dumb laws dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Education Advocacy Clinic at Suffolk University Law School
Isabel Raskin, who runs the Education Advocacy Clinic at Suffolk University Law School, discusses her goals for the clinic, as well as what students enrolled in the clinic experience. Learn more about Ms. Raskin at http://bit.ly/AAPxJa.
Gone Clio with Attorney Andrew Legrand
On Gone Clio, Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, New Orleans lawyer, Andrew Legrand. Andrew discusses his method for being completely paperless, disaster recovery and cloud storage, Clio’s Maildrop feature and shares his thoughts on the online law practice model.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/06/gone-clio-with-attorney-andrew-legrand/
Obamacare on Trial
The fate of President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is now in the hands of the United States Supreme Court. But did lawyers for the Obama Administration convince the justices this historic healthcare initiative conforms to the U.S. Constitution? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, along with Professor Ilya Somin from the George Mason University School of Law and Professor Geoffrey Stone of The Law School of the University of Chicago, discuss the constitutionality and possible outcomes of this landmark Supreme Court case.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/04/obamacare-on-trial/
pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer
A Radical or Rational SCOTUS Session?
After one of the most historic United States Supreme Court sessions in years, emotions ran high and charges of radicalism ran amuck as the Justices handed down rulings on immigration enforcement, national healthcare, campaign finance law, stolen valor and more. But in the end, did SCOTUS simply uphold the law of the land? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, get the legal facts behind the decisions from New York University School of Law Professor Roderick Hills, Jr. and Temple University Beasley School of Law Professor Jan Ting.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/a-radical-or-rational-scotus-session/
attorney definition attorney directory attorney fees attorney finder attorney law
Can Lawyers Use the iPad Successfully
Can lawyers use the iPad successfully or are they tied to the PC? Are iPads the future of the profession, or just another fad? Are other products as good as the iPad?
Our guest, Brett Burney of Burney Consultants, is a legal technology consultant who offers iPad training and support for law firms, as well as litigation support technologies with iPad, Mac and Windows. In this discussion Ed and Brett will compare and contrast the Ipad with other available products. Your can read more about Brett Burney at his web site www.burneyconsultants.com.
25 minutes 10 seconds
5.87 MB
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/EPsmNTwoHP4/
bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
GOP senators, fighting recess appointments, seek to stop 'regulatory train wreck'
Senate Republicans are looking to stop work at the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, piggybacking on a federal appeals court ruling that invalidated some of President Barack Obama's controversial recess appointments.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202586927092&rss=rss_nlj
divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer
LawBiz® Legal Pad On the Road!: Client Expectations
Above all else, managing client expectations requires a commitment to communication. Tune in this week as Ed shares tips to make this easier for you.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/AdM5soy4R3U/
pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer
Lazy Squared
Humboldt County, California, Public defender Gregory Elvine-Kreis moved to dismiss the burglary indictment based upon the failure of then Deputy District Attorney Allan Dollison to turn over an interview of the defendant prior to trial. Judge Marilyn Miles refused.
Via the Times-Standard:
In opposing the motion to dismiss, [Deputy District Attorney Zachary] Curtis said Dollison had no reason not to disclose that he knew about the police interview.
”It just boggles the mind to think that the prosecutor would deliberately hide this information,” he said. “It just escaped Mr. Dollison entirely.”
Curtis said it amounted to “facts lost to an extremely busy prosecutor in an overloaded office.”
Elvine-Kreis said understaffing wasn't a justification for the violation of a defendant's rights.
”Part of the reason this happens is they are overwhelmed,” he said. “If they are overwhelmed, they need to hire.”
So the prosecutor was too busy to remember to turn over statements at trial? Pretty outrageous, both because it's a facile excuse and, as Elvine-Kreis argues, it's not an excuse at all. Too busy is their problem, not the defendants. They are required to turn it over, and there is no exception to that requirement that it only applies if they remember or have the time.
Dismissal of an indictment is an extreme remedy, and the prosecution argued that there were other, lesser, remedies available to address the failure. Indeed, that's true, such as preclusion of admission of the confession at trial. While nothing has the impact of dismissal, the punishment of the prosecution also punishes the community for a prosecutor's screw-up by putting a bad guy back on the street. While many of us would argue, and believe, that the trade-off is well worth it, judges don't always see the severity of prosecutorial failure and deprivation of constitutional rights as clearly as we do.
But what happened here isn't exactly as clear cut as the defense's motion suggests. Defense counsel learned about the failure to disclose during opening statements at trial. Not a great time to learn that the defendant confessed. This is the description of how it came down:
A mistrial was declared in the case on Dec. 13, following opening statements. Judge Marilyn Miles, who was overseeing the trial, granted the defense request when it came out that a police interview had taken place with the defendant outside of the scope agreed upon by her defense attorney at the time, and that the information she gave about her pending case was not turned over to the defense until the trial had started.
Wait a second. Did you catch this detail:
...a police interview had taken place with the defendant outside of the scope agreed upon by her defense attorney at the time...
While I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around the significance of this statement, it suggests that the police wanted to "interview" the defendant, who was represented by counsel, without the lawyer present. And this was good with the lawyer. And the lawyer and the police had some sort of agreement as to the "scope" of the interview, which the police somehow exceeded in the absence of the lawyer. And the lawyer knew that the police were interviewing the defendant but never learned what happened, what was said.
And this is okay?
Like Elvine-Kreis, I too see the failure to disclose a statement because the prosecutor was too busy and forgot as utterly inexcusable, and worthy of severe sanction. But then, I see the defense lawyer allowing a represented defendant to be interrogated by cops without being present as worse.
We expect the police to take advantage of defendants given the chance. That's their job. They aren't there to be kind and compassionate to criminals, but to catch them and make them confess their crimes. And the defense lawyer thought that some agreement as to scope of the interrogation would protect the defendant? That's nuts. That's incompetence.
Was the lawyer too busy to make it to the interrogation? Sure, there are plenty of pressures, places to be, things to do. That's the argument the prosecutor made in forgetting to turn over the statements. If that's why the defense lawyer failed to be present (and why did the lawyer agree to let the defendant be interviewed by the cops at all?), it doesn't get more ironic.
Some will follow their bias and forgive the defense lawyer while holding the prosecutor accountable. Indeed, one was just mind-bogglingly incompetent, while the other had a duty to fulfill. But the defense lawyer had a responsibility as well, to provide zealous representation to the defendant. Can't make it to the interrogation? Then set it for a time you can make it. There is no time you can make it because you are so very busy? Then don't let it happen.
In football, there are off-setting penalties, resulting in the terribly dissatisfying result of a do-over. And there will be a do-over here, if the case is retried after the mistrial. This sends a bad message to the prosecution that it's acceptable to be too busy to fulfill their constitutional duties, and the worst that will happen is that they will be made to do what they should have done in the first place, and then get a second chance. Bad message.
But it's really hard to work up a head of steam over the prosecution's failure when the defense attorney failed as well. The real shame here, which apparently eluded everyone, is that while the lawyers for both sides screwed up, the defendant will be the one to suffer on both accounts.
H/T FritzMuffKnuckle
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/01/28/lazy-squared.aspx?ref=rss
legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney
Monday, February 4, 2013
Paralegal Career 101: Dealing with Work-Related Stress
On this September edition of The Paralegal Voice, co-hosts Lynne DeVenny and Vicki Voisin explore the different kinds of work-related stressors many paralegals face on a day-to-day basis. They talk about the realities associated with an exciting but deadline-driven, detail-oriented paralegal job, and offer tips for both anticipating and resolving common stressors.
Pharma sales reps are FLSA exempt as outside salesmen (5-4)
This morning the US Supreme Court decided - on a 5-4 vote - that pharmaceutical sales representatives are "outside salesmen" and therefore exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court also unanimously held that the Department of Labor's recently-announced contrary interpretation was entitled to exactly zero deference.
Christopher v. SmithKline Beacham (US Supreme Ct 06/18/2012)
Christopher, a pharmaceutical sales representative, sued the employer for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) alleging failure to pay overtime. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and denied Christopher's motion to amend the judgment based on the trial court's failure to consider an amicus brief filed by the Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL). The 9th Circuit affirmed. The US Supreme Court affirmed (5-4).
The job of a pharmaceutical sales representative is to try to persuade physicians to write prescriptions for products in appropriate cases. For over 70 years DOL acquiesced in an interpretation that they were "outside salesmen" who are exempt from FLSA overtime requirements. In amicus briefs filed in Circuit courts DOL took the position that a "sale" requires a "consummated transaction." In Supreme Court briefing DOL's position was that there is no "sale" unless the employee "actually transfers title."
The Court said that the DOL's new interpretation is entitled to no deference at all because it would impose massive liability for conduct that occurred before the interpretation was announced, there had been no enforcement actions suggesting the industry was acting unlawfully, DOL gave no opportunity for public comment, and the interpretation is "flatly inconsistent" with the FLSA.
The FLSA definition of "sale" includes consignments, which do not involve a transfer of title. Although DOL regulations say that sales include the transfer of title, that does not mean a sale must include a transfer of title. The regulations also use the phrase "other disposition" which - in this unique regulatory environment - includes the work of pharmaceutical sales representatives. The representatives also bear all the exterior indicia of salesmen (average salaries exceeding $70,000, work that is difficult to standardize to a particular time frame, etc.)
The DISSENT reasoned that sales of drugs are made by pharmacists, not pharmaceutical sales representatives. The pharmaceutical sales representative neither make sales nor promote "their own sales." (The dissent agreed that the DOL's current views expressed in briefs are not entitled to any weight.)
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/06/pharma_sales_re.html
lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers
The Best Resources for Staying Current in E-Discovery
How do you keep up with all that is going on in the world of e-discovery? On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, welcome guest, Neil Squillante, publisher of LitigationWorld, who discusses his selection of resources for staying current in e-discovery. Neil tells us how to keep up with e-discovery developments, lists his favorite blogs and podcasts, and explains how you can benefit from the Sedona Conference and webinars.
probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer solicitor
Recent tax law changes of 2013
On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 into law. Summarized below are highlights of those and other changes to Federal tax laws affecting income, payroll, gift and estate, and generation-skipping transfer taxes beginning in 2013.
New top federal marginal rates – ordinary income, capital gains, and qualified dividends
39.6% top ordinary income tax rate
In tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals above the threshold taxable incomes listed below, the highest marginal ordinary income tax rate increases from 35% to 39.6%. The 39.6% rate is a reinstatement of the highest rate from before the 2001 Bush-era tax cuts.
| Filing Status | Threshold taxable income amounts |
| Single | $400,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $450,000 |
The threshold amounts will be adjusted for inflation annually.
20% top capital gain and qualified dividend tax rate
In tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals above the threshold incomes listed above, the tax rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividend income increases from 15% to 20%.
3.8% Medicare tax on net investment income
For individuals above the threshold “modified adjusted gross income” amounts listed below, the net investment income tax, or NIIT, of 3.8% applies. The NIIT applies to a wide range of investment income, including certain long term capital gains and qualified dividends. In effect, the top tax rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividend income will be 23.8% for those whose income exceeds $450,000 ($400,000, if single).
The NIIT also applies to certain short term capital gains, ordinary dividends, interest, rental and royalty income, nonqualified annuities, income from businesses involved in trading of financial instruments or commodities, and income from businesses that are passive activities for the taxpayer.
| Filing status | Threshold modified adjusted gross income amounts |
| Single | $200,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $250,000 |
Phaseout of itemized deductions reinstated
Beginning in 2013, the itemized deduction phaseout will be reinstated for taxpayers above the applicable threshold amount listed below. The phaseout reduces itemized deductions by the lesser of 3% of the adjusted gross income amount above the threshold amount, or 80% of the otherwise allocable itemized deductions.
| Filing status | Threshold adjusted gross income amounts |
| Single | $250,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $300,000 |
Permanent AMT relief
Beginning in 2012 tax years, the AMT exemption amounts are permanently increased as listed in the table below and will be adjusted annually for inflation.
| Filing status | Increased 2012 exemption amounts |
| Single | $50,600 |
| Married filing jointly | $78,750 |
0.9% additional FICA Medicare tax
Beginning on January 1, 2013, an additional 0.9% FICA Medicare tax applies to earnings above the threshold amounts listed below. The highest applicable FICA Medicare tax rate for employees increases from 1.45% to 2.35%, and for the self-employed from 2.9% to 3.8%.
| Filing status | Threshold earnings amounts |
| Single | $200,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $250,000 |
Expiration of 2% FICA Social Security tax cut
Beginning on January 1, 2013, the 6.2% rate is reinstated for the employee portion of FICA Social Security tax. This is due to the expiration of the temporary 2% rate reduction in the employee portion of FICA Social Security tax from 6.2% to 4.2% on December 31, 2012. For the self-employed, the FICA Social Security tax rate of 10.4% reverts to 12.4%. The FICA wage base for 2013 is $113,700 and will be adjusted annually for inflation.
Section 1202 tax break extended through 2013
The 100% exclusion of certain gains from the sale of qualifying small business stock, or QSBS, under Section 1202 has been extended to acquisitions of QSBS from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. Generally, QSBS must meet the following conditions: the stock was acquired at original issue from a domestic C corporation with gross assets of no more than $50,000,000, the C corporation met certain active business requirements, and the stock was held for more than five years. The amount of excludible gain is limited to the greater of $10,000,000 in aggregate gains, or 10 times the aggregate basis in QSBS.
Section 1374 built in gains relief extended through 2013
The previously reduced five year recognition period for computing built-in gains tax of an S corporation under Section 1374 has been extended to taxable years beginning in 2012 and 2013. The recognition period was to increase to ten years in 2012 until the five year recognition period was extended through 2013.
This tax applies if, during the recognition period, a C corporation converts to an S Corporation and then sells, for a gain, assets that were appreciated in value at the time of the conversion. Those “built-in gains” are taxed at the highest marginal corporate tax rate of 35%. Normally, the recognition period is the ten year period from the first day of the first taxable year for which the S election is effective.
Gift and estate tax exclusion, rates, and portability of deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount
$5,000,000 gift and estate tax exclusion
The gift and estate tax, and generation-skipping transfer tax exclusion amount has been permanently set at $5,000,000, adjusted annually for inflation. The exclusion amount for 2013 is $5,250,000. Without this change, the exclusion amount would have fallen to or around $1,000,000 as of January 1, 2013.
40% top gift and estate tax rates
The gift and estate tax rate on transfers as of January 1, 2013 above the exclusion amount were increased as listed below. The highest rate increased from 35% to 40%. Without the new 40% rate, the highest marginal gift and estate tax rate would have increased to 55%.
Portability of deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount made permanent
A surviving spouse’s election to include his or her deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount will now be a permanent option. This portability election would have expired on December 31, 2012 without this change.
Source:
http://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/tax-recent-tax-law-changes-of-2013.html
employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers
Multitasking ain't
In a recent USA Today article, texting and music listening while driving and walking are leading to an increase in the death of pedestrians. People are still talking on the phone and texting while driving, despite the statistics that prove it can be deadly and despite it being against the law.
But now, we have new statistics that show the same result -- injury and death -- arises from just walking and texting or listening to music and being in "another zone." All of which confirms that multi-tasking is a misnomer. We can do one thing at a time, not many different things at the same time.
Those who reach the pinnacle of success are able to do many things ... but focus on one thing at a time. There just ain't no such thing as multi-tasking.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/H-Qj8pbo9b0/
download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws
The Presidential Race and the Judiciary
On November 6, 2012, people across the States will cast their vote for President. Whatever the outcome, it will influence our justice system. Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Kenneth L. Manning, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth and Professor Carl Tobias from the University of Richmond School of Law, to discuss everything from diversity in the courts, Supreme Court vacancies and obstruction and the impact on the justice system.
bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer civil attorney
Merck Investors Win Class Cert as Vioxx Litigation Marches On
Plaintiffs in a securities class action against Merck have reached a milestone in the Vioxx litigation saga -- one that makes yet another settlement much more likely. A federal judge in New Jersey has granted class certification in the eight-year-old case, which accuses Merck and certain executives of overstating the commercial promise of Vioxx despite its health risks.
bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law
Brainless Blunders in E-Discovery Searches
Are you guilty of making big mistakes when it comes to e-discovery searches? On Digital Detectives, co-hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc., and John W. Simek, Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, welcome guest Attorney Craig Ball, one of the country’s leading computer forensics technologists, to share his insights on brainless blunders in e-discovery searches. Craig also talks about recall and precision as mortal enemies, data volume rather than data quality and tips on looking at data as data rather than as documents.
download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws dwi lawyer
Sunday, February 3, 2013
What Employers Need to Know About Healthcare Reform for 2013
As the end of 2012 approaches, we consider what a notable year it has been for the future of healthcare reform, starting with the United States Supreme Court’s decision to uphold key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), and culminating with the November elections. Since PPACA’s enactment in 2010, employers have seen the roll out of various new requirements and disclosure obligations with respect to the healthcare benefits provided to employees. As we move closer to PPACA’s “individual mandate,” which becomes effective in 2014 and is viewed as the hallmark of the healthcare reform legislation, the following is a summary of certain requirements that employers should be aware of for 2013.
Summary of Benefits and Coverage For Employer-Sponsored Group Health Plans
Effective for open enrollment periods that begin on or after September 23, 2012, the plan administrator of employer-sponsored group health plans must provide each participant with a written summary that describes the plan’s benefits and coverage and that complies with other content-specific requirements. It is important to note that the Summary of Benefits and Coverage (“SBC”) is a separate (and new) disclosure obligation from the existing requirement to provide plan participants with a Summary Plan Description under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.
The SBC must be distributed to participants with initial enrollment materials for a covered plan, and must be re-issued in subsequent years. If enrollment in subsequent years is conducted by an affirmative written election by the enrollee, the SBC must be provided when the enrollment materials are distributed. On the other hand, if re-enrollment in subsequent years is automatic (i.e., absent an enrollee’s affirmative election to change coverage), the SBC must be provided at least 30 days prior to the first day of coverage in the new plan year. In addition to the annual distribution requirement, the SBC must be provided no later than seven business days following a request by any participant.
Among other features, the SBC must contain the following information:
- the principal plan design features, including cost sharing requirements (e.g., deductibles, coinsurance and copayments) for each category of benefit;
- any exceptions, reductions and limitations on coverage;
- applicable renewability and continuation of coverage provisions (e.g., the right to elect COBRA continuation coverage);
- examples that illustrate the benefits that would be provided in certain common scenarios;
- if a provider network or prescription drug formulary is used, an Internet address (or similar contact information) for obtaining a list of network providers or information on prescription drug coverage; and
- uniform definitions of standard insurance and medical terms, along with an Internet address for obtaining a complete “uniform glossary” of key terms.
There are significant penalties for failing to comply with the new SBC rules. A willful failure to furnish a compliant SBC can trigger a $1,000 per day penalty for each affected individual.
Reporting of Employer-Provided Health Coverage
PPACA imposes on employers an obligation to report the cost of employer-provided, group health plan coverage on employees’ Forms W-2, starting with the Forms W-2 issued for calendar year 2012 (which are generally provided to employees on or before January 31, 2013). This information reporting is intended to assist employees in determining whether their employer-provided coverage is sufficient to avoid the taxes imposed for failing to maintain “minimum essential coverage” under PPACA’s individual mandate that will be effective in 2014.
Based on available IRS guidance, employers that filed fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the 2011 calendar year are currently exempt from having to report the cost of group health plan coverage on the 2012 calendar year Forms W-2 furnished to employees. Thus, until further guidance is issued, employers that file fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for one calendar year will be exempt from this reporting requirement for the next calendar year.
In general, the amount reportable of employer-provided coverage includes amounts paid by both the employer and the employee towards the cost of such coverage. Under interim guidance on which employers can rely, the rules for determining the cost to be reported is similar to those for determining the applicable premiums for purposes of COBRA continuation coverage. For example, this means that for fully-insured plans, employers can report the premiums charged by the carrier for the cost of coverage.
New Healthcare Flexible Spending Account Limit
Employers should be aware that for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, an employee’s salary reduction contributions to a healthcare flexible spending account is limited to $2,500 per year. By way of background, a healthcare flexible spending account is commonly referred to as a medical expense reimbursement account under a Section 125 plan (which, in turn, is referred to as a “cafeteria plan”). Employers should review their cafeteria plan documents to ensure that the healthcare flexible spending account limit does not exceed $2,500 per participant, per plan year. Violating this requirement can jeopardize the favorable tax treatment afforded to contributions made under cafeteria plans, and can result in penalties to an employer for failing to properly report and withhold appropriate taxes from employees’ wages.
Employers have through the end of calendar year 2014 to adopt plan amendments to reflect the $2,500 limit, although operational compliance is required for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2013.
Increase of Medicare Payroll Tax on Higher-Income Employees – Employer Withholding Obligation
Beginning January 1, 2013, PPACA imposes an increase to the Medicare hospital insurance tax rate on wages paid to higher-income employees by 0.9% (from 1.45% to 2.35%). Individuals are subject to the additional Medicare tax if the individual’s wages, other compensation or self-employment income (together with that of his or her spouse if filing a joint return) exceed the applicable threshold amount for the individual’s filing status as follows:
| Filing status | Threshold amount |
| Married filing jointly | $250,000 |
| Married filing separately | $125,000 |
| Single | $200,000 |
| Head of household (with qualifying person) | $200,000 |
| Qualifying widow(er) with dependent child | $200,000 |
Employers are required to withhold the additional Medicare tax on wages paid to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. Withholding by the employer is required even though an employee may not ultimately be liable for the additional Medicare tax, such as, for example, in the case where the employee’s wages when combined with that of his or her spouse (when filing jointly) does not exceed the $250,000 threshold for married taxpayers filing jointly. Moreover, employers are not required to notify their employees when the employers begin withholding the additional Medicare tax.
Despite the additional withholding obligation from employees’ wages, the good news for employers is that employers are not required to match the additional Medicare tax, which means that the employer-paid portion of the Medicare tax remains at 1.45% of employees’ wages.
Notification to Employees Regarding State Insurance Exchanges
As a backstop to PPACA’s individual mandate, states are expected to have health insurance exchanges that are operational on January 1, 2014, where it is expected that individuals can obtain affordable coverage provided that they are not able to obtain such coverage through an employer’s group health plan or in the individual insurance market.
On March 1, 2013 (or such later date as provided in forthcoming Department of Labor guidance), employers will be required to distribute a notice to current employees and new employees informing them of the state insurance exchanges. Employees hired on or after that date must be provided the notice of exchange at the time of hiring, whereas employees already employed on that date, should be furnished the notice no later than that date. It is anticipated that the forthcoming Department of Labor guidance will contain a model notice that employers can use to satisfy the notice of exchange requirement. The notice requirement applies to all employers who are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The content of the notice of exchange will include, among other things, (i) a description of the services provided by the state insurance exchanges, (ii) how an employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit or a cost-sharing reduction if his or her employer’s group health plan does not meet certain requirements, (iii) the tax and financial consequences that an employee may experience if he or she purchases a qualified health plan through the exchange, and (iv) the contact information for customer service resources within the exchange.
Planning for the Employer Mandate Effective in 2014
Effective in 2014, under PPACA’s employer-shared responsibility provision, which is commonly referred to as the “employer mandate” or the “play or pay mandate,” employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees are required to offer minimum essential coverage to their employees or face certain penalties. The Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services have all issued parallel guidance to assist employers with establishing procedures to determine which employees are full-time employees in order to avoid the penalties under the employer mandate.
The available guidance provides a safe harbor method of assessing whether or not an employee is deemed a full-time employee. Full-time employees are defined as employees who work, on average, at least 30 hours per week, or 130 hours per month. Under the safe harbor method, an employer is permitted to analyze hours worked during a look-back period chosen by the employer, which must be at least 3 months but no more than 12 months, in order to determine an employee’s status as a full-time employee. The employer is then permitted to treat full-time employees determined during the look-back period, as full-time employees for a forward-looking stability period that is no shorter in duration than the look-back period. Special rules apply under when analyzing seasonal and variable hour employees, and there are notable differences when applying the safe harbor method to on-going employees as compared to newly-hired employees. Despite the recent guidance in this area, there continue to be many unanswered questions as to how employers are expected to comply with the employer mandate, which we anticipate that the Departments will attempt to clarify in forthcoming regulations.
Summary
Employers should be aware of the action items that need to be taken with respect to PPACA’s provisions that become effective in calendar year 2013 and beyond. We are available to assist employers with navigating through the existing, and often complex, PPACA guidance, as well as with additional guidance and regulations that are anticipated in 2013.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Michael Chan at (213) 617-5537 or Martin J. Smith at (213) 617-5490.
Disclaimer
This update has been prepared by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising, a solicitation, or legal advice, is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete and may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this update.
ANY TAX ADVICE HEREIN WAS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE AUTHOR TO BE USED, AND IT CANNOT BE USED BY ANY RECIPIENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING ANY TAX PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON ANY PERSON. THERE IS NO LIMITATION IMPOSED ON A RECIPIENT HEREOF BY THE AUTHOR HEREOF ON DISCLOSURE OF THE TAX TREATMENT OR TAX STRUCTURE OF ANY TRANSACTION. EXCEPT WITH PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR, NOTHING HEREIN MAY BE USED OR REFERRED TO IN PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING A PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER ENTITY, INVESTMENT PLAN OR ARRANGEMENT TO ANY PERSON.
need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney
Actos Litigation
The Type II Diabetes drug, Actos has received a black box label, has had a label change warning of a 40% increase in the risk for bladder cancer, and has been banned in France and Germany. Yet, Actos still remains on the market in the United States. Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen joins colleague Martin C. Blount and Attorney Michael J. Miller, from The Miller Firm LLC, to discuss the side effects of the diabetes medication Actos, including its connection to bladder cancer, reaction of the FDA, and recent litigation.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/05/actos-litigation/
need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys
Consumer champion steps down from FTC
Jon Leibowitz's four-year tenure marked by an 'unwavering assault' on pay-for-delay pharmaceutical deals.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202586731741&rss=rss_nlj
divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer
Egypt court sentences ex-interior minister to 3 years in prison for abusing power
[JURIST] A court in Giza, Egypt, on Saturday sentenced former interior minister Habib el-Adly [JURIST news archive] to three years in prison for abusing his position by forcing public officials to work on his home and property, which the court found was an illegal use of labor. El-Adly, who worked as the head of security for former president Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile; JURIST news archive], was also fined 2.3 million Egyptian pounds (USD $342,000) [AP report] by the court....
need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys
Google Just Said No
For a brief, shining moment, Sen. Patrick Leahy told us he was going to make law enforcement get warrants to obtain our information from the internet. And then, poof, it was gone. Law enforcement patiently explained to the good senator that it would make their lives more difficult, and he said, "Oh no, we can't have that."
But there was another way. A way that few of us considered, and fewer still ever believed could happen. While the law required nothing more of the government than the mere asking, it didn't require the recipients of the request to comply. The targets of government subpoenas for our lives weren't obliged to cooperate.
And someone at Google, maybe the Jolly Good Fellow, decided to just say no. In an article in Wired, via Grits for Breakfast:
The government asked. Google delivered. That's the way it worked. Until now.
What Congress is too cowardly to give us, Google will provide.
The significance of Google's new stance, its demand for a search warrant before turning over information to the government, cannot be overstated. Entire lives are online, our most personal information and most private moments, exist on third party servers. The courts, explaining that by handing our information over to the cloud, say we have forfeited any reasonable expectation of privacy, though most ordinary people have no idea what they've given away.
Whenever a court has concluded that the third-party doctrine lives, it regurgitates the words of computer experts, who explain how the tubes of the internet actually work. Most of us don't know, or care, how it actually works, and we're just pretty happy that we can watch funny kitten videos on Youtube from our cellphones. It's a miracle. It's less of a miracle should your life be laid out before you from your search history and emails.
The fact that neither our courts nor our legislators feel particularly concerned at how privacy has been eviscerated by a doctrine that makes no sense whatsoever in the digital age, and how the reasonable expectation of privacy of ordinary people died a quiet, but horribly painful death, left many to believe that there was no hope for the future of privacy. Google's change of policy offers new, unanticipated hope.
That doesn't mean, however, that private corporations will provide a public service by honoring the Constitution where governmental entities will not.
Whether that last sentence is accurate is doubtful. It's hard to imagine the FBI shaking in its boots at the idea of Justice Scalia becoming a champion for internet privacy. Rather, the question is whether Google's refusal to honor "requests" in the form of a disconnected subpoena will subject it to sanctions. The principled stance taken by Google may crumble if fines start piling up, or even incarceration of the Jolly Good Fellow for contempt.
As for others Internet Service Providers, they may wait to see what happens to the 800 pound gorilla of the internet before deciding whether to stare down the government. Or they may be more than happy to be compliant servants of law enforcement, offering up whatever they have and sending a box of donuts along for good measure. It never hurts to have friends in high places. With full stomaches.
For now, at least, Google has decided not to play the game any longer. If the government has a warrant, they will honor it as the law requires. But without a warrant, the government can stick it. That's guts.
For quite a long time now, the argument has raged over whether the Fourth Amendment protects our digital lives from unfettered intrusion by the government. The fight has not gone particularly well for privacy, and the foremost scholar on the subject, Orin Kerr, has not been particularly supportive of what most people reasonably believe to be private.
And so Google has decided not to play the government's game as a matter of principle. Well done, Google. You are a jolly good fellow, which nobody can deny.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
But there was another way. A way that few of us considered, and fewer still ever believed could happen. While the law required nothing more of the government than the mere asking, it didn't require the recipients of the request to comply. The targets of government subpoenas for our lives weren't obliged to cooperate.
And someone at Google, maybe the Jolly Good Fellow, decided to just say no. In an article in Wired, via Grits for Breakfast:
The development surfaced as Google publicly announced that more than two-thirds of the user data Google forwards to government agencies across the United States is handed over without a probable-cause warrant.
A Google spokesman told Wired that the media giant demands that government agencies — from the locals to the feds — get a probable-cause warrant for content on its e-mail, Google Drive cloud storage and other platforms — despite the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allowing the government to access such customer data without a warrant if it’s stored on Google’s servers for more than 180 days.
The government asked. Google delivered. That's the way it worked. Until now.
Google demands probable-cause, court-issued warrants to divulge the contents of Gmail and other cloud-stored documents to authorities in the United States — a startling revelation Wednesday that runs counter to federal law that does not always demand warrants.
“Google requires an ECPA search warrant for contents of Gmail and other services based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents unreasonable search and seizure,” Chris Gaither, a Google spokesman, said.
What Congress is too cowardly to give us, Google will provide.
The significance of Google's new stance, its demand for a search warrant before turning over information to the government, cannot be overstated. Entire lives are online, our most personal information and most private moments, exist on third party servers. The courts, explaining that by handing our information over to the cloud, say we have forfeited any reasonable expectation of privacy, though most ordinary people have no idea what they've given away.
Whenever a court has concluded that the third-party doctrine lives, it regurgitates the words of computer experts, who explain how the tubes of the internet actually work. Most of us don't know, or care, how it actually works, and we're just pretty happy that we can watch funny kitten videos on Youtube from our cellphones. It's a miracle. It's less of a miracle should your life be laid out before you from your search history and emails.
The fact that neither our courts nor our legislators feel particularly concerned at how privacy has been eviscerated by a doctrine that makes no sense whatsoever in the digital age, and how the reasonable expectation of privacy of ordinary people died a quiet, but horribly painful death, left many to believe that there was no hope for the future of privacy. Google's change of policy offers new, unanticipated hope.
That doesn't mean, however, that private corporations will provide a public service by honoring the Constitution where governmental entities will not.
It was not immediately known whether other ISPs are traveling Google’s path when it comes to demanding probable-cause warrants for all stored content. But Google can seemingly grant more privacy than the four corners of the law allows because there’s been a string of conflicting court opinions on whether warrants are required for data stored on third-party servers longer than 180 days. The Supreme Court has never weighed in on the topic — and the authorities are seemingly abiding by Google’s rules to avoid a high court showdown.
Whether that last sentence is accurate is doubtful. It's hard to imagine the FBI shaking in its boots at the idea of Justice Scalia becoming a champion for internet privacy. Rather, the question is whether Google's refusal to honor "requests" in the form of a disconnected subpoena will subject it to sanctions. The principled stance taken by Google may crumble if fines start piling up, or even incarceration of the Jolly Good Fellow for contempt.
As for others Internet Service Providers, they may wait to see what happens to the 800 pound gorilla of the internet before deciding whether to stare down the government. Or they may be more than happy to be compliant servants of law enforcement, offering up whatever they have and sending a box of donuts along for good measure. It never hurts to have friends in high places. With full stomaches.
For now, at least, Google has decided not to play the game any longer. If the government has a warrant, they will honor it as the law requires. But without a warrant, the government can stick it. That's guts.
For quite a long time now, the argument has raged over whether the Fourth Amendment protects our digital lives from unfettered intrusion by the government. The fight has not gone particularly well for privacy, and the foremost scholar on the subject, Orin Kerr, has not been particularly supportive of what most people reasonably believe to be private.
And so Google has decided not to play the government's game as a matter of principle. Well done, Google. You are a jolly good fellow, which nobody can deny.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/01/26/google-just-said-no.aspx?ref=rss
personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer
IP Intensive Industries: Part One
Professor David L. Lange, Melvin Shimm Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, joins us for our latest Intellectual Property podcast. Learn more about Professor Lange at http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/lange.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/05/ip-intensive-industries-part-one/
need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys
But For Video: The Bridgeport Epiphany
The incident occurred in Bridgeport, Connecticut, on May, 2011, but it wasn't until a shaky video appeared on Youtube that any gave a damn.
The video was posted on January 6, 2013. A brief article in the New York Post explained:
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
The video was posted on January 6, 2013. A brief article in the New York Post explained:
The police chief in Connecticut's largest city has pulled three officers off the streets after a video was posted online showing them kicking and stomping on a man they had already subdued with a stun gun.In the video, a stun gun is heard being fired and a man falls to the ground at a park. Two officers stand over the motionless man and begin kicking him. A third officer drives up and attacks him. No complaint was filed.
Bridgeport city spokeswoman Elaine Ficarra said today that all three officers are on desk duty while authorities investigate the May 2011 encounter. Elson Morales, Joseph Lawlor and Clive Higgins are 10-year veterans of the police force.
Nearly two years had passed since the cops stomped the downed perp. But then, it never happened until there was video. GW Lawprof Jonathan Turley asks why:
Even though courts have consistently ruled that such filming is protected by the Constitution, police and prosecutors continue to charge and prosecute citizens who take such videos — or detain and harass them when spotted. This occurs because of a failure to discipline officers harassing or arresting citizens in such circumstances.
In this case, it is not clear why, once again, YouTube appears the decisive factor. Presumably, none of the officers revealed what had occurred or there would have been some action taken before the YouTube posting.
There remains a huge divergence between what people want to believe about policing on the street and the reality of the streets. It's surprising to find Turley, as a regular in noting police misconduct, asking the question of why a video "appears to be the decisive factor." His presumption, that none of the officers "revealed" that they tap-danced on their perp, is also surprising.
If I had to guess, the officers most likely did "reveal" what happened, in a way. After they booked their victim, they laughingly told a group of fellow officers how they gave him a "tune up," or some other police euphemism. The group chuckled knowingly, and then moved on with their day. There was no concern that anyone would raise an objection or mention it again. All in a day's work.
Why? Sometimes it's because the guy made an out-of-shape, over-weight officer run, or walk fast, rather than conducted himself in the manner most convenient to police officers. Such insolence. The officer got sweaty, or scuffed his shoe. He was breathing hard and could have had a heart attack. A cop can't let a perp get away with that, so he has to give a lesson in who's the boss. With his shoe. Because he can.
One might think that a defendant appearing at arraignment with bruises on his back and maybe a broken bone would be a giveaway to someone, a prosecutor or a judge, that improper force was used. But this is easily addressed, with a line or two in the write-up about how the perp aggressively resisted arrest and force was used to subdue him. Easy.
When the defense attorney tells the judge about how the defendant was lying on the ground, having submitted to the arrest and being compliant, an officer came to stomp him, the judge listens quietly and offers some noncommittal response. The judge is thinking, "what does he want me to do?"
There is no magic way to distinguish who is telling the truth and who is lying through his teeth. There never has been. On the one side, you have the police officer, who at some point saved a kitty in a tree and became a hero, and on the other side some perp with a sheet who never got a medal for saving a kitty. Go with the odds, and the odds have always favored the police.
What makes a video the decisive factor? Short of a dozen witnesses wearing clerical garb, and even then it's doubtful, video does the one thing that the defense side, where perps are human beings and not statistics or miscreants to be stomped for fun, has historically never been able to do. Prove it.
Some might get the impression, based upon the number of instances of police misconduct that now come to light because of the decisive factor of video that police used to be kinder and gentler, but have suddenly turned more violent and vicious. After all, sustained determinations of police misconduct involving the use of excessive force were negligible, essentially non-existent, before the pervasive use of video. Suddenly, they are everywhere.
It's like magic. It's called proof, and it's what never existed before when defendants' complaints were simply ignored because the odds were against them.
Given the frequency with which videos have revealed that the police were less than forthright, both in their allegations of criminal conduct and their explanations for violence, one would think that the equation should have shifted. One would think that judges would no longer give the cops the automatic benefit of the doubt, and might take the complaints more seriously and, at the very least, scrutinize the details to determine whether the facts truly support the facile police allegations.
But if a guy who is as familiar with the problems as Turley still asks why the video should be the deciding factor, despite the many videos he's put up on his own blog, it appears that we are still a very long way from overcoming the presumption that cops tell the truth and cop never use excessive force. Never, that is, until a video proves otherwise.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/01/28/but-for-video-the-bridgeport-epiphany.aspx?ref=rss
Monica Bay on Legal Tech Trends
LTN editor Monica Bay and ALM Editor-in-Chief Aric Press chat about the challenges large law firms face in keeping abreast of legal technology.
international law schools internet lawyer labor attorney lafayette attorney law
Saturday, February 2, 2013
NSSTA’s Leadership
Whether you are a member or just someone interested in structures, National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) is the voice of the industry. Ringler Radio host, Larry Cohen joins colleagues, Randy Dyer, the current President of NSSTA and John Machir, President‑elect of NSSTA, to talk about the bigger issues that are facing the structured settlement industry today and some of the leading items on their agenda for 2012.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/09/nsstas-leadership/
Federal appeals court rejects Apple request to block Samsung sales
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] on Thursday rejected a request by Apple to ban sales of the Samsung [corporate websites] Galaxy Nexus smartphone based on allegations of willful patent infringements. The Federal Circuit rejected [Reuters report] Apple's request to have the entire court reconsider imposing a ban Samsung's smartphone before trial commences in March 2014. Apple sought a reversal of an earlier ruling [JURIST report] by a three-judge panel in favor of Samsung....
statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer
The Hyperbole of Victimhood Doesn't Help
Among the press releases received in the old SJ mailbag yesterday was one from Human Rights Watch announcing a 196-page report, “Capitol Offense: Police Mishandling of Sexual Assault Cases in the District of Columbia,” This is no trivial matter, though I lacked sufficient interest to read a report of that length.
But because of my concern for the victims of sexual assault, I read the email, itself a rather lengthy bit of writing. This paragraph stuck out.
The explanation for this underreporting, that "victims fear that their cases will not be taken seriously and that police will not believe them," seems fair as far as it goes, but it strikes me as a bit facile and underinclusive. Aren't there other reasons, like embarrassment? But if that happens, then it doesn't quite comport with characterizing victims who come forward as "brave." Why is it necessary to call a crime victim "brave"? Crime victims should come forward, both for their own sake as well as the sake of others, regardless of whether they're brave or cowards.
My suspicion is that the imputation of bravery has to do with the claim that their allegations of sexual assault are questioned by the police. Shouldn't they be? How else to distinguish allegations that are false from those that are true? Didn't we just go through an incredibly embarrassing infographic about this?
The email goes on to state:
The phrase "cancer survivors" is commonly used to describe people who overcame cancer. The reason for calling them "survivors" is that cancer kills people. Those not killed are fairly said to have survived. The same cannot be said for people who suffered sexual assaults. They may well be victims, but they are not survivors. This relates direction to the complaint of "callous treatment" by police who "openly questions their credibility and minimized the severity of their experiences."
Police should openly question the credibility of every person who seeks to initiate a criminal investigation and prosecution. That's how wrongful arrests and prosecutions are prevented. That's how innocent people are not imprisoned. Does Human Rights Watch contend that innocent people should be prosecuted and imprisoned? It seems rather contrary to their cause.
As for the severity of their experiences, the use of the word "survivor" belies that complaint. No doubt there are horrible sexual assaults, but similarly there is no doubt that there are perceived sexual assaults that aren't as severe as others. This may fly in the face of orthodoxy, but just as there is grand theft and petty theft, some are worse than others. They are not all the same, and it hardly behooves the victims to diminish a violent rape from seemingly consensual sex with a person whose capacity to consent is diminished by drunkenness. While the latter may well argue that I am wrong to trivialize his experience, the former, lying in a hospital bed, may well be unimpressed.
By no means do I lack either empathy or concern with anyone who has suffered a sexual assault. Quite the contrary, as I am outraged and disgusted by sex crimes. But my visceral reaction doesn't mean that I turn suddenly blind to the problems of false accusations or dubious definitions or exaggerations. Concern for one side doesn't require someone to ignore the other.
Human Rights Watch does many good things, and is worthy of our interest and respect. But it doesn't help to garner respect when it employs blind hype that suggests it has lost all reason, balance and concern for other issues worthy of its concern. By all means, if the District of Columbia police are unduly callous toward sexual assault victims, it should be reported and challenged.
But let's not forget that there are other interests involved as well, and when the descriptive language goes over the top as here, credibility is sacrificed. There are many human rights at stake here. When fighting for one, it doesn't have to come at the expense of others.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
But because of my concern for the victims of sexual assault, I read the email, itself a rather lengthy bit of writing. This paragraph stuck out.
“Sexual assault is the most underreported violent crime in the US, largely because many victims fear that their cases will not be taken seriously and that police will not believe them,” said Sara Darehshori, senior counsel in the US Program at Human Rights Watch and the author of the report. “Unfortunately, for some victims in DC who bravely came forward and reported their assaults, those fears were realized.”It compelled me stop and wonder, if a crime is underreported, then how would you know its frequency? By definition, underreported means you don't know. And "most" underreported? Most underreported "violent" crime? From what I understand about sexual assault, its definition has grown a bit fuzzy these days. Is it fair to describe sexual assault as a violent crime when violence is imputed by definition of lack of consent, whether before or after the act, rather than conduct?
The explanation for this underreporting, that "victims fear that their cases will not be taken seriously and that police will not believe them," seems fair as far as it goes, but it strikes me as a bit facile and underinclusive. Aren't there other reasons, like embarrassment? But if that happens, then it doesn't quite comport with characterizing victims who come forward as "brave." Why is it necessary to call a crime victim "brave"? Crime victims should come forward, both for their own sake as well as the sake of others, regardless of whether they're brave or cowards.
My suspicion is that the imputation of bravery has to do with the claim that their allegations of sexual assault are questioned by the police. Shouldn't they be? How else to distinguish allegations that are false from those that are true? Didn't we just go through an incredibly embarrassing infographic about this?
The email goes on to state:
Some sexual assault survivors described to Human Rights Watch callous treatment by police officers, who, they said, openly questioned their credibility and minimized the severity of their experiences.
The phrase "cancer survivors" is commonly used to describe people who overcame cancer. The reason for calling them "survivors" is that cancer kills people. Those not killed are fairly said to have survived. The same cannot be said for people who suffered sexual assaults. They may well be victims, but they are not survivors. This relates direction to the complaint of "callous treatment" by police who "openly questions their credibility and minimized the severity of their experiences."
Police should openly question the credibility of every person who seeks to initiate a criminal investigation and prosecution. That's how wrongful arrests and prosecutions are prevented. That's how innocent people are not imprisoned. Does Human Rights Watch contend that innocent people should be prosecuted and imprisoned? It seems rather contrary to their cause.
As for the severity of their experiences, the use of the word "survivor" belies that complaint. No doubt there are horrible sexual assaults, but similarly there is no doubt that there are perceived sexual assaults that aren't as severe as others. This may fly in the face of orthodoxy, but just as there is grand theft and petty theft, some are worse than others. They are not all the same, and it hardly behooves the victims to diminish a violent rape from seemingly consensual sex with a person whose capacity to consent is diminished by drunkenness. While the latter may well argue that I am wrong to trivialize his experience, the former, lying in a hospital bed, may well be unimpressed.
By no means do I lack either empathy or concern with anyone who has suffered a sexual assault. Quite the contrary, as I am outraged and disgusted by sex crimes. But my visceral reaction doesn't mean that I turn suddenly blind to the problems of false accusations or dubious definitions or exaggerations. Concern for one side doesn't require someone to ignore the other.
Human Rights Watch does many good things, and is worthy of our interest and respect. But it doesn't help to garner respect when it employs blind hype that suggests it has lost all reason, balance and concern for other issues worthy of its concern. By all means, if the District of Columbia police are unduly callous toward sexual assault victims, it should be reported and challenged.
But let's not forget that there are other interests involved as well, and when the descriptive language goes over the top as here, credibility is sacrificed. There are many human rights at stake here. When fighting for one, it doesn't have to come at the expense of others.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/01/25/the-hyperbole-of-victimhood-doesnt-help.aspx?ref=rss
electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law employment law courses
The Impact of BU Law’s LL.M. Programs
BU Law has offered a post-graduate legal education leading to the Master of Laws degree for more than 125 years. In this BU Law podcast, host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, welcomes John N. Riccardi, BU Law’s assistant dean for Graduate and International Programs and director of the Office of Graduate and International Programs, to take a look at the School’s graduate programs for international lawyers. Later in the program, David is joined by former student Johan S. Ellefsen, who talks about his experience with the LL.M. program and where he is today.
immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys
LawBiz® Legal Pad: Technology Malpractice
Ed stresses the fact that knowledge of technology is now vital in order to be considered a competent lawyer.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/zDl1bpla7SQ/
injury lawers injury lawyer injury lawyers international law
Cleary Gottlieb Partner To Be Chief Counsel In US Attorney’s Office
A Cleary Gottlieb partner who prosecuted mobsters, including John A. “Junior” Gotti, in his first stint with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan is returning as the office’s chief counsel.
find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation free lawyer free lawyer advice
Predictive Policing and the Law
Some law enforcement agencies, like the Los Angeles Police Department, are turning to crime prediction software to aid in decreasing the rising crime rate, better known as predictive policing. Weighing the advantages of these programs to reduce crime raises questions about racial profiling within specific neighborhoods and our civil liberties. Lawyer2Lawyer hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Dr. Jeff Brantingham, co-founder of the company, PredPol and Professor Andrew G. Ferguson from the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, as they look at the legal issues surrounding predictive policing.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/09/predictive-policing-and-the-law/
free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer
Friday, February 1, 2013
Supreme Court Watch: Employment law cases
We will be watching three pending cases at the US Supreme Court as the Court's session opens today:
Kloeckner v. Solis
Oral argument on October 2.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears appeals by federal employees regarding certain adverse actions, such as dismissals. If the employee asserts that the challenged action was the result of unlawful discrimination, that claim is referred to as a "mixed case."
Question Presented: If the MSPB decides a mixed case without determining the merits of the discrimination claim, is the court with jurisdiction over that claim the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a district court?
Vance v. Ball State Univ
Oral argument on November 26.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) held that under Title VII, an employer is vicariously liable for workplace harassment by a supervisor of the victim. If the harasser was the victim’s co-employee, however, the employer is not liable absent proof of negligence.
Question Presented: Whether the Faragher and Ellerth “supervisor” liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim.
Genesis HealthCare v. Symczyk
Oral argument December 3.
Symczk sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. This was a section 216(b) collective action. The defendants extended an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in full satisfaction of her alleged damages, fees, and costs - prior to her moving for conditional certification and prior to other potential plaintiffs opting in.
Question Presented: Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/10/supreme_court_w_11.html
free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california free lawyers
What is your "end game" for your second season?
To paraphrase Charlie Wilson, Texas Congressman, from the movie, Charlie Wilson's War, "...we changed the world, but we had no end game..." in Afghanistan. Chaos and catastrophe resulted. This reminds me of so many lawyers who have no "end game." They do not see the end of their law practice until, one day, they awake and decide they want to do something else, or they're not feeling so good and their doctor tells them they have a "problem." They have not planned for this time; they have not taken their destiny into their own hands. It's like going to the office without a plan for the day and reacting only when the phone rings.
I think that is what motivated me to write my new book, "Life After Law: What Will You Do With the Next 6000 Days?" I've seen this in so many of my clients; I've seen this in my own family. Perhaps I'm guilty of the same sin. But, you needn't be. Create your own future. Know when you want to retire and what you want to do in your "retirement," your second season, the "next 6000 days" of your life.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/MBrIpxuygkg/
personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers power attorney
It's A Wonder This Gent Got To 17 (Banks, That Is)
If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right. Okay, so maybe that doesn't really apply to robbing banks. But still, the same sunglasses? Every time? As reported by The Belleville News-Democrat:
A serial bank robber responsible for more than a dozen bank robberies spanning seven states, including two in the metro-east, is now behind bars, according to FBI officials.
The robber dubbed the "Ray Bandit" for his tendency to wear Ray Ban-type sunglasses was identified as Jeremy Evans of Carol Stream in DuPage County.Tendency?
The description of the "Ray Bandit" in all these robberies was similar: a white male, approximately 5-foot-8 to 6-foot tall, heavyset, wearing disguises ranging from a beard, either black or blond hair usually covered with a hat of some type, a plaid shirt and Ray Ban-type sunglasses.So the dude changed all these other things, but wore the same shades each time? Brilliant! You can read more (a lot) here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/AKm3oq5Eykg/post_581.html
local attorney local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer
An Empirical Study of Predispute Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Social Media Terms of Service Agreements
Michael Rustad, Thomas F. Lambert Jr. Professor of Law & Co-Director Intellectual Property Law Concentration at Suffolk Law, discusses his study on the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in social media. Read the article at: http://bit.ly/Kn6kKc.
Video Conferencing for Lawyers
Video conferencing can be a very effective and economical tool for law firms and corporate law departments, as long as the correct choices are made. Find out how to choose the correct video conferencing technology for you when Monica Bay, host of Law Technology Now and editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, interviews Steven Levy, principal of Seattle-based Lexician.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/law-technology-now/2012/05/video-conferencing-for-lawyers/
personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers power attorney power of attorney power of attorny
Living in a Public Beta
There’s been a lot of discussion lately about what many see as Apple’s stumble with its maps application in iOS 6. Bryan Wolfe on AppAdvice.com recently asked "Did I Miss The Memo From Apple Making Us All Beta Testers?" From operating systems to software to apps to web services, we often find that new products and services don’t’ quite feel finished. In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss changing expectations in a world of fast and frequent software releases and updates, the challenge for lawyers wanting stability with their technology, and ways to cope with what feels like living in a giant public beta test.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/10/living-in-a-public-beta/
cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers
The "Murky Morass" - Patentable Subject Matter Around the World
In this Intellectual Property webcast, Thomas McNulty and Greg Gerstenzang of Lando & Anastasi, LLP discuss patentable subject matter around the world. Learn more about Lando & Anastasi, LLP at http://www.lalaw.com.
international law international law schools internet lawyer labor attorney lafayette attorney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)