Source: http://feeds.celebritybabies.com/~r/celebrity-babies/~3/hsLj2in-nOs/
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Rutgers Law Dean Farmer Plays The Apprentice
Quietly, some joker in the editorial department of the New York Times is snickering, having snared another law dean or professor in the trap of offering a soapbox upon which the dean can conclusively prove to the legal community that he's got no clue about the real world of lawyering. And given the chance to get on the box, they just can't resist.
This week's contestant was Rutgers Law Dean John Farmer, who has come up with the idea that new lawyers should apprentice after law school, an idea that many have suggested and has some merit along with many problems. In the process, however, Farmer reveals that he has no clue what the problem is.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
This week's contestant was Rutgers Law Dean John Farmer, who has come up with the idea that new lawyers should apprentice after law school, an idea that many have suggested and has some merit along with many problems. In the process, however, Farmer reveals that he has no clue what the problem is.
Consider this: Nearly half of those who graduated from law school in 2011 did not quickly find full-time, long-term work as lawyers.
Quickly? How about not at all. Not long-term. Not short-term. Not slowly. As for the ones who did, how about at salaries that can't carry the debt-load while feeding themselves, no less their families, or terminal positions that run dry when the case is over, or dead-end positions that will never provide a future?
Yet the need for legal representation has never been greater. In New Jersey, where I teach law, 99 percent of the 172,000 defendants in landlord-tenant disputes last year lacked legal counsel.
Might that have something to do with the fact that these are non-payment proceedings, as in they can't afford to pay the rent? And if they can't afford to pay to put a roof over their head, do you think they're reluctant to raid their trust fund to pay for counsel to fight the non-payment proceeding? Or perhaps they can cut the kids down to one meal every three days so that a Rutgers Law grad can get paid?
Nationwide, judges decry not a surplus of lawyers, but a lack of competent representation for those who aren’t rich individuals and corporations.
Judges focus on what comes before them in a courtroom, and it's no surprise that they sit on the front line of people lacking counsel. Law deans, on the other hand, sit in the Ivory Tower and apparently don't see much of anything.
Lawyers cost too much in part because of rates established during the economic bubbles of the past 15 years. No less than in the dot-com or real-estate or derivatives markets, the cost of legal services became unsustainable.
Ignoring the wiggly caveat, in part, the choice of highlighting "rates established during the economic bubbles" is Dean Farmer's way of saying that law is Biglaw. The lawyers who represent tenants in Landlord-Tenant court didn't set rates based on the real-estate boom. The rates of lawyers who work for corporations in Biglaw have zero to do with what small firms and solos who represent individuals charge, and never did. It's not that they wouldn't have loved to charge anything remotely approaching Biglaw rates, but that fantasy never happened.
Lawyers cost too much because people can't afford to spend anything remotely close to what a solo lawyer needs to earn to pay for his office, debt and leave a little over to feed the kids. Lawyers cost too much because people's wages are stagnant while the cost of living has skyrocketed. Lawyers cost too much because people are unemployed. Lawyers cost too much because they want to earn a living just like the people who might otherwise retain them.
Except the lawyers have given away three years of opportunity and over $100,000 for the pleasure of being a lawyer, a burden that other people don't necessarily share.
The recession worsened, but did not cause, the predicament now: a mountain of student debt and dearth of legal jobs, even as there is a crying need for legal services.
Why yes. How nice of you to notice.
That disconnect relates to how lawyers are hired. Big firms have been hiring a few graduates from a few select schools, and paying them exorbitantly.
This is where Dean Farmer's motives reveal themselves. While the vast majority of law school graduates never saw the inside of Biglaw, he wants to get his Rutgers Law grads a chance to cross the East Hudson River.
Let’s scrap this system. We need, at its entry level, the equivalent of a medical residency. Law school graduates would practice for two years or so, under experienced supervision, at reduced hourly rates; repaying their debts could be suspended, as it is for medical residents.
Gee whiz! So who would be the teaching hospitals for law grads, where they could be taken under wing "at reduced hourly rates"?
Law firms would be able to hire more lawyers, at the lower rates, and give talented graduates of less prestigious institutions a chance to shine. The firms, at the end of the residencies, could then select whom to keep. Even for those who don’t make the cut, the residency will have provided valuable experience. The law firms should be required, under this proposal, to offer stipends to help those residents who don’t make the cut but have debt burdens.
Less prestigious institutions? Like, oh, I dunno, Rutgers? And these firms, because they're rolling Dewey dough, would be essentially nationalized for the benefit of law students, even to the point of providing a stipend to further support the debt incurred by law school tuition?
Every form of legal practice could benefit, not just pro bono work. The largest firms would use the legal residents on large institutional matters and use the savings to lower hourly rates for clients. Large and small firms could afford to serve people who can’t afford legal services but don’t qualify for pro bono aid: the middle class.
Well, that would certainly benefit those poor, maligned large institutions who are suffering foreclosure and eviction. Oh wait. And large and small firms, well really small firms because large firms don't tend to represent tenants facing eviction very much, should be part of this scheme, obliged to take in your debt-burdened students "at reduced hourly rates," spend their days teaching and supervising them, dealing with the mess they leave behind, the personnel issues, the cost of real estate to warehouse these younguns, and when they don't hire them on a partnership track, pay them a severance?
And this does what for the 172,000 tenants who can't pay the rent?
In fairness to good Dean Farmer, I can't blame him for trying to get his grads into jobs, even if he's compelled to write an op-ed in the New York Times as utterly inane and bizarrely unrealistic as this. Maybe he's not being disingenuous, but really has no clue what it costs to survive, as a lawyer or as a human being on the bottom rung of over-educated society. Small firm economics may not be his strength, and chances are pretty good that he's never spent time with poor people in need of legal representation.
What compels this dissection is that the legal profession is near implosion, and yet the New York Times gives space to such nonsensical approaches as this, as the academy perpetuates self-serving solutions that seek to shift the problem onto practicing lawyers so that they can offer the promise of a financially rewarding career to their students without addressing the growth of tuition they charge and the debt their students take on. Law schools want lawyers to shoulder the cost so they can continue to charge with abandon.
But what is really insulting is the attempt to justify this by publicly suggesting to the unwary that it will provide legal services to those who can't afford a lawyer. Putting aside the giving them lawyers who don't know their ass from the elbow, the premise is false to begin with. Biglaw doesn't represent indigent tenants or mom and pop start-up businesses. They don't do simple wills for new parents. Give Biglaw 1000 baby lawyers and they may have document review nailed down, but nothing else.
But as law schools continue to churn out tens of thousands of grads every year, there aren't enough desks in Biglaw hallways to subsume these grads. Where would they go? How many solos have an extra desk in their office, time to spend overseeing a n00b who is thrown into the deep end, and the extra money to finance his law school mistake.
This is why we can't have nice things, but that doesn't stop the Times from giving space to law deans who will write anything to protect their turf. Are lawyers ready to get involved in this discussion, or would you rather find out about the new rule requiring you to take on baby lawyers at your expense? Because you don't have enough problems already? Hope your malpractice is paid up and your kids don't need dinner every night.
So if Dean Farmer really wants to play the Apprentice, then I'm going to play Trump. You're fired.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/02/18/rutgers-law-dean-farmer-plays-the-apprentice.aspx?ref=rss
bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
Proactive E-Discovery Management
E-discovery is a complex and resource-intensive issue that is top of mind for many of us in the legal profession today. In this episode of The Robert Half Legal Report, Charles Volkert, the executive director of Robert Half Legal, and Joel Wuesthoff, a director with Robert Half Legal eDiscovery Services, talk about proactive e-discovery management. Chad and Joel take a look at some of the factors that are leading to higher spending on e-discovery for many organizations, how to become more efficient with managing data for e-discovery and the best approach to responding quickly to future e-discovery requests, especially in the face of ever-changing technology.
legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information
First Listen: Emeli Sandé And Kendrick Lamar Team Up On The ‘Next To Me’ Remix
Sigh. I’ve been waiting for this mash-up to happen… and I didn’t even know it, lol. Yesterday we got to check out Kendrick Lamar‘s new music video (with Drizzy Drake) for Poetic Justice, and now we’ve got some new K-Dot with Emeli Sandé. I’m starting to see a trend here! Dido, ZZ Ward, and Lady [...]
Monday, February 25, 2013
Bridging the Gap in Copyright Protection of Symbols, Shapes and Letters
In this episode of the IP Issues podcast series, Thomas McNulty and Julia Mathis of Lando & Anastasi, LLP discuss copyright protection of symbols, geometric shapes, and letters. Learn more about Lando & Anastasi, LLP at http://www.lalaw.com.
bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
The Controversial War on Drugs
Back in 1971, Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" claiming "America’s Public Enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse". Forty years later, we are still waging a war against drugs. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance and Judge Jim Gray, author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, as they spotlight the controversial war on drugs including: the legalization of Marijuana, the rise in prescription drug use, sentencing reform and what needs to happen legally to eliminate this growing problem.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/the-controversial-war-on-drugs/
need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys
Adele, 'Jaws' And 'Boob Song': Oscars Top Musical Moments
MTV News rounds up the many musical highlights from Sunday's Academy Awards.
By Jocelyn Vena
Adele performs at the 2013 Oscars
Photo: Kevin Winter/ Getty Images
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1702567/oscars-2013-top-musical-moments-adele-jaws.jhtml
Jennifer Gareis Jennifer Garner Jennifer Gimenez Jennifer Love Hewitt Jennifer Morrison
2013 Razzie Award Nominees and Winners
The Oscars are tonight and so we now have of course, the Razzie Awards. The winners of the losers circles have been named, and I am sure you will be shocked to learn that Breaking Dawn 2 took home a ton of the “awards.”
Thought Kristen Stewart’s lip biting ways improved, and I thought she did pretty well in Breaking Dawn 2, and even better in Snow White and the Huntsman, it didn’t save her from once again sweeping the Razzie Awards.
Here is the full list of nominees and winners.
Worst Picture
Battleship
The Oogieloves in Big Balloon Adventure
That’s My Boy
A Thousand Words
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Worst Director
Sean Anders – That’s My Boy
Peter Berg – Battleship
Bill Condon – The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Tyler Perry – Good Deeds / Madea’s Witness Protection
John Putch – Atlas Shrugged: Part II
Worst Actress
Katherine Heigl – One for the Money
Milla Jovovich – Resident Evil: Retribution
Tyler Perry – Madea’s Witness Protection
Kristen Stewart – The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II / Snow White and the Huntsman
Barbra Streisand – The Guilt Trip
Worst Actor
Nicolas Cage – Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance / Seeking Justice
Eddie Murphy – A Thousand Words
Robert Pattinson – The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Tyler Perry – Alex Cross / Good Deeds
Adam Sandler – That’s My Boy
Worst Supporting Actress
Jessica Biel – Playing For Keeps / Total Recall
Brooklyn Decker – Battleship / What to Expect When You’re Expecting
Ashley Greene – The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Jennifer Lopez – What to Expect When You’re Expecting
Rihanna – Battleship
Worst Supporting Actor
David Hasselhoff – Pirannha 3-DD
Taylor Lautner – The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Liam Neeson – Battleship / Wrath of the Titans
Nick Swardson – That’s My Boy
Vanilla Ice – That’s My Boy
Worst Screen Ensemble
Battleship
The Oogieloves in Big Balloon Adventure
That’s My Boy
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Madea’s Witness Protection
Worst Screenplay
Atlas Shrugged Part II
Battleship
That’s My Boy
A Thousand Words
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Worst Remake, Rip-Off, or Sequel
Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance
Pirannha 3-DD
Red Dawn
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Madea’s Witness Protection
Worst Screen Couple
Any two cast members from Jersey Shore in The Three Stooges
Mackenzie Foy and Taylor Lautner in The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart in The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II
Tyler Perry and his drag in Madea’s Witness Protection
Adam Sandler and Andy Samberg, Leighton Meester, or Susan Sarandon in That’s My Boy
What do you think of this years Razzie Awards? I think Pirannha 3-DD should have taken home an Award just for its lame name.
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RightCelebrity/~3/V9SaXloGfp8/
Charisma Carpenter Charli Baltimore Charlies Angels Charlize Theron Chelsea Handler
Britney Spears Uses Oscar Night To Reveal Herself As A Brunette
Our dear Britney Spears created a sensation on Oscar Night last night and did so after the awards ceremony had wrapped up. In order to not steal the thunder of all the folks competing for and winning Oscars inside the Dolby Theater during the Academy Awards, Brit Brit wisely decided to make her grand appearance [...]
IOLTA changes
Reminder note: IOLTA protection has changed as of January 1st ... Be sure you review your clients' trust account to confirm that your accounts are in balance and that they are below the maximum now protected. There no longer is unlimited protection ... and that means that you may be personally liable for a bank defalcation that impacts your holdings. Check with the FDIC, or call 1-877--ASK-FDIC, or talk to your local banker to learn more.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/0-2wzI2Naaw/
attorney at law attorney definition attorney directory attorney fees attorney finder
Recent tax law changes of 2013
On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 into law. Summarized below are highlights of those and other changes to Federal tax laws affecting income, payroll, gift and estate, and generation-skipping transfer taxes beginning in 2013.
New top federal marginal rates – ordinary income, capital gains, and qualified dividends
39.6% top ordinary income tax rate
In tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals above the threshold taxable incomes listed below, the highest marginal ordinary income tax rate increases from 35% to 39.6%. The 39.6% rate is a reinstatement of the highest rate from before the 2001 Bush-era tax cuts.
| Filing Status | Threshold taxable income amounts |
| Single | $400,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $450,000 |
The threshold amounts will be adjusted for inflation annually.
20% top capital gain and qualified dividend tax rate
In tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals above the threshold incomes listed above, the tax rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividend income increases from 15% to 20%.
3.8% Medicare tax on net investment income
For individuals above the threshold “modified adjusted gross income” amounts listed below, the net investment income tax, or NIIT, of 3.8% applies. The NIIT applies to a wide range of investment income, including certain long term capital gains and qualified dividends. In effect, the top tax rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividend income will be 23.8% for those whose income exceeds $450,000 ($400,000, if single).
The NIIT also applies to certain short term capital gains, ordinary dividends, interest, rental and royalty income, nonqualified annuities, income from businesses involved in trading of financial instruments or commodities, and income from businesses that are passive activities for the taxpayer.
| Filing status | Threshold modified adjusted gross income amounts |
| Single | $200,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $250,000 |
Phaseout of itemized deductions reinstated
Beginning in 2013, the itemized deduction phaseout will be reinstated for taxpayers above the applicable threshold amount listed below. The phaseout reduces itemized deductions by the lesser of 3% of the adjusted gross income amount above the threshold amount, or 80% of the otherwise allocable itemized deductions.
| Filing status | Threshold adjusted gross income amounts |
| Single | $250,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $300,000 |
Permanent AMT relief
Beginning in 2012 tax years, the AMT exemption amounts are permanently increased as listed in the table below and will be adjusted annually for inflation.
| Filing status | Increased 2012 exemption amounts |
| Single | $50,600 |
| Married filing jointly | $78,750 |
0.9% additional FICA Medicare tax
Beginning on January 1, 2013, an additional 0.9% FICA Medicare tax applies to earnings above the threshold amounts listed below. The highest applicable FICA Medicare tax rate for employees increases from 1.45% to 2.35%, and for the self-employed from 2.9% to 3.8%.
| Filing status | Threshold earnings amounts |
| Single | $200,000 |
| Married filing jointly | $250,000 |
Expiration of 2% FICA Social Security tax cut
Beginning on January 1, 2013, the 6.2% rate is reinstated for the employee portion of FICA Social Security tax. This is due to the expiration of the temporary 2% rate reduction in the employee portion of FICA Social Security tax from 6.2% to 4.2% on December 31, 2012. For the self-employed, the FICA Social Security tax rate of 10.4% reverts to 12.4%. The FICA wage base for 2013 is $113,700 and will be adjusted annually for inflation.
Section 1202 tax break extended through 2013
The 100% exclusion of certain gains from the sale of qualifying small business stock, or QSBS, under Section 1202 has been extended to acquisitions of QSBS from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. Generally, QSBS must meet the following conditions: the stock was acquired at original issue from a domestic C corporation with gross assets of no more than $50,000,000, the C corporation met certain active business requirements, and the stock was held for more than five years. The amount of excludible gain is limited to the greater of $10,000,000 in aggregate gains, or 10 times the aggregate basis in QSBS.
Section 1374 built in gains relief extended through 2013
The previously reduced five year recognition period for computing built-in gains tax of an S corporation under Section 1374 has been extended to taxable years beginning in 2012 and 2013. The recognition period was to increase to ten years in 2012 until the five year recognition period was extended through 2013.
This tax applies if, during the recognition period, a C corporation converts to an S Corporation and then sells, for a gain, assets that were appreciated in value at the time of the conversion. Those “built-in gains” are taxed at the highest marginal corporate tax rate of 35%. Normally, the recognition period is the ten year period from the first day of the first taxable year for which the S election is effective.
Gift and estate tax exclusion, rates, and portability of deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount
$5,000,000 gift and estate tax exclusion
The gift and estate tax, and generation-skipping transfer tax exclusion amount has been permanently set at $5,000,000, adjusted annually for inflation. The exclusion amount for 2013 is $5,250,000. Without this change, the exclusion amount would have fallen to or around $1,000,000 as of January 1, 2013.
40% top gift and estate tax rates
The gift and estate tax rate on transfers as of January 1, 2013 above the exclusion amount were increased as listed below. The highest rate increased from 35% to 40%. Without the new 40% rate, the highest marginal gift and estate tax rate would have increased to 55%.
Portability of deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount made permanent
A surviving spouse’s election to include his or her deceased spouse’s unused exclusion amount will now be a permanent option. This portability election would have expired on December 31, 2012 without this change.
Source:
http://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/tax-recent-tax-law-changes-of-2013.html
dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law employment law courses
Rumor Has It That Selena Gomez Cheated On Justin Bieber With… Gucci Mane?
I love it. I love it! Some celebrity rumors are just absurd, but this one is just… amazing. LMAO! There have been rumors flying around the Spring Breakers production set regarding Selena Gomez and the one they call Gucci Mane. First of all, I nearly lost it when Gucci popped up in the Spring Breakers [...]
Gisele Bündchen Giuliana DePandi Giulianna Ramirez Grace Park Gretha Cavazzoni
Liability After Facebook’s IPO
Facebook’s super-hyped IPO quickly turned into Wall Street folly. Lawsuits were filed almost immediately. Accusations of selective financial disclosure, investor deception and NASDAQ negligence are flying. So who is to blame? And who is liable? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, get the legal story of Facebook’s botched IPO and pending litigation from John P. ("Sean") Coffey, Managing Director at BlackRobe Capital Partners, and Scott M. Berman, Partner at Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/06/liability-after-facebooks-ipo/
power of attorney power of attorny private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers
Blood Crime
So you're in Maricopa County, driving along, just fine, and the cops pull you over. Busted. Via Reason:
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
An Arizona appeals court has ruled that motorists don’t actually have to be under the influence to be prosecuted for driving under the influence.
Via the Associated Press:
An appeals court has issued a ruling that upholds the right of authorities to prosecute pot smokers in Arizona for driving under the influence even when there is no evidence that they are actually high.
Ironically, while the law is facially absurd, the ruling of the Arizona Court of Appeals is completely logical.
The crime isn't driving while intoxicated. The crime is driving while having a metabolite in one's blood, even though the metabolite bears no connection to being under the influence or inability to drive safely.Our legislature has determined it is unlawful for a person to drive a vehicle while there is any drug, as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3401 (2012), or "its metabolite" in the person’s body. A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3). This statutory prohibition "was enacted as part of Arizona’s comprehensive law regulating drivers under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs ("DUI") and designed to protect the public by reducing the terrible toll of life and limb on our roads."
The metabolite was a remnant of old marijuana use, possibly up to four weeks prior, and itself bore no connection to being high or compromising ability. In other words, having the metabolite in one's blood meant nothing when it came to being fully able to drive safely. What it did mean, however, was that sometime in the prior four weeks you smoked pot.
In Phillips, the defendant challenged the facial validity of A.R.S. § 28-692(A)(3) (1994) (now § 28-1381(A)(3)), arguing it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. 178 Ariz. at 370, 873 P.2d at 708. We disagreed, noting that the legislature intended to create a "per se prohibition" and a "flat ban on driving with any proscribed drugs in one’s system." Id. at 372, 873 P.2d at 710 (emphasis added). We determined that the legislative ban extends to all substances, whether capable of causing impairment or not.
Crazy as the outcome may seem, it is the logical outcome if one separates the law from its true purpose. As the court of appeals held, the law imposed a "flat ban on driving" after one smoked pot, even if it was long out of one's system but for the metabolite it left behind.
The question is whether this is the crime the legislature intended to create, or rather somebody, in their zeal to not let anyone escape conviction by arguing that the evidence of drug use was merely a metabolite rather than the active chemical, crafted a law the criminalized something well beyond what any rational law would demand.
In other words, the outcome of the law is ridiculous, but the problem isn't that the court interpreted the law wrong, but it was just a bad law. In Arizona. Who would have guessed?
At the same time, the Court of Appeals wasn't constrained to reach this decision, separating the purpose of the from its effect. Due process and equal protection analysis would have allowed the court to reject slavish adherence to strict construction of the legislative language by holding that a law that criminalizes conduct that is distinct from the evil the legislature sought to cure is overbroad and vague.
Did the Arizona legislature really mean to create a punishment for all people who have a nonactive pot metabolite in their bloodstream without regard to their ability to safely drive a car? The language could be read that way, but the justification for the conduct being criminal, living in a post-pot stage for whatever period of time it takes for a metabolite to dissipate from the blood stream, is the protection of lives on the road. Does it do that? Nah.
Perhaps the court was trying to embarrass the legislature into crafting better laws by making such an absurd ruling. Perhaps they hate pot smokers so much that they want to criminalize their very existence, without regard to whether they present any risk of harm to anyone. This is Arizona, the land of crazy law and wild courts, so who knows?
And yet, driving sober in Arizona without four weeks of smoking pot is a crime. Guide yourself accordingly.
H/T FritzMuffKnuckle
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/02/25/blood-crime.aspx?ref=rss
attorney at law attorney definition attorney directory attorney fees attorney finder
Jermaine Jackson Has Officially Changed His Name To Jermaine Jacksun
Just when you think you’ve seen it all from the Jackson clan… this! Lol. Do y’all remember last year Trent reported that Jermaine Jackson was petitioning to get his name legally changed to Jermaine Jacksun??? I thought the story was hilarious, and couldn’t even believe it was real. Well, folks. It was real, and it [...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)