAS CASE

Merrill Lynch, one of the biggest brokerage firms on Wall Street, has agreed to pay $160 million to settle a racial bias lawsuit that wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court.

The payout in the suit, which was filed on behalf of 700 black brokers who worked for Merrill, would be the largest sum ever distributed to plaintiffs in a racial discrimination suit against an American employer. Merrill, which was acquired by Bank of America after the suit was filed, also agreed to take advice from black employees on how to improve their chances of succeeding as brokers.

The pool of money, available to all black brokers and trainees at the firm since May 2001, is reportedly larger than those offered by other corporations sued by employees for racial bias, including Texaco and Coca-Cola, Ms. Friedman said. It also dwarfs recent payouts by other Wall Street firms, including $16 million that Morgan Stanley agreed to pay in 2008 to settle a suit brought by black and Hispanic brokers.

The Merrill Lynch plaintiffs had claimed they received little help from managers and were ostracized by co-workers, according to the Times account. The case “wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court,” the newspaper says. The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to certify the class and a trial had been scheduled for January.

[news.nytco.com/blogs/dealbook/08-27-2013/Merrill Lynch To Pay Big In Bias Case; www.abajournal.com/article/08-2013/Merrill Lynch Reportedly Agrees to $160 Million Settlement In Bias Case]

COL., HO. CO., MD. DNA DEFENSE, PROSECTUOR MISCONDUCT/WHACK v. STATE, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.  The firm is highly-rated for its many successful efforts on behalf of clients in the area of criminal defense in Maryland.

For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.

On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:

TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.

DNA is a powerful evidentiary tool and its importance in the courtroom cannot be overstated. See Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1966 (2013) (observing that DNA technology is “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era” and its usefulness in the criminal justice system is “undisputed”).

 

DNA evidence can place a defendant at the scene of a crime, providing a firm scientific foundation for a prosecutor’s case, particularly when other evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly, jurors place a great deal of trust in the accuracy and reliability of DNA evidence. But this evidence has the potential to be highly technical and confusing in a way that could unduly affect the outcome of a trial.

 

We consider here whether a prosecutor’s incorrect statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding DNA evidence, in a case in which that evidence was of central importance, required a mistrial. 

Petitioner, Tommy Whack, Jr., was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

 

During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Petitioner’s cousin, who testified that Petitioner called the victim’s cell phone before the killing and was walking in the neighborhood where the killing took place shortly before the crime occurred. Jurors also heard from a DNA analyst who testified that she could not exclude Petitioner as being the source of DNA recovered from the passenger armrest of the truck in which the victim was shot.

 

In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that Petitioner’s DNA was present in the victim’s truck, and he claimed the statistical analysis conducted by the DNA analyst supported the State’s theory of the case. Petitioner objected to that argument as misstating the DNA evidence and asked for a mistrial, a request the trial court denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Whack v. State, 429 Md. 303 (2012), to answer the following question: 

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the State, in rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence? 

For reasons we shall explain, we answer yes to that question, reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct a remand of the case for a new trial.

CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS/COLUMBIA, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.  The firm is highly-rated for its many successful efforts on behalf of clients in the area of criminal defense in Maryland.

For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.

On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:

TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.

DNA is a powerful evidentiary tool and its importance in the courtroom cannot be overstated. See Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1966 (2013) (observing that DNA technology is “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era” and its usefulness in the criminal justice system is “undisputed”).

 

DNA evidence can place a defendant at the scene of a crime, providing a firm scientific foundation for a prosecutor’s case, particularly when other evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly, jurors place a great deal of trust in the accuracy and reliability of DNA evidence. But this evidence has the potential to be highly technical and confusing in a way that could unduly affect the outcome of a trial.

 

We consider here whether a prosecutor’s incorrect statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding DNA evidence, in a case in which that evidence was of central importance, required a mistrial. 

Petitioner, Tommy Whack, Jr., was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

 

During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Petitioner’s cousin, who testified that Petitioner called the victim’s cell phone before the killing and was walking in the neighborhood where the killing took place shortly before the crime occurred. Jurors also heard from a DNA analyst who testified that she could not exclude Petitioner as being the source of DNA recovered from the passenger armrest of the truck in which the victim was shot.

 

In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that Petitioner’s DNA was present in the victim’s truck, and he claimed the statistical analysis conducted by the DNA analyst supported the State’s theory of the case. Petitioner objected to that argument as misstating the DNA evidence and asked for a mistrial, a request the trial court denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Whack v. State, 429 Md. 303 (2012), to answer the following question: 

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the State, in rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence? 

For reasons we shall explain, we answer yes to that question, reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct a remand of the case for a new trial.

CRIMES/COLUMBIA, HO. CO., MARYLAND, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.  The firm is highly-rated for its many successful efforts on behalf of clients in the area of criminal defense in Maryland.

For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.

On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:

TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.

DNA is a powerful evidentiary tool and its importance in the courtroom cannot be overstated. See Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1966 (2013) (observing that DNA technology is “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era” and its usefulness in the criminal justice system is “undisputed”).

 

DNA evidence can place a defendant at the scene of a crime, providing a firm scientific foundation for a prosecutor’s case, particularly when other evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly, jurors place a great deal of trust in the accuracy and reliability of DNA evidence. But this evidence has the potential to be highly technical and confusing in a way that could unduly affect the outcome of a trial.

 

We consider here whether a prosecutor’s incorrect statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding DNA evidence, in a case in which that evidence was of central importance, required a mistrial. 

Petitioner, Tommy Whack, Jr., was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

 

During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Petitioner’s cousin, who testified that Petitioner called the victim’s cell phone before the killing and was walking in the neighborhood where the killing took place shortly before the crime occurred. Jurors also heard from a DNA analyst who testified that she could not exclude Petitioner as being the source of DNA recovered from the passenger armrest of the truck in which the victim was shot.

 

In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that Petitioner’s DNA was present in the victim’s truck, and he claimed the statistical analysis conducted by the DNA analyst supported the State’s theory of the case. Petitioner objected to that argument as misstating the DNA evidence and asked for a mistrial, a request the trial court denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Whack v. State, 429 Md. 303 (2012), to answer the following question: 

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the State, in rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence? 

For reasons we shall explain, we answer yes to that question, reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct a remand of the case for a new trial.

BALTIMORE LEAD DEFENSE UPDATE: www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

Attorney and author Charles Ware is renowned and well-respected in the area of lead poisoning and lead paint defense litigation.  The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is conveniently headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.  For an initial courtesy consultation, lead case defendants, property owners, property managers and others should contact us at: (410) 730-5106, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.

[see, www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/blood-lead-levels.htm]

Update on Blood Lead Levels in Children

1. Experts now use a reference level of 5 micrograms per deciliter to identify children with blood lead levels that are much higher than most children’s levels. This new level is based on the U.S. population of children ages 1-5 years who are in the highest 2.5% of children when tested for lead in their blood.
2. This reference value is based on the 97.5th percentile of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)’s blood lead distribution in children. CDC will update the reference value every four years using the two most recent NHANES surveys.
3. Until recently, children were identified as having a blood lead “level of concern” if the test result is 10 or more micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood. CDC is no longer using the term “level of concern” and is instead using the reference value to identify children who have been exposed to lead and who require case management.
4. In the past, blood lead level tests below 10 micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood may, or may not, have been reported to parents. The new lower value means that more children will likely be identified as having lead exposure allowing parents, doctors, public health officials, and communities to take action earlier to reduce the child’s future exposure to lead.
5. What has not changed is the recommendation for when medical treatment is advised for children with high blood lead exposure levels. The new recommendation does not change the guidance that chelation therapy be considered when a child has a blood lead test result greater than or equal to 45 micrograms per deciliter.
6. Children can be given a blood test to measure the level of lead in their blood. These tests are covered by Medicaid and most private health insurance.

Additional Resources

• Blood Lead Levels in Children Fact Sheet [PDF - 168 KB]
• CDC Response to Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Recommendations in “Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call of Primary Prevention” [PDF - 165 KB]
• Recommendations of the Advisory Committee for Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention [PDF - 890 KB]
• Advisory Committee On Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention (ACCLPP)
• Prevention Tips

MARYLAND DRUG DEFENSE ATTORNEYS: COL., HO. CO., www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

For more than 30 years, the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, has been making a difference in the lives of its clients, communities and friends.

The firm is locally and national renowned and respected for its many successes on behalf of its clients.  For more information, contact us for a courtesy consultation at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.

We are "here to make a difference.  We fight... you win."

Defending the Modern Drug Case

When it comes to successfully defending drug cases it is now a new world; with new drugs, new charges, and new techniques for drug enforcement.  This requires defense counsel to have a new perspective as well as a modern understanding and strategy for drug defense cases.

It has been said that the War on Drugs is a war on the Bill of Rights and this is evidenced by the the fervor and zeal at which our government has pursued this war which has ultimately been a war on the rights of all of us.  Because drug users typically aim to keep their behaviors secret, the aggressive law enforcement schemes to go after them must necessarily penetrate the private lives of millions.  Moreover, the expansion of police powers has been perhaps no greater than in this realm with law enforcement now having very few limits on  their tactics.  In addition, property may be seized on slight evidence and forfeited to the state or federal government without proof of the personal guilt of the owner.
                            
Given the high rates of drug availability and usage in our country, coupled with the ever-increasing aggressiveness of law enforcement aimed going after drug offenders, drug charges are of the most common and of the most serious one can face.  Drug accusations carry the very real potential for extremely long sentences, harsh collateral consequences and civil penalties that may be assessed under property forfeiture provisions.  A drug charge can ruin a person's life which is why we aggressively defend drug cases using many different strategies. In general, there are three ways that drug charges are successfully defended:  1)  the drugs seized were not actually a controlled substance; 2)  the person did not actually "possess" the drugs; 3)  the drugs were seized in violation of the person's constitutional rights. 

Search and Seizure

Perhaps more so than any other type of charge, we find that our clients charged with drug offenses have often had their constitutional rights violated in large part due to the overzealousness of law enforcement tactics used in drug cases.  One of the first steps we take in representing our clients accused of a drug charge is to analyze the legality of how the evidence was obtained.  Evidence that is illegally obtained, whether that be for lack of probable cause or an illegal search and seizure, cannot be used against you.  The Fourth Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and a violation of that can lead to a ruling by the court that illegally seized evidence is suppressed and inadmissible which most often leads to the dismissal of charges.  We have successfully litigated constitutional violations on behalf of our clients which has lead to the dismissal of charges.

NEW YORK AG TO TRUMP: YOU'RE FIRED!

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The legal rhetoric between billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump and the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, continues to escalate.

In an appearance on NC-TV's "Today Show" this morning, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman repeated his assertions made in a lawsuit against Donald Trump that "Trump University" was a fraud and that Trump unlawfully "lured" hapless student to the fraud.

SUBTITLE: TRUMP BUMPED, THUMPED, TRUMPED BY NEW YORK AG

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight.  You win.)

www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/08-24-2013/Trump-University-Fraud-NY.
New York's Attorney General's Office has filed a $40 million civil lawsuit on Saturday against billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump of running a phony "Trump University" and defrauding more than 5,000 people with promises that they would get rich in real estate using his "hand-picked" teachers.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.

"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm," Schneiderman said. "Trump University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation, relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."

Trump, himself, shot back at Schneiderman that the lawsuit is false and politically motivated.

MARYLAND EMINENT DOMAIN LAW 101: Attorney & Author Charles Jerome Ware

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight.  You win.)

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.  For an initial consultation, you are invited to contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.

What Is Eminent Domain?

Eminent domain, broadly understood, is the power of the state or the federal government

to seize private property without the owner's consent. Historically, the most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are public facilities, highways, and railroads.

Traditionally the power of eminent domain has been exercised for the construction of large public projects, but its use is beginning to be broadened to projects involving not ‘public use’ but ‘public benefit.’ The decision in Kelo v. City of New London, a case that came before the US Supreme Court in 2004, set a precedent for property to be transferred to a private owner for the purpose of economic development. The court found that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed or blighted urban area it qualifies as a public use [Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)].

Maryland Eminent Domain Laws

[eminentdomain.uslegal.com/Maryland; www.msba.org/Eminent Domain; articles.baltimoresun.com/Eminent Domain; Report of the State of Maryland Task Force On Business Owner Compensation In Condemnation Proceedings/12-7-2005; msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/specco/EminentDomain]
 
Maryland Eminent Domain Laws can be found in Title 12 of Code of Maryland.

Subtitle one of title twelve contain the general provisions and subtitle two contains provisions regarding relocation and assistance.  All proceedings for the acquisition of private property for public use by condemnation are governed by the provisions of title 12[i].

Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-101 provides that the state, any of its instrumentalities, or political subdivisions acting under statute or ordinance passed pursuant to Article III of the Maryland Constitution, may take private property for public use immediately on making the required payment and giving any required security.

A property is deemed to be taken if the plaintiff lawfully is authorized to take the property before trial pursuant to Article III of the Constitution of the State and the required payment has been made to the defendant or into court and the plaintiff has taken possession of the property and actually and lawfully appropriated it to the public purposes of the plaintiff[ii].

The damages to be awarded for the taking of land are its fair market value[iii].  When part of land is taken, the damages to be awarded is the fair market value of the part taken, but not less than the actual value of the part taken plus any severance or resulting damages to the remaining land by reason of the taking and of future use by the plaintiff of the part taken[iv].

For the purpose of determining the extent of the taking and the valuation of the tenant’s interest in a condemnation proceeding, improvement or installation done by the tenant is deemed personal property of the tenant and it is excluded from the taking[v].

The state or any of its instrumentalities or political subdivisions should file an action to acquire private property for public use by condemnation within four years of the date of the specific administrative or legislative authorization to acquire the property[vi].

However, if an action for condemnation is not filed within four years, the state, any of its instrumentalities, or political subdivisions may not proceed with condemnation until it first obtains a new authorization to acquire the property.

The plaintiff should pay all the costs in the trial court and also interest at the rate of six percent per annum on any difference between the amount of money initially paid into court for the use of the defendant and the jury award[vii].

On taking possession, acquiring the right to take possession or the actual transfer of title to the plaintiff, whichever occurs first, the plaintiff immediately should file, with the supervisor of assessments for the county involved, a written notification or a record setting forth in sufficient detail the area of the land and a description of any improvement being acquired[viii].

MARYLAND EMINENT DOMAIN STATUTES

Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-107 provides that any party to a condemnation case may appeal from a final judgment or determination.  Further, if the plaintiff desires possession pending appeal, it may make payment of the award.  In addition, the plaintiff should file with the clerk of the court a bond to the state for the penalty the court prescribes.

Pursuant to Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-109, a plaintiff may abandon a proceeding for condemnation by filing a written election to abandon.  Also, a copy of the election should be served on each defendant who has been personally subjected to the jurisdiction of the court.

Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-110 provides that if the condemnee or his/her predecessor in title has paid taxes, the condemnee is entitled to receive from the condemnor, in addition to the damages awarded for the premises taken, an amount of money which bears the same ratio to the entire amount of taxes on the premises taken as the part of the taxable year remaining on the date of taking bears to the entire taxable year.

In addition to payment otherwise authorized, a displacing agency should make an additional payment to any displaced person who is displaced from a dwelling actually owned and occupied by the displaced person for not less than 180 days prior to the initiation of negotiations for the acquisition of the real property[ix].

Further, whenever a program or project undertaken by a displacing agency will result in the displacement of any person, the displacing agency should make a payment to the displaced person[x].  The payment should include:

1. actual reasonable expenses in moving,
2. actual direct loss of tangible personal property as a result of moving,
3. actual reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement business or farm, and
4. actual reasonable expenses necessary to reestablish a displaced farm, nonprofit organization, or small business at its new site as determined by the displacing agency.

Pursuant to Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-208, if a displacing agency acquires any interest in real property, the displacing agency should acquire at least an equal interest in all buildings, structures, or other improvements, located on the real property acquired.

[i] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-101.

[ii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-102.

[iii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-104 (a).

[iv] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-104 (b).

[v] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-104 (c).

[vi] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-105.1.

[vii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-106.

[viii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-106 (d).

[ix] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-202.

[x] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-205.

15 Stages of a Maryland Eminent Domain Case

[www.ownerscounsel.com/The Eminent Domain Process/ Joseph P. Suntum, Esq.]

 

What can a property owner expect when the Government decides to take private property for a public use in the State of Maryland?

 

(1) Identification of public need and property to be acquired. In the State of Maryland, the process of condemnation begins with the identification of a public need, and the determination by the applicable governmental body that it is necessary to acquire private property to fulfill that public need.

 

(2) Notice, Offer to Purchase, and Negotiations. Once the decision to acquire private property in Maryland has been made, the condemning authority (also referred to as the "condemnor") generally gives the property owner written notice that it intends to acquire that person's property.

 

(3) Filing an Eminent Domain Lawsuit. If negotiations for the acquisition of the property are unsuccessful, the condemning authority may file a complaint in the circuit court of the county in which the property to be acquired is located. In some Maryland localities, this first requires a taking resolution of the local government to allow a condemnation petition to be filed in court.

(4) Deposit of Estimate of Just Compensation into the Court Registry in Quick-Take Cases. Certain State agencies (such as the State Roads Commission and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission in Prince Georges County) and certain jurisdictions (such as Baltimore City, and Baltimore, Cecil and Montgomery Counties) have "quick-take" authority, but the owner still has the right to a full trial to determine the amount of compensation paid after the property is taken by the power of eminent domain. In order to quickly take possession of the property in this fashion, the condemning authority must pay into the court's registry the amount of compensation it believes the owner is entitled to receive (this will usually be based upon an appraisal the owner has received in the earlier negotiations stage). The date that the funds are deposited into the court becomes the "date of valuation" of the property. Once those funds are deposited into the court, the condemning authority has the right to enter upon the property and begin the necessary construction and the property owner is entitled to withdraw these funds.

This step is not applicable in traditional eminent domain cases, as the condemning authority does not take possession, or pay any money, until after a judgment is entered. The date of value is the date of trial, in traditional condemnation cases.

(5) Withdrawing Money from the Court. Also in Maryland quick-take cases, the property owner is entitled to withdraw the estimate of just compensation deposited into the court. This requires a motion be filed with the court requesting that the funds be disbursed to the property owner. There may be several parties with an interest in the funds on deposit; frequently, this includes the property owner and any mortgagee holding a lien against the property at issue. A hearing may be scheduled for the court to hear argument on the motion, but frequently such motions are consented to by all parties interested and no hearing is necessary. Withdrawal of funds paid into court does not prejudice a property owner's claim-he or she can still seek a higher value for the property at trial. Alternatively, a lower judgment could also be entered at trial, meaning that a property owner would have to pay some of the deposited money back to the condemnor.

This step is not applicable in traditional Maryland condemnation cases, as the condemning authority does not take possession, or pay any money, until after a judgment is entered.

(6) Board of Property Review Hearing. In Maryland eminent domain cases in which the State Roads Commission is pursuing the condemnation of property through its quick-take authority, the matter may proceed to a Board of Property Review after negotiations fail. These are 3-member boards in each county, which will hear the case and render an award. Any dissatisfied party may appeal to the circuit court and have the case heard "de novo", or anew. These boards are generally meant to provide an inexpensive procedure for resolving small cases and are not likely appropriate for large contested cases. The Commission can-and often does-bypass a Board of Property Review hearing preferring to file a formal condemnation petition with the circuit court from the outset.

This step is not applicable in traditional Maryland eminent domain cases; it applies only to State Roads Commission quick-take cases.

(7) Scheduling Order. When the formal condemnation petition is filed with the court, the court will issue a scheduling order that will govern the significant deadlines in the eminent domain case. It is very important that the deadlines be noted and complied with, as failure to comply with a deadline can result in prejudice to a property owner's case.

(8) Retention Expert Witnesses. In most Maryland condemnation cases, the only issue for the fact-finder to determine is the amount of money owed to the property owner for the property taken, and this depends on the value of the property taken and the damages to any remaining property. The condemning authority and the property owner will hire a real estate appraiser to value the property and give an opinion as to the just compensation amount the property owner should be paid. In some more complicated cases, additional experts, such as land planners, engineers, or even traffic experts will be necessary to provide the appraiser with the foundational information needed to accurately value the property taken and damages caused to any of the remaining property. It is important that these experts be consulted with and retained early, for the proper framing of a Maryland eminent domain case.

(9) Discovery. The condemning authority and the property owner each have the right to ask the other for information and documents relating to their case, including the names and contact information for witnesses, the documents supporting their claims, and also carry out depositions of witnesses to get more information. This process is referred to as "discovery." In many Maryland eminent domain cases, most of the discovery will relate to the appraisals, opinions, and testimony of the expert witnesses.

(10) Continued Settlement Negotiations and Mediation. The parties may continue informal settlement negotiations up to the date of trial. Additionally, the parties will have the opportunity to participate in a mediation or settlement conference, depending on the jurisdiction. Although voluntary, most courts strongly encourage these as opportunity to make another effort at settlement before trial. Often they are more successful than informal settlement negotiations because a judge or very experienced attorney participates and aids the parties at achieving a resolution.

(11) Pre-trial hearings. Several hearings may occur prior to trial to resolve a variety of issues. Hearings may be scheduled to resolve motions, such as those dealing with discovery disputes or addressing legal or evidentiary issues in the case. Administrative hearings may also occur to address administrative issues such as scheduling a trial date. Most hearings can be carried out by the attorney and do not require the attendance of the property owner.

(12) Condemnation Trial. Maryland provides a right to a jury trial on the issue of just compensation in State condemnation proceedings. The parties may, nonetheless, elect to waive a jury trial, in which case the judge will be responsible for making the determination of the appropriate amount of damages. In Maryland, the property owner also has the right to a jury view, where the jury is transported to the property so that it can view the property first-hand. The parties have the opportunity to present evidence and testimony in support of their claim as to the correct amount of compensation.

(13) Verdict. Once the jury has been presented with all of the testimony and evidence, it will enter a verdict for the amount of compensation to which it believes the property owner is entitled.

In "quick-take" cases, if the award is higher than the initial amount paid into court (see number 5, above), the property owner is entitled to be paid the difference, plus interest. If the award is less, the property owner will have to reimburse the over-payment.

In traditional Maryland condemnation cases, once the jury enters the verdict, the condemning authority can pay the amount of the jury's award and obtain possession of the property. Or, it can elect to abandon the condemnation (if, for example, the jury award is too costly), in which case it will be required to pay the property owner reasonable costs and attorney's fees.

(14) Post-Trial and Appeal. After judgment is entered either party has the right to appeal the judgment if they believe there was an error in the trial. Appeals can take several years to reach resolution. If the judgment is not appealed, it is final.

(15) Relocation Benefits. In some instances, the property owner is entitled to additional compensation for having to relocate a residence or business. Relocation benefits may reimburse a portion of moving expenses, utility reconnection expenses, business advertising expenses, or a variety of other related expenses.

TRUMP BUMPED, THUMPED, TRUMPED BY NEW YORK AG, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight.  You win.)

www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/08-24-2013/Trump-University-Fraud-NY.
New York's Attorney General's Office has filed a $40 million civil lawsuit on Saturday against billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump of running a phony "Trump University" and defrauding more than 5,000 people with promises that they would get rich in real estate using his "hand-picked" teachers.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.

"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm," Schneiderman said. "Trump University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation, relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."

Trump, himself, shot back at Schneiderman that the lawsuit is false and politically motivated.

TRUMP TRUMPED BY NEW YORK AG SCHNEIDERMAN?

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight.  You win.)
www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/08-24-2013/Trump-University-Fraud-NY.

New York's Attorney General's Office has filed a $40 million civil lawsuit on Saturday against billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump of running a phony "Trump University" and defrauding more than 5,000 people with promises that they would get rich in real estate using his "hand-picked" teachers.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.

"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm," Schneiderman said. "Trump University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation, relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."

Trump, himself, shot back at Schneiderman that the lawsuit is false and politically motivated.

COL.,HO. CO., MD. POLICE ABUSE ATTORNEYS, www.charlesjeromeware.com

MARYLAND POLICE ABUSE, MISCONDUCT TRIAL ATTORNEYS.

www.charlesjeromeware.com. ( We fight. You win. )

Even though it is true that police officers generally have broad powers to carry out their duties, the Constitution of the United States , the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and other laws DO place certain limits on how far police officers can go in attempting to enforce the law and perform their duties.

False arrest, excessive force and malicious prosecution are some of the areas we can help our clients with when confronted with police abuse and other misconduct.

Contact this nationally- renowned and respected law firm in the Baltimore area at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-5129, for an initial courtesy consultation.

BALTIMORE'S LEAD POISONING PARADOX,www.charlesjeromeware.com

 A DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S PERSPECTIVE ON BALTIMORE'S LEAD POISONING PARADOX. www.charlesjeromeware.com ( We fight. You win.)

There is no denying that Baltimore has a serious lead poisoning problem. Countless investigations, studies, research efforts, victims and lawsuits have proven that fact. The abandonment by insurance companies of lead poisoning liability coverage for some time now reinforces this public safety problem in the city.

Certainly there are, and have been, an unfortunate number of  landlords who have not been sufficiently responsible in addressing the lead paint poisoning issues of their tenants in the city. However, there are, and have been, others who have been diligent in their efforts to comply with the lead paint rules and laws, but too have been caught in the tragic lead poisoning net of Baltimore City.

There are victims on all sides. Tragically. It is a paradox ... with few winners and many losers.

[ see, "The Politics of Lead Poisoning in Baltimore & D.C.", 07-09-2013/http://thelawyersmailbox.blogspot.com; "Lead Poisoning in Baltimore: Landlord Tips...";   
Kaminsky, Bottari and Boulhosa, A Complete Guide To Lead Paint Poisoning,American Bar Association (ABA), 1998; Markowitz and Rosner,Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America's Children, U. of Calif. Press/Millbank Mem. Fund, April 2013; Epstein," Lead Poisoning: The Ignored Scandal", The New York Review of Books, Marc 21, 2013, www.nybooks.com/articles;
Nelson, " Nontherapeutic Research Minimal Risk, and the Kennedy Krieger Lead Abatement Study",  IRB: Ethics and Human Research, Vol. 23, No. 6 ( Nov.-Dec. 2001); Vedantam, " research Links Lead Exposure, Criminal Activity", The Washington Post, July 8, 2007]

From a defense attorney's perspective, it is my observation that the lead poisonung public health crisis in Baltimore City is so bad that many judges and many other influential commentators in the city actually believe that in many circumstances Baltimore lead poisoning cases are indefensible.

In the real world of jurisprudence, however, lead poisoning claime can and should, however, be defended on a number of grounds, including challenging the centers for Disease Control's (CDC's) assertion that a low blood-lead level can result in decreased IQ, learning disabilities, and psychological, neurological, and behavioral injuries.

Of course, from the insurer's perspective, the best defense to lead poisoning claims probably begins with education and monitoring of their insureds. Education, monitorization, and implementation of
lead awareness and lead abatement programs are key for Baltimore City property owners, landlords, and property managers.

Contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, for a courtesy consultation regarding your lead poisoning concerns. We are a nationally recognized and respected lead poisoning defense law firm headquartered here in the Baltimore area.

In my view, it is absolutely crucial that property owners and managers take an active role in preventing lead poisoning claims, instead of just simply reacting to complaints of lead paint violations.

ROBERT HARPER v. THE ROUSE CO, ET AL., $28 MILLION CASE, www.charlesjeromeware.com

ROBERT HARPER v. THE ROUSE COMPANY, ET AL.,
In the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland
Ellicott City, Maryland
Civil Action ( Jury Trial Prayed): Antitrust and Civil Rights Violations Alleged, et al.
Amount Demanded :  $ 28 Million in Damages.
Attorney For The Plaintiff: Charles Jerome Ware, www.charlesjeromeware.com
Attorney for the Defendants: John Sandbower, et al.

And see the Book:  Chapter 9, " Columbia[Maryland] In The 1980s ' :  NEW CITY UPON A HILL: A HISTORY OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, published 2007, pages 124-138.

EXCERPT: "... A similar situation occurred with [small businessman] Robert Harper, who operated a dry cleaning establishment in one of [Columbia's] village centers { Oakland Mills], and [Harper responded by hiring a top antitrust and civil rights trial attorney, CHARLES JEROME WARE, who resided in the community].  Ware filed a $28 million antitrust and civil rights lawsuit against the { Rouse] company. The civil lawsuit accused the company of refusing to renew [Harper's] dry cleaner lease or allow him to retire by selling his store". [Page 126]

"The controversial 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."

COLUMBIA, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND CRIMINAL DNA: DEFENSE

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.  The firm is preeminent and renowned for tis successful defense of numerous criminal defendants in the State of Maryland and nationwide.

For a courtesy initial legal consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The Maryland Court of Appeals recent decision (August 21st, 2013) in the criminal case of WHACK, JR. v. STATE (No. 86, Sept. Term 2012), reveals the ongoing mis-use and misinterpretation of DNA evidence by prosecutors:

"Accordingly, counsel have a responsibility to take extra care in describing DNA evidence, particularly when it comes to statistical probabilities. The prosecutor certainly has “liberal freedom of speech” during closing argument, see Spain, 386 Md. at 152, but this commentary must be grounded in the evidence or reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Minor misstatements from counsel are inevitable in a trial, but this was not a minor misstatement. The prosecutor wrongly asserted that Petitioner’s DNA was definitely on the armrest when the evidence demonstrated only that it might be present. The prosecutor also suggested that the statistical analysis backed up this assertion, urging jurors to draw an equivalency between the mathematical certainty that White’s DNA was in the truck with the probability that Petitioner’s DNA was located there. These remarks were highly improper because the statements misrepresented complicated scientific evidence that was a key part of the prosecution’s case.”

C. WARE'S Col., Ho. Co. CRIMINAL BLOG: WHACK v. STATE, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.  The firm is highly-rated for its many successful efforts on behalf of clients in the area of criminal defense in Maryland.

For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.

On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:

TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.

DNA is a powerful evidentiary tool and its importance in the courtroom cannot be overstated. See Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1966 (2013) (observing that DNA technology is “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era” and its usefulness in the criminal justice system is “undisputed”).

 

DNA evidence can place a defendant at the scene of a crime, providing a firm scientific foundation for a prosecutor’s case, particularly when other evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly, jurors place a great deal of trust in the accuracy and reliability of DNA evidence. But this evidence has the potential to be highly technical and confusing in a way that could unduly affect the outcome of a trial.

 

We consider here whether a prosecutor’s incorrect statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding DNA evidence, in a case in which that evidence was of central importance, required a mistrial. 

Petitioner, Tommy Whack, Jr., was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

 

During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Petitioner’s cousin, who testified that Petitioner called the victim’s cell phone before the killing and was walking in the neighborhood where the killing took place shortly before the crime occurred. Jurors also heard from a DNA analyst who testified that she could not exclude Petitioner as being the source of DNA recovered from the passenger armrest of the truck in which the victim was shot.

 

In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that Petitioner’s DNA was present in the victim’s truck, and he claimed the statistical analysis conducted by the DNA analyst supported the State’s theory of the case. Petitioner objected to that argument as misstating the DNA evidence and asked for a mistrial, a request the trial court denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Whack v. State, 429 Md. 303 (2012), to answer the following question: 

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the State, in rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence? 

For reasons we shall explain, we answer yes to that question, reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct a remand of the case for a new trial.

MESSAGE TO ROBIN THICKE: PAY THE GAYES. THE MUSIC LINES ARE TOO "BLURRED".

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight.  You win.)

Understanding the Law: A Primer (Paperback). http://amzn.com/1440111456

COLUMBIA, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND ABOGADOS DE DEFENSA PENAL : www.charlesjeromeware.com

ABOGADOS DE DEFENSA PENAL: COLUMBIA, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND

Convenienteemente ubicado cerca del centro comercial en Columbia.
Proporcionar repreentacion premiada y exitosa defensa legal de Columbia, el condado de Howard, los residentes de Maryland por mas de 30 anos. Para una consulta inicial de cortesia, pongase en contacto con nosotros en www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.  Luchamos, usted ganal.

PA WIDOW LOSES $280K HOME OVER $6 TAX PENALTY,http://thelawyersmailbox.blogspot.com/8/19/2013

And see Chapter 4, "AVOIDING FORECLOSURES"'et al. : from the awarding-winning and best-selling book, LEGAL CONSUMER TIPS AND SECRETS, by attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware. http://amzn.com/1462051847. www.charlesjeromeware.com

WIDOW LOSES HOME OVER $280K HOME OVER $6 TAX PENALTY : www.charlesjeromeware.com

WWW.CHARLESJEROMEWARE.COM  
                                
AVOIDING FORECLOSURE IN MARYLAND, DC AND PENNSYLVANIA.

A WIDOW WHO LOST HER $280K HOME OVER A $6 TAX PENALTY HAS WON AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR A COURT HEARING .  [ And see, Chapter 4: AVOIDING FORECLOSURE, ET AL., from the award-winning and best-selling book, LEGAL CONSUMER TIPS AND SECRETS, by attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware. www.charlesjeromeware.com.
http:// amzn.com/1462051847 ]

A Beaver County, Pennsylvania woman, Eileen Battisti, who lost her $280,000 home at an auction over $ 6.30 in unpaid interest has won an opportunity to keep her home, due to a ruling on appeal by a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on Monday, August 19, 2013.

The appeals court ruled that it was "paricularly inappropriate" for a lower court Beaver County judge to rule against Mrs. Battisti without first holding a due process, evidentiary hearing, particularly since the alleged outstanding liability was so small ( $ 6.30) and the value of the home was so far greater ($ 280,000) than the amount paid by the subsequent tax sale purchaser( $116,000).

 In fact, to further aggravate this story, Mrs. Battisti actually purchased her home in full (paid off her balance) in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania in 2004 with the proceeds from her deceased husband's life insurance proceeds.

[ www.abajournal.com/news/article/widow who lost 280K home... ]

" PRODUCE THE NOTE ! ", www.charlesjeromeware.com

" PRODUCE THE NOTE ! " is probably the most important phrase or statement a homeowner can make when facing foreclosure on his or her home.  See, CHAPTER 4: " Fifteen( 15) Tips for Avoiding Foreclosure", from the award-winning and best-selling consumer book, LEGAL CONSUMER TIPS AND SECRETS, by Charles Jerome Ware,http://amzn.com/1462051847.

CHAPTER 7: THE MOST OVERRATED CRIME, www.charlesjeromeware.com

CHAPTER 7: THE MOST OVERRATED CRIME, from the award-winning and best-selling book, UNDERSTANDING THE LAW: A PRIMER, by renowned trial attorney Charles Jerome Ware, http://amzn.com/1440111456.

CHAPTER 21: REPRESENTING THE CELEBRITY CLIENT, www.charlesjeromeware.com

CHAPTER  21: REPRESENTING THE CELEBRITY CLIENT, from the award-winning and best-selling book, UNDERSTANDING THE LAW : A PRIMER, by renowned attorney Charles Jerome Ware, http://amzn.com/1440111456.

CHAPTER 12: CRIMINAL DEFENSE PRACTICE, www.charlesjeromeware.com

CHAPTER 12: CRIMINAL DEFENSE PRACTICE, from the award-winning and best-selling book, UNDERSTANDING THE LAW : A PRIMER, by renowned trial attorney Charles Jerome Ware , http://amzn.com/1440111456.

BALTIMORE LEAD COMPLAINT DEFENSE COUNSEL (BLCDC), www.charlesjeromeware.com

The lead paint poisoning problem in Baltimore is an unfortunate public health crisis in which
all parties are victims. The children in particular.

Indeed, in Baltimore the situation is so bad that some judges and commentators have suggested that in certain specific circumstances lead poisoning cases can be indefensible. This means the defendant
in a lead paint lawsuit in Baltimore should be sure to retain knowledgeable legal counsel for their defense in these actions.

At the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, PA, Attorneys & Counsellors, which is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, we are well-experienced in successfully defending lead poisoning cases. For advice and consultation, contact us immediately at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129. We are " here to make a difference".

MARYLAND BUSINESS SUCCESSION PLANNING LEGAL EXPERTS,www.charlesjeromeware.com

The Time For Succession Planning Is Now ! [www.charlesjeromeware.com]

In the United States today, 90% of the 21 million or so businesses are family-owned, and 1/3 of the Fortune 500 businesses are are either family-owned or family-controlled. This, by the way, includes the world's largest retail business, Walmart.

However, only 30% of family-run companies today succeed into the second generation. And, a smaller 15% survive into the third generation. We believe, and many other experts agree with us, that one key reason for this phenomenon is the lack of an orderly succession plan.

It is very important that owners begin business succession planning while they are still healthy and active in their businesses. We believe and advise that the time to do this business planning is when the owner is between the ages of about 55 and 65. We also advise that business succession should be a process, rather than an event. And, the more time allotted for planning and succession, the better the outcome.

At the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, PA, Attorneys & Counsellors, we are well-experienced , highly regarded, and very successful in helping businesses make the transition through the succession process. We can help you, too.

For advice and consultation, contact us at: www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, and (410) 720-6129.

MINGO COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA CORRUPTION UPDATE: County Judge Indicted for Conspiracy

Mingo County, West Virginia circuit judge Michael Thornsbury has been indicted on two counts of conspiracy. He is accused of having an affair with his secretary and attempting to frame the secretary's innocent husband for several crimes over a five-year period, including drug possession, larceny and assault. None of the judge's illegal schemes against the innocent husband, Robert Woodruff, worked.

Another Mingo County official,  commissioner Dave Baisden,  has been indicted on charges of extortion in an unrelated case.

You may recall that in April 2013 Mingo County's sheriff, Eugene Crum, was assassinated.

In february 2013, a local woman was indicted for tipping people off about pending indictments while she served on the county's grand jury.

In 1988, former sheriff Johnie Owens was convicted of selling his office for $ 100,000.

Clearly, corruption is everywhere. However, more than average media interest is generated about Mingo County because of its history and reputation for being the home of the legendary feud between the Hatfield and McCoy families.

Mingo County is a coalfields community of about 27,000 residents on West Virginia's southern border with Kentucky. It has a long history of violence and government corruption, and it earned the nickname of  "bloody Mingo" when unionizing miners  and security agents hired by coal companies fought in the early 20th century

Thornsbury, age 57, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. In the meantime the West Virginia State Supreme Court has suspended him from office without pay as well as suspending his law license.

[www.charlesjeromeware.com, www.huffingtonpost.com/08-15-2013]

MANDATORY MINIMUM DRUG SENTENCES MUST GO : ATTORNEY GENERAL

www.charlesjeromeware.com
U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. has announced plans to do what many experts and commentators
have called for  over many years:  a new federal policy shift to reduce penalties for low-level, nonviolent offenders, and to end  "mandatory minimum ' sentences for many drug offenders.

The announcement,  made at the American Bar Association's annual meeting in San Francisco,
outlines a new federal strategy aimed primarily at turning around decades of explosive growth in the federal prison population.

California's severely over-populated state and federal prison population provides a prime example of the difficulties encountered with the established " lock'em up and throw away the key" policies and attitudes toward nonviolent drug offenders.

[www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/8-11-2013]

PAULA DEEN: SOME BUTTER AND SOME LARD. SOME RELIEF FROM COURT.

www.charlesjeromeware.com
Savannah,Ga.(AP, USATODAY).
A U.S. District Court judge in Savannah, Georgia, William T. Moore, Jr., has ruled that a white female plaintiff  lacks legal standing to sue celebrity chef Paula Deen and her brother, Bubba Hiers, for race discrimination. This is not surprising.
However, the judge has ruled that the plaintiff's sexual harassment claims may continue aginst the pair and their Bubba's Seafood and Oyster House restaurant in Savannah.
The plaintiff, Lisa Jackson, was a former manager at Bubba's for five years.
The Food Network and other business partners have dropped Deen after she acknowledged using racial slurs against african-americans to some lawyers.

MAP (MATRIMONY, ALIMONY, PALIMONY): MARYLAND DIVORCE ATTORNEYS, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The national law offices of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, are headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.  The firm specializes in family law matters in Maryland, among other legal matters.  Contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.

MATRIMONY:  As a public policy, Maryland strongly endorses the condition of being married for couples, regardless of gender.

ALIMONY:  In Maryland alimony is considered a reasonable right; not a favor, nor punishment.

PALIMONY:  Palimony is not recognized in Maryland.  However, Maryland courts will recognize and enforce written agreements (and, in many instances, even oral or implied agreements.

Suggestion:  a written agreement stating that both parties will remain financially independent is the best defense against an allegation of palimony (in any jurisdiction).

Divorce in Maryland is unknown in common law, and is thus entirely a creature of statute.

Prior to the enactment of Chapter 263 of the Maryland Acts of 1841, there was no general divorce law in Maryland.  Divorce in specific cases was exclusively a legislative function.

Generally, divorce in Maryland is defined as the ending of a marriage ordered by a court (and specifically, a circuit court).

Because marriage is considered a civil contract between the parties under Maryland law, the complete dissolution of marriage is a divorce. In Maryland, there are two types of divorce: absolute and limited. Limited divorce is sometimes referred to as a legal separation.

1.  Absolute Divorce (Divorce a vincula matrimonii).

An absolute divorce actually dissolves the marriage. Once a decree of absolute divorce is entered, the parties are free to remarry. After an absolute divorce, one party can no longer inherit property from the other, any property owned by them jointly as husband and wife automatically becomes property held in common (each owns one-half) [Family Law Code Ann.§7-103].

[Bender v. Bender, 282 Md. 525 (1978); Altman v. Altman, 282 Md. 483 (1978); Thomas v. Thomas, 294 Md. 605 (1982); Maryland family Law, by John F. Fader, II and Richard J. Gilbert, Michie Law Publishers (1990); www.peoples-law.org/overview-of-divorce-in-maryland]

In addition, the decree may provide for:

            (i)      Sole or joint custody of the children;

(ii)     The terms for payment of alimony and child support, and the disposition of personal property;

(iii)    An equitable distribution of all the parties’ assets, including ordering the sale of jointly held property and the dividing the proceeds

Finally, a spouse may ask the court to include an order in the divorce decree which will allow the spouse (almost always the wife) to resume his or her birth name. These requests are almost always granted.

2. Limited Divorce (Divorce a mesna et thoro).

A limited divorce is a legal action where a couple’s separation is supervised by the court. It is generally designated for individuals who do not have grounds for absolute divorce, need financial relief and are unable to settle their differences privately.  When the court orders a limited divorce, it means that the divorce is not permanent.  Some people call this legal separation [Family Law Code Ann.§7-103]. 

Under a limited divorce, remarriage is not permitted. Limited divorce does not terminate property claims although the limited divorce may settle these claims.  A limited divorce makes temporary decisions about custody, child support, alimony, use and possession of  property.  It also documents the date of separation. 

You are not required to get a limited divorce before you can get an absolute divorce. Md. Code, Family Law § 7-103 allows a decree of divorce whether there has been a previous order of limited divorce or not.

In order to obtain a limited divorce in Maryland, you must meet residency requirements, grounds, and other legally prescribed laws just as you would in a case for absolute divorce.  Maryland courts may grant a limited divorce even if you are seeking an absolute divorce.  The courts may also decree these divorces permanently or for a limited time only.  In addition, Maryland’s limited divorces may be revoked by the courts at any time the parties jointly apply to be discharged.  In such cases, the parties would return to the state of being legally married.

A limited divorce is generally  used by people who:

• do not yet have grounds for absolute divorce;
• need financial relief and
• are unable to settle their differences privately.  

During a limited divorce, the parties live apart.  However, they remain legally married. Although the parties are still married, neither has the right to have sexual relations with the other spouse. In addition, neither spouse may remarry, and sexual relations with another person during a limited divorce is considered adultery.

The court determines which party is at fault, if either, is at fault. The court may grant support to one spouse based on need.  The limited divorce can also resolve questions of

(i)       child custody;

(ii)     child support;

(iii)    health insurance coverage and

(iv)   division of personal and real property.

If spousal support is not required, and there is no property to divide, there is generally no need for a limited divorce.

If one spouse dies after a limited divorce the other spouse may still inherit property. Also the form of ownership for any property you own as husband and wife (for example, a house owned as tenants by the entireties) will stay the same.

Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight.  You win.")

Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]

THE " REPUGNANT DEFENSE" OF NIDAL HASAN: www.charlesjeromeware.com

Charles Ware is a renowned trial attorney and award-winning best-selling author of several non-fiction books. He is the senior managing partner of the national general practice law firm, Charles Jerome Ware, PA, Attorneys & Counsellors, headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland: www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.

 Fort Hood, Texas massacre defendant Maj. Nidal Hasan's so-called "repugnant defense" is in theory and practice no defense at all. Nidal is desperately seeking the death penalty so that, presumeably, he can obtain martyr status among his terrorist colleagues.
However, Hasan's' defense attorneys are correct in their efforts to withdraw their legal representation of him as "standby counsel".  Defense attorneys should not be made to assist a client in essentially  committing suicide using the judicial system, as the judge in Hasan's case is doing.
These defense attorneys are truly in a problematic ethical dilemma.

Hasan is accused of shooting 45 people, killing 13 and wounding 32 of them in November 2009.

[CNN.com/8-8-2013/"Not Allowed To Drop Out, Nidal Hasan defense Team In ' Morally Repugnant' Spot"; news.findlaw.com/apsnews/8-9-2013/" Hasan's lawyers To Appeal Their Ordered Duties" ]

MD. DIVORCE " CRAWFORD CREDITS": www.charlesjeromeware---Divorce Specialists

MARYLAND DIVORCE "CRAWFORD CREDITS" :www.charlesjeromeware.com---Maryland Divorce Specialists.

In Maryland divorce cases, the words " Crawford Credits" are frequently used by the attorneys for the parties. Exactly what are " Crawford Credits" as used in Maryland divorce ?

In Maryland, when one co-tenant pays the mortgage, taxes and other carrying charges of the property held as tenants by the entirety, that co-tenant is entitled to contribution absent an agreement to the contrary between the parties. In other words, "Crawford credits" entitle a payor spouse to contribution from the non-payor spouse for expenses such as the mortgage, repairs, taxes, etc.

"Crawford credits" get their name from the Maryland family law case, CRAWFORD v. CRAWFORD,
293 Md. 307 (1982).

For an initial consultation with our Maryland divorce  specialists, contact the law firm of Charles
Jerome Ware,PA, Attorneys and Counsellors, headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland: www.charlesjeromeware.com,  (4100 730-5016,  (410) 720-6129.

Baltimore Lead Testing Defense, www.charlesjeromeware: Baltimore City Lead Laws

The national law firm of  Charles Jerome Ware, PA, Attorneys and Counsellors, specializes in lead paint lawsuit defense. The firm is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, and it successfully represents landlords, homeowners and  property managers in both the Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, DC metropolitan areas.

The firm's lead paint defense specialists can be reached at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129. Contact us for lead paint defense consultation.

Senior managing partner Charles Ware is both a renowned trial lawyer and a best-sellin award-winning author of 5 popular nonfiction books.

LEAD PAINT WARNING & DEFENSE ALERT ! ---Baltimore & DC, www.charlesjeromeware.com

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, PA, Attorneys & Counsellors, specializes in lead paint lawsuit defense. The firm is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, and its attorneylead paint defense specialists can be reached at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.
 Attorney Charles Ware is a renowned trial lawyer and best-selling award-winning author of several popular nonfiction books.

Homebuyers, Landlords, Property Managers and Renters BEWARE:
Many homes and condomoniums built in Baltimore and Washington, DC before 1978 have lead-based paint in them. Under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other federal, and state rules,
homebuyers and renters have important rights to know about whether lead is present --- prior to signing contracts and leases.

Federal law requires that befor being obligated under a contract to buy housing built prior to 1978, buyers must receive the following from the homeseller, inter alia:
    (1) An EPA-approved information pamphlet;
    (2) Any known information concerning the presence of lead-based paint;
    (3) An attachment to the contract that includes a " Lead Warning Statement"; and
    (4) A 10-day period to conduct a paint inspection  or risk assessment for lead paint or
         lead-based paint hazards.
[www2.epa.gov/lead/real-estate-disclosure]

NEW LEGISLATIVE PRAYER CASE: TOWN OF GREECE V. GALLOWAY, WWW.CHARLESJEROMEWARE.COM

[see cites, SCOTUS Docket No. 12-696; Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, 681 F.3d 20 (2012); U.S. District Court, Western District New York, 732 F. Supp. 2d 195 (2010); www.scotusblog.com/08-07-2013/"U.S.BacksGovernmentPrayer"]

     

            The Obama Administration, entering a major new test case on government-religion ties, has urged the Supreme Court to allow prayers at the beginning of government meetings, even if most if not all of the recitals are from one religion, such as Christianity.  But, in a newly filed brief, it has also asked the Court not to allow citizens to join in such sessions with their own private prayers. 

            The Court in May agreed to decide, at its next Term, the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway (docket 12-696), involving the prayer practices at meetings of a town council in the upstate New York community of just under 100,000 people.  The federal government is not directly involved in the case, but chose to enter it to offer its views, as it has in a number of other cases involving prayers in government settings.

            The new brief at one level is a defense of the long-standing practice in Congress of opening daily sessions with prayers, but on a broader level it provides a full defense of religious-oriented prayers at government meetings – provided they do not seek to recruit believers or criticize a given faith.  But it contends that it does not matter, constitutionally, that those attending hear only, or mostly, the expressions of religious belief of one sect or denomination.

            Charles Ware is an attorney and best-selling award winning author in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors.  The firm is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland.
           
Attorney Ware can be reached at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.