Original Story: detroitnews.com
A group of Taylor teachers prevailed in their challenge of a 10-year security agreement that prevented them from exercising their right-to-work freedoms. The Michigan Employment Relations Commission made the call and got it right. A Boston employment lawyer is following this story closely.
The Taylor teachers union was not the only labor group that tried to skirt right to work before the law went into effect in March 2013. But it did stand out for crafting one of the longer contracts.
At least 145 school districts, including some of Michigan’s largest, passed contracts that extended years into the future, delaying the full impact of the law aimed at giving workers a choice on union membership. A Detroit labor lawyer provides professional legal counsel and extensive experience in many aspects of labor and employment law.
The labor commission ruled last week that the Taylor Federation of Teachers and the Taylor School District had committed an unfair labor practice when they signed off on the decade-long security agreement. Under the pact, teachers could not opt out of the union until it expired.
In the Taylor case, the labor commission stated, “Imposing a lengthy financial burden on bargaining unit members, to avoid the application of a state law for 10 years, is arbitrary, indifferent and reckless.”
While this ruling only applies to the Taylor teachers, it should be seen as good news for teachers in other districts locked into long contracts.
The three teachers from Taylor —Nancy Rhatigan, Rebecca Metz and Angela Steffke —sued the school district and union.
The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation represented the teachers, who claimed it was unreasonable for the security clause to extend more than five years beyond the collective bargaining agreement.
The security clause forced teachers to keep paying the union dues until 2023, and allowed the district to fire teachers for not paying.
The commission’s ruling is the latest setback for teacher unions trying to thwart the right-to-work law. A Boston employment lawyer assists clients with employment law matters.
Earlier this month, the Michigan Court of Claims dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Michigan Education Association, along with other union plaintiffs who argued the Legislature violated the state’s Open Meetings Act when it passed right to work in December 2012.
The court said the temporary closure of the Capitol building, which the unions fought, was handled correctly.
And a decision last fall from an administrative law judge with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission tossed out a rule the MEA had imposed that only allowed teachers to leave the union during the month of August. A Memphis employment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The decision only applies to teachers working under contracts approved after March 2013.
Union officials had used the August provision to bully teachers into paying dues longer than they wished.
Unions will have to look beyond blocking right to work to hold on to their members.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
BERMAN: ONE NURSE'S GUTSY EFFORT TO PROTECT PATIENTS
Original Story: detroitnews.com
In the spring of 2010, Angela Swantek interviewed for a job with Dr. Farid Fata.
She was an oncology nurse, a spirited force who plays hockey on a travel team; he was a Sloan-Kettering-trained oncologist and hematologist who would eventually become notorious for a scheme U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade calls "the most egregious case of Medicare fraud we have seen." An Atlanta whistleblower lawyer represents clients involved in qui tam actions and protects them against retaliation.
Swantek, who was interviewed one day and then returned a day later to shadow a nurse on her rounds, was shocked by what she observed at Fata's office: A drug that was supposed to be injected in five minutes was administered as a one-hour IV drip from a bag. Another drug, Neulasta, was given on the same day as chemotherapy, although protocol is for it to be given 24 hours later. Swantek, a registered nurse who was back in college completing a four-year nursing degree, had worked at the area's top cancer centers, from Beaumont to Karmanos, and she had never seen cancer protocols and procedures so disregarded. A Mt Clemens medical malpractice lawyer represents clients injured as a result of medical negligence.
She turned down the job, she says, and walked out of the office before lunch "in a huff."
"The assumption was that I'd stay beyond lunch, but I left before. I couldn't stand to be there one more minute. I literally was horrified."
What Swantek did next substantiates her outrage and her courage.
She filed an official complaint with state regulators on April 14, 2010, enumerating some violations and expressing the need for an investigation. "I feel this physician is doing his patients more harm than good," she wrote on the official allegation form, including her name, cellphone number, address and willingness to testify if necessary. "Patients are being harmed." A Milwaukee medical malpractice lawyer helps clients with medical malpractice claims that are often defined as the failure of a medical professional to follow the accepted standards of practice in his or her profession.
It wasn't easy for her to take this action. In her two-decade career as a nurse, she'd never filed a complaint, had never even thought about doing so. As in all professions, calling out a colleague or a superior — a doctor — is not something to be taken lightly.
Her decision-making process became the topic of an assigned college paper she wrote that spring, describing her "ethical dilemma" in a seven-page paper for the online Chamberlain College of Nursing.
"I wanted to report him but felt unsure and uneasy about turning in a physician ... no one likes to be labeled a rat," she wrote in the college paper. "I owed it to the patients to save them in some way from continuing to be harmed. ...
"I hope there is some action taken."
She took the risk — and waited for the state's next move. And waited.
A year later, on May 13, 2011, Swantek, 45, received a letter from the department of licensing and regulatory affairs saying that "violations of the public health code could not be established." The investigation was closed. Although Swantek had witnessed what she says were numerous health code and medical procedural violations within a few hours, the state had not substantiated them. A Chicago medical malpractice lawyer is following this story closely.
Other than telling her the investigation was closed, the state didn't contact her, she says.
"I would remember, I promise you," she said in an interview at her Royal Oak home. The state says an investigation was conducted, and that Swantek was interviewed on Aug. 26, 2010. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The Detroit News last week, the state released a document attesting to an "interview in for typing," but cited privacy rules under the public health code that prevent the release of any supporting detail about the extent of the investigation or any interview with Swantek.
Stephen Gobbo, deputy director of LARA, who was not involved with the investigation in 2010, said last week, "I can tell you unequivocally that interviews were conducted (with Swantek) and ... the licensee, Dr. Fata."
The statute protects Fata, now a convicted felon who pleaded guilty to administering unnecessary treatment and who has already lost his license. It prevents Swantek, the complainant, from seeing how the state responded to her complaint. And it shields the state Bureau of Health Professions, which was merged into the Bureau of Health Care Services in 2013, and moved from the Department of Community Health to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), from any public scrutiny.
"It is very rare that you see a medical professional making such an accusation against another medical professional," says Donna Mackenzie, a Berkley malpractice lawyer who represents some of Fata's former patients. "The state had a responsibility to perform a meaningful investigation in response to this very serious accusation."
"According to the criminal complaint against Dr. Fata, the federal investigators uncovered more during 2 days of investigation than the state apparently did over an entire year."
Two years after Swantek filed her allegation form, in a completely separate action, the FBI raided Fata's office, an event that led to his indictment in August 2013, and his decision to plead guilty to 16 counts of fraud and conspiracy last September.
Over those two years, Fata's patients continued to receive chemotherapy treatments they imagined were helping them but were, in many cases, literally poisoning them. He used IV drips instead of injections because he could bill Medicare more for longer treatments. As he would later admit in federal court, in response to specific counts: "I knew it was medically unnecessary."
On the day his office was raided, friends of Swantek's called to tell her that Fata had been arrested. She wept.
As Fata awaits his May sentencing, in a cell somewhere in Michigan, Angela Swantek doesn't have the satisfaction of knowing that she helped lock up Michigan's medical version of stock swindler Bernie Madoff. She didn't play a role in the FBI investigation, which had no connection to her complaint or state officials. Still intensely interested in the case, she reviews records of Fata patients pro bono, as lawyers prepare civil suits against him.
Angela Swantek's handwritten complaint form attests to one nurse's gutsy effort to protect victims — vulnerable men and women with cancer — from a physician who was more interested in payment than healing. "He treated them like commodities," says Swantek. Although her effort to alert the state didn't ultimately make a difference in Fata's case, it should have.
In the spring of 2010, Angela Swantek interviewed for a job with Dr. Farid Fata.
She was an oncology nurse, a spirited force who plays hockey on a travel team; he was a Sloan-Kettering-trained oncologist and hematologist who would eventually become notorious for a scheme U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade calls "the most egregious case of Medicare fraud we have seen." An Atlanta whistleblower lawyer represents clients involved in qui tam actions and protects them against retaliation.
Swantek, who was interviewed one day and then returned a day later to shadow a nurse on her rounds, was shocked by what she observed at Fata's office: A drug that was supposed to be injected in five minutes was administered as a one-hour IV drip from a bag. Another drug, Neulasta, was given on the same day as chemotherapy, although protocol is for it to be given 24 hours later. Swantek, a registered nurse who was back in college completing a four-year nursing degree, had worked at the area's top cancer centers, from Beaumont to Karmanos, and she had never seen cancer protocols and procedures so disregarded. A Mt Clemens medical malpractice lawyer represents clients injured as a result of medical negligence.
She turned down the job, she says, and walked out of the office before lunch "in a huff."
"The assumption was that I'd stay beyond lunch, but I left before. I couldn't stand to be there one more minute. I literally was horrified."
What Swantek did next substantiates her outrage and her courage.
She filed an official complaint with state regulators on April 14, 2010, enumerating some violations and expressing the need for an investigation. "I feel this physician is doing his patients more harm than good," she wrote on the official allegation form, including her name, cellphone number, address and willingness to testify if necessary. "Patients are being harmed." A Milwaukee medical malpractice lawyer helps clients with medical malpractice claims that are often defined as the failure of a medical professional to follow the accepted standards of practice in his or her profession.
It wasn't easy for her to take this action. In her two-decade career as a nurse, she'd never filed a complaint, had never even thought about doing so. As in all professions, calling out a colleague or a superior — a doctor — is not something to be taken lightly.
Her decision-making process became the topic of an assigned college paper she wrote that spring, describing her "ethical dilemma" in a seven-page paper for the online Chamberlain College of Nursing.
"I wanted to report him but felt unsure and uneasy about turning in a physician ... no one likes to be labeled a rat," she wrote in the college paper. "I owed it to the patients to save them in some way from continuing to be harmed. ...
"I hope there is some action taken."
She took the risk — and waited for the state's next move. And waited.
A year later, on May 13, 2011, Swantek, 45, received a letter from the department of licensing and regulatory affairs saying that "violations of the public health code could not be established." The investigation was closed. Although Swantek had witnessed what she says were numerous health code and medical procedural violations within a few hours, the state had not substantiated them. A Chicago medical malpractice lawyer is following this story closely.
Other than telling her the investigation was closed, the state didn't contact her, she says.
"I would remember, I promise you," she said in an interview at her Royal Oak home. The state says an investigation was conducted, and that Swantek was interviewed on Aug. 26, 2010. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The Detroit News last week, the state released a document attesting to an "interview in for typing," but cited privacy rules under the public health code that prevent the release of any supporting detail about the extent of the investigation or any interview with Swantek.
Stephen Gobbo, deputy director of LARA, who was not involved with the investigation in 2010, said last week, "I can tell you unequivocally that interviews were conducted (with Swantek) and ... the licensee, Dr. Fata."
The statute protects Fata, now a convicted felon who pleaded guilty to administering unnecessary treatment and who has already lost his license. It prevents Swantek, the complainant, from seeing how the state responded to her complaint. And it shields the state Bureau of Health Professions, which was merged into the Bureau of Health Care Services in 2013, and moved from the Department of Community Health to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), from any public scrutiny.
"It is very rare that you see a medical professional making such an accusation against another medical professional," says Donna Mackenzie, a Berkley malpractice lawyer who represents some of Fata's former patients. "The state had a responsibility to perform a meaningful investigation in response to this very serious accusation."
"According to the criminal complaint against Dr. Fata, the federal investigators uncovered more during 2 days of investigation than the state apparently did over an entire year."
Two years after Swantek filed her allegation form, in a completely separate action, the FBI raided Fata's office, an event that led to his indictment in August 2013, and his decision to plead guilty to 16 counts of fraud and conspiracy last September.
Over those two years, Fata's patients continued to receive chemotherapy treatments they imagined were helping them but were, in many cases, literally poisoning them. He used IV drips instead of injections because he could bill Medicare more for longer treatments. As he would later admit in federal court, in response to specific counts: "I knew it was medically unnecessary."
On the day his office was raided, friends of Swantek's called to tell her that Fata had been arrested. She wept.
As Fata awaits his May sentencing, in a cell somewhere in Michigan, Angela Swantek doesn't have the satisfaction of knowing that she helped lock up Michigan's medical version of stock swindler Bernie Madoff. She didn't play a role in the FBI investigation, which had no connection to her complaint or state officials. Still intensely interested in the case, she reviews records of Fata patients pro bono, as lawyers prepare civil suits against him.
Angela Swantek's handwritten complaint form attests to one nurse's gutsy effort to protect victims — vulnerable men and women with cancer — from a physician who was more interested in payment than healing. "He treated them like commodities," says Swantek. Although her effort to alert the state didn't ultimately make a difference in Fata's case, it should have.
ROBIN WILLIAMS' ESTATE PLAN: GOOD, BUT NOT GREAT
Original Story: cnbc.com
Robin Williams was a world-class comic who made millions and tried to take good financial care of his children, yet his estate planning talents may have not matched his comedic genius. A Big Rapids living trust lawyer assists clients with estate planning and other issues pertaining to elder law.
The Oscar-winning actor was found dead on August 11 in what police are calling an apparent suicide. The 63-year-old had battled substance abuse problems for decades and had recently checked into a rehab facility.
It is quite possible, experts say, that Williams did not leave a will—though that may not be a bad thing.
"It's very likely he used a revocable trust. A lot of our California clients" take that approach, said Daniel Rubin, a partner at Moses & Singer specializing in trusts and estates. A Rochester estate planning lawyer works with clients to formulate confidential, tax efficient, custom tailored domestic and international trusts, business succession plans and wealth management plans.
Rubin explained that because the probate process tends to be a lengthy one in California, wealthy people there—and elsewhere—often opt to create a revocable living trust instead of a will. They make themselves the trustee, and in the trust documents indicate how they want their assets distributed. Then when they die, the assets are allocated without any public review.
Williams did, however, leave money in a trust for his three children, according to TMZ, unlike Philip Seymour Hoffman or James Gandolfini. A Philadelphia trusts and estates lawyer is following this story closely.
Williams' publicist stated several days after the actor's death that that trust is no longer part of Willams' estate plan.
But experts say the kind of trust Williams had in effect at one point could have been structured much more effectively.
The trust assets were reported to be structured so they would be distributed to Williams' children in three increments: at age 21, 25, and 30. But those may not be the optimal times for the kids to receive large sums of money, experts say.
Trust provisions like these are "fairly common, but far from ideal—especially because I would have to assume that his estate would be quite large," said David Mendels, director of planning at Creative Financial Concepts, a financial planning firm in New York. "Thus one third could easily be millions of dollars, which is quite a lot of responsibility to drop on a 21 year old."
Many wealthy people worry that leaving too much money to children at a relatively young age will destroy their motivation, or worse.
There are other concerns with fixed distribution times, Mendels said. What if a child is getting divorced at 30, and suddenly comes into substantial assets that then have to be divided? Or what if a child is at risk for a lawsuit, and losing would mean handing over the assets?
Rubin said the more modern way of structuring a trust for children is to give them responsibility for appointing the trustee at a certain age. That way they can, if they choose, appoint someone who will let them draw down assets—or they can choose to leave the assets in the trust, where they are not vulnerable to a lawsuit or a divorce settlement. A Charleston trusts and estates lawyer is experienced in the effective resolution of estate lawsuits and claims.
"He definitely thought about his estate planning and did something smart, but not as smart as it could have been," Rubin said.
Estimates of the value of Williams' estate vary widely. He said in a 2013 interview that he was selling his Napa estate because he couldn't afford it anymore, and he was returning to television work for the money.
Still, the website celebritynetworth.com pegs his net worth at $50 million, and Williams' Napa ranch is currently on the market for $29.9 million.
Odds are, with assets like that, Williams' children can expect a large amount of money to flow their way. It just may not arrive when they want it.
Robin Williams was a world-class comic who made millions and tried to take good financial care of his children, yet his estate planning talents may have not matched his comedic genius. A Big Rapids living trust lawyer assists clients with estate planning and other issues pertaining to elder law.
The Oscar-winning actor was found dead on August 11 in what police are calling an apparent suicide. The 63-year-old had battled substance abuse problems for decades and had recently checked into a rehab facility.
It is quite possible, experts say, that Williams did not leave a will—though that may not be a bad thing.
"It's very likely he used a revocable trust. A lot of our California clients" take that approach, said Daniel Rubin, a partner at Moses & Singer specializing in trusts and estates. A Rochester estate planning lawyer works with clients to formulate confidential, tax efficient, custom tailored domestic and international trusts, business succession plans and wealth management plans.
Rubin explained that because the probate process tends to be a lengthy one in California, wealthy people there—and elsewhere—often opt to create a revocable living trust instead of a will. They make themselves the trustee, and in the trust documents indicate how they want their assets distributed. Then when they die, the assets are allocated without any public review.
Williams did, however, leave money in a trust for his three children, according to TMZ, unlike Philip Seymour Hoffman or James Gandolfini. A Philadelphia trusts and estates lawyer is following this story closely.
Williams' publicist stated several days after the actor's death that that trust is no longer part of Willams' estate plan.
But experts say the kind of trust Williams had in effect at one point could have been structured much more effectively.
The trust assets were reported to be structured so they would be distributed to Williams' children in three increments: at age 21, 25, and 30. But those may not be the optimal times for the kids to receive large sums of money, experts say.
Trust provisions like these are "fairly common, but far from ideal—especially because I would have to assume that his estate would be quite large," said David Mendels, director of planning at Creative Financial Concepts, a financial planning firm in New York. "Thus one third could easily be millions of dollars, which is quite a lot of responsibility to drop on a 21 year old."
Many wealthy people worry that leaving too much money to children at a relatively young age will destroy their motivation, or worse.
There are other concerns with fixed distribution times, Mendels said. What if a child is getting divorced at 30, and suddenly comes into substantial assets that then have to be divided? Or what if a child is at risk for a lawsuit, and losing would mean handing over the assets?
Rubin said the more modern way of structuring a trust for children is to give them responsibility for appointing the trustee at a certain age. That way they can, if they choose, appoint someone who will let them draw down assets—or they can choose to leave the assets in the trust, where they are not vulnerable to a lawsuit or a divorce settlement. A Charleston trusts and estates lawyer is experienced in the effective resolution of estate lawsuits and claims.
"He definitely thought about his estate planning and did something smart, but not as smart as it could have been," Rubin said.
Estimates of the value of Williams' estate vary widely. He said in a 2013 interview that he was selling his Napa estate because he couldn't afford it anymore, and he was returning to television work for the money.
Still, the website celebritynetworth.com pegs his net worth at $50 million, and Williams' Napa ranch is currently on the market for $29.9 million.
Odds are, with assets like that, Williams' children can expect a large amount of money to flow their way. It just may not arrive when they want it.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
GEORGE CUSHINGBERRY JR.'S LAW LICENSE IS HISTORY
Original Story: clickondetroit.com
Detroit City Council President Pro Tem George Cushingberry Jr. won’t be practicing law any time soon, and likely never again.
He was a probate attorney for his day job over the years while he worked as a Wayne County Commissioner and powerful State Legislator. He hasn’t done much in court since he joined the Detroit City Council last year. If you go by the word of many of his former clients, lawyering was a job he was not particularly good at either.
We have chronicled the lengthy string of lawsuits and complaints filed against him over the years and the law license suspensions he has served. Interestingly enough today “Cush,” as his friends call him, told Local 4 his ability to practice law is irrelevant to his City Council duties, and therefore unremarkable as a news story. Yet, when we asked to do interviews with him about this “insignificant story” twice over the past two days, he opted out. Might it be bigger than he is letting on?
Let’s look at the mountain of facts in this non-news story. George lost his license for 45 days back in December, and he could have had it back soon if he wanted to pay the fines and actually attend a trial to determine his fitness to practice law before the Attorney Grievance Commission. You see, George did not appear for a first trial. His attorney, seated alone at the proceedings, said George was in Florida under a doctor’s care and had entered the “Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program." That program is designed for dealing with alcohol, drug and gambling addiction. [George claims gastro intestinal distress as his reason for being in the program].
Not amused, the Attorney Grievance Commission sanctioned him with the most recent 45 day suspension. That one came on top of another 45 day suspension he picked up in early 2014 for improperly disposing of a separate probate estate years earlier.
Fast forward to today: Instead of sitting through another trial, Cushingberry told Local 4 he has agreed to allow his license to be suspended for a year and consented to making it permanent. Here’s the likely reason why we won’t see George practicing law again: in order to get his license reinstated he would have to sit for the bar exam again.
Now, the one-year suspension started today (view the suspension order here) and the Attorney Grievance Commission paperwork says it is for not showing up at the hearing back in December. The Attorney Discipline Board never even got to the question of whether George committed malpractice in the handling of a woman’s estate that brought on this latest suspension, which as you will recall would be his third in a year.
While George’s claim that he can still be a City Council Pro Tem without his law license may be correct, but only to a point. Remember that George himself told us when he first got into office that it needs to be a new day in Detroit; where City Council needs to lead in a new and different fashion.
Sadly, George’s escapades with a traffic stop that included an open container of alcohol and the smell of marijuana, personal bankruptcy and old clients looking to garnish his city council wages seems to have the feel of “same old Detroit City Council." Might we remind the councilmember he is an elected city official, whose qualifications and history [both personal and professional] matter greatly to voters and the city itself. An Oakland County real estate lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Most of his issues were not known during his City Council campaign. Voters cannot be blamed for wondering if George’s “gastro intestinal” problems are weighing down his customer service, or whether his now admitted legal missteps might hurt his ability to represent their needs at the council table. Moreover, they certainly cannot be blamed for wondering if these constant headlines about a city council member with more problems than the Kardashians might not be helping the city’s post-bankruptcy reputation.
George, perhaps not spending any more time in a courtroom might free you up for more work trying to revive the city. But this city cannot ignore the oil slick of disaster that trails behind you as you take your seat at the council table. An LA CPA is following this story closely.
Detroit City Council President Pro Tem George Cushingberry Jr. won’t be practicing law any time soon, and likely never again.
He was a probate attorney for his day job over the years while he worked as a Wayne County Commissioner and powerful State Legislator. He hasn’t done much in court since he joined the Detroit City Council last year. If you go by the word of many of his former clients, lawyering was a job he was not particularly good at either.
We have chronicled the lengthy string of lawsuits and complaints filed against him over the years and the law license suspensions he has served. Interestingly enough today “Cush,” as his friends call him, told Local 4 his ability to practice law is irrelevant to his City Council duties, and therefore unremarkable as a news story. Yet, when we asked to do interviews with him about this “insignificant story” twice over the past two days, he opted out. Might it be bigger than he is letting on?
Let’s look at the mountain of facts in this non-news story. George lost his license for 45 days back in December, and he could have had it back soon if he wanted to pay the fines and actually attend a trial to determine his fitness to practice law before the Attorney Grievance Commission. You see, George did not appear for a first trial. His attorney, seated alone at the proceedings, said George was in Florida under a doctor’s care and had entered the “Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program." That program is designed for dealing with alcohol, drug and gambling addiction. [George claims gastro intestinal distress as his reason for being in the program].
Not amused, the Attorney Grievance Commission sanctioned him with the most recent 45 day suspension. That one came on top of another 45 day suspension he picked up in early 2014 for improperly disposing of a separate probate estate years earlier.
Fast forward to today: Instead of sitting through another trial, Cushingberry told Local 4 he has agreed to allow his license to be suspended for a year and consented to making it permanent. Here’s the likely reason why we won’t see George practicing law again: in order to get his license reinstated he would have to sit for the bar exam again.
Now, the one-year suspension started today (view the suspension order here) and the Attorney Grievance Commission paperwork says it is for not showing up at the hearing back in December. The Attorney Discipline Board never even got to the question of whether George committed malpractice in the handling of a woman’s estate that brought on this latest suspension, which as you will recall would be his third in a year.
While George’s claim that he can still be a City Council Pro Tem without his law license may be correct, but only to a point. Remember that George himself told us when he first got into office that it needs to be a new day in Detroit; where City Council needs to lead in a new and different fashion.
Sadly, George’s escapades with a traffic stop that included an open container of alcohol and the smell of marijuana, personal bankruptcy and old clients looking to garnish his city council wages seems to have the feel of “same old Detroit City Council." Might we remind the councilmember he is an elected city official, whose qualifications and history [both personal and professional] matter greatly to voters and the city itself. An Oakland County real estate lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Most of his issues were not known during his City Council campaign. Voters cannot be blamed for wondering if George’s “gastro intestinal” problems are weighing down his customer service, or whether his now admitted legal missteps might hurt his ability to represent their needs at the council table. Moreover, they certainly cannot be blamed for wondering if these constant headlines about a city council member with more problems than the Kardashians might not be helping the city’s post-bankruptcy reputation.
George, perhaps not spending any more time in a courtroom might free you up for more work trying to revive the city. But this city cannot ignore the oil slick of disaster that trails behind you as you take your seat at the council table. An LA CPA is following this story closely.
HOMEOWNERS FACING FORECLOSURE FLOCK TO COBO CENTER
Original Story: detroitnews.com
Detroit — More than 950 people facing tax foreclosure descended on Cobo Center on Thursday to meet with Wayne County officials in hopes of saving their homes.
Among them was 64-year-old Pamela Hyde. She's owned her tan aluminum sided bungalow on the east side for 35 years, raised her son there and paid her mortgage. But she said a series of illnesses and her small pension has made it difficult to chip away at her $4,400 in tax debt. A Detroit real estate lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
"I can't afford to lose my home," said Hyde, who waited with hundreds of others for her number to be called to speak with county officials. "There is not a lot of wiggle room. The utilities are sky high. ... I am in need of help. It's my home."
Wayne County officials are pursuing foreclosure on a record number of properties this year. Some have worked out payment plans, but 56,000 properties in Detroit still face foreclosure, said Chief Deputy David Szymanski. Another 4,000 homeowners elsewhere in Wayne County also are set to be foreclosed because of at least three years' of nonpayment of taxes.
The Cobo sessions continue weekdays through next week. They're another chance to meet with county officials to enter payment plans or learn about other relief programs. Nonprofits are also in attendance to provide legal counseling and other help negotiating out of foreclosure.
Recent legislation signed by Gov. Rick Snyder allow the treasurer to lower interest on debt from 18 percent to 6 percent for many homeowners. In many instances, homeowners can have taxes capped at a quarter of the market value of the home. A Tulsa real estate lawyer is following this story closely.
"These new programs are breathtaking in the ways they are able to help out," Szymanski said. "We've never had these types of options."
On Thursday, a whole section of chairs in Cobo was reserved for renters living in homes owned by delinquent landlords. Many were hoping to find a way to purchase the homes themselves.
Sharon Searcy hasn't heard from her landlords for months and hasn't paid rent for more than a year. She's hoping she can find a way to purchase the home and stay there with her two teenage boys.
"I want to stay in the home," Searcy said. "If I could just come up with the payments I could buy it and live there."
Her options are limited and she and other renters typically have to try and bid on the houses they live in at auction this fall. The home has $4,700 in tax debt that Searcy said she doesn't have.
One reason for the increase in at-risk property owners is because of a policy shift by county Treasurer Raymond Wojtowicz, who decided this year to foreclose on all properties that are at least three years' late in taxes. A Detroit real estate lawyer has experience representing clients in foreclosure, workouts, and bankruptcy cases.
By law, those properties are supposed to be foreclosed. But since 2005, Wojtowicz has not taken action on properties with smaller tax bills — $1,500 to $1,700 per year — because he said he lacked the staff to handle that many. Doing so, though, allowed some properties' bills to accumulate to several thousand dollars because the treasurer looked only at the amount of annual tax bills.
"Until you tell people we could take their property, the vast majority hope it will go away," Szymanski said.
At least 18,000 Detroit properties had delinquent taxes dating to 2010 or earlier, according to county data as of this fall.
In a move to stem the tide of foreclosures, Mayor Mike Duggan announced Wednesday that residential property assessments citywide will decline 5-20 percent, the second consecutive year he's cut taxes. Critics argue the city's unrealistic assessments contributed to the foreclosure crisis.
Detroit — More than 950 people facing tax foreclosure descended on Cobo Center on Thursday to meet with Wayne County officials in hopes of saving their homes.
Among them was 64-year-old Pamela Hyde. She's owned her tan aluminum sided bungalow on the east side for 35 years, raised her son there and paid her mortgage. But she said a series of illnesses and her small pension has made it difficult to chip away at her $4,400 in tax debt. A Detroit real estate lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
"I can't afford to lose my home," said Hyde, who waited with hundreds of others for her number to be called to speak with county officials. "There is not a lot of wiggle room. The utilities are sky high. ... I am in need of help. It's my home."
Wayne County officials are pursuing foreclosure on a record number of properties this year. Some have worked out payment plans, but 56,000 properties in Detroit still face foreclosure, said Chief Deputy David Szymanski. Another 4,000 homeowners elsewhere in Wayne County also are set to be foreclosed because of at least three years' of nonpayment of taxes.
The Cobo sessions continue weekdays through next week. They're another chance to meet with county officials to enter payment plans or learn about other relief programs. Nonprofits are also in attendance to provide legal counseling and other help negotiating out of foreclosure.
Recent legislation signed by Gov. Rick Snyder allow the treasurer to lower interest on debt from 18 percent to 6 percent for many homeowners. In many instances, homeowners can have taxes capped at a quarter of the market value of the home. A Tulsa real estate lawyer is following this story closely.
"These new programs are breathtaking in the ways they are able to help out," Szymanski said. "We've never had these types of options."
On Thursday, a whole section of chairs in Cobo was reserved for renters living in homes owned by delinquent landlords. Many were hoping to find a way to purchase the homes themselves.
Sharon Searcy hasn't heard from her landlords for months and hasn't paid rent for more than a year. She's hoping she can find a way to purchase the home and stay there with her two teenage boys.
"I want to stay in the home," Searcy said. "If I could just come up with the payments I could buy it and live there."
Her options are limited and she and other renters typically have to try and bid on the houses they live in at auction this fall. The home has $4,700 in tax debt that Searcy said she doesn't have.
One reason for the increase in at-risk property owners is because of a policy shift by county Treasurer Raymond Wojtowicz, who decided this year to foreclose on all properties that are at least three years' late in taxes. A Detroit real estate lawyer has experience representing clients in foreclosure, workouts, and bankruptcy cases.
By law, those properties are supposed to be foreclosed. But since 2005, Wojtowicz has not taken action on properties with smaller tax bills — $1,500 to $1,700 per year — because he said he lacked the staff to handle that many. Doing so, though, allowed some properties' bills to accumulate to several thousand dollars because the treasurer looked only at the amount of annual tax bills.
"Until you tell people we could take their property, the vast majority hope it will go away," Szymanski said.
At least 18,000 Detroit properties had delinquent taxes dating to 2010 or earlier, according to county data as of this fall.
In a move to stem the tide of foreclosures, Mayor Mike Duggan announced Wednesday that residential property assessments citywide will decline 5-20 percent, the second consecutive year he's cut taxes. Critics argue the city's unrealistic assessments contributed to the foreclosure crisis.
COURTS WRITE DECISIONS THAT ELUDE LONG VIEW
Original Story: nytimes.com
WASHINGTON — In April, a federal appeals court issued a 40-page decision on a serious subject, ruling that a trial judge had unlawfully increased a prison sentence out of vindictiveness.
The decision was a good example of judicial craft, closely reasoned and carefully written. The judges voted 2 to 1, suggesting that the legal question the decision resolved was a hard one.
But the decision was “unpublished,” as are 88 percent of decisions issued by federal appeals courts. That means it set no precedent. It was a ticket good for only one ride.
The decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., made sure that no one missed this point. Its first word, “unpublished,” was underscored, and it bore a standard legend: “Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.”
Last month, the Supreme Court refused to review the ruling, over the dissenting votes of Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. While explaining why the court should have taken the case, Justice Thomas raised important questions about the vast subterranean body of decisions that do nothing more than resolve one dispute at a time.
“True enough, the decision below is unpublished and therefore lacks precedential force in the Fourth Circuit,” Justice Thomas wrote. “But that in itself is yet another disturbing aspect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision, and yet another reason to grant review.”
He accused the Fourth Circuit of violating its own standards by refusing to publish the decision. He also suggested that the appeals court had acted strategically to avoid review of its ruling.
Supreme Court justices have long been wary of unpublished decisions for that reason. “Nonpublication must not be a convenient means to prevent review,” Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote in a 1991 dissent joined by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and David H. Souter.
In a 2006 interview, Justice John Paul Stevens said he was more likely to vote to grant review of such rulings “on the theory that occasionally judges will use the unpublished opinion as a device to reach a decision that might be a little hard to justify.”
These days, technology has turned the term “unpublished” into a misnomer. With the availability of legal databases and websites for courts, almost every decision issued by an appeals court is instantly available. And, because of a 2006 amendment to the federal rules of appellate procedure, lawyers are free to cite unpublished opinions issued after Jan. 1, 2007.
But without the force of precedent to require courts to rule similarly the next time around, these decisions create a sort of lawlessness, Judge Richard S. Arnold of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote in 2000. “We may have decided this question the opposite way yesterday,” he wrote, “but this does not bind us today.”
Judges say that unpublished decisions are a sensible reaction to a crush of work.
“We simply do not have the time to shape and edit unpublished dispositions to make them safe as precedent,” Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit explained in 2004. “In other words, we can make sure that a disposition reaches the correct result and adequately explains to the parties why they won or lost, but we don’t have the time to consider how the language of the disposition might be construed (or misconstrued) when applied to future cases.”
Erica J. Hashimoto, a law professor at the University of Georgia and a lawyer for the prisoner in the recent case, Plumley v. Austin, No. 14-271, said “requiring courts to author binding precedent in every case is simply unworkable.”
The Fourth Circuit, for instance, decided about 4,000 cases in a recent 12-month period, or 267 for each of its 15 active judges.
“Because published opinions create binding precedent for all other cases considered by that court, those opinions, unless crafted with the utmost care and precision, can have significant unintended consequences for all sorts of other cases,” Professor Hashimoto said. “Anticipating those consequences requires an incredible investment of time.”
Still, it is hardly clear that judges are making the right choices about which opinions to publish, Scott E. Gant wrote in 2006 in the Boston College Law Review.
“The premise that judges can and should make this determination at the moment a ruling is made, and without the benefit of input from others, is seriously flawed,” he wrote.
In a 1977 speech, Justice Stevens said the approach rested on “a false premise,” specifically “that an author is a reliable judge of the quality and importance of his own work product.”
David R. Cleveland, a law professor at Valparaiso University in Indiana who has written extensively on unpublished opinions, said that Justice Thomas’s recent criticism was characteristic of the Supreme Court’s fitful attention to the issue.
“Individual justices have expressed dissatisfaction with the system and individual instances of it,” Professor Cleveland said, “and they should be commended for spotting the problem and speaking out against its harm to appellate justice.”
In a 2009 article in the Marquette Law Review, he calculated that litigants had asked the Supreme Court to consider the “constitutionality or propriety” of designating an opinion as unpublished in at least 36 petitions seeking review. But the court has never ruled on the issue.
“Rather than occasionally expressing disapproval of an individual symptom of the problem,” Professor Cleveland said, “the court should consider addressing the underlying illness.”
WASHINGTON — In April, a federal appeals court issued a 40-page decision on a serious subject, ruling that a trial judge had unlawfully increased a prison sentence out of vindictiveness.
The decision was a good example of judicial craft, closely reasoned and carefully written. The judges voted 2 to 1, suggesting that the legal question the decision resolved was a hard one.
But the decision was “unpublished,” as are 88 percent of decisions issued by federal appeals courts. That means it set no precedent. It was a ticket good for only one ride.
The decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., made sure that no one missed this point. Its first word, “unpublished,” was underscored, and it bore a standard legend: “Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.”
Last month, the Supreme Court refused to review the ruling, over the dissenting votes of Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. While explaining why the court should have taken the case, Justice Thomas raised important questions about the vast subterranean body of decisions that do nothing more than resolve one dispute at a time.
“True enough, the decision below is unpublished and therefore lacks precedential force in the Fourth Circuit,” Justice Thomas wrote. “But that in itself is yet another disturbing aspect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision, and yet another reason to grant review.”
He accused the Fourth Circuit of violating its own standards by refusing to publish the decision. He also suggested that the appeals court had acted strategically to avoid review of its ruling.
Supreme Court justices have long been wary of unpublished decisions for that reason. “Nonpublication must not be a convenient means to prevent review,” Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote in a 1991 dissent joined by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and David H. Souter.
In a 2006 interview, Justice John Paul Stevens said he was more likely to vote to grant review of such rulings “on the theory that occasionally judges will use the unpublished opinion as a device to reach a decision that might be a little hard to justify.”
These days, technology has turned the term “unpublished” into a misnomer. With the availability of legal databases and websites for courts, almost every decision issued by an appeals court is instantly available. And, because of a 2006 amendment to the federal rules of appellate procedure, lawyers are free to cite unpublished opinions issued after Jan. 1, 2007.
But without the force of precedent to require courts to rule similarly the next time around, these decisions create a sort of lawlessness, Judge Richard S. Arnold of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote in 2000. “We may have decided this question the opposite way yesterday,” he wrote, “but this does not bind us today.”
Judges say that unpublished decisions are a sensible reaction to a crush of work.
“We simply do not have the time to shape and edit unpublished dispositions to make them safe as precedent,” Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit explained in 2004. “In other words, we can make sure that a disposition reaches the correct result and adequately explains to the parties why they won or lost, but we don’t have the time to consider how the language of the disposition might be construed (or misconstrued) when applied to future cases.”
Erica J. Hashimoto, a law professor at the University of Georgia and a lawyer for the prisoner in the recent case, Plumley v. Austin, No. 14-271, said “requiring courts to author binding precedent in every case is simply unworkable.”
The Fourth Circuit, for instance, decided about 4,000 cases in a recent 12-month period, or 267 for each of its 15 active judges.
“Because published opinions create binding precedent for all other cases considered by that court, those opinions, unless crafted with the utmost care and precision, can have significant unintended consequences for all sorts of other cases,” Professor Hashimoto said. “Anticipating those consequences requires an incredible investment of time.”
Still, it is hardly clear that judges are making the right choices about which opinions to publish, Scott E. Gant wrote in 2006 in the Boston College Law Review.
“The premise that judges can and should make this determination at the moment a ruling is made, and without the benefit of input from others, is seriously flawed,” he wrote.
In a 1977 speech, Justice Stevens said the approach rested on “a false premise,” specifically “that an author is a reliable judge of the quality and importance of his own work product.”
David R. Cleveland, a law professor at Valparaiso University in Indiana who has written extensively on unpublished opinions, said that Justice Thomas’s recent criticism was characteristic of the Supreme Court’s fitful attention to the issue.
“Individual justices have expressed dissatisfaction with the system and individual instances of it,” Professor Cleveland said, “and they should be commended for spotting the problem and speaking out against its harm to appellate justice.”
In a 2009 article in the Marquette Law Review, he calculated that litigants had asked the Supreme Court to consider the “constitutionality or propriety” of designating an opinion as unpublished in at least 36 petitions seeking review. But the court has never ruled on the issue.
“Rather than occasionally expressing disapproval of an individual symptom of the problem,” Professor Cleveland said, “the court should consider addressing the underlying illness.”
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
CINCINNATI OVERPASS COLLAPSES ONTO INTERSTATE; ONE PERSON KILLED
Original Story: latimes.com
A bridge undergoing demolition collapsed Monday night in Cincinnati, killing a construction worker and injuring a semi truck driver who was traveling on a busy interstate that runs through the city’s core.
The bridge that collapsed onto Interstate 75 was part of the old northbound off ramp to Hopple Street, the Cincinnati Fire Department said on Twitter. A Milwaukee car accident lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The collapse occurred around 10:30 p.m. Eastern time.
Around midnight Eastern time, authorities said they were devising a plan to remove the body of the worker, which "will be a long operation," the Fire Department tweeted. Authorities said they would use air bags to lift part of the structure off the victim. A Tulsa construction lawyer represents clients in construction litigation cases.
“Our teams are surveying the situation and will stay here conducting the necessary investigations into how this occurred,” City Manager Harry Black told reporters early Tuesday morning. “We will work with the state Department of Transportation as this thing unfolds. We’re just trying to stabilize the situation.”
The victim who was killed has not been identified.
Photos shared on social media showed a large section of the bridge fallen and at least one semi truck smashed by debris. A Mt. Clemens construction accident lawyer represents clients in a variety of construction site accident cases.
The stability of the nation’s bridge system has been a concern of the U.S. Department of Transportation for much of the last decade.
In 2007, 13 people were killed and 145 were injured when a bridge on Interstate 35 in Minneapolis collapsed. And in 2013, a bridge in Washington state that ran along Interstate 5 collapsed into the Skagit River. No one was killed.
A bridge undergoing demolition collapsed Monday night in Cincinnati, killing a construction worker and injuring a semi truck driver who was traveling on a busy interstate that runs through the city’s core.
The bridge that collapsed onto Interstate 75 was part of the old northbound off ramp to Hopple Street, the Cincinnati Fire Department said on Twitter. A Milwaukee car accident lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The collapse occurred around 10:30 p.m. Eastern time.
Around midnight Eastern time, authorities said they were devising a plan to remove the body of the worker, which "will be a long operation," the Fire Department tweeted. Authorities said they would use air bags to lift part of the structure off the victim. A Tulsa construction lawyer represents clients in construction litigation cases.
“Our teams are surveying the situation and will stay here conducting the necessary investigations into how this occurred,” City Manager Harry Black told reporters early Tuesday morning. “We will work with the state Department of Transportation as this thing unfolds. We’re just trying to stabilize the situation.”
The victim who was killed has not been identified.
Photos shared on social media showed a large section of the bridge fallen and at least one semi truck smashed by debris. A Mt. Clemens construction accident lawyer represents clients in a variety of construction site accident cases.
The stability of the nation’s bridge system has been a concern of the U.S. Department of Transportation for much of the last decade.
In 2007, 13 people were killed and 145 were injured when a bridge on Interstate 35 in Minneapolis collapsed. And in 2013, a bridge in Washington state that ran along Interstate 5 collapsed into the Skagit River. No one was killed.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
DEFENSE ASKS FOR DELAY IN BOSTON BOMBINGS TRIAL
Original Story: nytimes.com
BOSTON — Lawyers for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the defendant in the Boston Marathon bombings, on Tuesday asked for a one-month suspension in the trial, citing the parallels between the Boston bombings and last week’s terrorist attacks in France.
A delay “would allow some time for the extraordinary prejudice flowing from these events — and the comparison of those events to those at issue in this case — to diminish,” the lawyers wrote in a motion that included references to recent news reports of sleeper cells in France and the firebombing of a German newspaper. A Westchester County Criminal Defense Lawyer is following this story closely.
The attacks in Paris began on the third of three days of jury selection in Boston last week. About 1,350 prospective jurors in the Tsarnaev case filled out screening questionnaires; Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. of Federal District Court had planned to start the questioning of individual jurors on Thursday.
The request for a delay is not the defense team’s first; it had asked at least twice before for a delay, saying it was overwhelmed by the huge number of documents from the government. It also sought to move the trial out of Boston, saying Mr. Tsarnaev could not get a fair trial here. All such requests were denied, and jury selection began Jan. 5.
The defense motion on Tuesday cited numerous news media accounts that drew comparisons between the initial terrorist attack in Paris that killed 12 people and the 2013 marathon bombings, which killed three and wounded more than 260. A Westchester County criminal defense attorney has experience representing clients in criminal accusations.
“The supposed parallels included the fact that the suspects were brothers, that they reportedly were influenced by the lectures and writings of Anwar al-Awlaki, that they were ‘homegrown’ terrorists, and that they attacked civilians in a Western city,” the defense wrote.
Representative William Keating, Democrat of Massachusetts, was quoted by USA Today as saying: “I’m watching what’s happening in Paris, and I’m thinking of Watertown,” a reference to lockdowns of suburban neighborhoods during sprawling manhunts to find the suspects.
“These parallels so widely expressed cannot be lost on potential jurors,” the defense wrote.
“Even before the Paris attacks,” the defense added, “there was no modern precedent of which we are aware for attempting to seat an impartial jury in a community that had been so recently, so grievously, and so widely affected by a single series of crimes. Now, at the very moment that this attempt is to be made, the Boston bombings are being newly placed at the center of a grim global drama.”
BOSTON — Lawyers for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the defendant in the Boston Marathon bombings, on Tuesday asked for a one-month suspension in the trial, citing the parallels between the Boston bombings and last week’s terrorist attacks in France.
A delay “would allow some time for the extraordinary prejudice flowing from these events — and the comparison of those events to those at issue in this case — to diminish,” the lawyers wrote in a motion that included references to recent news reports of sleeper cells in France and the firebombing of a German newspaper. A Westchester County Criminal Defense Lawyer is following this story closely.
The attacks in Paris began on the third of three days of jury selection in Boston last week. About 1,350 prospective jurors in the Tsarnaev case filled out screening questionnaires; Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. of Federal District Court had planned to start the questioning of individual jurors on Thursday.
The request for a delay is not the defense team’s first; it had asked at least twice before for a delay, saying it was overwhelmed by the huge number of documents from the government. It also sought to move the trial out of Boston, saying Mr. Tsarnaev could not get a fair trial here. All such requests were denied, and jury selection began Jan. 5.
The defense motion on Tuesday cited numerous news media accounts that drew comparisons between the initial terrorist attack in Paris that killed 12 people and the 2013 marathon bombings, which killed three and wounded more than 260. A Westchester County criminal defense attorney has experience representing clients in criminal accusations.
“The supposed parallels included the fact that the suspects were brothers, that they reportedly were influenced by the lectures and writings of Anwar al-Awlaki, that they were ‘homegrown’ terrorists, and that they attacked civilians in a Western city,” the defense wrote.
Representative William Keating, Democrat of Massachusetts, was quoted by USA Today as saying: “I’m watching what’s happening in Paris, and I’m thinking of Watertown,” a reference to lockdowns of suburban neighborhoods during sprawling manhunts to find the suspects.
“These parallels so widely expressed cannot be lost on potential jurors,” the defense wrote.
“Even before the Paris attacks,” the defense added, “there was no modern precedent of which we are aware for attempting to seat an impartial jury in a community that had been so recently, so grievously, and so widely affected by a single series of crimes. Now, at the very moment that this attempt is to be made, the Boston bombings are being newly placed at the center of a grim global drama.”
Monday, January 5, 2015
EDITORIAL: DON'T FEDERALIZE ALL WATER
Original Story: detroitnews.com
Nothing better symbolizes the dangers of cracking the federal regulatory door than the Clean Water Act. Initially passed to limit discharges into "navigable waters," two government agencies are preparing to expand the act's reach once again in a way that would put nearly every drop of water in the United States under federal control. A San Antonio Water Rights Lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency want to redefine "waters of the United States" subject to regulation to include nearly every pond, wetland, ditch, drain and dry and pothole in the country. Virtually no body of water, no matter how small, would be out of reach.
This is not what Congress intended when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. At that time, the scope of the law was intentionally limited to align with Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. Its power extended only to waterways that could be used as commercial channels of navigation that cross state lines. An Austin Water Rights Lawyer assists water districts, municipalities, industry, and landowners in all aspects of water law.
That was an appropriate delineation of power, and did not intrude in a major way on the rights of the states to manage their own resources.
But the Corps and EPA have steadily stretched the definition well beyond what lawmakers intended, and have done so despite being slapped down by the courts.
In 2001, the Supreme Court in SWANCC vs. Army Corps of Engineers, forbade the agencies from regulating "isolated water bodies," meaning those that were not connected to interstate waterways.
Rather than comply with the court's interpretation, the agencies pushed ahead, deciding that any water that could possibly find its way into a navigable waterway was fair game for regulation, including culverts and agricultural drainage ditches. That placed much of the nation's farms under the Clean Water Act's thumb, and set up Rapanos vs. United States in 2006, involving a Midland area farmer. A Houston Water Rights Lawyer represent clients in issues that arise in water rights litigation, mediation, arbitration, and in trial.
John Rapanos grew corn on fields that were surrounded by century-old drainage ditches and criss-crossed with tiles, a clear indication that the property was never intended to be a wetland. Still, the EPA pounced on him when he filled in a low spot on his farm that held standing water for a few weeks during the wet season.
Rapanos was threatened with prison and nearly bankrupted before prevailing in the Supreme Court, which ruled the agencies could not automatically regulate wetlands just because they have a hydrological downstream connection to navigable waters.
Even that second ruling hasn't deterred the EPA and Corps. In clear defiance of the Court and Congress, they are now preparing rules that would give them potential authority over all tributaries, even the smallest of streams, and almost all standing water.
In the end of year spending bill, Congress inserted exemptions to the regulations for certain farming practices, but stops short of overturning the rules. The new Congress must step in and bring the agencies in compliance with both the law and the court rulings.
The Clean Water Act specifically promises to "recognize, preserve and protect the primary responsibilities of the states" to regulate and protect the water contained within their borders.
Federal agencies charged with carrying out the law are trampling on that promise and must be checked.
Nothing better symbolizes the dangers of cracking the federal regulatory door than the Clean Water Act. Initially passed to limit discharges into "navigable waters," two government agencies are preparing to expand the act's reach once again in a way that would put nearly every drop of water in the United States under federal control. A San Antonio Water Rights Lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency want to redefine "waters of the United States" subject to regulation to include nearly every pond, wetland, ditch, drain and dry and pothole in the country. Virtually no body of water, no matter how small, would be out of reach.
This is not what Congress intended when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. At that time, the scope of the law was intentionally limited to align with Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. Its power extended only to waterways that could be used as commercial channels of navigation that cross state lines. An Austin Water Rights Lawyer assists water districts, municipalities, industry, and landowners in all aspects of water law.
That was an appropriate delineation of power, and did not intrude in a major way on the rights of the states to manage their own resources.
But the Corps and EPA have steadily stretched the definition well beyond what lawmakers intended, and have done so despite being slapped down by the courts.
In 2001, the Supreme Court in SWANCC vs. Army Corps of Engineers, forbade the agencies from regulating "isolated water bodies," meaning those that were not connected to interstate waterways.
Rather than comply with the court's interpretation, the agencies pushed ahead, deciding that any water that could possibly find its way into a navigable waterway was fair game for regulation, including culverts and agricultural drainage ditches. That placed much of the nation's farms under the Clean Water Act's thumb, and set up Rapanos vs. United States in 2006, involving a Midland area farmer. A Houston Water Rights Lawyer represent clients in issues that arise in water rights litigation, mediation, arbitration, and in trial.
John Rapanos grew corn on fields that were surrounded by century-old drainage ditches and criss-crossed with tiles, a clear indication that the property was never intended to be a wetland. Still, the EPA pounced on him when he filled in a low spot on his farm that held standing water for a few weeks during the wet season.
Rapanos was threatened with prison and nearly bankrupted before prevailing in the Supreme Court, which ruled the agencies could not automatically regulate wetlands just because they have a hydrological downstream connection to navigable waters.
Even that second ruling hasn't deterred the EPA and Corps. In clear defiance of the Court and Congress, they are now preparing rules that would give them potential authority over all tributaries, even the smallest of streams, and almost all standing water.
In the end of year spending bill, Congress inserted exemptions to the regulations for certain farming practices, but stops short of overturning the rules. The new Congress must step in and bring the agencies in compliance with both the law and the court rulings.
The Clean Water Act specifically promises to "recognize, preserve and protect the primary responsibilities of the states" to regulate and protect the water contained within their borders.
Federal agencies charged with carrying out the law are trampling on that promise and must be checked.
Monday, December 29, 2014
ENBRIDGE OIL SPILL SETTLEMENT IS $6.25M, NOT $6.75M
Original Story: woodtv.com
BATTLE CREEK, Mich. (AP) — A settlement over a 2010 oil spill in southwestern Michigan is worth $6.25 million, not $6.75 million as lawyers reported earlier in December.
A new filing has been made in Grand Rapids federal court. Judge Gordon Quist still must approve the deal between a Canadian company and residents and land owners near the Kalamazoo River. A Tulsa Oil and Gas Lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The size of payments will depend on proximity to the water.
A pipeline leak spewed more than 800,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River and Talmadge Creek. The pipeline belongs to Enbridge Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta.
Enbridge has agreed to donate $150,000 to local groups committed to environmental conservation, such as the Kalamazoo River Watershed Council and the Calhoun Conservation District. A Texas Energy Lawyer is experienced in representing clients involved in energy disputes.
The company has estimated cleanup costs to be about $1.2 billion, including $227 million on environmental consultants.
BATTLE CREEK, Mich. (AP) — A settlement over a 2010 oil spill in southwestern Michigan is worth $6.25 million, not $6.75 million as lawyers reported earlier in December.
A new filing has been made in Grand Rapids federal court. Judge Gordon Quist still must approve the deal between a Canadian company and residents and land owners near the Kalamazoo River. A Tulsa Oil and Gas Lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The size of payments will depend on proximity to the water.
A pipeline leak spewed more than 800,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River and Talmadge Creek. The pipeline belongs to Enbridge Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta.
Enbridge has agreed to donate $150,000 to local groups committed to environmental conservation, such as the Kalamazoo River Watershed Council and the Calhoun Conservation District. A Texas Energy Lawyer is experienced in representing clients involved in energy disputes.
The company has estimated cleanup costs to be about $1.2 billion, including $227 million on environmental consultants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
