dpUtDK5bc93zYFaJK31k2gzoRty4PFH

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Article III, the Size of the Federal Government and the Constitution

The story of Article III of the United States Constitution, the judiciary of the United States and other elements central to the legal system are in many ways the story of American constitutionalism itself. The story has a beginning but no end of it is fraught with tension, uncertainty and ambivalence. Article III of the Constitution defines and the limits the judicial power of the United States. It is intended to guarantee an independent federal judiciary and its first section provides that federal judges shall enjoy tenure during good behaviour. Section 2 of the article enumerates the categories of cases in which a federal court either may or must have jurisdiction. Section 3 defines the crime of treason.

Although Article III purposely establishes the judicial branch as the political of the legislative and executive branches established by Articles I and II, the framers plans the judicial power were beset with ambivalence. At the Constitutional Convention, all agreed that there should be one Supreme Court in Article III provides in mandatory terms for the tribunal's establishment. But the framers, some of whom feared that the federal courts would intrude excessively on the state's lawmaking prerogatives, divided sharply over whether there should be any lower federal courts at all. The dispute ended in a compromise, under which Article III allows Congress the power to create lower federal courts but does not require it to do so. It is a corollary of the so-called Madisonian compromise to the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts that are subject to congressional limitation.

Even the Constitutional provision for the Supreme Court power is surprisingly laconic and apparently compromised. Article III subjects the courts to appellate jurisdiction under such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make. To some commentators and critics, is also striking that Article III nowhere provides expressly for the power of judicial review which is the court's power to assess the constitutionality of the State and Federal legislation presented to it. Some framers, most noticeably Alexander Hamilton in the federalist papers at number 78 argued for the existence of this extraordinary power. But because Article III never mentions judicial review explicitly the debate is perennial over whether judicial review was intended and what its scope should be.

Viewed solely as a text, this article was determines very little. It affords the potential for what has in fact developed as perhaps the most powerful judicial system in the history of the world. But the words of the article are also consistent with a relatively insignificant federal judiciary, possibly without the power of judicial review and with a federal court's jurisdiction delimited by Congress to protect claimed congressional and executive prerogatives. It is often argued by scholars that the power of the Federal government in United States has been expanded far beyond what the framers of the Constitution ever intended.

Debt Collection Laws: Statue of Limitations Explained Defense Against Credit Card Lawsuit: CC Statements Not Enough Evidence in Court Your Judgment Debtor Filing Bankruptcy and the Automatic Stay

Will the Laws of Gun Control Change in the Near Future?

One question that worries many advocates of a right to carry a personal firearm is whether their concealed carry permits would be valid outside the state issuing the permit. Can they take their guns on holiday with them? Can they pack them in their checked bags for a flight? What if the plane is diverted to a spot like New York, which makes it exceedingly difficult to carry a gun? And if they cannot bring their guns with them, how will they defend themselves and their loved ones were threatened?

Gun rights activists have a simple solution: require all states to honour one another's concealed carry permits. There is no reason to suppose, says the head of the National Rifle Association, that a person considered fit to carry a gun in one state would suddenly become a menace to society on entering another. Many states are ready have such reciprocal agreements, without any obvious ill effects, he adds. The House of Representatives agrees, earlier this month approved a bill that would make one states permit valid in any other, with the exception of Illinois and the District of Columbia, both of which do not allow concealed weapons at all.

Opponents of the measure, including the manners and police chiefs many big cities, say will allow people to get around local rules about who can obtain a concealed weapon permit. Many states-holders to undergo safety training, for example, or deny permits alcoholics and others do not. For states such as Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and more enemy do not require a permit at all, although three of them to helpfully issued on the use outside the state. The question which states have the cheapest and easiest to obtain permits is another popular topic amongst advocates of gun rights. Forcing states to accept the permanence of the most permissive jurisdictions would be an assault on states rights.

It will fall to the Senate to adjudicate. Republicans from South Dakota say he is working on getting concealed carry legislation through the chamber. He was also the leader of a last attempt, and doesn't mind, but fell just two votes short of approval. Conditions were more favourable now. Several of the Democrats who voted against reciprocity and has since been replaced by Republicans, who tend to be keen on gun rights. Others, such as Republicans from Missouri, facing difficult re-election battles in gun friendly states. Even Barack Obama, the boogie man of gun rights groups, has waited on the subject of concealed carry weapons. The claim to oppose it as a candidate, but then signed a law permitting a national parks in 2009.

Mr Obama, facing a difficult re-election battle of his own, would probably prefer not to offend anyone by weighing in on either side this time. Leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, could well grant him his wish, by preventing the subject from coming to a vote. And even if there is a void, gun-control advocates assume that when the chips are down enough Democrats would probably be available to foil the Republican leaders again. Relying on allies who do not wish to come forward until the last minute is always a nerve wracking proposition.

Debt Collection Laws: Statue of Limitations Explained Defense Against Credit Card Lawsuit: CC Statements Not Enough Evidence in Court Your Judgment Debtor Filing Bankruptcy and the Automatic Stay

Judgment Referral Companies

I am not a lawyer, I am a judgment matchmaker. This article is my opinion, and not legal advice. If you ever need any legal advice or a strategy to use, please contact a lawyer.

In my job, almost every day I read and hear statements similar to: "I've contacted about 100 judgment buyers, and they either tell me no, or do not respond at all. My judgment is guaranteed and my debtor lives very well in their mobile home, getting both social security and disability payments, so why won't anyone buy my judgment?"

In that example statement, the judgment owner has no idea that their debtor's situation, and that judgments are never guaranteed, are the reasons they have had no success with their one hundred tries.

Because of the economy, most judgment buying companies are now either partially or fully out of business. However, many leave their web sites up and running, providing an illusion that they will pay cash upfront for most judgments.

Most judgment buying companies ignore or turn down, far more than 99% of incoming judgments. When a judgment debtor is really rich, some will pay cash upfront for your judgment. If your debtor is not rich, the best of them will say no, others do not respond at all.

The right way to sell a judgment is to market and price it correctly. Only the debtor's available assets can satisfy a judgment. When the debtor is poor or unknown, your judgment is worth very little, no matter who you contact.

If you have contacted several judgment companies or contingency collection lawyers about your judgment, and have been ignored or turned down several times, the wrong thing to do is to continue contacting companies or contingency collection lawyers.

A smarter thing to do, is to list your judgment once with a referral or listing company; because for free, they help you find a qualified buyer or recovery solution.

Here is four other reasons why it makes sense to send your judgment to a referral company:

1) You send your judgment and information just once. This conserves your voice and your time. You specify your request once, instead of negotiating with too many people, that will not be able to help you.

2) They bring the best offers to you. The best do the shopping for you, finding better experts than you could, and match your judgment, and debtor to the best experts local to your debtor.

3) They specialize in referring any and all judgments and debtor situations, so you do not need to search and look through ads.

4) The best referral companies screen out flaky or unresponsive companies, so you avoid wasting time on them.

Whether you have a "slam-dunk" and easy-to-recover judgment, or a "lemon" judgment, using a referral company saves you time and money. They are not magicians, however they can help make hassles and time wasting disappear.

Debt Collection Laws: Statue of Limitations Explained Defense Against Credit Card Lawsuit: CC Statements Not Enough Evidence in Court Your Judgment Debtor Filing Bankruptcy and the Automatic Stay How A Wireless Expert Witness Can Help You

New Legislation Could Impact DUI's in Florida

In Florida, Senator Stephen Wise filed a bill (SB 1810) that would amend the current DUI law in that State. The law would require a .08 blood alcohol level or any level of a schedule 1-4 (or controlled) drug to be in the blood or urine. Although it is commendable that Senator Wise is so determined to find a unique and more stringent way of combating driving under the influence, this law becomes disquieting upon further read as the suspect does not actually have to be driving a car at the time he or she is arrested, only to have driven the car after consuming the alcohol (with no specified way of determining the pre-consumption). Moreover, the controlled substance does not have to be found on the person, it can be determined by testing the level in the blood or urine, which brings up further question upon the legal rights of a suspect to have their urine or blood extracted.

The resulting consequences of this bill are even more troublesome as some schedule 3 and 4 drugs are prescribed regularly, such as Ritalin(R), Tylenol(R) with Codeine and Vicodin(R). Moreover, some of these drugs (like marijuana) can stay in the blood stream for up to two weeks. This could be a problem for receivers of second hand marijuana smoke inhalation as they could have the drug in their system without their knowledge.

The vagueness of the bill on what is required for a judge to pass sentence leaves too much leeway to the courts. This could result in convictions, with little fuel for the criminal defense lawyer, due to criminal profiling, character judgments and other unethical means of judgment. Another more disturbing result could be flagrant bribery of the judge or attorney to enable a prominent citizen to avoid conviction altogether. The Florida legislature is on the right path, but they need to find a better way to combat drunk driving.

Though the intentions are there for cracking down on DUIs, and establishing that inhibited driving isn't just caused by alcohol and could include a slew of many other drugs, the bill does not do justice to those that are simply victims of circumstance. Drugs present in the bloodstream do not justify the supposed inability to drive at a later date. It is unlikely that the bill will pass into law, but the fact that people within our government are taking this subject so seriously means that we may see different variants and modifications to this bill in years to come.

Debt Collection Laws: Statue of Limitations Explained Defense Against Credit Card Lawsuit: CC Statements Not Enough Evidence in Court Your Judgment Debtor Filing Bankruptcy and the Automatic Stay

Answering To a Credit Card Debt Collection Agency

The first step to take when you learn that a credit card debt collection agency is suing you for uncollected debt is to create a response to summons. First, once you received the summons and complaints, you need to file a Notice to Appear. This will prevent the court from entering a default judgment against you without court proceedings. This will also give a clear message to your creditor that you are a well-informed debtor ready to defend yourself in court.

Next, you need to draft a response to a summons. Your response to summons must include answers to all allegations against you. Just make sure to file your response within the given period otherwise, the creditor will be awarded with a default judgment against you.

Once the response to summons is filed, the Plaintiff has two choices, either go on with the lawsuit and request a court date or drop the case altogether. However, there are some cases wherein creditors will send off Discovery immediately once the response to summons has been filed in court.

If you found several inaccuracies or discrepancies with the Complaint the plaintiff filed and get the plaintiff to amend these errors, they just might not want to deal with you, drop the case and move on to less informed debtors.

On the other hand, if you admitted to every allegation on the complaints or you answered incorrectly with your response to summons, the plaintiff will get the impression that you are an easy target, expecting to win the case and request for a court date.

But instead of getting a court date, the plaintiff could also send you straight to discovery where you need to present answers to Interrogatories, Admissions, and Documents. Depending on your answers, the plaintiff may proceed with dropping the case or formally request a court hearing. If you failed to answer on time or your discovery is full of errors, the plaintiff will be awarded with a summary judgment by the court.

The fact is, if you know what to do, it is very easy to overcome any obstacle, including possible lawsuit from a creditor. You can start by reviewing your state's court rules and note what you can and what you cannot do during the proceedings as well as purchasing a document that can help you fight all debt claims without hiring a lawyer to represent you in court.

Debt Collection Laws: Statue of Limitations Explained Defense Against Credit Card Lawsuit: CC Statements Not Enough Evidence in Court Your Judgment Debtor Filing Bankruptcy and the Automatic Stay

Social Security Disability Attorneys

If you are disabled, and unable to work, you may qualify for Social Security Disability, or SSD. Applying for SSD is a long and complicated process; however, if you are ultimately approved it will provide monthly income, as well as qualify you for other benefits, for as long as your disability persists. A high percentage of SSD applications are initially denied, although you do have a right to appeal a denial. Given the complexity of the application process, and the importance of being approved, retaining the services of an experienced Social Security Disability attorney is strongly advised.

Social Security Disability requires two basic tests to be met in order to be eligible to receive benefits. First, you must have earned sufficient wages during the relevant time period in order to be considered for benefits. Second, you must have a qualifying medical condition that meets the Social Security Administration's definition of disabled.

The number of credits required to qualify for the work test component of the application process depends on a number of factors and is subject to change each year. In general, you need 40 credits of work to qualify, but when you must have earned those credits and the amount of earnings needed to equal a credit depends on your age and when you apply.

To meet the SSA's definition of disabled, you have to have a medical condition that lasted, or is expected to last, for a minimum of one year, or is expected to end in death. In addition, you must not be able to do the work you did before, and not be able to adjust to new work as a result of the medical condition. There are a number of conditions that presumptively qualify for Social Security Disability; however, this is not an exhaustive list and simply having a condition on the list will not, alone, guarantee approval of your application.

The application process for Social Security Disability is lengthy -- often taking six months or longer for an initial approval or denial. If you are denied and need to appeal the denial, you must do so within a specified time period or you will lose your right to appeal. If you are ultimately approved, you will receive a monthly monetary benefit that is based on various factors including your previous earnings record. You may also be entitled to retroactive benefits.

If you are disabled and unable to work, Social Security Disability may be a lifeline for you and your family. Retaining the services of an experienced Social Security Disability attorney early on in the process will ensure that you have the best chance possible to receive the benefits to which you are entitled.