KETK interviews managing partner Peter G. Milne on March 23rd, 2010 regarding the new healthcare policy.

Read the full article Here.

Video courtesy of KETK NBC Tyler.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov:8081/isysquery/irl92c/3/doc

This was a bankruptcy case out of Houston. The trial court disqualified an attorney from representing one party because he had previously worked for a law firm that had represented one of the other parties.

The startling thing about this case is the fact that Texas attorneys are governed by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, not the ABA Model Rules.  The ABA is a private, voluntary organization of attorneys that has no legal authority to regulate the profession. Over the years the ABA has taken controversial positions on a number of political issues, so it definitely does not represent the views of the entire profession.

Fortunately in this case, the Fifth Circuit determined that the lawyer’s conduct met the standards of both the Model Rules and the Texas Disciplinary Rules, finding that he should not have been disqualified. But if the case had gone the other way, would it have been fair for the Court to find the lawyer’s conduct unethical because it failed to meet a standard that explicitly does not apply to him?

The Fifth Circuit is the federal Court of Appeals for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Please keep in mind that 1) This is not a 100% complete list of all gun laws, and 2) This information is condensed to fit into a one-hour presentation, and it is subject to change.

This raises some serious concerns if it is done involuntarily.  Do you trust Microsoft to install a procedure that automatically isolates your computer from the Internet if it detects an infection? If Microsoft doesn’t do it, should Congress pass a law allowing your computer to be isolated? How would you lift the quarantine if your computer is not really infected?

You also have to ask yourself, who will make money from this process? Do you really want to try to access the Internet and see a window that says, “We have detected a virus on your computer. Pursuant to the United States Code and the user agreement which you approved when you installed your web browser, your computer will not be allowed to access the Internet until the virus has been removed. We will remove the virus from your computer immediately if you install our software for a low, low price of $____. Click “Accept” to purchase this software and access the Internet. By clicking “Accept” you are agreeing to all terms in the attached User Agreement.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10462117-38.html?tag=nl.e703

This is a developing area of the law in the U.S. also. People caught up in lawsuits can be in for a rude awakening when their e-mails, texts, Internet postings, and social networking pages are offered into evidence. Some of these data can be difficult to secure, however, because providers often delete it after a short period of time. Courts and legislators are wrestling with the privacy issues raised by these new methods of communications. The best policy is not to transmit anything unless you would be comfortable reading it on a billboard on the way to work.

http://healymilnelaw.com/?attachment_id=147

Hope it’s interesting to you.

1. 2-3-10 Ethical Traps CLE – Powerpoint presentation
2. 2005 Lorman Firearms Law paper
3. 2004 State Bar of Texas Firearms Law paper
4. 2003 State Bar of Texas Firearms Law paper

Enjoy!

The violation stems from a video showing an autistic boy being abused. The video was uploaded by a user and posted on Google’s site, not just reported through its search engine. It was removed within two hours of the time Italian police contacted Google. The Court held Google responsible, and pursuant to Italian law, held the executives responsible for the company’s actions.

The Court sentenced each of the three to six months’ confinement, but suspended the sentence. The executives are appealing, but they may not have the same incentive to fight the convictions because the consequences are light. This magnifies the worry that the case may establish a precedent. This is part of a trend where governments attempt to regulate or limit Internet content accessible in their countries. Some countries use this to stifle criticism or dissent.

One issue is whether providers should be held responsible for content posted by others. The United States adopted the Communications Decency Act in 1996, granting service providers immunity for content posted by others.

Another problem is jurisdiction. Should a country be able to exercise jurisdiction over a person just because he or she posted something on the Internet that can be accessed in that country? In the U.S. the state and federal laws on jurisdiction require a more substantial connection with the specific state, before a person can be sued there.

This holding potentially threatens everyone who maintains a website. If service providers are responsible for policing content posted by their users, then get ready to pay enough for Internet access to allow those providers to hire armies of people to police their sites. More importantly, how many people will post anything to the Internet if they face criminal prosecution in every country on the globe? You could potentially have to research the laws of almost 200 countries, before feeling safe about posting anything to the Internet.

A Revenue Officer is empowered by the United States to take whatever legal means is necessary to collect taxes.  These individuals are based in the community and may come to the home or business of a taxpayer to examine books and records or to collect.  A Revenue Officer may issue summons for records,  may record federal tax liens upon real property, or may issue bank or wage levies to seize assets or income.  The Revenue Officer is the IRS’s “bad dog”, and the unarmed and unprepared taxpayer is often just another bone on which the Revenue Officer chews,  until the poor taxpayer, rightly or wrongly, simply gives up and gives in. 

Given the current level of federal debt and poor economic outlook, it is highly unlikely that the United States Treasury is going to have much compassion for those who have not or cannot pay thier taxes.  Rather than hiring more persons who could  assist the embattled  taxpayer, such as those employed by the Taxpayer Advocate, Uncle Sam is clearly looking out for it’s own bottom line.

The Healy Milne & Associates Team