December 28, 2008
Lawyer, Lawyers, Mesothelioma Lawyer, Law, Mesothelioma Lawyers, La
No Comments
Cancer is a disease which a lot of people have been trying to fight for so many years already. This medical condition has various types which are all deadly when detected during its last stage.
Among these cancer types is mesothelioma, mostly affecting the lungs of the person. When an individual is affected with pleural mesothelioma; malignant tumors increase abnormally on the sac lining of his chest cavity. Most of the cases are due to this type, since it is for a fact that this disease is caused by the exposure to the fibers of asbestos.
Asbestos is known to be a material which is great for insulation because its fibers are strong and acts as great heat insulator. This is the reason why asbestos fibers are used mainly for products which require great resiliency against heat.
These fibers are so small that they get inhaled without being noticed. As these are breathed into the nostril, they travel down to the lungs. It is only after thirty to fifty years before symptoms manifest themselves. During this time, it is hard to treat the disease since it is already in its advanced stage.
When you used to work in a shipyard, steel manufacturing plant, or construction sites, you have a great likely of being diagnosed with mesothelioma. This disease can be very crippling, especially when the one affected is the only one who provides income to the family. If this is the case, you need someone to represent you in court when you decide to file for a claim from the company that you used to work for. For a long time, company owners know that exposure to asbestos fibers is hazardous to the people. But they have decided not to do anything about it because they wanted to protect their profit.
Because of this, you have the right to hire a mesothelioma lawyer. He will provide you with legal assistance and counseling. Together, you will take the right course of legal action. There is a possibility that the case will not reach the court, especially when your lawyer and the company you are suing have reached an agreement. Mesothelioma settlements will enable you to pay for medications, hospital bills, and other expenses. Since you cannot work anymore, you can use the settlement amount to support you and your family your family. If you are trying to get settlement money just to get rich, though, you need to reexamine your motives.
.About the Author:
Article brought to you by Minneapolis Minnesota Lawyer Firm: http://www.bolinskelaw.com/
December 27, 2008
Lawyer, Injury, Law, Attorney, Maritime Lawyer, Maritime Attorney, Injury At Sea, La
No Comments
Despite the extensive safety classes offered for both commercial and pleasure sea going individuals, an injury at sea can happen at any time, and can be very terrifying.
After all, the resources to remove someone from a vessel who is seriously injured are really minimal in comparison to receiving assistance on land. After the helicopters and rescue teams create a big fuss and get an injured victim safely to an on shore medical facility, what happens next?
Medical bills for an injury at sea tend to be much higher than those for injuries sustained on land. In most cases, some sort of rescue effort was made either via boat or air to get the injured party to the appropriate medical facility. Just like a ride in the ambulance comes at a cost, so does a chopper evacuation or a boat rescue. Coupled with the extensive damage that can occur during a rescue, even a broken leg or arm can rack up serious medical bills in a heart beat. In some cases, there is nothing the injured party can do.
In cases involving liability or work related injuries, the only way to financially protect what has taken a lifetime to build is to call a maritime injury lawyer. A maritime injury attorney can go over the case, ask the appropriate questions, and determine whether or not the injury falls under provision made in the Jones Act.
The Jones Act is a valuable doctrine that determines liability and financial obligation relating to injury at sea regardless of whether the injury was sustained in the pursuit of commerce, protection of the country, or personal pleasure. The Jones Act is used to determine the rights of an injured victim and how much and if they are entitled to compensation and damages stemming from the accident.
Obviously, a maritime injury attorney can do nothing if the accident was the fault of the injured party. There was a story in a prominent sailing magazine a few years back that told the story of a man who ran himself over with his own dinghy. He had apparently stood up while underway and the dinghy ran into a sandbar, lurching and sending the gentleman several feet in front of the dinghy.
The auxiliary engine did not have a safety cut off switch attached to his wrist, and of course with his weight out of the boat, it continued to progress and ran him over, cutting his face. Accidents such as these happen more regularly than could ever be printed.
A maritime injury attorney could do nothing in this situation, unless there was an emergency cut off switch that failed, or there was some other sort of safety mechanism that did not respond during the emergency. Nevertheless, this particular gentleman was still encouraged to contact a maritime injury lawyer just to be sure that his case was not tri-able.
When accidents occur involving safety equipment, the first call after alerting family members to the situation, should be to a maritime injury attorney. A thorough assessment by a maritime injury lawyer can often determine whether damages to cover the medical costs as well damages to cover any permanent injury are attainable.
For many families, this is the only viable means of paying the extraordinary costs associated with such an accident as well as maintaining the lifestyle achieved before the accident. A higher percentage of injuries at sea lead to life long effects than injuries sustained on land. Research has not yet proven exactly why, but there are many theories to support the statistics.
When an accident is clearly the fault of another seagoing individual, whether this entails commercial accidents or pleasure boating accidents, a maritime injury lawyer becomes a vital part of the picture, just as the physicians, surgeons, and therapists. A maritime injury lawyer can oversee that the victim’s rights under the Admiralty Law and the Jones Act are being upheld. In the event that any party involved in the accident are in violation of Admiralty Law or the Jones Act, a maritime injury attorney can then step up and start filing on behalf of the injured victim.
All too often people who have sustained an injury at sea and are entitled to compensation under the Jones Act or Admiralty Law do not receive fair treatment. This is due in part to the propensity for calling the wrong lawyer. If an injured party contact the same lawyer they used to fight their speeding ticket or to draw up their legal papers, they are not likely to receive the type of representation they need. Maritime injury attorneys are devoted to a specialty, and thus have extensively studied the Jones Act and Admiralty Law.
.About the Author:
Nick Johnson is lead counsel with Johnson Law Group. Johnson represents plaintiffs in many states and focuses on cases involving maritime injury, maritime contracts, and the Jones Act Law. Call Nick Johnson at 1-888-311-5522 or visit http://www.johnsonlawgroup.com
December 26, 2008
Law, Proof, Legal, Burglary, Theft, Robbery, Assault, Deception, Criminal Law, Wounding, Causation, La
No Comments
THEFT AND NON-FATAL OFFENCES, STATUTORY AND COMMON-LAW PROOF IN CRIMINAL LAW CASES
(Based on author’s site google_ad_client="pub-5416267314192393"; google_ad_width = 180; google_ad_height = 150; google_ad_format = "180x150_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; google_ad_channel =""; google_color_border = "999999"; google_color_bg = "999999"; google_color_link = "C0C0C0"; google_color_url = "C0C0C0"; google_color_text = "C0C0C0";
geocities.com/crmlw”>www.geocities.com/crmlw)
> Theft and Related Offences
Theft says s.1 Theft Act 1968 is the dishonest appropriation of another’s property with the intention to deprive the other of it permanently. The actus-reus of it is in s. 3 ‘appropriation’ (’any assumption of an owner’s right’) as can be changing price-labels to pay less: R -v- Morris 1983, or such ‘borrowing’ of a season-ticket in a way as makes it of no or little value: R -v- Llyod 1985 (’property’ being, s.4, all property including money and things in action, but physical things as paper and not abstract things as knowledge copied from it: Oxford -v- Moss 1979, limitedly on wild-growing plants [unless uprooted] and on flowers-fruits-leaves [unless for sale]; ‘belonging to another’ is by another owned or in lawful possession or control of another, e.g. taking without payment from repairer: R -v- Turner 1971). The mens-rea of it is ‘dishonestly’ in s. 2 (defined in terms of: s. 2(1)(a) unless s/he believes it right in law to do so or s. 2(1)(b) that the owner in the circumstances would consent if knew or s. 2(1)(c) that the owner could not by reasonable steps be discovered), regarded as a two-stage test of ordinary standard of reasonable man and knowledge of it: R -v- Feely 1968 & R -v- Gosh 198; also ‘intention to permanently deprive’ as in Lloyd.
The Theft Acts provide also for other offences.
Obtaining property by deception is in s. 15 of the ‘68 Act , as theft but ‘by any deception’ -by false words or tricky behaviour: R -v- Bernard 1837 (pretending as business inducing investment & supply of goods) R -v- Gomez 1993 (unentitledly in Salvation Army uniform collecting money).
Obtaining services by deception is s. 1 of the ‘78 Act -it is as for property in the earlier Act.
Evading liability in s. 2 of the ‘78 Act is the offence of similarly avoiding e.g. debts.
Making off without payment (‘bilking’) is s. 3 of the ‘78 Act ~e.g. restaurant -without paying.
Robbery is s. 8 enabling theft by force or such threats, at the time or before, as would put in fear another of there and then being subjected to it ~theft with assault or battery -max.: life.
Burglary in s. 9 is mostly by trespass -by unauthorised entry to or to any part of any building (including caravans & house-boats lived in), s. 9(1)(a) ‘intending to steal or inflict grievous bodily harm or raping any person within it, or doing unlawful damage to it or anything within it as a trespasser,’ s. 9(1)(b) or upon entry as trespasser without such intention doing or attempting so ~it is can be tried by Magistrates -by a Crown Court if involves the intention to rape or cause grievous bodily harm
Taking a conveyance without consent is s. 12, taking, driving or being in, any thing constructed for carrying people by land, water, or air (except pedal cycles) ~it is a summary offence, normally, with max. 6 month imprisonment -unless aggravated by dangerous driving, or damage to it, or accident causing injury or damage (in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 ‘reasonable careful person test’ applies).
> Non-fatal Offences Against the Person
Non-fatal offences against the person are in part common law offences, and in part by statute; and, in order of seriousness, they are as follows:-
In Smith -v-Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station 1983 entering a garden at night, by looking through a bedroom window terrifying a woman was an offence under s. 4 Vagrancy Act 1824 ~if intending to assault -words alone are not normally enough.
Assault is causing apprehension of immediate unlawful physical violence intentionally or recklessly -its charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1998. Threats not capable of being carried out do not constitute it.
Battery is the intentional or reckless subjecting of another to unlawful force; and, as in the case of hitting one wit a missile, it need not be coupled by assault. This also is in common-law, charged under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998.
In both of these offences the mens-rea is intention: R -v- Spratt 1990, or by subjective recklessness: R -v- Savage 1991 was deliberate unreasonable risk taking, and R-v- Parmenter 1991: not if the risk is obvious but if malice was involved. While both the actus-reus and the mens-rea must exit at the same time, the mens-rea can be formed in the course of the actus-reus: Fagan -v- Metropolitan Police Commission 1969 -having accidentally driven car on policeman’s foot, refusing to move car when told had formed it
Satisfactory evidence of consent is a defence: R -v- Donovan 1934 (prostitute beaten by a stick for sexual gratification), if the offence is not a more serious one.
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm is a s. 47 offence and it is when battery, alone or coupled with common law assault, the statutory ‘assault’ of the Act is so serious that it is likely to interfere with the victim’s health and comfort -without cutting the whole skin, physically such as grazing and concussion: R -v- Roberts 1971, or: R -v- Chan & Fook 1994 as nervous shock in psychiatric terms: R -v- Ireland & R -v- Burstow 1997 (a direct physical attack is not a requirement, also e.g. silent telephone calls may constitute the offence of causing actual bodily harm. Its actus-reus is itself as the consequence by the ‘but for’ test, the objective test; it requires this to be coupled with the mens-rea in the form of intention or subjective recklessness: Roberts (where intentionally or subjectively recklessly there was unlawful force, which objectively occasioned the bodily harm). In Donovan consent was not a defence because actual bodily harm was caused ~the nature and the degree of the injury itself being the decisive factor in whether common assault was the offence involved -to which only it is a defence, or actual bodily harm or greater..
Unlawful Wounding is a s. 20 offence, and it is by any means unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. In the actus-reus the ‘wound’ is other than a broken collarbone: R -v- Wood 1830 or internal bleeding: JJC -v- Eisonhower 1983; it need not be serious. But ‘grievous bodily harm’ must be serious -although not necessarily permanent or life threatening, nor by a direct attack: R -v- Martin 1881. The mens-rea of it is ‘maliciously’ (intention or subjective recklessness) which applied as transferred malice in intended hitting in R -v- Latimer 1886; but in R -v- Parmenter where ‘neither could have intended nor realised injury’, and consent here too was no defence in R -v- Brown & Others 1993.
Wounding with Intent is s. 18, the most serious of the Act’s offences. It is ‘unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever to wound or cause grievous bodily harm… with intent to do some grievous bodily harm.. or to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detaining… of any person’; its actus-reus is as for unlawful wounding, but its mens-rea is the intention to commit the crime, and proof of that is required, but it can be reduced to and dealt with as ‘unlawful wounding’ based on subjective recklessness: R -v- Constanza 1996 : it can be stalking and if silent telephone calls cause mental anguish as in R -v- Gelder 1944.
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawful wounding carry a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment, but wounding with intent carries, as maximum, life imprisonment.
> The General Elements That Must be Proved Before Establishing Criminal Liability
These have to be looked at first, in considering whether any offences may have been committed. Some of these are statute-based and some under common-law, their development having been much affected by such pressures as economic, social, and political. Usually specific are the features of each crime, but there are some common elements.
One is innocent until ad unless found in law not to be -except in strict-liability cases; this requires showing both that a guilty act was done, as well as that it was intentionally done.
Actus-reus is the criminal act: e.g., s. 1 of the Theft Act 1968 ‘dishonest appropriation’; or the criminal omission: e.g., s. 6 Road Traffic Act 1988 ‘fails to provide a specimen’; or a criminal a state of affairs or event: e.g., in Winzar -v- Chief Constable of Kent 1983 the charge of ‘found drunk in the highway’; or the criminal consequence: e.g., s. 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ‘occasioning actual bodily harm’-which is a ‘result crime’ necessitating showing a casual link in fact or in law.
Causation in fact is determined by the ‘but for test’. In R -v- White 1910 the mother’s death having been from natural causes, poisoning her was not the cause, and it not killing.
Causation of law depend on the contribution of the intervening act. R -v- Roberts 1972 injury of jumping out the car was caused by sexual advances made to the woman in the car; in R -v- Pitts 1842 drowning was caused while escaping from an attack; R -v- Lewis 1970 broken leg resulted from escaping threats and attempt of violence; the reasonable act of the victim in seeking to escape being subjected to a crime was the link. Contributory negligence of the victim in R -v- Holland 1841 (self neglect) did not break the link, in R -v- Deer 1996 was still the significant operative in the death -it was killing, a thyroid condition unknown to the accused at the time did not change the ‘egg-shell skull rule’ and one took one’s victim as one found the victim -and R-v- Blaue 1975 (refusal of blood-transfusion on religious grounds) this applies also in respect to the spiritual condition of the victim. The sole cause of death need not be the act or the omission and in R -v- Pagett 1983 the ‘instinctive’ fatal shooting by a policeman of a human-shield was unlawful killing of the accused who had ’substantially’ caused it; while some reluctance was shown by the courts in treating intervening medical treatment as breaking the link and in R -v- Smith 1959 as much as by 75% reduction of it by that did not break the link, in R -v- Jordan 1956 palpably wrong medical treatment was the direct and the immediate cause of death, from R -v- Cheshire 1991 it is clear that the link can be broken.
Mens-rea is the fault-level of the accused in the act or mission; it is often included in the definition of serious crimes e.g., ‘with malice aforethought’; it is ‘the guilty mind’ by intention, recklessness, or gross-negligence.
Intention, for most serious crimes, has to be specifically shown, by a subjective test deemed by the jury to have been present, R -v- Moloney 1985: in the form of foresight of, R -v- Hancock & Shankland 1986: the probable consequences, wilfully and deliberately carried out ~or in R -v- Nadrick 1988 with virtual certainty of the probable consequences -which may be intention: Scalley 1955.
Recklessness in ss. 47, 20, 23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, rape) show basic intention; it can be subjective: leaking ripped off gas-meter killed in R -v- Cunningham 1957; or objective: R -v- Caldwell 1981 (arson by drunk) -s1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971: as to whether life would be endangered.
Negligence can be mens-rea in non-strict-liability offences of e.g. Factories Act 1961 -but only as a last resort; but gross negligence, often, is sufficient mens-rea in homicide cases: Adomako 1994
Strict liability does not require mens-rea e.g. Food & Drugs Act 1995 -in Meah -v- Roberts 1977 of the unfitness of drink for human consumption the accused was innocent yet still guilty ~but in Warner -v- Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969 (dangerous drugs case) ‘one cannot be in possession the contents of a package when he/she does not know what it is’.
These are an outline as guidelines; laws change, always ascertain current law.
The author has a website at: http://www.geocities.com/eoa_uk
.About the Author:
The author’s favourite site is the Teacher of Teachers
December 25, 2008
Lawyer, Lawyers, Law, Attorney, California Lemon Law, Lemon Law Lawyers, California Lemon Law Lawyer, California Lemon Law Attorneys, Lemon Law In California, Los Angeles Lemon Law, Lemon Law In Illinois, Nevada Lemon Law, Lemon Law In Michigan, California Lemon Law Attorney, Lemon Law Attorneys, Los Angeles, Attorneys, La
No Comments
The definition of Lemon Law is when a car that gives you grave problems right after you buy it. The defect must be extensive and must occur within a certain time or mileage period, usually 12,000 miles or one year.
Usually People get the option of getting a refund or a replacement vehicle for a lemon, but they might have to go to arbitration or court to exercise this option.
Lemon Law refers to the statement from the government which is created to protect clients or customers from defects in automobile. An automobile that has manufacturing defect(s) or requires constant repairs after purchase and if the automobile is under the period of warranty, then the vehicle is termed as a lemon.
If any vehicle such as a car is under warranty period and is suffering from a range of faults that prevent a user to use the vehicle effectively then Lemon law act or the Magnuson Moss Act comes into force.
Lemon law can be enforced on any vehicle be it car, truck, van, SUV, motorcycle, boat or computer, etc. If any of these consumer durables is found to be defective then the consumer is entitled for either money back, replacement or a cash settlement. The law can be consulted with a Lemon law attorney as various states have different lemon laws. Some states have a lemon law for only the automobiles but some also include other consumer durables.
A dealer or manufacturer should have made number of attempts to repair the vehicle before being declared as lemon. Usually three or more attempts in row over a short period of time are required for any vehicle to be termed as lemon. Lemon law is also valid to vehicles that have been resold and are still under warranty.
To make certain whether a vehicle is a lemon or not one should study certain conditions of the vehicle before pursuing a lemon law suit. A vehicle should exhibit some serious defect or some abnormal condition. Number of attempts for repair should also be taken into account before preparing a lemon law suit. A written notice should also be issued to the manufacturer prior to a lemon law suit.
A vehicle that has been bought back by the manufacturer from the customer is known as a Lemon Buy Back. They are then often sold in auctions as used cars by the manufacturers.
The Lemon law enforced for protecting consumers from the lemon vehicles is Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. This lemon law states that any advertised guarantee should explicitly state relevant information about a warranty. This law ensures that any warranty for goods above $15 should be clearly expressed on the goods and should be clear and easy to understand. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty act enables a consumer to bring suit to any manufacturer, supplier, warrantor, or service contractor for any defective piece of good or services.
.About the Author:
Ibrahim Machiwala is a successful writer and publisher of Stock Exchange and legal issues, for more informative articles on Lemon Law, he has written many articles on trade, business, forex, and payment processing
December 10, 2008
London, Attacks, People, Alarm, Mourning, Situation, Deadly, Experienced, Difficult, Killed, Brought, 49
People, These
Terrorists, Wickedly, That
Startled, Wounded
This, Londo, These, Terrorist
No Comments
London has experienced four deadly attacks that killed about 49
people. They were all mourning and what else can they do? These
terrorists have wickedly brought London into an alarm that
startled the people.
Many were killed and the most are wounded.
This had been a difficult situation for London. The queen and
his son have visited their wounded people in the hospitals. The
queen left the terrorists a message about their plans of keeping
terrorism which she addressed in behalf of the British people.
This has been believed that the Muslim is responsible for the
terrifying bombings. The Secret Group of al Qaeda’s Jehad in
Europe is claiming responsibility of all the terrorism acts. The
bombings started in the morning at the subway stations causing
the passengers to delay their travel. Everybody was startled and
rushing back and forth when the place was under an emergency
plan.
Radios where everywhere, people were all rushing and looking for
a safe place to hide. No place is safe in a place covered by
terrorists. Children in school were immediately sent home to
their families. During these times, communication was really not
a problem but the transportation. The bombings started in subway
stations so traveling was dangerous and halted.
All the people were panicking and rushing through. There was no
better way to hide. Girls were screaming, parents were worried
about their children and everyone is in the state of hysteria.
Nobody felt safe after the gory and horrific incident. The place
that once was calm is now in deep riot and stopping it is quite
impossible.
These terrorists have selfishly taken away innocent people’s
lives. Everyone is horrified especially the children. They’re
eyes are all wide open and it seems to them that the war have
started. The neighboring countries couldn’t offer much help but
prayers to keep the people strong and tough. For those who have
died in the bombings, they are not just lucky enough to have
perished in a sorrowful and bloody way.
Is seems that peace talks are hard to keep up today. Whatever
caused this terrorism, it is not good that innocent people are
subjected to suffer. Everyone has the right to be safe and free
from being harmed. Terrorism is not a good remedy and it will
just keep it worse. The government is now taking steps and
preventive ways to stop this major drawback.
For more related articles, you may visit
http://www.mesrianilaw.com
.About the Author:
Karen Nodalo came across writing when she was about 11. The
whole craze for writing started when she first wrote her diary
during elementary years. After school, she would write in it
first before doing homework. She finds it cool and until now she
still keeps one.
November 24, 2008
Lawyer, Marketing, Advertising, Online, Law, Internet Marketing, Directories, Online Advertising, Seattle, Lawyer Advertising, Referral Sites, La
No Comments
Are you looking for a lawyer? Using the internet to find one? Beware of websites that say they will help you locate, evaluate, and choose a lawyer.
These sites are not always what they appear to be. They are not a public service. More often than not these sites are simply paid advertising spots.
There are two basic categories of lawyer finder websites. They are directory sites and referral sites.
The directory sites are basically an online version of the yellow pages where attorneys have paid for a listing in the directory. Typically, the more money that is paid by the attorney the bigger the ad. More money also means a higher rank in the directory, more times the ad will be presented, etc. The directory offers each listing and you pick the lawyer to contact.
Referral sites gather your information (name, number, case specifics, etc.) and then send it to an attorney who will contact you. The attorney has also paid for this service. The difference is that the attorney is paying to get a case lead. When you fill out the online form by giving information about your case, the information is given to the next lawyer on the list. With referral sites, the lawyer is often paying to get a certain number of leads per month. Rather than being routed to the attorney that can best meet your needs you are simply put in touch with the next attorney in line.
Whether the attorney is listed in a directory or referral sit, in both cases the attorney is paying for advertising. This is important to understand because the attorney may not have much if any experience in the area of law that pertains to your case. Many times the attorney who pays for this type of advertising may not have even taken your type of case all the way to trial. Sometimes out-of-state attorneys will use a directory or referral site to gather leads and then refer them to an in-state attorney for a referral or broker fee.
Also, beware of those websites that claim that the attorney has been prescreened or that the attorney belongs in their network. This just means that the lawyer was able to pay the advertising fee. The term prescreened attorney usually means that the site has verified that the attorney is licensed to practice law, but not necessarily that the attorney is experienced to handle your type of case.
There is actually a subcategory of the referral site. I call them referral firms. These are sites that appear to promote a lawyer or a law firm. But behind the scene these sites are just another type of referral site where the attorney has paid a hefty fee to be promoted. You might have seen some television spots for these lawyers or firms. Again, they take your call or your incoming email and then route it to someone or some firm that is next on the list to get leads. Many times the attorney is not even licensed to practice law in your state. In some cases they associate with a local firm—but it still is not the firm that you thought you were contacting or hiring.
Some of the key phrases that indicate that you are looking at a directory or referral site are as follows: -free lawyer finder services -helps you easily find a lawyer in your area based on location and specialty -find a lawyer near you -law firm directories -access to information, news, articles and attorney profiles -find, research, screen and contact a lawyer -Review lawyer profiles and information about individual law firms to identify the best lawyer to fit your needs
You are the only person who should be choosing a lawyer to represent you. Legal matters, especially personal injury cases, can sometimes (not always) take years to resolve. When you pick a lawyer you are choosing to build a long-term attorney-client relationship with someone who will speak on your behalf. Do not make a hasty decision while visiting a website late one night.
Do your homework, visit websites, read articles, review resumes, watch videos, talk to friends, talk other family members and, most importantly, meet with several lawyers in their offices. Ask them questions, about their experience, track record, etc. Listen to what they have to say and judge for yourself.
Good luck.
.About the Author:
Mischelle (Schelly) Weedman-Davis has over 15 years of marketing experience with high tech and internet businesses such as Microsoft, Primus, Summit Software, Qpass, and others. She recently left the high tech world behind to focus her energy and attention on being a mother and supporting her husband’s Seattle law firm. To learn more about Davis Law Group visit www.InjuryTrialLawyer.com or www.washingtonaccidentbook.com
November 22, 2008
Lawyer, Bankruptcy, Lawyers, Chapter 7, Secured Creditors, Law, La
No Comments
Secured Creditors and Relief From The Automatic Stay
In certain circumstances, a secured creditor can move the court for modification of the automatic stay so that they may pursue recovery of their collateral.
For example, an auto finance company can petition to the court to modify the automatic stay if you are not making current payments toward the creditor, if you are not up to date with the creditor or if you are not properly insuring the vehicle against loss. In those cases, the creditor will be granted its relief and will be permitted to recover the collateral despite the bankruptcy filing. In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, you will lose the right to possess and own the vehicle; however, you will not be responsible for any outstanding debt related to the vehicle. This could be a tremendous relief for you by eliminating a huge vehicle loan obligation.
As it relates to real estate mortgage companies, the same situation as above applies. The lender will petition the court for relief if you are not making timely payments, if you are not current with the loan, if you are not paying the real estate taxes on the property or are otherwise creating a hazard or risk to the lender. Thus, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the automatic stay will only provide temporary relief to you as it relates to secured creditors. As far as general creditors and unsecured creditors, the automatic stay may continue until the case is discharged. At that point, you likely be free from any future obligation toward the creditor.
The Bankruptcy Estate
What is the bankruptcy estate? The bankruptcy estate is all of your property as of the date of the bankruptcy filing, wherever located and by whomever held. Every possible interest (contingent, partial, legal or equitable) goes into the bankruptcy estate. Although there are exemptions which allow you to keep all or a portion of your property, the property is still technically considered property of the estate.
The concept of the estate applies to property owned at the time of filing. Most of what you acquire after the date of filing will remain your property. However, there are a few exceptions to this general rule.
If you inherit money or property within six months after your case is filed, that money or property will become property of the estate to the extent that it cannot be exempted.
If you receive a marital property settlement that arises from a pre-bankruptcy divorce or separation, then that property becomes property of the estate to the extent that the property cannot be exempted.
Tax refunds that are received after the date of filing become property of the estate to the extent that they cannot be exempted.
.About the Author:
David M. Siegel is the author of Chapter 7 Success: The Complete Guide to Surviving Personal Bankruptcy. He is a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute and currently practices bankruptcy law in Chicago and its surrounding suburbs. Additional information is available at http://www.bankruptcy-lawyers-phoenix.com .
November 11, 2008
Lawyer, Lawyers, Car, Injury, Law, Car Accident, Attorney, Injury Attorney, Los Angeles, Motorcycle Accidents, Accident Attorneys, Attorneys, Wrongful Death, Injury Attorneys, La, Pi Attorneys, Car Crash Lawyers, Accidents
No Comments
No one envisions losing a loved one.
The mere though of losing someone to a wrongful death is a harrowing idea. However, the law may provide some solace to your problems. If the death of your loved one was the result of the intentional actions, recklessness, or negligence of a third party, you may be entitled to relief. These actions are known as wrongful death actions. But where are the aggressive Los Angeles wrongful death attorneys? Any type of death may be compensable as a wrongful death, even for something like someone driving recklessly. You need only find the right lawyers for your case.
Wrongful death claims are highly complicated and require a skilled Los Angeles Wrongful Death attorney. Los Angeles is a bustling metropolis with plenty of dangerous industry and peril for loved ones. A highly skilled Los Angeles wrongful death lawyer will help you navigate through the morass of wrongful death statutes and determine if you have a case or are entitled to relief.
Los Angeles may be filled with peril, but with an experience Wrongful Death attorney, you need not be left empty handed should a loved one pass away as a result of a wrongful death injury. Los Angeles has a massive freeway system, with millions of residents and dangerous industry that inevitably will cause deaths, thankfully the law provides relief for its citizens. If you have lost a loved one, you should contact experiencedhttp://www.ehlinelaw.com/pages/3420/expert/losangeleswrongfuldeathattorneys.htm”> Los Angeles Wrongful Death Attorneys.
The aggressive Los Angeles wrongful death attorneys have recovered huge verdicts in many different types of cases. Often Los Angeles lawyers will argue in a death case that the loss has greatly damaged the remaining loved ones. Potential wages are often a large factor in these cases when determining damages. The sheer scope of Los Angeles Wrongful Death cases is staggering. Many are filed every year for everything from negligence, medical malpractice, products liability, construction defects, and reckless activities.
No one wants to lose someone, much less involve lawyers should it occur. However, Los Angeles residents may be entitled to huge relief if they employ an experienced Wrongful Death attorney to fight for the relief that the aggrieved loved ones deserve. While it is a difficult experience, contacting a wrongful death attorney and fighting for what you deserve should be your first move. If you feel that you have lost a loved one due to the negligence, misfeasance, or recklessness of another, you should contact an experienced http://www.ehlinelaw.com/pages/3420/expert/losangeleswrongfuldeathattorneys.htm”> Wrongful Death Attorneys Los Angeles today.
.About the Author:
Los Angeles Wrongful Death Attorneys educate injured victims in California cities including Orange County.
November 6, 2008
Personal Injury, Personal Injury Claim, Claim Letter, Accident Notes, Injury
No Comments
Claim letters aren’t the only thing you should put in writing - make sure everything is in writing.
Not only does it make you look organized, but it means you actually are organized.
It also means every last piece of communication is easily confirmed and referred to. This is why claim letters are letters, and not phone calls.
You’ll need the insurance adjuster to be able to study and refer to your claim letter during the time your claim is open. If claims were handled entirely over the phone, cases would rest on how well the adjuster took notes. Having the information in writing assures that the adjuster is regularly faced with your side of the story.
There are other things you’ll want to have in writing. These include accident notes, injury notes and notes on conversations with witnesses. This information will come into play later on, especially if your case goes to court.
Imagine you have written notes detailing every aspect of your claim beginning on the day of the accident, and the defendant is relying on memory only. Who is the judge more likely to believe?
The insurance adjuster needs to be shown how organized you are from the beginning. Fill your claim letter with your detailed notes and you’ll impress the adjuster with the knowledge and information you’ve gathered. You’ll be presenting yourself as someone who knows exactly what you’re talking about and who won’t be taken advantage of.
Other things that will help your claim letter are notes and documents from other people. You don’t want to simply relate from memory what the police officer said, you want to quote from the actual police report. The same is true for your medical records, reports and bills. These things should be referred to directly, so the adjuster knows your case is based on documented facts, not just your memory.
Don’t forget there are damages other than medical. Get documentation from your Human Resources department for any days of work you missed. Make sure this includes information on the pay you lost as a result of those missed days.
While you want to keep your personal notes for yourself, you should include any damage confirmation documents with your claim letter. Only send copies though, and keep the originals for yourself. Be sure to state in your claim letter that those documents are included.
.About the Author:
About author:
Arthur Gueli works with his brother Charles (a licensed personal injury attorney) teaching injured people how to protect their rights and obtain fair compensation for their damages. Learn more about filing a personal injury claim at this page on their free educational website: http://www.Injury-Settlement-Guide.com/your-insurance-settlement.html Injury-Settlement-Guide.com.
November 5, 2008
Politics, Car, Auto, Insurance, Ticket, Traffic, Government, Constitution, Freedom, Laser, Rights, Court, Speeding, Beat, Dmv, Fines, Cop, Radar, Reckless Driving, Traffic Ticket, Fourth Amendment, 4th Amendment, Radar Camera, Speed Trap, Traffic Court, La
No Comments
“For sixty years the U.
S. Supreme Court avoided trekking through the constitutional minefield accumulated around the long standing practice of police stopping and temporarily seizing people at ‘civil’ traffic stops.”
It’s a nice day and you are traveling down the road in your automobile listening to one of your favorite tunes playing on your car stereo when, a frenzied display of psychotropic red and blue pulsating lights appear suddenly in your rearview mirror. It’s a traffic cop! Like a warring bird of prey, he has swooped down upon you at lightning speed from out of nowhere and now he has you hopelessly locked firmly in his clutches.
Millions of Americans each year, traveling upon our nation’s highways and streets, share in a similar unpleasant experience of getting a traffic ticket. In most states, minor traffic offenses are legally classified as infractions. Infractions are considered legally to be ‘petty offenses’ of the law and not a crime. The commission of an infraction is classified as a non-criminal act and, therefore, the infraction is a ‘civil’ breach of the law.
There is little civil about the experience of being chased down like a common criminal by an armed police officer and handed a civil traffic ticket. Most people find the experience to be very unnerving, if not downright frightening. The civil traffic stop is made infinitely more tyrannous in light of the fact that the victim of the cop’s assault committed no crime.
The Fourth Amendment was designed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizures, requiring police to first have probable cause. Although probable cause was not defined by the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has long held that probable cause must include a criminal act to warrant seizure, or arrest. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) the U.S. Supreme Court held that police may briefly detain a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
Being that the Supreme Court’s litmus test for probable cause has historically required the element of a crime to be associate with reasonable cause for a seizure, how then is it possible that a traffic stop (seizure) for a non criminal civil infraction not to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
In 1967, the Supreme Court cracked open the door to provide legal sanction to what police officers were already doing around the country in violating the Fourth Amendment (performing traffic stop seizures for non-criminal civil infractions). In Delaware v. Prouse, 440, U.S. 648 (1967) the Supreme Court ruled, “The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” [writer emphases added]
For over sixty years the U.S. Supreme Court avoided trekking through the constitutional minefield accumulated around the long standing practice of police stopping and temporarily seizing people at ‘civil’ traffic stops. Civil traffic stops (seizures) were unquestionably at odds with people’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures. The Supreme Court’s refusal to take the lead on the constitutional issue of the civil traffic stop left the state courts twisting in the wind of tyrannous constitutional construction and clamoring for a clear constitutional path they could take to safely traverse around the Fourth Amendment roadblock regarding the civil traffic stop and seizure.
The state courts have long and desperately sought the U.S. Supreme Court’s assistance in constitutionally ‘legitimizing’ (tweaking the Constitution) the six decade practice by police officers of seizing people for civil traffic offenses. The state courts had no way of neatly disposing of the highly problematic constitutional requirement that the U.S. Supreme Court had saddled them with. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that probable cause for a temporary seizure required a crime and the civil traffic stop was not a crime.
In 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 addressed head on the question of whether or not the civil traffic stop (seizure) violates a person’s Fourth Amendment rights. Acquiescing to the state courts’ demands, the Court provided the state courts with exactly what they had long sought, ruling; “As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” [writer emphases added]
Politicians are well known for their talent to spin things. ‘Spinning’ is the ability to make things appear to be something that they are not. However, this talent is not limited only to politicians. Supreme Court justices are also very practiced in the art of spinning. Justices of the Supreme Court are lawyers, and lawyers practice a form of spinning known as ‘legal word art’. This form of spinning is created by transforming common words into technical legal jargon with hidden meanings.
The Supreme Court in the Whren case applied a hefty dose of good ol’ spin doctoring, as the politicians like to say, to make it appear as if the civil traffic stop was not an assault on our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure. The Court in Whren capitalized on the use of one tiny, common, ordinary word - a word everyone uses and believes that they know the meaning of – ‘traffic.’
Traffic; the flow of vehicles and pedestrians along public right of ways. True? Yes, quite true when the word traffic is used in its ordinary sense, but not true when the word traffic is used in its legal sense. The word traffic used in its legal sense means an activity involving commerce — transportation of goods and people for profit as revealed in the following definition for the word ‘commerce’ under U.S. Code, Title 42, 21, VI, § 2000e (g). The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, transmission…” [writer emphases added]
A little more than a century ago, America had less tyrannous courts. The following 1898 Illinois Supreme Court ruling regarding the licensing of motorized methods of private transport of people not engaged in traffic is great proof of how at least one state supreme court followed the Constitution back then.
“The license is designed to operate upon those who hold themselves out as common carriers, and a license may be exacted from such as a proper exercise of police power; but no reason exists why it should be applied to the owners of private vehicles, used for their individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion.” City of Chicago v. Collins et al., Supreme Court of Illinois. 175 Ill. 445, 51 N.E. 907 (Oct. 24, 1898).
The Illinois Supreme Court in 1898 held firm to the constitutional fact that the states have the power to regulate, license, and tax only those persons engaged in the activity of commerce related to the transport of people and goods upon the public right of ways.
Technically, the Supreme Court did not assail our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure. Stopping and temporarily seizing a person engaged in traffic (an activity in commerce) does not per se violate their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. The constitution grants states the right to regulate profit making activities in commerce upon the public right of ways.
In a realest or truest sense, the Supreme Court walloped our Fourth Amendment rights smack between the eyes with Whren (which was the Court’s intention from the get go). The states had long been pressuring the Supreme Court for a ruling such as this. They desperately needed to justify sixty plus years of doing what is not justifiable – their long practice of seizing people not in engaged in commerce at so called civil traffic stops.
Had Whren raised the issue about his not being engaged in commerce and a regulated activity, at the time of his trial, then in all likelihood the Supreme Court would have passed on hearing his case. The Court would have just waited patiently for another case to come along possessing the elements necessary to rule in the same manner as the Court had done in the Whren case.
Traffic boils down to money, power, and control. Traffic tickets are a multi-billion dollar bonanza for state and local governments. Profit making activities allows the government to regulate, license, and tax people under the constitution. The state traps people into traffic in much the same manner as it does regarding the Income Tax – the government just pretends that we all are engaged in a profit making activity.
The Supreme Court acted on the pretense that Whren was engaged in a profit making activity upon the public right of way and therefore, the state had the power to regulate his activity (driving or being in commerce). The police have the right to regulate traffic and, therefore, can constitutionally temporarily seize a person engaged in commerce to issue them a traffic ticket for a civil breach of the state’s driver’s license compact.
The state’s so called driver’s license compact is written for those engaged in commerce. However this fact is cleverly disguised and hidden from people by the lawyers who write the laws using the “spin doctoring” or ‘legal word art.’
Your possessing a driver’s license is not proof or evidence that you are engaged in traffic. You can have a driver’s license and your car can be registered and this does not prevent you from lawfully traveling in your private constitutionally unregulated capacity upon the public right of ways. It’s the activity of engaging in commerce that grants the states the right to regulate traffic and nothing in the Constitution grants the states the right to regulate the people’s right to travel. The right to travel is not and cannot be made a regulated activity. Therefore, the temporary seizure by a police officer at the time of a traffic stop is unquestionably unconstitutional.
TicketSlayer.com Slayer your Traffic Ticket with Ticket Slayer!
Contact Author: GregS@TicketSlayer.com
.About the Author:
TicketSlayer.com Ticket Slayer — The No. 1 Slayer of Traffic Tickets on the net! Beat your traffic ticket with Ticket Slayer!
Ticket Slayer has helped over Two Thousand people around the country to get their traffic tickets dismissed in traffic court.
Ticket Slayer has an overall National 85% Success Rate and a 92% Success Rate in California.
Approximately 95% of people never challenge a traffic ticket in traffic court. Many feel that they could not win in traffic court, its just too big of a hassle to go to traffic court.
There is more than just the fine amount to consider regarding traffic tickets. In some instances just one minor traffic ticket can substantially raise your insurance premiums for three years. This can amount to hundreds and even thousands of dollars.
Don’t pay that traffic ticket …Slay your traffic ticket with Ticket Slayer!
« Previous Entries