Miranda rights are bedrock American constitutional principles.  How did law enforcement avoid advising Tsarnaev of his rights?  They relied upon a relatively new, narrow “public safety” exception, which allows police to question subjects about imminent threats to public safety, such as the location of conspirators or a ticking bomb.  Since Boston police advised that the threat was over upon apprehension of this defendant, defense attorneys for Tsarnaev will have an argument that this exception was inapplicable, and that any information police learned from the questioning should be inadmissible at trial.  I would have preferred to see police Mirandize him, question him, charge him, and prosecute him.  Maybe he would have communicated (many defendants do), maybe not.  But there appears to be powerful photographic and forensic evidence against Tsarnaev, so why give his defense attorney an argument?

Some members of Congress also argued that Tsarnaev should be treated as an enemy combatant, held in a military prison like Guantanamo Bay and tried before a military court.  The phrase “enemy combatant” arose when military adversaries were captured on battlefields abroad, and has been expanded under the last dozen years of America’s “war on terror.”  Nevertheless, calling an American who commits a crime on American soil without any assistance from hostile foreign organizations like Al Qaeda would be a radical new expansion of the doctrine.  The Obama Administration has therefore correctly refused to designate Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, and has committed to trying him in a civilian federal court.

Over four hundred terrorists have been tried and convicted in our federal courts, and if as police claim he is caught on videotape placing pressure cooker bombs, Tsarnaev will surely take his place among them.  Though the Boston bombing was sickening and horrific – Tsarnaev is accused of placing a bomb in a crowd next to an eight year old boy, killing three, injuring dozens, blowing the legs off of elite runners – our courts are more than competent of bringing him to justice.  Violent thugs, gang members, serial killers and every other kind of brutal criminal are afforded their constitutional rights daily in our system – and convicted.

Our criminal justice system has its flaws, which I have spent many years speaking out about.  Granting defendants the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to a jury trial are not among them.  As Benjamin Franklin wrote so wisely:  “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not necessarily those of Avvo.com.

The post Trusting Our System, Civil Liberties and All appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

What apps can help me find jobs?

• Job Search by Indeed.com. Free. This app lets you search jobs and save promising listings. As on the website, you can easily view new jobs posted since your last visit. Job Search on iTunes and Job Search on Google Play.
• Hidden Jobs by CareerCloud, LLC. 99¢. The majority of available jobs are not listed on the major job boards but in local newspapers and on company websites. That’s where this helpful little app comes in. It lists jobs like that, as well as news about companies that are expanding and will be hiring soon. Hidden Jobs on iTunes only.
• Jobrio Job Search (HireADroid) by Bostone Consutling. Free. This app lets you search for jobs across 10 major job boards, including Monster, SimplyHired, and CareerBuilder. Jobrio Job Search on Google Play only.

Which apps help me deal with my documents?

• Pocket Resume by Mani Ghasemiou. $2.99. Yes, you can create a complete resume, and a cover letter to accompany it, with this app, and send them both from your mobile device. You’re no longer tied to your computer; now you can apply as soon as you see a great opportunity. Pocket Resume on iTunes, Pocket Resume on Google Play and Pocket Resume for BlackBerry.
• Dropbox by Dropbox. Free. Another option is to manage your resumes, cover letters, and other supporting documents through the popular program Dropbox. This versatile app will come in handy beyond your job search. Dropbox on iTunes and Dropbox on Google Play.

I got the job interview! Now what?

• Monster.com Interviews by Monster Wordwide. Free. This app, from the website synonymous with “job search,” gets you ready for your interview by letting you review practice questions and read advice. It also lets you set reminders for post-interview To Do’s. Monster.com Interviews on iTunes only.
• 101 HR Interview Questions by Programmerworld. Free. Just like the name says – 101 commonly-asked questions you can peruse to prepare for your interview. Questions are organized into groups like “common questions” and “teamwork.” It gives you tips on what pitfalls to avoid and how best to answer. 101 HR Interview Questions on Google Play only.

Other essential apps to help your job hunt.

•  LinkedIn by LinkedIn. Free. Sure, you can find and save jobs on here. But you can do so much more. Edit your profile and stay up-to-date with all your LinkedIn contacts and groups. LinkedIn on iTunes and LinkedIn on Google Play.
•  Bump by Bump Technologies, Inc. Free. This app is both fun and useful. Open it, bump hands with the person you want to share info with, and voila! You can quickly share contact information, as well as documents and photos. It even lets you bump files to your computer. Bump on Google Play only.

You’re on your own from here. Good luck in your search!

The post 9 Employment Apps To Help You Find Your Next Job appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Debit vs. Credit Safety

When your debit card is used, that money is gone from your bank account; this means that if someone else gets your debit card number and goes on a shopping spree, the money is long gone. Even if you do track down the crook with your card, you may still be stuck with heinous overdraft fees and a lack of funds. In 2007, debit card holders who fell victim to the T.J. Maxx customer data breach waited an average of two to three months to get reimbursed. With a credit card, you’re able to spot sketchy charges on your card and report the fraud before they’re drawn from your bank account.

7 Place to Never Use Your Debit Card

1. Online. This is the LAST place you want to give out your bank information. Malware on your computer or others spying via your wireless network makes you far too vulnerable, so use credit instead. Also, your data goes to the merchant you buy from, where you’d be safer leaving a credit card number on file.
2. Big-ticket items. If something goes wrong with the giant TV you just purchased, you’ll be glad that money’s not missing from your bank. More importantly, many credit cards give you an extended warranty on many pricey items like electronics.
3. Restaurants. If your card is going to be leaving your sight, don’t hand over the key to your bank account!  Restaurants with many regular customers often keep card numbers on file to make things more convenient, and you definitely don’t want your bank info lying around on that list. Like any situation where your number could be stolen, using credit is safer.
4. Buy now, pick up later. In cases where you aren’t receiving a purchased item on the spot, it’s best to use a credit card. This way, you can stop payment if the item isn’t received, and you won’t be out the money while the store takes its sweet time returning the funds.
5. Recurring payments. Remember when you signed up for a one-year gym membership… and two years later realized you were still being charged every month? Maybe you’re wondering, “But what if I go over on my credit limit?”  What’s worse: overdraft fees, or bad credit?
6. Travel. Being on the road is a bad situation in which to find yourself strapped for cash; since you may be spending money at many businesses you are unfamiliar with, it’s wise to avoid swiping your debit card anywhere.You especially want to avoid using debit at hotels, gas stations, or car rentals. These types of businesses can hold onto extra money in case you leave without paying for hotel amenities used, damages to a rental car, or gas not paid for (when you prepay). This freezes a good chunk of the money in your bank account until your bill with the business is settled, which could leave you without money while traveling and result in overdraft fees. If you do use credit, make sure you won’t be going over your credit limit with the deposits from hotels or car rental services. In any situation where a deposit is required, use credit to keep money in your bank until the deposit is returned or used toward a purchase. Many credit cards offer car rental insurance coverage, making credit a much smarter idea than giving the car rental people your bank info. When booking travel far in advance, it’s best to use credit – especially if you might end up canceling the trip.  This way, the money’s not taken out of your bank account any sooner than it needs to be.
7. ATMs. Scammers place skimmers over ATM slots to steal your card info when you slide it.  Yikes! Outdoor ATMs are easier for crooks to get to; they can easily plant skimmers or cameras to get your bank information. So if you must use an ATM, stick to indoor ones in high-traffic retail areas.

Keeping Your Cash Safe

Federal law limits your liability for fraudulent transactions on a debit card to $50–as long as you report the fraud within two days of the theft. Check your bank account regularly, and set up alerts to inform you if unusual spending occurs.

The post 7 Places to Never Use Your Debit Card appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Testing for Marijuana Use

The post You Can Get a DUI for Marijuana — When Sober appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Rise of the “Nanny State” Coast to Coast  

While we’re seeing some things that were once illegal slowly become legal – namely state (though not federal) legalization of marijuana, and legalization of gay marriage – we’re also facing many new restrictions. More and more people are concerned over the rise of this “nanny state,” which is responsible for things like banning the feeding of homeless people in certain areas.

The “soda ban” is not the first time Bloomberg has enacted something like this. New York saw indoor smoking banned in 2003, and in 2006, trans fats were outlawed in restaurants after a call for voluntarily reduction of trans fats failed. Bloomberg also mandated that chain restaurants post their nutrition information, also in an effort to curb obesity. Similar restrictions have been enacted on the West Coast. California was first to ban indoor smoking on a state level. A partial ban on trans fats at the state level was passed in 2008. San Francisco took it a step further in 2010 when it banned toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals.

In each case, legislators’ intentions are to stop us from doing harm to ourselves. Some argue that issues like obesity are legitimate public health concerns, and as such the government is right to do what it can to stop obesity from becoming worse. Others argue that this is not the government’s job, and it is overstepping the bounds when it tells us what we can and can’t eat.

Do These Restrictions Work?

If the intention of such legislation is to protect us from ourselves, and to reduce unwanted behaviors and consequences, then it’s fair to ask if these measures actually work. The results, so far, are mixed.

Evidence shows that smoking laws, which vary from community to community and state to state, do affect the smoking rate, and that bans on indoor smoking have been successful in reducing number of smokers and reducing smoking-related health problems. The ban on trans fats in New York has been successful in that trans fats consumption is down, but its affect on overall obesity rates is impossible to calculate. Increased access to nutritional information – whether on labels on packaged foods, or on menus in chain restaurants – hasn’t had any measurable positive effects on obesity. Nutritional information on packaged foods, which has been a requirement for two decades, hasn’t stopped the rise of obesity, but the FDA thinks that new labeling practices might be the key.

But trying to determine whether or not something helped is tricky. For issues of public health and human behavior, the causes are so complex and difficult to track that you can never point to something and say a definitive “this worked.” Equally, if something doesn’t lead to what you expected – say, obesity doesn’t go down after doing measure X – you can simply say that perhaps obesity didn’t go up as far as it might have, had that measure not been in place.

What About Freedom?

Whether the bans work as intended, legislation aimed at curing public health woes must be weighed against individual freedom. Once enacted, bans become the new norm and we get used to them pretty quickly. Smokers no longer allowed to smoke inside move outside. Restaurants no longer allowed to cook with trans fats use something else. If Bloomberg’s soda ban eventually goes through, consumers will quickly get used to buying multiple sodas to get their fix, or else make do with smaller amounts. The question is whether the “slippery slope” argument is valid. Should we stand up for every one of our rights, no matter how small they seem, or give up some of our liberties for the sake of the collective good? What do you think?

The post Smoking and Soda Bans – Do We Need a Nanny State? appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said no.

The Antitrust Division of the DOJ filed suit in Washington D.C. in January, challenging the merger on the grounds that it would give AB InBev too large a stake of the U.S. market and allow it to raise prices on its products. AB InBev has since submitted a revised plan in order to appease the JOD and get the merger through.

This is the latest in a long line of high-profile mergers that are occurring across industries. Is the JOD helping competition or hindering it with enforcement of antitrust laws, and what does it mean for consumers?

Monopoly’s not just a game: Why antitrust laws exist

Antitrust laws are intended to prevent companies from becoming too big and fixing prices. Excessively large corporations gain in power not only by squashing current competition but also by making it nearly impossible for new companies to enter the marketplace and compete. The rise of large conglomerates in the late 19th century coupled with the increased power of the federal government from the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 led to the adoption of the antitrust laws over the next 60-odd years.

Companies planning to merge must notify the Antitrust Division of the JOD as well as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for merger control, or a review of their merger plans. The goal is to prevent them from reducing competition and acquiring market power, which would allow them to raise prices without losing customers. Market power usually comes from controlling a large portion of the market. This is bad news for consumers who, lacking alternatives, have no choice but to pay the higher price for the same product.

AB InBev is no stranger to mergers. The behemoth began as a merger between Interbrew (a Belgian company itself composed of two breweries) and AmBev (a Brazilian company also composed of two breweries) in 2004. In 2006, InBev acquired Chinese brewery Fujian Sedrin, and in 2008 it merged with Anheuser-Busch, making it one of the top 5 consumer product companies in the world. When they began talks last June to buy Grupo Modelo, they were already discussing how to deal with concerns over antitrust issues.

Difficulties of predicting corporate merger outcomes on consumers

The goal of the Antitrust Division is not to prevent large mergers, but to ensure that they don’t adversely affect the market, and thus consumers. Often, large-scale mergers allow new conglomerates to compete more effectively in the market. For example, the $11 billion merger of US Airways and AMR (owner of American Airlines and American Eagle) will bring their combined domestic market share to roughly 23.7%, allowing them to compete with United (with 21.7% domestic share) and Delta (with 20.5%). While this might allow the new company to stand up to its competitors, consumers might not benefit.

The FTC uses economic theory and crunches numbers to come up with what it thinks may happen in the marketplace, based on what it knows now. It’s an imperfect system at best. In the famous break up of AT&T in 1982, after a lawsuit brought by the DOJ led to Bell System splitting into small companies, the results for consumers were mixed. While competition in long-distance telecommunications increased and prices dropped, rates for local telecommunications rose. In the end, the break up was generally considered a good thing for consumers, but the fact is that it’s not so easy to say what the end result will be. After all, the marketplace is complex, and the DOJ can’t predict the future.

And if the Anheuser-Busch InBev, Grupo Modelo merger goes through?

We may find ourselves paying more for the beer we love, and having fewer options in the marketplace, despite the proposed changes to the merger. Or maybe we will see no substantial difference in the marketplace here in the U.S. as AB InBev focuses on increased sales in emerging markets. A decision from the JOD on the revised merger is expected soon.

The post There’s a Booze Monopoly on the Horizon appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Amid child sex-abuse scandals, the Catholic church is losing members and money fast. While membership in the church has been declining for years, the abuse has accelerated the damage across the U.S.

Milwaukee

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan approved payments of up to $20,000 for priests accused of sexual abuse to go away quietly while he was the archbishop of Milwaukee. The payments were revealed in the paperwork involved in the Wisconsin church’s recent bankruptcy filing.

New York

The state of New York gives victims of childhood abuse up to five years after their 18th birthday to report the incident. While over 30 states have been easing similar laws, the New York Times reported that Catholic officials are pushing against similar efforts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, even hiring lobbying and public relations firms to help keep the statues strict in New York and Colorado, presumably since lawsuits against the church have already cost $2.5 billion.

Philadelphia

Monsignor William Lynn, the first U.S. Catholic official ever convicted for handling of abuse complaints, has been convicted of child endangerment for covering up sexual abuse. He was accused of allowing abusive priests to continue in the ministry with access to children. Though the monsignor claims to have reported incidents to higher-up officials, he simply reassigned the dangerous priests to other parishes.

Seattle

A Seattle man was awarded $6.4 million in a lawsuit against the order of priests; the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate had refused to help when the man—as a teenager—reported being raped for three years by the principal of the school until finally dropping out of school and joining the Marines to escape the abuse. The Oblates order has been investigated for covering up or ignoring child sex abuse several times before, and has insurance that helps cover the cost of lawsuits concerning it. “I wish the Catholics sitting in the pews knew what their money was going to,” the man said.

School Closures

Since 1960, Catholic school enrollment has dropped from 5.2 million to 2.3 million in 2006—costing taxpayers billions to accommodate the students public schools have had to absorb as a result. Since 2000, Fox News reports that U.S. Catholic school enrollment has plummeted by 23 percent, and 1,900 schools have closed. The largest declines have been in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Brooklyn, Cleveland, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Boston, Newark, Detroit, Newark, and Miami, which together lost almost 20 percent of their students in five years. Chicago Catholic schools have seen significant enrollment increases since Indiana has offered parents enrollment vouchers. Voucher and tax credit programs are being introduced or expanded in Virginia, Florida, and Louisiana. As a result, some public schools are losing students—and loads of funding.

The post Cities in a Catholic Crisis appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Kids Don’t Know They’re Being Manipulated

Advertising should be banned on kids’ TV programming, according to British developmental psychology researcher Mark Blades, Ph.D.  Because children are more impressionable than adults, Blades says, advertisers aim for them. “In the United States, children spend $30 billion annually and directly influence an additional $250 billion in family spending,” he said. “Advertisers aim for children because they want to establish tastes and preferences that will last a lifetime.”

Blades conducted a research project where he asked a group of six-year-olds to explain the purpose of advertising, giving them four choices. Thirty-one percent chose “don’t know;” 33 percent said “for a break;” 36 percent said “for information;” not one child chose the option, “to persuade.”

Show Me the Money

While many psychologists and health experts lobby for less advertising, business owners and underfunded schools alike can’t help but find it all too tempting. Facebook will most likely increase their revenue fantastically should they open up membership to kids under 13, due to an inevitable increase in profit from mobile ads. Nine states currently allow advertising on school buses, and 11 more are considering it—and it doesn’t appear that junk food is off the advertising menu.

We may be able to trust some companies to fight for our kids, although it may be a losing battle. Dish Network’s ad-skipping DVR can keep kids from watching ads about junk food and alcohol, but the feature may be too good to be true, as many broadcasters are suing Dish over the feature.

Disney has recently promised to phase out junk food ads on its kid channels, web sites, and radio stations. While some sugary cereals and some debatably healthy foods may still be advertised, we applaud Disney for making a step in the right direction.

How Do Advertisers Get Away with It?

Advertising was granted First Amendment protection in the 1970s, as the government decided that commercial speech deserved protection since it provided valuable information to the consumer (price and product features, for instance). Sadly, something designed to better inform the consumer has been twisted to advance the rights of corporations to manipulate the consumer into buying their product.  The  “Central Hudson” test, used since the 1980s, says that ads can’t portray something illegal and can’t be “inherently misleading.” The problem with kids’ advertisements is that, while an ad might not seem obviously misleading to adults (i.e., healthy-looking kids eating sugary cereals and giant burgers: obviously not realistic), kids don’t recognize what is unrealistic, and might actually be led to believe that a magical cartoon character is going to jump out of the cereal box.

The post Who’s Getting Your Kids’ Attention? appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

It depends on a several variables and what is more important to you: money or convenience. Factors such as your location, the condition of the car, and how comfortable you are dealing with random strangers and title paperwork will also help you determine on the best way to sell your car.

Generally, the options are to either trade it in at a dealership, or sell it yourself. If you’re in a rush and willing to accept less money in exchange for being done with the whole ordeal forever, trading it in to a dealer is easy and fast. If you want top dollar, though, and are willing to put a little work into it, you should sell to a private buyer.

Prep the Car

Regardless of how you end up selling your car, prepping it is an important first step. You should have the car professionally detailed. Yes, it can be expensive, but it’s a worthy investment, particularly for a private sale. Although the crumbs from under your 2-year-old’s carseat, and that spot on the carpet from when the dog barfed that time don’t take away from the car’s value in your mind, we guarantee you will not get enthusiastic buyers unless the car is as pristine as you can make it. Make sure it smells good, too. Nobody wants to buy a car that smells like all the stuff you’ve spilled in it over the years.

Prepping also includes minor maintenance. Get your oil changed if it’s due, fix the cracked windshield, and replace the missing gas cap. The less of a laundry list the buyer feels like they have to do to make the car as “like new” as possible, the more likely you’ll be able to sell the vehicle easily and for the price you want.

Do Your Homework

Once the car is all shiny and sweet-smelling, the next step is to determine what it’s worth. Kelly Blue Book online is a great resource for getting an accurate price for your car, given the year, mileage, trim package, and condition. It even takes your location into account, and will give you both the private sale value and the trade-in value, so you know what range to expect from a dealer.

You can also prepare the paperwork in advance by making sure the title is in order and, if you’re selling privately, printing off a bill of sale, which is available online. Fill out as much as you can in advance so that you’re ready when you get a buyer.

Finally, it’s a good idea to print of a vehicle history from Experian or Carfax and have repair and maintenance records in order—many buyers will want to see them, and having them ready gives them less time to change their minds.

Trade-In

Nothing can beat the convenience of simply trading the car in for a new one at a dealership. It’s no muss, no fuss—you simply sign the title over and you’re done with the car forever. The down side is that, in order to resell the car at a profit, the dealer will have to offer you less than the full retail value of the car. He will also have to cover the cost of repairs and cleaning to ready the car for sale, which is reflected in the difference between the trade-in value and retail value.

One thing to keep in mind is that you are only required to pay sales tax on the difference between the cost of your new car and what you get for the trade in, which can help make up for the disparity, depending on the sales tax rate in your state and what you’re buying and trading in.

Private Sale

There is no question that if you want to get as much money out of your car as possible, private sale is the way to go. Online listing is the best way to sell a car privately—you can quickly and easily list your car on sites like Craigslist and Autotrader. Always include photos, inside and out, and from several angles. The more information you give in your listing, the better your chances of finding the right buyer. Be absolutely honest about the car’s condition and any major issues it has—it’s all going to come out eventually, anyway, so don’t waste your time or the buyer’s by hedging.

When you find your buyer and have agreed on the price, accept cash only. Never take a check unless you’re selling to a close friend or relative. Fill out the bill of sale, sign over the title, and cancel your insurance. If you’ve done everything thoroughly and honestly, your buyer will drive away happy, and you’ll have a nice wad of cash to put toward a shiny, new car of your own.

The post How to Sell Your Car appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

The legality of scalping tickets, which is generally understood as reselling a ticket for profit, varies from state to state. Currently there is no federal law against ticket scalping, so those who buy tickets off shifty-eyed individuals wandering outside of the arena or stadium can at least rest assured that there won’t be FBI agents banging down their door.

However, scalping tickets is illegal in a number of states, and what precisely is and isn’t a crime varies among those states. According to a report from Connecticut’s Office of Legislative (OLR) research, there are 27 states that have laws regarding ticket reselling.

Arkansas

The state of Arkansas prohibits the reselling of tickets to high school or collegiate events, but allows ticket resellers to charge a reasonable service fee at concert venues.

California

According to the California Penal Code, it is illegal to resell tickets on the premises of a venue without permission.

Connecticut

Connecticut is one of 11 states that prohibit ticket scalping, but like a number of these states, the Constitution State allows tickets to be resold with a reasonable service charge, which as of 2006 was $3.

Florida

Florida allows tickets to be resold at $1 more than face value in most instances, although reselling tickets is forbidden on the grounds of the venue where the event takes place. However, the Sunshine State allows for websites that receive authorization from the original seller, offer refunds and discloses its position as not the original seller to resell tickets without any limits in regard to price.

Illinois

The Land of Lincoln allows for the resale of tickets but it places a number of regulations on those who are allowed to do so. Registered ticket brokers and websites are allowed to sell tickets if they maintain an office in the state, pay an annual $100 fee, disclose their refund policy and maintain a $100,000 in-state cash account to meet the needs of any customer complaints. However, brokers are not allowed to sell the tickets “near the facility,” according to the OLR report.

New York

Those who resell tickets in the Empire State must be licensed by the area in which they are reselling them in addition to posting a bond. If the venue of the event seats more than 6,000 people, ticket resellers can charge 45 percent more than the face value of the ticket, while tickets for venues with smaller capacities can be 20 percent higher than the ticket. These resellers must also guarantee refunds, along with a number of other provisions.

The post Is Scalping Tickets Illegal? appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Bill Clinton

Gerald Ford wasn’t the only president to be adopted; Bubba was adopted by his step-father. Bill’s mother remarried after his father’s death in a car  accident. Bill Clinton became the governor of Arkansas, and later achieved the U.S. presidency, becoming the 42nd U.S. president.

Aristotle

Aristotle, one of the most famous philosophers in world history, was taken in by Proxenus after his parents were killed when he was young. Although the ancient Greeks likely didn’t have the same sense of adoption that we do in modern times, the philosopher was nonetheless raised by someone other than his parents.

Robert Byrd

The Senator’s mother died as a result of the influenza epidemic of 1918, and his father sent Robert to live with his sister-in-law and her husband, who adopted him. Byrd was one of the most prominent politicians of the second half of the twentieth century, becoming the longest-serving senator and congressman in U.S. history.

John Hancock

One of America’s founding fathers was adopted by his uncle, Thomas Hancock, after his father died and his mother was no longer able to care for the children. Despite his family’s struggles, Hancock would go on to become one of the most prominent political figures in the American Revolution.

Edgar Allan Poe

Poe was never formally adopted, but after the death of his parents he was fostered by a merchant named John Allan and his wife, Frances. The family moved to England when he was six, but they later returned to America, where Poe would go on to be one of the country’s most famous authors of the nineteenth century.

Gerald Ford

President Ford’s parents separated when Gerald was young. Ford was then taken in by his step-father, Gerald R. Ford, and later took his name. Ford would go on to do great things, first playing football for the University of Michigan and later becoming the leader of the Free World.

Greg Louganis

The gold-medal winning Olympian was adopted when he was just a baby by a couple who had adopted another child as well. Louganis went on to be one of the most successful divers in U.S. history, taking home gold at the 1984 and 1988 Olympic games.

Ray Liotta

Liotta, perhaps best known for his turn as Henry Hill in the Martin Scorsese movie Goodfellas, was adopted as a baby. He grew up in New Jersey and became a successful actor.

Nancy Reagan

Ronald Reagan’s wife was adopted by her step-father at that age of 6. Nancy went on to become an actress of moderate success before she married her husband, who became first governor of California and then president of America.

The post 10 Astonishingly Successful People Who Were Adopted appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Not to put a damper on love, but with a tough track record to follow and great amounts of wealth within the royal family, the question of prenup is hard to ignore. We asked Massachusetts divorce attorney Gabriel Cheong, with Infinity Law Group, to answer some questions about the possibility of a prenuptial agreement between the royal couple.

Avvo: There are some media reports suggesting that Kate Middleton and Prince William will – or at least should – have a prenuptial agreement. Why would this be important and is this something that we can expect?

GC: This is definitely something we can expect especially with the decision from Granatino v. Radmacher. Even though a prenuptial is not a legally binding document, it is evident by the Radmacher decision that the supreme judiciary in England will give pre-nuptials “decisive weight.” In other words, it is like chicken soup when one is sick. Although there is no definitive scientific proof the chicken soup cures the common cold, one knows it is better to have a bowl than not. So it would not hurt Prince William to have a prenuptial agreement, instead it would be prudent for Prince William to have a prenuptial agreement.

Avvo: If a prenuptial agreement is unlikely, what would happen (financially speaking) if the couple were to get a divorce?

GC: If there is no prenup, then assets and property would be divided accordingly to British laws. Traditionally, assets and property are divided 50/50 between the parties. But just like divorces here in the US, many times there are negotiated terms.

Avvo: Even more specifically, what would happen with the engagement ring?

GC: The laws in Britain tend to treat an engagement ring as a gift to the future bride and she is entitled to keep the ring unless it is made clear before hand that the ring never becomes her property absolutely. For example, when Prince Charles and Princess Diana split, Princess Diana kept the ring, which in turn, Prince William inherited to give to Kate.

Avvo: If Kate Middleton had her own attorneys (in the event of a divorce or prenup) would she really even have a chance given the power of the Royal family?

GC: I would hate to say it all depends, but it is true. It all depends on her attorneys and who they are and how good are they at arguing their points. But just to shine some light on the Princess Diana divorce settlement, it was released by Prince Charles’ accountant that Princess Diana received more than 50% of the assets and property from the marriage. She received at total of $45 million USD. Of course there were some settlements in that amount – for example, Princess Diana had to give up her royal title and be called “Lady Diana” and she was never to speak about the divorce with members of the press.

Avvo: How are prenuptial agreements in the US different from those in the UK?

GC: In the US prenuptial agreements are independent agreements and as long as they meet all the criteria of being a valid prenuptial agreement, then the agreement will hold up in the court of law. In the UK, it is undecided whether a prenuptial is independent agreement. However, in the UK, what we do know is that according to the court of Granatino v. Radmacher, the court will very least use the prenup as a decisive weight.

Do you think Prince William and Kate Middleton should have a prenup? Let us know in the comments!

The post Ask a Lawyer: Will there be a Royal Prenup? appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Avvo offers free ratings and profiles for over 800,000 doctors in the United States, including the editorial Avvo Rating, patient ratings and peer ratings — in other words, Avvo is kind of like Yelp for doctors and lawyers, only better.

The benefits of using Avvo to find doctors and get health answers

• Easily evaluate doctors with a simple 1-10 Avvo Rating.
• Find misconduct history for 50% of U.S. doctors, to be at 100% by year end.
• Get health answers without an office visit free from real doctors at Avvo’s question and answer forum.
• Get smarter about your health with access to hundreds of health guides.

Now, whether you have a legal problem or a health problem, Avvo gives you free ratings and answers.

P.S., if you enjoy reading Naked Law, check out the Naked Health blog.

The post Avvo Is Now Rating Doctors! How Does Yours Rate? appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Take a few minutes to read their stories and you can also check out their Avvo profiles!

Lisa Bloom: “Clients include “Double Exposure” reality stars Markus Klinko and Indrani, the A-list photographers who were witnesses in the marriage fraud trial of Mexican soap star Fernanda Romero, as well as Michael Lohan and anther reality tv couple,  Michaele and Tareq Salahi.”

Bert Fields: “Fields’ long career as a lawyer to the stars began with Jack Webb and “Dragnet.”  He went on to represent Warren Beatty and The Beatles, Dustin Hoffman and Madonna. Now he occupies his days with the legal affairs of James Cameron, Tom Cruise and the Weinstein brothers.”

Tom Mesereau: “Clients include Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Mike Tyson.”

Gloria Allred: “Famous men who have faced the wrath of Allred and her clients include Roman Polanski, Eddie Murphy, Rob Lowe, O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and the late Aaron Spelling.”

Harland Braun: “Besides Blake, Gayheart, Garrison and Farley, he has represented Roseanne Barr, Dennis Rodman and a host of others he won’t talk about.”

Laura Wasser: “Clients include Robyn Gibson, Kate Walsh, Britney Spears, Angelina Jolie, and others who will go unnamed.”

Marty Singer: “Clients include Schwarzenegger, Jolie, Spears, Woods and Cage, he’s represented Sylvester Stallone, Kate Gosselin, Eric Dane and Demi Moore, to name a few.”

Blair Berk: “Clients include: Kiefer Sutherland, Heather Locklear, Mel Gibson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mackenzie Phillips, Ozzy Osbourne, Halle Berry, Reese Witherspoon, Ryan Seacrest, Lindsay Lohan and Queen Latifah, to name a few.”

Shawn Chapman Holley: Most recently worked with Lindsey Lohan, but experience and prestige has grown since being part of the OJ Simpson defense team alongside Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman.

The post ‘Lawyers to the Stars’ on Avvo appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

From the thousands of questions asked on Avvo.com each week, we see first-hand how the mortgage crisis and resulting foreclosures are a huge problem for families across the country.

To get a better understanding of these allegations, and what it all means for homeowners, we’ve asked John Watts, a foreclosure defense and consumer protection attorney with Watts Law Group P.C. & M. Stan Herring P.C. in Birmingham, Alabama, to answer a few questions.

Q: Media sources have reported that Ally Financial processed thousands of foreclosures, without actually reviewing them. How did this even happen?

What happened with Ally is just a part of what we are seeing in the mortgage industry over the last ten years. The mortgage industry has changed over the years with the widespread use of securitization as a means of loaning more money for a greater profit.  Securitization is where thousands of loans of bundled together and placed into a “Trust” on Wall Street so the company you received the money from — Bank of America, Countrywide, Wells Fargo, etc — is normally not the owner of the loan anymore.

There is nothing wrong with securitization or any of the other innovations – as long as the laws are followed.

But in the rush of this decade to loan ever increasing amounts of money without regard to sound business practices and the law, mortgage companies have started taking numerous shortcuts.

We see mortgage companies that cannot show they truly own the loan.  Their lawyers stand before courts somewhat befuddled and say “We are not sure who owns this loan.”  But yet they still want to foreclose.

This particular situation with Ally Financial (GMAC Mortgage) involved a single person who signed affidavits that were used to convince courts that the mortgage company was entitled to foreclose and take someone’s home.

If the information in the affidavits was accurate, then this is appropriate.

But at Ally, one person signed 10,000 affidavits a month. That’s 500 a day if he worked 20 days a month. If he did nothing but sign affidavits 8 hours a day, that’s about 62 affidavits an hour.

Let’s round up and call it one affidavit per minute. Non-stop for 8 hours a day. Day in and day out.  This is why these types of employees are called “Robo-Signers.”

An affidavit in this context is a sworn statement that identifies critical information about the homeowner, the loan, and the payment history.

Obviously this Ally employee does not know this information about each homeowner. That’s 120,000 a year.  Sometimes I can’t remember what I ate for lunch yesterday so I suspect this guy doesn’t personally know all of the information about these loans.

So if he doesn’t know it, he needs to look in the records to see if all of the information in the affidavit is accurate.

One minute is not going to be enough time to read, and research, a page or two page long affidavit.

We also see this in the context of credit reporting agencies investigating credit report disputes. They will often allocate just a minute or two in order to review a dispute submitted by a consumer.  It is very hard  for them to get these investigations handled properly when there is not sufficient time.

So why do these companies put all of this work on someone who only has a minute to do what really takes ten minutes or even hours to do?

It all comes down to money.  In the mortgage servicing industry — the companies that actually handle the payments, escrow, and the foreclosures — the decision has been made to automate as much as possible even when it means making numerous errors including wrongful foreclosures.  This is why we see “inspections” of a home by a servicing company when it is impossible — such as when New Orleans was shut down and yet servicing companies claimed that they repeatedly “drove by” houses that were literally under water.

So, it is too much to pay someone else or a team of trained workers to make sure these affidavits were accurate and legitimate.  Even though 10,000 affidavits were signed every month — meaning 10,000 homes were being foreclosed every month — Ally and the mortgage companies that Ally works for thought it not important enough to make sure the truth was being told to courts.

Sad but not surprising.  This is how business is done by many mortgage companies today.

Q: What impact does this have on mortgage companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Numerous mortgage companies relied upon this particular “processor” who has admitted to signing affidavits without reading them, even though affidavits must be based upon personal knowledge. Now, all of these mortgage companies that have relied upon these bogus documents are going to face some tough decisions.  Do they press ahead with foreclosures or do they try and clean up the documentation?

If they clean up the documentation, or try to, this raises issues about the foreclosures that happened before the “clean up.”  This may be seen as an implicit admission that the previous foreclosures were invalid and should be set aside.  That is the nightmare scenario that all of these mortgage companies face that have taken extreme shortcuts or even fraudulent shortcuts.

My suspicion is that the mortgage companies will simply state this “problem” is not a big deal.  It is a “technicality” that does not change the fact that the homeowner is “behind on her mortgage.”  In every wrongful foreclosure case I have, we hear the same thing — “Judge, don’t worry about whether we really own the loan. The important thing is the borrower is behind.”

Keep in mind, however, that it doesn’t matter if the homeowner is late on payments if the foreclosing entity is not entitled to foreclose.  Just because you are late paying your mortgage, for example, doesn’t give me the right to foreclose.  I have no right to do that, regardless of whether you are behind or not.

Bottom line is I suspect the companies will maintain a fairly united front on this and claim this is all created by foreclosure defense lawyers who are looking for technicalities to stop the wheels of commerce.  They will say they did a sampling of the 10,000 affidavits every month and it turns out everything was fine so this is all just a “distraction” by foreclosure defense lawyers.

Q: If a homeowner believes he or she lost their home as a result of this mishandling of documents, first – is there any way they would even know, and if so, what are their options?

Often times there will be an affidavit offered in a judicial foreclosure case. That affidavit will be a part, usually, of the court file.  So that is the best place to start.

A homeowner’s foreclosure defense lawyer, or bankruptcy lawyer, will likely be aware of this issue and other similar issues and so the lawyer will request documents and other information from the mortgage companies during the case.

If the foreclosure has already happened, and the consumer believes the foreclosure was improper, then it is critical to get with a foreclosure defense lawyer as soon as possible because there may be some very strict time limits involved in trying to undo the foreclosure.

In Alabama, where I practice, the foreclosures are almost 100% “non judicial” so this means the foreclosure happens without the court being involved but then the company that buys the home (usually the mortgage company or Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) then sues for “ejectment” or eviction.

But in a judicial foreclosure state, such as Florida, the foreclosure normally happens when the foreclosure case is won by the mortgage company and lost by the homeowner.  So now the homeowner will be faced with the prospect of trying to get a judge to overturn a court decision on allowing the foreclosure to go forward.  I don’t practice in Florida but, in general, overturning decisions by judges is difficult as you are asking the court to rule that it made a mistake.  Homeowners in this situation need to get with a lawyer very quickly to see what their options are in this situation.

Q: What legal action should we expect to see be taken against Ally Financial?

I think we will see some Attorney Generals investigate this situation but I don’t expect anything substantive from that.  Hopefully I am wrong.

I do think that this whole mess will encourage foreclosure defense lawyers to really press hard against mortgage companies to see if what the mortgage companies say is true or not.

Lately foreclosure defense lawyers have done this with respect to assignments of notes and mortgages. We see quite often bogus documents which purport to transfer notes and mortgages long after the time limits to do so have expired.  We have been told not to worry about such “minor details” as who owns the loan.

This mess with Ally demonstrates that everything needs to be questioned.  Think of this way — if a company such as Ally will file 10,000 bogus affidavits a month – in court – then would it surprise you that companies might be less than honest when they are dealing with you outside of court?

I think we will see numerous suits against Ally and the companies that relied upon Ally. Claims will be made of wrongful foreclosures or fraud on the court. There will be efforts made to “undo” or “rescind” foreclosures that were based upon the bogus affidavits.

This admission from Ally will not go away quickly and the lawyers that brought this to light deserve a lot of credit for exposing this dirty side of the foreclosure business.

Q: From the very beginning of the mortgage crisis, many people have said the entire system is fraudulent. Do you think this is one unfortunate event, or that this is just one example of a widespread issue within the foreclosure process?

I don’t think the entire system is fraudulent but I do think the level of fraud in the mortgage industry is shocking.

Here’s what I mean.

Most loans from this decade were securitized and placed (supposedly) in a Trust. The Trust (or trustee) is allegedly the owner of the loan. But the problem is that the Trust requires the loans to be placed in it by a certain deadline. There are a variety of reasons for this including the IRS tax code.

But I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a loan go into the Trust by the deadline.  There is no good explanation for this by the mortgage companies other than “Don’t worry about it.”

This is why we see situations where more than one company claims to own the loan — which is impossible.  The record keeping was done so ineptly (either intentionally or unintentionally) that no one knows who owns the loan.

Then when we consider “servicing” of a loan, we see rampant fraud.  Bogus inspections (remember the New Orleans example above).  Servicers who take in payments and then blatantly violate the terms of the loan in how the servicer applies the payments.  They do this so that they can take out of the payment any late fees, inspection fees, etc. as this is all profit to the servicer.  They do this illegally and then say “You didn’t make your payment big enough so you are now late again.”  They then stick the balance of your payment in a “suspense account” which they use to loan out money and make interest on instead of properly applying your payments.

But the biggest area of fraud is in the weeks and days leading up to a foreclosure.  Promises will be made that “If you pay $3,000 we will stop the foreclosure” and then when you pay that money the servicer still forecloses.  When you are doing a loan modification the servicer will “accidentally” lose your paperwork multiple times and claim you never sent it so the foreclosure is your fault.

Now this situation with Ally — which is not isolated — where 10,000 bogus affidavits were filed a month.

The whole system is not fraudulent. For many homeowners who never get behind, the system works to some extent.  But for homeowners who do get behind, so many are being taken advantage of in a fraudulent manner with the end result being the loss of their home when that should not have occurred. Improper foreclosures lead to communities being harmed and families being subjected to almost incalculable stress.

Q: What is the ultimate solution for homeowners?

Homeowners should realize that mortgage companies act based upon two presumptions:

1.  You don’t know your rights or you don’t that the mortgage companies are breaking the law; and
2.  Even if you do, you won’t do anything about it.

Think of all of the months and months that this single company put out 10,000 bogus affidavits.  They knew this was improper.  They didn’t just realize “Oh my, our employee has been signing 10,000 affidavits at the rate of one per minute.  Who knew?”

They knew this was improper but they assumed, you would never know. Or even if you did know, you wouldn’t do anything about it.

So the solution is to prove these mortgage companies wrong in their presumptions.

Learn what your rights are. You have access here at Avvo.com to questions and answers with lawyers in your state. You have legal guides – both written and videos.  Use these resources to learn about your rights and then meet with a lawyer to get specific advice for your unique situation.

Then when you are clear on what your rights are and what your options are, take action.  It does no good to know everything about the law in this area, if you do nothing.  Instead take action based upon your knowledge.

If you are facing a wrongful foreclosure that is in violation of the law, then you have options.  Learn what they are and then make a decision by taking the appropriate action.

The post Legal Q&A: Help for Homeowners after latest Mortgage Fraud Allegations appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Voter suppression and fraud occur disturbingly often in America (even though they’re illegal), and many times they’re either unreported or quickly swept under the rug.  Indeed, for an inestimable number of Americans, the right to vote is a fight still in progress.

While there have literally been thousands of claims of voter suppression and voter fraud efforts, we decided to highlight 8 of them that we find to be particularly shocking.

1. King Street Patriots use doctored photos and attack nonprofit voter registration effort—As you’re reading this, a huge battle is brewing in Houston over charges of voter suppression, voter fraud, and even arson. It all started when  the Harris County Voter Registrar Leo Vasquez and King Street Patriots, a right-wing group, began raising allegations of voter fraud against nonprofit voter registration group Houston Votes. They claimed the organization turned in more than 5,000 fraudulent voter applications.

Whether these claims are true or not remains to be seen, but it didn’t take long for Houston Votes to fire back with allegations of voter suppression by King Street Patriots. The right-wing group was caught using a doctored photo in one of their videos. The edited photo showed an African-American woman at a rally with a sign that had been changed from “Don’t Mess With Our Vote,” to read, “I Only Got to Vote Once.”

As for the arson, while this dispute was heating up (no pun intended) a mysterious fire suddenly destroyed a huge collection of voting machines in Harris County. Arson investigators have yet to comment on the issue.

2. Flyer scares young voters away with claims of undercover police making arrests at polls—During the 2008 elections, flyers were spread around Drexel University in Philadelphia warning students that undercover police would be at the polls on Election Day making arrests for anyone who has warrants or outstanding traffic offenses. The effort was designed to scare people away from the polls.

3. Ballot Security Task Force patrols voting stations with guns and intimidating warning signs—Back in the 80s, one of the most famous cases of voter suppression took place in New Jersey during the gubernatorial election. The National Ballot Security Task Force, a group setup by the Republican National Committee, patrolled polling sites in black and Hispanic neighborhoods of Newark and Trenton. The group consisted of armed, off-duty police officers who would challenge and question voters and in some cases block their paths to the polls.

4. Fake voicemail messages tell voters they aren’t registered—In 2006, many Virginia voters received fake voicemail messages from the state elections commission stating that the voters were registered in other states and would be arrested if they tried to vote in Virginia.

5. New Black Panther Party brandishes billy clubs at Philadelphia polling station—An amateur video shot in November 2008 at a Philadelphia polling station displayed a shocking scene in which a group from the New Black Panther Party was brandishing clubs and intimidating voters who weren’t there to support Obama. The leader of the Black Panthers defended his group and said those people on the video were acting “outside of organizational policy.” After the Obama administration dropped the cases, one prominent Justice Department official quit, stating superiors instructed attorneys to ignore cases that involved black defendants and white victims.

6. Democrat activist uncovers more than 2000 claims of voter fraud against Obama campaign—Democratic activist Gigi Gaston made the documentary film We Will Not Be Silenced in 2008 after she noticed numerous complaints of voter suppression against the Obama administration during the Democratic primaries. According to the film, there were over 2,000 claims of voter fraud against the Obama campaign, including allowing unregistered people to vote, intimidating Hillary Clinton voters, locking people out of voting places, and much more.

7. Colorado illegally purges voters within 90 days of election—Colorado was called out for illegally purging voters off the rolls within 90 days of an election, during which time only voters who’ve moved out of state, die, or are declared mentally ill may be purged. 7,000 total voters were purged, and only 20% of those had died or moved out of state.

8. Judge rules Montana Republican Party had “the express intent to disenfranchise voters”—In October 2008, the Montana Republican Party challenged the registration of 6,000 voters—mostly young voters and Native Americans. A judge ruled that the party had challenged the voters with “the express intent to disenfranchise voters.”

Can you recall any other noteworthy examples of voter suppression and voter fraud? Share your stories by leaving a comment.

The post 8 Disturbing Examples Voter Suppression in America appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Of course, Wheeler isn’t the only student who has duped a university into accepting his application. This is something that happens far more often than any university president would like to admit, and it’s important to remember that it’s not just a harmless prank or a white lie. Faking your way into college, utilizing school resources, and accepting financial aid based on falsified information are all criminal activities that can land you in serious trouble.

But just for the sake of discussion: Is it really possible to fake your way into an Ivy League university and get away with it?

Why do people fake their ways into college?

Before we talk about what one would have to do fake their way into a prestigious university (or even the local city college), let’s talk about some of the reasons people actually do this.

• To get ahead in life. Obviously, if you’re able to fake your way into Harvard, Yale, or any other reputable institution and get away with it, you can avail yourself to opportunities you’d never be able to enjoy otherwise. You could parlay your fake college admission into a very profitable career after graduation.
• For the money. Who couldn’t use tens of thousands of dollars? Many of the students who’ve faked their ways into universities ended up receiving significant amounts of scholarship money.
• To change their identity and get away from problems. Not all students who fake their way into college change their names, but some do. When Kenneth Foster changed his name to “Gianluca Velissariou” and faked his way into USC, it was because he was wanted in North Carolina in connection to a car theft case.
• To satisfy their parents. Believe it or not, some students fake their way into college for no other reason than to please their parents by creating the illusion that they’re doing well in school.

Getting a fake identity

Many students use fake names to forge their way into the college of their choice. In some instances, stealing an identity could involve using the name and information of a missing person, and in other cases, it could mean buying a new name, birth certificate, and social security number. For this, you’d have to turn to the black market where you can get everything you need to become a brand new person. According to some statistics, about 10 million people have their identities stolen each year, where their personal data is then sold on the black market for people to use for buying cars and homes, getting jobs, and applying to get into school.

Faking your accomplishments

Of course, if you want to get into an Ivy League school, you need to have an impressive academic record. This means top SAT scores, straight A’s in high school and other universities you may claim to have attended, and a slew of extracurricular activities to set your application apart from the rest.

Now, you might be wondering, “Won’t they verify the information in my application to make sure it’s accurate?”

And here’s the dirty little secret universities don’t want you to know. It’s the reason students are able to fake their way into colleges all across the country every single year.

Admissions officers don’t have time to scrutinize every application so closely.

When Adam Wheeler was busted for sneaking his way into Harvard, many questioned how his fake application got through. Here’s an excerpt from a New York Times story detailing this issue:

The relationship between an applicant and an admissions officer, like that between a reporter and an editor, is ultimately based on trust. For all the checks and balances intended to safeguard both endeavors, someone who sets out to deliberately and elaborately deceive may well succeed, at least in the short run.

That was a point made to me yesterday by Ted de Villafranca, a former admissions officer at Manhattanville College and the University of Richmond who is dean of college counseling at the Peddie School in Hightstown, N.J.

“There is an expectation that students in this situation act honorably and truthfully,” he said. “You’re actually signing that you have done that — that the application is a true and accurate representation of who you are and what you’ve accomplished.”

“It is not in our inherent nature in our industry to be suspicious,” he added. “This is not ‘C.S.I. Harvard.’”

Remember, the typical university has tens of thousands of undergraduate applications to screen every single year. There’s just not enough manpower to verify all the information in the applications. So, most universities rely on the honor system, and since applicants sign the application stating that all information is truthful, they just assume they’re telling the truth. Sometimes, this comes back to bite them.

Blending in to go unnoticed

Eventually, most students who fake their way into college get caught. And almost always, the reason they get caught is because they weren’t blending in properly with their other students.

Consider these examples:

• Adam Wheeler was finally caught for faking his way into Harvard when he got greedy and tried to get the school’s endorsements for Rhodes and Fulbright scholarships. At this point, the school took a closer look at his background and credentials, leading to his exposure as a fraud.
• David Vanegas got busted for faking his way into Rice University when his friends noticed his suspicious behavior. He never seemed to have any homework, and he was always missing his student ID.
• Akash Maharaj was turned in by his boyfriend after Maharaj was acting unstable and threatened to kill him.

The point is this: If you want to get away with your sham, you have to keep a low profile. Blending in with the rest of the student population is the only chance you have for being a successful fake student.

So is it possible?

Faking your way into college is certainly possible, but going a your whole life, or even 4 years, without getting caught is difficult and highly unlikely.

The post How to Fake Your Way into an Ivy League University appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Here’s a round up of some well-known mascots gone wild:

Penn State Nittany Lion: The person responsible for being the Nittany Lion was arrested last week for public drunkenness and criminal mischief. He was also suspended by the Penn State athletic department.

Minnesota Goldy Gopher: The University of Minnesota mascot found himself in trouble after apparently mocking an opposing player who kneeled to pray after a football game. The university later issued an apology on behalf of the mascot’s actions.

Pat Patriot: Last year the man who played the New England Patriot’s mascot was arrested in a Rhode Island prostitution sting.

Harvey the Hound: After taunting the Edmonton Oilers’ bench, the Calgary Flames’ mascot Harvey the Hound gets his famous red tongue ripped out by coach Craig MacTavish. MacTavish, then threw it into the stands behind him and then had to be restrained by a trainer from grabbing a hockey stick and assaulting Harvey further. See the troubling before and after shots:

Steely McBeam: The rough and tough Pittsburgh Steeler’s mascot has had a couple recent run-ins with the law. One of the men who played the part was arrested and charged with drunk driving, and as a result was fired from the football organization. In a more recent event this past April, the mascot was accused of sexual assault in an incident at a downtown Pittsburgh gay bar. According to the police report, the mascot was performing a Village People revue, and at intermission got into an “altercation” with another performer in the bar’s bathroom.

University of Oregon Duck vs. University of Houston Cougar: Oregon’s Duck was suspended for a game after he “attacked” the opposing team’s mascot. The reason? Apparently the Duck became upset when the Cougar imitated one of the Duck’s trademarks – push-ups for total points after each touchdown in front of the student section.

Stanford University Tree vs. Cal Berkeley’s Oski: In a rumble described as “legendary”, during a basketball game in 1995, the rival mascots go at it after Oski taunts the Stanford student section. The two eventually have to be separated and taken out by police, but not before Oski’s  headpiece was forcefully removed by the Tree, an act of special significance because Cal has taken great pains to keep its Oski costume wearers’ identities secret since the 1940s.

Philly Phanatic: A flashback to 1988 where Tommy Lasorda reacts to the Philly Phanatic’s routine of using a doll of Lasorda as a punching bag.

Benny the Bull: The mascot for the Chicago Bulls has found itself making headlines for all the wrong reasons many times. He accidentally hyper extended a man’s arm and ruptured his bicep muscle on a high five. And two years prior, Benny punched a police officer after running away on foot at a festival. He had been stopped for riding a mini-motorcycle without a permit. He even shot at both Kevin Garnett and James Posey from behind with a t-shirt cannon toward the end of a Chicago Bulls/Boston Celtics game, resulting in an “exchange” between the two. However, nothing beats the fight that broke out during an appearance on the Jerry Springer show:

Billy the Marlin: And just because this is hilarious, the Florida Marlin’s mascot Billy manages to cause trouble off the field for unsuspecting people as they pass by.

The post Mascots Gone Wild appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Below are 8 examples of practical jokes that resulted in arrests.

1. Four teens arrested for “Fire in the Hole” hot sauce prank

The “Fire in the Hole” prank is a classic that has caught on lately thanks to people sharing their videos of it on YouTube. The prank is done at drive-thru restaurants, and it involves customers taking the lid off their drink and tossing the drink back at the employee in the window, while shouting “Fire in the hole!” These 4 teens took the prank too far by tossing hot sauce at an employee and burning his eyes.

2. Prankster gets arrested for squirting Tom Cruise with a water gun

At the premiere of his movie War of the Worlds, Tom Cruise was walking the red carpet and answering questions for a group of reporters. One prankster, who was posing as a reporter, asked Cruise a question, and when the actor stepped up to the microphone (which was actually a disguised water gun) to respond, the reporter squirted him in the face with a water gun. Police detained and arrested all 4 men who were in on the practical joke on charges of assault.

3. Kidnapping prank lands father and daughter in jail

A Louisiana father and his 12-year-old daughter had a brilliant idea for a practical joke. They would drive down the highway with the girl bound and gagged with duct tape, pretending to be a kidnapping victim. That’s sure to get some laughs out of their fellow motorists and the cops! After several worried motorists called the police to report a kidnapping, the father and daughter were pulled over and arrested on criminal mischief charges.

4. North Carolina man arrested for prank gone horribly wrong

Chad Mayes had a bunch of people over to his house when he decided it would be funny to shoot his friend with a “blank” round from his AR-15 style rifle. The only problem? The round he fired wasn’t a blank, it was live. The victim was rushed to the hospital, and Mayes was obviously arrested.

5. Balloon Boy Hoax lands dad and mom in jail

After a homemade balloon aircraft that was believed to have a 6-year-old boy inside flew away, there was a frantic scramble by the military and law enforcement to rein the balloon in and save the child’s life. When the balloon landed and didn’t have the kid inside, the true story of what happened began to unfold. As it turns out, the whole thing was a big hoax by parents Richard and Mayumi Heene to get attention and land a reality show. As a result of their prank, the dad was sentenced to 90 days behind bars, while the mother spent 20 days in jail for her role in it.

6. Senior prank lands 5 teens in jail

Senior pranks are a tradition at almost every high school across the country, but when these pranks cross the line and break the law, that’s unacceptable. A group of teens caused more than $1,300 in damage at their high school when they vandalized the property with all sorts of graffiti, silly string, and toilet paper. 5 teens out of the large group were apprehended and arrested.

7. Bottle bombs prank lands honor student in jail

18-year-old Elphbert Laforteza, a high school senior honor student, brought a dozen homemade plastic bottle bombs to school as a senior prank. 6 of the bombs exploded, making a sound like “a bazooka.” Thankfully, no one was injured, but authorities say the bombs were strong enough that someone could have been killed. The student was arrested on 5 counts of making a destructive device and 8 counts of use of an explosive device to injure.

8. Miami University students arrested for burglarizing a frat house

Just last month, 3 Miami University students—one wearing a blonde wig—were arrested for burglarizing a frat house. The men were entering the house as a prank, but they were caught before they had a chance to pull off their practical joke. Each was charged with felonies and misdemeanors.

Do you know someone that’s been arrested for a practical joke? Share your cautionary tale by leaving a comment.

The post 8 Practical Jokes That Resulted in Arrests appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Others predicted a new wave of entrepreneurship (and hiring) would be unleashed, as entrepreneurs chained to their jobs solely for health insurance could finally start their own businesses.

But not everyone is happy. Many companies are claiming that “Obamacare” is going to cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, which will force them to lay off employees or forgo hiring new ones.

Here are six large companies claiming that Obamacare will mean fewer jobs:

1. Sallie Mae—When Obama signed the healthcare reform back in March, Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student lender, announced they would have to cut 2,500 jobs. They told 1,200 staffers in their various service centers they will lose their jobs by year end, and the rest of the job cuts will follow in 2011. That’s nearly one-third of the company’s total work force.

The reason for the job cuts is that the new healthcare law has a part that removes banks from the student loan business. According to Sallie Mae’s CEO, the new law “is not good for the company and it’s certainly not good for the employees.”

2. Medtronic—Healthcare reform legislation imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on sales of most medical devices. This excise tax applies to all types of medical products, ranging from surgical instruments to bed pans, and it’s expected to bring in $20 billion in taxes to help pay for healthcare reform.

Obviously, many medical device manufacturers are less than pleased with the new tax, and several are predicting layoffs. The biggest of the bunch is Medtronic. Bill Hawkins, chief executive of the company, said his company will likely cut at least 1,000 jobs to absorb the new tax.

3. Caterpillar—After laying off 19,000 workers and losing hundreds of millions in revenue, it didn’t appear things could get any worse for construction equipment manufacturer Caterpillar. All seemed to look a bit more optimistic when Obama specifically promised that his economic plan would help Caterpillar rehire many of its laid off employees. But now due to healthcare reform, Caterpillar predicted a new cost of $100 million, nipping any plans they had to hire more employees in the bud. In the words of their spokesman Jim Dugan, “Having an additional cost like this is not great timing.”

4. John Deere—Heavy equipment manufacturer John Deere was one of the first victims of Obama’s new healthcare legislation. The company said it will face an additional $150 million in increased costs for the year in order to comply with the new laws. This eliminates about 11 percent of the company’s profits for 2010.

For a company that already moved some manufacturing plants out of the country and cut hundreds of jobs, it’s hard to imagine how these new costs could spell new jobs. If anything, expect John Deere to cut more employees in the future to help soften the blow of this new legislation.

5. Prudential—Insurance company Prudential Financial said it has taken a $100 million charge because of Obamacare. A few months later, Prudential was laying off employees at certain offices, and there was talk of some of their jobs being outsourced. For now, the job cuts aren’t huge numbers (about 60 positions have been eliminated), but there is talk that more jobs may be outsourced in the future.

6. AT&T—Telecommunications giant AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion loss in the first quarter of 2010 because of healthcare changes from the Obama administration. This charge is the biggest announced to date, and it comes from a company that began 2010 by cutting jobs. Just recently, AT&T eliminated another 136 jobs in San Francisco. While this is credited to the dying landline business, it’s hard to imagine how AT&T could add any jobs in the face of the extra charges from Obamacare.

What do you think? Is the healthcare legislation really going to add millions of jobs? Or will it cost more jobs than it creates?

The post 6 Big Companies Claiming Job Losses from Obamacare appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

But Slater isn’t the only person who has taken “I Quit” to a whole new level. Here are some entertaining videos from people who just couldn’t take it one day more. And while these videos are something to laugh at, it’s important to remember that pulling off this type of public outburst can have legal consequences.

This guy’s performance quitting his job at a car factory will have you on your feet:

Continuing with the musical theme, this manager has back up dancers to entertain employees and customers alike:

This courtesy clerk can’t take one more day at the supermarket:

Fed up with his job at Dairy Queen:

Not sure why he’s quitting, but he sure is happy about it:

While he isn’t leaving on bad terms, his resignation letter written on a cake, well, takes the cake:

The post Taking “I Quit” to a Whole New Level [Videos] appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Whether you’re going on a walk around the block  or spending the day at the beach, it’s important to remember the laws that are in place to protect your furry friends and your rights as their owner.

We asked Minnesota attorney Barbara J. Gislason to answer some common questions about animal law:

Avvo: Are there certain laws that limit the number of pets you can own?

Limit Laws for pets are typically based upon species established by a local government. Because cities and suburbs vary on pet limit laws, if you want more of a specific kind of pet, consider living in a place with higher limits or run the risk of a dispute with animal control and the need to retain an animal lawyer. For example, in Cottage Grove and Windom, Minnesota, you can have a total three dogs and cats in a residence. In Hopkins, Minnesota, you are limited to two dogs over the age of six months. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, you need a specific permit to have more than three dogs, cats, rabbits or ferrets, and also a permit to have pigeons, ducks, chickens, turkeys, and honey bees.

Avvo: Can I be sued if my pet hurts a person at a public pet area, like a dog beach or a dog park?

It used to be that dogs had one “free” bite, which seems fair enough for a species often valued as a “guard dog.” More recently, states, including in the State of Minnesota, have laws that are making animal owners pay for injuries caused by their pet, unless there is what is called “provocation,” which is less than an exacting standard.

Avvo: If my pet is bitten by someone else’s pet, what are my rights? (Especially if my pet ends up needing veterinary care.)

There are an increasing number of dangerous dog laws throughout the country. In the State of Minnesota, a dog’s bite might lead to the offending dog being subject to a potentially dangerous dog or dangerous dog designation, particularly if the offending dog was not provoked. If your dog did the biting, be sure to get an animal lawyer right away to help you put your dog’s actions in the best light. If your animal was bitten, consider a rabies test and a possible quarantine.

Avvo: Given the hot temperatures this time of year, is it illegal to leave your pet in a parked car?

First, before answering your question, I want to point out that it is very dangerous to leave any animal in a parked car where the temperature can quickly rise to 120 degrees. In just minutes, high temperatures can cause brain damage, heat exhaustion, stroke, even death to your pet. Animals at particular risk in a hot car are large dogs, animals with heavy coats, as well as any animal that is elderly, overweight, has medical problems, or a flat face.

Fourteen states have specific laws concerning leaving animals in parked cars, including California and Arizona. For example, in the State of Arizona, where law enforcement can break in your car to help a pet, it is a criminal offense to “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly leaves an animal unattended…[when]…physical injury or death of the animal is likely to result.” In the State of Minnesota, there is a law applicable only to dogs and cats in motor vehicles that prohibits endangering the animal’s health or safety. In summary, even if your state does not have specific laws about leaving pets in parked cars, most have laws against cruelty that results in an animal’s suffering, disability, or death.

Avvo: If you are witness to animal cruelty, what should you do?

Report what you saw, call the local humane society or law enforcement entity, and if you have a picture on your cell phone, let them see it. Although most states now have laws against animal cruelty, they differ as to which animals are covered. For example, if someone shot a dog in the suburbs, law enforcement, or a humane type society, is more likely to be concerned about cruelty than if a horse (classified in some states as livestock) is starving in a rural area. This is partly because the state laws make distinctions about what kinds of animals are protected by animal cruelty laws and partly by the differing values and experience of those in law enforcement. It has only been in recent years that law enforcement officers have stepped up training on how to enforce animal cruelty laws. Let your local law enforcement know this subject matters to you.

Avvo: If a couple is getting divorced, is there such a thing as joint custody of the pets?

Although newspapers use language like joint custody, pets still have the status of property throughout the United States, although you wouldn’t necessarily know it by reading the newspaper. In a typical divorce, only one party is awarded property, as the court values finality in property distribution. Even so, there are many divorcing people who are respectful of each other’s bonds with pets, and some enter into stipulated arguments on joint custody that a judge will sign off on. It is unlikely that a judge will grant joint custody in a disputed case, particularly because the state courts of appeals are very technical and uncompromising about the finality of property awards. As ideas about joint custody of pets continue to evolve, state laws should be passed that specifically permit it. In Minnesota, where I practice, I have learned that judges are increasingly paying attention to an animal’s best interests, even though this common sense standard is not yet in the law books.

Avvo: Should I have insurance for my pet?

Make sure that your pet is covered on your home owners or rental insurance in case your animal causes, or is accused of causing, injury to another person or animal. Notice that some policies exclude certain breeds of animals. If the type of dog you have is excluded, consider switching insurance companies. Also, check to see if your pet is covered on your automobile insurance. Some policies do not cover animals at all, some do under a property heading, and some mention animals by name. Insurance coverage of $2,000.00 is not enough if your pet sustains a serious injury. Last, but not least, more pet health insurance is coming onto the market. Make sure you do your research before you buy.

Barbara J. Gislason is an animal lawyer in private practice and can be reached at www.animalattorneyonline.com. She is a pioneer in the establishment of Animal Law both in the State of Minnesota and through the American Bar Association.

Disclaimer: Barbara J. Gislason is an experienced Animal Law attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Minnesota. Her comments are general in nature. If you want to know the laws or about laws and law enforcement in your particular state, contact an Animal Law attorney licensed to practice there.

The post Q&A: Legal Rights for your Furry Friends appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

After unemployment set them back on their mortgage payments, the family was nearing foreclosure. But after finding work again and starting to repay, the bank is making it difficult for them to catch up. This is why they need a lawyer to help negotiate the payments so they can hold onto their home of ten years. Read Sharon and Robert’s story.

As the winner of the Save My House contest, the family will have their legal fees covered by Avvo.

Attorney Ian Leavengood of Leavengood & Nash in St. Petersburg, Florida will handle the case.

If you are in danger of foreclosure, take note of these situations where a lawyer can help:

1)     Have you experienced a communication gap or disconnect between you and your mortgage company? Have you sent them information they claim to not have received in the hope they will agree to a modification?  Perhaps they’ve claimed to have sent certain documents to the investor, but you don’t believe they have? This is one example where a knowledgeable lawyer might be able to assist you in obtaining relief.

2)     Are your mortgage payments higher than what was promised at closing? Did you discover after the fact that your mortgage payment did not include property taxes and insurance? This is an example of a situation where a knowledgeable attorney might be able to assist you in obtaining relief.

3)     Are you underwater on your house and have a first and second mortgage?  Is the value of your home less than the total you owe on your first (primary mortgage)?  This is an example of a situation where a knowledgeable attorney might be able to assist you in obtaining relief.

4)     Were you served foreclosure papers from a company you do not recognize? Is it not the lender you borrowed from? If so, a knowledgeable attorney can investigate what has taken place and really determine if the foreclosure case is defensible.

5)     Did you take a hit to your income and miss some mortgage payments, but now are back with stable employment and working to regain good financial standing and still can’t get your mortgage company to work with you? Generally mortgage companies require a reinstatement of all missed payments.  However, if you now have a steady income, a knowledgeable attorney might be able to assist you in resolving the situation and ultimately help save your house.

The post Avvo Save My House Contest Winner appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

We asked Tucson, Arizona immigration attorney, Tarik Sultan, with Wolf & Sultan P.C. for his perspective on the law and how it will impact the people living throughout the state.

1)  Under this new law, what is the obligation of police to investigate people who may be in the US illegally?

The law purports to require that an officer question persons about their immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person may not be lawfully in the United States.  SB1070 was amended soon after it was signed into law, to clarify that the officer must initiate the immigration inquiry during a “lawful stop, detainment or arrest.” 

The relevant section states:

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of   this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.

3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

As reflected in the statute, last minute changes applied to this involve even low-level municipal ordinances.  Thus, an officer who encounters a person for issues such as a barking dog complaint, lawn violations, and the like must undertake questioning of the person’s immigration status if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is not in the U.S. lawfully.

In fact, an email from one of the main architects of the Arizona law, Kris Kobach, reflects the drafters’ intention of using low-level, non-criminal ordinances as a pretext to question people in Arizona about their immigration status.  In that email, dated April 28, 2010, Mr. Kobach wrote to State Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ), the principal sponsor of SB1070:

“But there is one additional point that he suggested – which you will certainly agree with.  When we drop out ‘lawful contact’ and replace it with ‘a stop, detention, or rest (sic), in the enforcement a violation of any title or section of the Arizona code’ we need to add ‘or any county or municipal ordinance.’  This will allow police to use violations of property codes (ie, cars on blocks in the yard) or rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries as well.”

The “reasonable suspicion” standard in SB1070 is a term of art in the criminal law context.  An officer has a reasonable suspicion based upon the totality of the circumstances involved, and there is no specific set of factors to consider in making that determination (nor is there particular weight to be assigned to those factors).

Certainly, the officer is supposed to be able to articulate the set of facts that led him to be suspicious, and that suspicion must be reasonable.  However, “reasonable suspicion” is by no means a high standard.  It involves something less than “probable cause,” which is in turn even less than a preponderance of the evidence (defined as a 50.01% probability or higher).  Therefore, the requisite reasonable suspicion that triggers the duty on the officer to inquire into a person’s immigration status is something less than a 50% chance of probability.  In other words, it need not even be “likely” that the person is in the U.S. illegally in order to trigger the requirement of SB1070 to be questioned.

2)  Does someone who is hassled by police – and turns out not to be an illegal immigrant – have options for recourse?

A great deal has been written about the law’s provision that Arizona residents may sue the State, any county, city or town if it fails to enforce federal immigration law “to the full extent permitted by federal law.”  The State, county, city or town would be required to pay a penalty of $1,000 – $5,000 per day, with the fine being paid the State’s Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GITEM) Fund.  Attorneys’ fees are also to be awarded to the prevailing party.  But little has been written about what happens when a law enforcement agency or officer is sued for “over-enforcing” this law or violating a person’s constitutional rights.

A person in this situation is free to file a complaint with the law enforcement agency, if the person feels that he or she was unfairly or illegally targets for immigration questioning.  There are a number of civil forms of relief, and the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice (which has sued in federal court to stop the implementation of SB1070) may also be contacted.  SB1070 states that the taxpayers of Arizona will indemnify law enforcement officers from liability for their actions enforcing the new Arizona law.  If a county, city or town that employs the law enforcement officer is found liable for the violation of civil rights that would result in further expense to the taxpayers of the state.

If you feel your rights have been violated, you should contact an attorney to seek advise on recourse.

3)  Do you think this new law will disproportionally target Hispanic people, rather than illegal immigrants for other counties?

Proponents of SB1070 have pointed to the amendment, added after passage of the law, which states that race may not be taken into account in enforcing the law.  Only time will tell, but in a border state such as Arizona, it is difficult to conceive of ways in which an officer will manifest a reasonable suspicion without race playing a factor.  The Governor of Arizona, in defending the facial challenge to SB1070, states that this amendment “cures” any concerns of racial profiling.  That argument may persuade the federal courts to let the law go into effect.  However, if the law is implemented, there will likely be subsequent challenges that the law, as implemented, has resulted in racial targeting.

4)  For those people – illegal or not – who are worried about this law, what words of advice, given your immigration experience, can you give them to be best prepared for these changes?

The principle advice is to carry evidence of your lawful status in the U.S., including any of the items listed in the statute above.  If you are not sure about your documentation, contact an immigration attorney to inquire and seek useful documentation.

If questioned, always be courteous and NEVER lie to an officer about your immigration status, as that may lead to much larger problems.  Similarly, if you are not sure about your citizenship status, never assume you are a citizen of the United States.  A non-citizen who makes a false claim to citizenship is permanently inadmissible to the United States.

5)  Are there any elements of this law that are being misrepresented or not even mentioned by the media?

There are a number of elements that are misrepresented in the media, but perhaps the most fundamental problem is the assumption that the federal government itself (DHS) knows who is legal and who is not.  SB 1070 states:

On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government’s determination pursuant to S.B. 1070 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government’s determination creates a rebuttal presumption of the employee’s lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government’s determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

The Author is not a removal expert, and primarily practices business immigration.  But even I have encountered a large number of persons who are U.S. citizens and are not aware of it themselves.  Certainly the government was not aware of their status as citizens.  Many of the people were in deportation proceedings at that time I was hired.  After demonstrating that the people were in fact U.S. citizens, the deportation cases were terminated.  It is also not unusual for a foreign national to be accused of not having the proper status, when they in fact are in proper immigration status.  Immigration and Citizenship law is extremely complex, and is not competently verified through a 30-second computer search by an ICE clerk responding to an Arizona officer who is detaining a person based upon a reasonable suspicion (again, not a high standard).

To make the Department of Homeland Security’s determination the sole evidence that an Arizona court may consider in determining whether person is lawfully in the U.S. is simply reckless and extremely poor policy.  It goes without saying that U.S. citizens will be detained while officers attempt to verify their immigration status with DHS.

6)  If the law does go into effect this week, given you are located in the Tucson area, how do you expect people to react? Are most people in support of this law, or not?

Polls suggest that 57% of Arizonans currently support SB1070, and Governor Jan Brewer has been defiant in the face of criticism about the law.  Law enforcement agencies are undergoing training in how to enforce the law, as well as how to deal with concerns of racial profiling.  Many are skeptical of how an officer could articulate a reasonable suspicion in a border state without race being a factor in the calculation.

If the law is allowed to go into effect as written, the initial reaction may be somewhat anticlimactic.  As news reports of how U.S. citizens and lawful residents surface, the debate will be rekindled in due course.

No matter where people fall on the issue of SB1070, I think we can all agree that it has not been good for the State’s reputation.  Convention and tourism has taken a hit, with the Mayor of Phoenix stating that the capital city alone will suffer losses of $90 million due to boycotts.  As a state suffering through a devastating recession, and with the costs of SB1070 enforcement (including legal expenses in defending the law and its enforcement) unknown, this truly is the beginning of a long debate on the efficacy of such state immigration laws.

The biggest effect of SB1070 may in the end be a practical one, rather than a legal one.  State Sen. Pearce indicated that it is meant to be a law of attrition, and that the hope is to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona by making life sufficiently uncomfortable for them.  Certainly, some have indicated an intention to leave Arizona for another state.  But the substantial numbers who remain will live in fear of the law, and that raises substantial public policy issues.

If a house is burglarized, the victims should not feel that they cannot call the police because someone in the family is not legal.  Or if a person who is illegally in the U.S. is witness to a hit and run, that person will not stay to help the victims or provide the police with information on the suspects.  People will not be able to rely upon, seek the aid of, or cooperate with law enforcement because of their fear of detection.  Such an environment will make us all less safe.  Driving a sizeable portion of the State population further underground is a public policy decision that cuts both ways.

The Tucson Sector of Border Patrol is the highest volume area of illegal immigration.  Tucson and Nogales are the main cities affected in that Patrol Sector.  It is notable that the first lawsuit filed against SB1070 was by a Tucson policeman, who protested that the law will damage his ability to interact with and protect the community he serves.  The Sheriff of Pima County, which includes Tucson, referred to SB1070 as a “stupid, racist law.”  The Sheriff of Santa Cruz County, which includes the border town of Nogales, also came out against SB1070, saying that the Arizona law undermines his law enforcement priorities in his jurisdiction.  Indeed the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police issued the following statement: “The provision of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.  While AACOP recognizes immigration as a significant issue in Arizona, we remain strong in our belief that it is an issue most appropriately addressed at the federal level.”

One thing is certain: until Congress acts to pass a comprehensive immigration law that addresses the undocumented, we will be left with a patchwork of state laws that will make enforcement more difficult than ever.

The post Q&A: Impact of the Arizona Immigration Law appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

After reviewing many submissions from Florida families desperately seeking help, we’ve narrowed it down to five finalists. And now it’s YOUR turn to vote for the most deserving story.

The winner – chosen by you – will receive free legal services from an experienced foreclosure lawyer who will help save their home.

Take a few minutes to read these stories and VOTE! The deadline for voting is July 20, 2010 and the winner will be announced on July 22, 2010.

The post Avvo Save My House Contest – VOTE! appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Human Rights organizations report that South Africa has one of the highest rape rates in the world, but we all know it’s a crime that spreads across the globe.

Would it be possible for such condoms to come to the United States?

We asked criminal defense attorney, Robert Perez, with the Law Office of Robert Perez in Seattle, Washington.

Avvo: Could the anti-rape condoms be legal in America? You would think there’s nothing wrong with hurting a rapist, but on the other hand, it’s illegal in the United States to have a shotgun booby trap, and, in a way, isn’t this a sort of booby trap?

Mr. Perez: Criminal assault requires criminal intent. If a woman inserts something in her that is designed to protect her by causing harm to an attacker, I would argue that she is acting in self defense and not with criminal intent. I also think any jury or prosecutor would agree. On the other hand, if she makes herself available for intercourse and fails to disclose the device, knowing that someone could be injured, I think you could show criminal intent. A lot will depend on the woman’s intent. I don’t think it’s a good idea to booby trap the vault, but I also can understand the desire to protect one’s body from that kind of assault.

Avvo: What if a woman is in a bad relationship, where unfortunately she is repeatedly a victim of rape. Perhaps using this device could be a way to finally make it stop. However she would know ahead of time that it would hurt her partner. How do you think this case would play out?

Mr. Perez: Self defense is typically only available to protect against a reasonably perceived “imminent” injury. Pre-meditated actions designed to inflict injury are rarely found to fit the legal requirements of self defense. That said, these definitions will ultimately be subject to the common sense sensibilities of jurors, who will typically cut a real victim a lot of slack. Another way to think of this is that, in addition to the legal trial that is formally in play, there is often a “meta-trial” underway as well, in which the two respective parties are evaluated on considerations other than (or in addition to) strict legal criteria. If the jury is “with” the defendant, they may nullify a legally appropriate verdict and find in her favor. If, on the other hand, a jury is “with” the alleged victim, even a legal defense may not be enough to prevent a conviction. The attorney must pay attention to the meta trial in addition to the legal trial.

Avvo: What if a woman used it to get back at an ex?

Mr. Perez: Again, intent is key (and, again, the relative merits of both sides will inform the meta trial). All things being equal, a woman who “arms” herself with such a device in order to “get back” at an ex will probably be viewed in the same light as someone who, knowing they have AIDS, has sex with an ex in order to “get back” at them. If their intent is to cause a harmful contact, they will be legally liable for an assault. Whether the jury will convict them is a separate question that will be determined by considerations affecting the meta trial.

Avvo: For these condoms to even become available in the US, would they first need to be approved by the FDA?

Mr. Perez: This is not my field, but I do know that the FDA regulates latex condoms as medical devices. It is my belief that the South African device would fall within the FDA’s jurisdiction and would have to go through the usual random spot checks that they employ in the testing of latex condoms.

Avvo: Any thoughts on some claims that using this device would only further anger the attacker, causing more harm for the victim?

Mr. Perez: Any act of aggression will always have the potential to aggravate an emotional situation and ratchet up the danger. Sexual intercourse is already ripe with emotion and a rapist in the act is probably already on a hair-trigger emotional ride. Anyone employing the South African device is likely to risk the same sort of danger that one would expect for a woman who is orally raped and decides to bite her attacker. I think it’s a risky move and I would not advise it, but then I’ve never been in that situation and I probably can’t fully appreciate the trade-offs involved.

Photo credit: AOL News via Getty Images

The post Is the Female Condom with Teeth coming to the US? appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

The answers may shock you.

Attendance not required

You would think the people paid to create and vote on legislation would be required to do their jobs. After all, if any of us missed work nearly 13% of the time like Neil Abercrombie, we would be fired immediately. In Abercrombie’s case, he resigned for other reasons, but his hundreds of missed votes didn’t bother voters one bit. The Democratic Congressman was reelected a total of 10 times!

But, to be fair, Abercrombie’s outrageous absence record isn’t truly reflective on the rest of Congress. Unfortunately, it’s not the worst either. In the most recent 111^th Congress, the average miss rate is about 4% to date.

The troubling thing is that there isn’t a minimum attendance requirement for Congressmen. Lawmakers can vote as often or as little as they want. For a job that starts with a salary of $174,000 per year (that’s taxpayer money of course), one would think the very least  Congressmen could do is show up.

Absent congressmen may be sent for

Now, it is worth noting that while there aren’t specific attendance requirements for members of Congress, business can’t be done unless a quorum is present. This means that a majority of Congress must be present for Congress to convene. If there aren’t at least 50.1% of the House and Senate in attendance, Congress cannot meet this day.

If any Congressman raises a question as to the presence of a quorum, a roll call will take place to confirm majority presence. If the roll call finds a quorum is not present, a majority of the Congressmen may request that absent Congressmen are sent for and compelled to attend.

However, the call for quorum is actually very rare. And when it is done, it’s usually employed as a stall tactic to buy time for deal making and general strategizing.

Voters don’t seem to care

You would think if we’re paying Congressmen to do their jobs and they aren’t even showing up that we’d fire them, right? Well, that’s just not the case. Earlier, you saw that Neil Abercrombie was reelected 10 times, despite having an absolutely atrocious attendance record.

But he’s not the only one to get by without doing his job.

During his 2008 campaign for President of the United States, it came to light that John McCain actually had the worst attendance in the Senate, voting on just 35.9% of issues that came to the floor. In fact, McCain was in the bottom ten in attendance four out of previous five sessions leading up to 2008 elections.

Republicans and Democrats skip out at equal rate

Missing out on important votes isn’t a partisan issue. Both parties skip out on votes at a fairly equal rate, with Democrats missing 3.5% of votes and Republicans missing 3.3% of the votes in the 111^th Congress.

Who misses the most?

So, which lawmakers are skipping out on their duties most often? Let’s take a look at some of the worst attendance records in Congress (Sources here and here).

1. Rep. J. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)—This South Carolina Congressman has missed 583 votes so far in the 111^th Congress. That’s 43.6% of votes that he has missed.
2. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)—The former KKK member has missed 45.2% of votes during the 111^th Congress, voting just 315 times while missing 260 votes. It’s worth noting that Byrd is 92 years old and in declining health.
3. Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA)—To date, Deal has missed 25.4% of votes that have come to the floor in this Congressional session. That’s 294 total votes he’s been absent from.
4. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL)—Representative Davis has missed 331 votes so far in the 111^th Congress, for a 24.7% missed votes rate.
5. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)—Representing California, District 13, Congressman Stark has been absent for 22.4% of the votes cast so far.
6. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)—Would you have a job if you only showed up 78% of the time to work? Doubtful, but Peter Hoekstra still does.
7. Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA)—So far, Rep. Radanovich has missed 277 votes. That’s a 20.7% vote missing rate.

What do you think should be done with lazy lawmakers? Are you going to vote them out in November?

The post 7 US Lawmakers with Horrible Attendance Records appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Whether you’re struggling financially, experiencing a disconnect with your lender or perhaps have even become victim of mortgage fraud, we want to hear from you! Send us your story and you will have the opportunity to win FREE legal services from an Avvo lawyer who can help  save your house.

If this sounds like you, or someone you know, take a couple minutes to hear Avvo founder Mark Britton explain how the contest works.  Then head over to our contest homepage and begin the submission process. The deadline is Tuesday, June 29!

The post Avvo Save My House Contest Florida appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

Regardless of your thoughts on Facebook, or any other network in which you participate – as long as you are interacting online in one way or another – here are some best practices for keeping tabs on your social footprint:

1) Monthly check ups. Make it a habit to check on your privacy settings and the privacy policies of the social networks you visit most often. This may involve a simple review of your account settings or spend 15 minutes looking at the social network’s blog for product announcements or privacy pages for any update in its policy language.

2) Refresh passwords. While these recent privacy concerns are not directly related to password security, it is also smart to change your passwords every month to make sure your information is protected.

3) Privacy tools. There are several free tools available that will evaluate your online presence, including within social networks, and show what the public can see about you:

Reclaim Privacy
Openbook
Google Alerts

Also remember, another quick search can be done by logging out of your social network and doing a name search within the network as well as via Google.

4) Don’t put it online. Your online actions should mirror your offline actions. And, if there is ever a doubt whether or not something should be shared, don’t share it.  Once information is online, you cannot ‘take it down’ or ‘take it back’.  Better to be safe than sorry.

The post 4 Tips to Track Your Social Footprint appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.

10) For the first time since his forced exit from Late Night TV, Conan O’Brien is speaking with 60 Minutes in an interview that will air this Sunday.

The post Weekly Top Ten Celebrities Behaving Badly appeared first on NakedLaw by Avvo.com.