Scammed by a Business? Get Help From Business Fraud Lawyers

August 10, 2010 By Leave a Comment

There are thousands of businesses out there that would never earn a spot on the website of the Better Business Bureau, except through a customer leaving a negative remark or complaint. These are often fly by night businesses with the sole purpose of perpetrating a quick scam and running with your money. There are so many different kinds of scams that it’s useless to try to name them all. However, scammers all have one thing in common: They think that they can get away with it.

However, in most cases, they can’t get away with it. So, if you have fallen prey to a scam, do not lose heart. Find business fraud lawyers in your city and get help. A business fraud lawyer will know exactly how to handle a situation like this. If they figure that the potential to get high monetary damages exists, which is almost always true in fraud cases, then they will even work for you without a retainer. Basically, that means you do not have to pay them a dime unless they win the case for you. If you win, you may have to pay a part of the award in legal fees; but most people do not mind doing that.

Lawyers who specialize in business fraud play an important role in holding corporate entities accountable for their fraudulent actions. Because of the expertise of these attorneys, business owners think twice before they do something criminal. They know that with a good lawyer against them, penalties can be very high, and will include not only monetary damages, but may even include jail time if criminal charges are filed and proven. Don’t let yourself fall victim to corporate bad guys. Fight back with a good lawyer by your side.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: People, Work Tagged With: , ,

Campaign Finance Reform

August 6, 2010 By Leave a Comment

American citizens are becoming fed up with the amount of money that’s being spent on political campaigns. The elections appear to be going to the highest bidder. Either rich candidates are spending their own seemingly endless fortunes, or they’re being funded by special interest groups. Is the election process being wrenched from the hands of the voters?

Some efforts have been made to curb and regulate campaign spending, even as far back as 1867. But the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972 was the first successful legislation for campaign finance reform. Part of the act’s provisions required candidates to reveal who contributed to their campaigns and how much they spent. In 1974, the Federal Election Commission Act added to the reform by capping individual donations at $1,000 and Political Action Committee (PAC) donations to $5,000.

The McCain-Feingold reform, officially called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, is the latest campaign finance law at the federal level. The act outlawed so-called soft money, unregulated contributions from independent entities or those contributions that don’t go directly to the candidates’ campaigns. Senators McCain and Feingold are still, in 2010, trying to get stronger reform laws passed.

One major obstacle to campaign finance reform is some people and organization’s belief that it violates first amendment constitutional rights. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment guarantees the right to contribute to and spend money on political campaigns, which comes from American citizens’ right to self-government and to freedom itself.

Some people feel that the limits should be raised since they haven’t been changed for decades. Opponents believe that increasing the spending limits on campaign contributions will allow wealthier people to buy into the elections, financing candidates and propositions that support their causes. Proponents of raising the limits also say candidates could then spend more time on their duties of office rather than fundraising. Opponents counter that throwing more money into the system won’t help with the current problems.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Campaign, Debt Consolidation, General, People Tagged With: , ,

All Society Requires Auto Insurance

August 5, 2010 By Leave a Comment

No matter what level of society you occupy, one thing we all have in common is requiring auto insurance. We all also share basic needs, but some people are able to live well beyond this in luxury. Beyond simply enjoying a luxurious lifestyle and all that it affords, there are perks that come with it. Some people feel like because of their high level in society, they are able to live “above the law” so to speak. In other words, they feel that their wealth, fame or power can buy them privileges the rest of us cannot be afforded because of our more limited status.

Society is funny that way. Sometimes theories like this hold true. There are situations that can definitely point to the fact that money and power can buy certain advancements or allow for tolerance of certain behaviors that others of us who occupy lower social stratosphere would not be able to obtain.

Money alone has a stronghold over people and is an amazing temptress. People can head straight to the front of a long line and gain instant acceptance with the flash of green. A better table in a restaurant can be bought with money or a famous face or name. People obtain better jobs thanks to who they know or what family they were born into. The higher your rank in society from a multi-generational standpoint, the more clout, pull and influence you likely possess over people.

High society is not easy to gain entrance to. Newcomers aren’t always welcome. No matter how much money you have, some old ranking members are very judgemental when it comes to “new money” and how it was made. High society gives preferential status and treatment to bluebloods and those with lineages hearkening back generations with wealth and power dotting their history.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: General, People Tagged With: , ,

The U.S. Government and Global Warming

August 3, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Even though the United States contributes the largest amount of greenhouse gases in the world—with China quickly catching up and perhaps surpassing the U.S.—the American government has refused to join other nations in establishing climate control criteria. The other big producers of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are Japan, Russia, Germany and India, all of which joined 184 other countries in signing the Kyoto Protocol.

The Protocol was introduced at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, and by October of 2009, 188 countries had signed the treaty and authorized it through their government structure. The treaty was established in order to slow and stop the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and to halt global warming. The greenhouse gases that were targeted for reduction include carbon dioxide, sulphur hexafluoride, nitrous oxide, methane, perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons, which were part of the Montreal Protocol of 1987. The countries are required to record their greenhouse gas emissions, the sources and how they’re dealing with reduction, and then submit the report each year to the United Nations.

In spite of the federal government’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, some cities have decided to adopt the Protocol. More than 420 United States cities have incorporated the Kyoto Protocol requirements for greenhouse gas emission reduction into their own laws. The mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, spearheaded the effort and was successful in getting many cities to accept the Protocol criteria.

But what is the federal government doing to curb global warming? Many elected officials, as well as citizens, believe that global warming does not exist, or even that it’s a hoax propagated onto the public by liberals. However, since President Barack Obama came into office, he and his administration have said they are committed to finding ways to deal with global warming, or climate change as people are now calling it—a more accurate term since some areas of the earth are experiencing increased cold and rain rather than warming.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Congress, People, Republicans Tagged With: , ,

Government Assistance for the Disabled

August 1, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The government has had a long tradition of providing care and assistance to physically and mentally disabled people. With this help from federal, state and local governments—and with additional assistance from private sources and non-profit organizations—people with disabilities can live a much more productive life. Programs for handicapped people often give them the opportunity to become independent and to achieve their personal goals. Those who work in these programs also find that they get a sense of fulfillment by helping with the needs of the disabled.

Handicapped people who are in a low-income bracket can take advantage of a program offered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This program, part of the National Affordable Housing Act and the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000, helps create housing for qualified residents. HUD provides funds to non-profit organizations to build, renovate or purchase buildings for the housing of persons with disabilities who have low-incomes. Then, the residents of these structures will receive help with the rent from the government. There are qualifications residents must meet in order to live in the units. First, you must have a physical or mental disability. Second, you must be in a low-income bracket. And third, you or someone in the family must be at least 18 years old.

The government also provides help for persons with disabilities who have previously worked. The assistance is administered through the Social Security Administration (SSA) and its Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program. You can qualify for this assistance if you can no longer perform your job and have a disability for at least one year, or if the disability can cause death. You can also get a Compassionate Allowance from Social Security if you have a disease or other medical condition. This allowance can speed up the process and make it easier to get your SSDI.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Congress, Loans, People, Republicans Tagged With: , ,

Getting Out the Vote

July 17, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot is getting lower with almost each election. The 2008 election of Barack Obama showed a spike in the number of voters who participated, but voter apathy does not seem to be going away. Citizens need to be encouraged to vote. They need to realize that their vote does count.

The two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, are making greater efforts to get their members to the polls. Volunteers man the phones, calling to remind voters to get to the polls, offering rides to disabled, seniors, and anyone without transportation. Politicians help their party by appearing at local events in support of candidates. Often a certain issue, rather than a candidate, will draw voters to the polls. This has happened in recent elections with hot-topic issues such as gay rights and abortion.

But the Democratic and Republican parties aren’t the only groups that are leading the drive to get out the vote. Rock the Vote is an organization focused on registering young voters between the ages of 18 and 29. In the twenty years of its existence, the group has signed up millions of young people, registering them as both Democrats and Republicans. Indeed, the youth vote helped get Bill Clinton elected in 1992.

Religious groups are also helping to get voters of both parties to the polls. With the close elections in the recent past, religious leaders believe that by rallying their followers, their candidate will get the votes needed to push him or her into office. Because religious, or faith-based, groups can’t directly endorse a candidate, the group leaders use ballot initiatives to inspire people to cast their ballots. Social issues such as gay rights, abortion and Supreme Court appointments can galvanize religious followers on both sides of the issues.

Celebrities are becoming more vocal about their choice of candidate and their support of particular issues. Contrary to popular belief, not all celebrities are liberal, and both Democratic and Republican stars publicly announce their political support, often campaigning for candidates or doing fundraisers for them.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: People Tagged With:

Supreme Court Nominee Rejections

July 17, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Many people, including some of the nominees, consider Supreme Court confirmation hearings to be a waste of time. Often, the nominees don’t answer direct questions about their beliefs so, as they have testified, they don’t jeopardize possible future votes. But issues and problems with nominees can be uncovered during a confirmation hearing. And though a nominee might survive the hearing to be appointed to the court, his or her reputation can be sullied in the process. This happened with Clarence Thomas when Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, accused Thomas of sexual harassment when she worked for him on the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. Since there was no direct evidence and it was Hill’s word against Thomas’s, he was confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. The accusation, though, hangs over his head to this day.

Probably the most well-known recent Supreme Court nominee rejection is Robert Bork. President Reagan nominated the U.S. Court of Appeals judge who was known for his ultra-conservative opinions. Civil rights groups and other liberals were able block his nomination with a 58-42 vote against Bork. Some people felt he was treated unfairly and Bork himself resigned as a judge after the confirmation hearing.

Reagan then nominated appellate judge Douglas Ginsburg. But during his confirmation hearing, it was revealed that he smoked marijuana and he, too, was rejected. (Reagan’s third choice, Anthony Kennedy, was confirmed.)

Roger Taney was rejected in 1835, but he was nominated again—both times by Andrew Jackson—won confirmation as chief justice and eventually wrote the 1857 Dred Scott decision stating that no black person could ever become a citizen of the United States.

The strongest rejection in Supreme Court history was for Alexander Wolcott in 1811. Walcott, a customs inspector, was rejected with a vote of 9-24 because of his embargoes against Great Britain and France.

Filed Under: Democrats, People Tagged With: , ,

The Youth Vote

July 14, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Not since the 1960s and early 1970s have America’s youth been so interested in politics. After decades of apathy and the “me” generation, young people are showing concern for the country and how legislation will affect their future. Voters aged 18 to 30 represent almost one-quarter of the eligible voting population. Young adults are joining both major parties—the Democrats and Republicans—as well as third parties. In the 2008 election, two out of every five voters aged 18 to 24 claimed to be independents. This makes a large portion of the youth vote unpredictable.

Today’s young voters are getting more involved in politics, not simply casting a ballot. They are joining, and leading, grass-roots efforts for candidates and causes. President Barack Obama owes much of his win to the push by young Americans to see him elected.

President Clinton revved up his campaign and attracted the youth vote when he appeared on MTV and played his saxophone. While in office, he established AmeriCorps, similar to the Peace Corps but focused on the United States. From this, many young people took a renewed interest in helping others and in politics as well.

Younger voters are naturally more optimistic and, having a longer future ahead of them, have more at stake than older Americans. But young adults have many of the same concerns as older voters such as war, jobs and the economy, education opportunities and health care.

The youth vote also is inspiring a new way of campaigning. Young people want to be engaged and demand personal attention. Clinton and Obama are good examples of this when they both sought out the young voters and directly appealed to them for help. The Internet is another way to connect with the younger voters. As more and more young adults use social networking, politicians are also taking advantage of the ease with which they can reach thousands of voters through the Internet.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: People Tagged With: ,

Legalizing Marijuana

July 7, 2010 By Leave a Comment

For decades, advocates of marijuana use have been fighting to have the laws changed and allow the legal selling, buying and use of cannabis. Before 1937, marijuana was legal in most of the states, and it was available either as cigarettes at small outlets such as newsstands or in bulk form from grocers. But in 1937, the federal government passed laws prohibiting the possession or sale of cannabis, although the American Medical Association felt it was not harmful. Hemp, the fibrous part of the cannabis plant, was also highly taxed, even if it was used to make clothes or rope. This made it too expensive for manufacturers, and the use of hemp as a material was abandoned.

Through the years, the laws against marijuana possession have relaxed. Some states, such as California, make it a misdemeanor to hold one ounce or less of marijuana, and carries a maximum fine of $100. However, the cultivation, sale and transportation of marijuana, no matter the weight or number of plants, is considered a felony, even though there are certain legal exceptions if the cannabis is grown for personal use. The law in California (and other states) allows for medical exemptions as well.

With the November 2010 election, California’s ballot will include Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana use and sale with some restrictions. People 21 and older would be able to possess one ounce or less of marijuana and use the cannabis at home or in a public place that has a license for marijuana use. People would also be allowed to grow marijuana for personal use in a space as large as 25 square feet. Businesses, authorized by the local government, could sell up to one ounce of marijuana, including transporting the cannabis between dispensaries. Local governments could collect taxes from the sale of marijuana. Penalties would apply to anyone selling to a minor, driving under the influence and consuming marijuana at the workplace if it affects job performance.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: People, Politicians To Watch Tagged With:

Public Versus Private Education

June 30, 2010 By Leave a Comment

More and more people are choosing to take their children out of public schools and educate them either at home, charter schools, or privately funded schools. There are many factors to consider before you make the decision of where your child should be educated. One of the obvious concerns is financial. Private schools can be expensive, and not everyone will be able to afford this alternative. The enrollment in private schools is also limited, which can be a positive factor. If you can afford the tuition, and your child is accepted to the school, then the smaller class sizes will guarantee your child gets more individualized attention and instruction.

You’ll want to consider the qualifications of the school, including your own ability to home school your child. You should investigate the school’s reputation for academics and teacher qualifications, and if your child wishes to prepare for future college enrollment, make sure the school has such a curriculum. Often, private schools will have higher academic standards than public, although increasing government regulation is requiring public schools to be more accountable. However, not all public schools will have lower standards and test scores. You’ll have to research the schools in your particular community. Charter schools and magnet schools, a blend of public and private, may be a good choice.

If you’re home schooling, time is an important factor to consider. Do you have the necessary hours required per day to teach your child? It also takes time to learn the laws regarding home schooling in your state, and to establish the curriculum.

You should also consider the location of the school. Is it convenient and in a safe part of your community? Other factors include whether you wish the school to provide religious or moral instruction, whether the school’s ideology fits yours and your family’s and whether your child has special needs and the school is equipped to accommodate them.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: People Tagged With:
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »