To me, the holiday season isn't the same without watching the classic "Christmas Vacation" over and over again until the dvd skips. I would love to decorate my house with 25,000 imported Italian twinkle lights but my wife would no doubt have a fit bigger than Raphie's mom did in the movie Christmas Story over the "Leg Lamp."
In any event, listed below are some of my laws, rules, and regulations that pertain to the holiday season. I hope said procedures are adhered to accordingly by all. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
1. "Emmet Otter's Jug Band Christmas" must be viewed at least 8 times prior to Christmas Day. Initial viewing is to be commenced upon putting up the Christmas tree.
2. On Christmas Eve, when enjoying a cocktail or 3, do not spout off about your boss. Uncle Hank and Cousin Randy may take you literally and do something rash.
3. The movie “A Christmas Story” should be watched in its entirety. However, one should resist temptation to stick their tongue on a flag pole. Do NOT purchase a Red Rider bb gun. You'll shoot your eye out! Also, be sure to drink your Ovaltine.
4. Non-consumption of those peanut butter cookies with the Hershey kiss in the middle is a serious offense.
5. Store bought eggnog is strictly prohibited.
6. A big screen TV is the gift that keeps on giving all year long.
7. Re-gifting is not a crime.
8. If your Secret Santa gives you a case of beer, it may be time to start planning some New Year’s resolutions.
9. Despite recent trends and policies, you will not be arrested if you utter the words “Merry Christmas.”
10. When in doubt, gift card it out.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
The Pantera Tragedy 7 Years Later
December 8, 2004 was a very sad day in the world of music as that was the day “Dimebag” Darrell Abbott was murdered while he was literally playing guitar on stage. For those readers that are not a fan of hard rock music, Darrell Abbot was the lead guitarist for legendary heavy metal band Pantera. The band was extremely popular during the 1990’s among heavy metal aficionados and the tragedy that struck in Columbus, Ohio in 2004 remains one of rock’s most tragic deaths.
Pantera broke up in 2003 when singer Phil Anselmo had a falling out with Darrell and his brother, fellow band mate and drummer, Vinnie Paul Abbott. The split was filled with acrimony to say the least and both Anselmo and the Abbott brothers went their separate ways and formed their own respective bands.
Upon the death of Darrell Abbott, Phil Anselmo attempted to attend the funeral of his former band mate but Vinnie Paul and Darrell’s long time girlfriend Rita Haney prevented him from doing so. They harbored great resentment toward Anselmo, as they both felt it was he who was responsible for Pantera’s breakup. Vinnie Paul further held distain for Anselmo due to alleged negative comments he made toward Darrell in the press.
Rita Haney went on the record saying that Anselmo was essentially just as responsible for the murder of Abbott as the man who actually shot him on stage. She went on to claim that if Anselmo did not force the breakup of Pantera, Darrell would not have been playing the small, dismal venue on the night of his murder. At the height of Pantera’s fame, they were playing in much larger arenas with heightened security. Upon investigation of Abbott’s death, it was revealed that the gunman acted out because he was upset about Pantera’s demise and he held Darrell responsible. It was also later determined that the gunman had severe mental issues.
In response to Rita Haney’s claims, the legal issue boils down to reasonable forseeability; more specifically, was it foreseeable that Darrell Abbott would be murdered if Anselmo had not broken up the band.
While it may be factually true that had Anselmo not left Pantera, Abbott would not have formed a new band and would not have been playing in the smaller venue on the night of his murder. However, for anyone, including Rita Haney, to hold Anselmo responsible for the actions of a mentally ill murderer is not legally plausible to say the least.
To be deemed legally responsible for certain actions, whether they are criminal or tort, the issue of foreseability comes into play. If a party acts in a way where it is reasonably foreseeable that said actions would have a negative impact upon another, that party would be deemed legally culpable.
For example, if a person drinks an abundant amount of alcohol and then drives their car home, it is reasonably foreseeable that they may cause an accident and that other people may be injured or killed as a result. In this scenario, it would be justified to hold a drunk driver responsible for the harm they cause to people they hit with their car while under the influence of alcohol. The same cannot be said regarding the actions of Phil Anselmo as they pertain to his departure from the band Pantera.
While it may be true that had Anselmo not left Pantera, Abbott would not have been playing in the smaller venue on the night if his murder. It can also be assumed that the man who shot and killed him would not have done so had Pantera stayed together as a band. However, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Darrell Abbott would have been murdered by a mentally ill fan based on Anselmo’s decision to leave the band. The actions of the crazed gunman on the night of December 8, 2004 superceded anything that Phil Anselmo did with regard to his involvement in the demise of Pantera.
When it comes to legal culpability, reasonable foreseeability is the ultimate measuring stick. Often people want to point fingers and place blame where it doesn’t legally belong. Before they do, they should take a step back and ask themselves whether or not it is reasonable, under the circumstances, to hold said person responsible.
In the case of the Pantera tragedy, both Vinne Paul Abbott and Rita Haney were understandably emotional. In the heat of the moment, they immediately lashed out at Phil Anselmo. While it may be reasonable to be upset with him on a professional level, it is absolutely unreasonable and outright wrong to hold him legally responsible for the death of Darrell Abbott.
As a fan of Pantera, I hope Anselmo and Vinnie Paul make amends, but as of this writing, it doesn’t appear it is going to happen in the foreseeable future.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Pantera broke up in 2003 when singer Phil Anselmo had a falling out with Darrell and his brother, fellow band mate and drummer, Vinnie Paul Abbott. The split was filled with acrimony to say the least and both Anselmo and the Abbott brothers went their separate ways and formed their own respective bands.
Upon the death of Darrell Abbott, Phil Anselmo attempted to attend the funeral of his former band mate but Vinnie Paul and Darrell’s long time girlfriend Rita Haney prevented him from doing so. They harbored great resentment toward Anselmo, as they both felt it was he who was responsible for Pantera’s breakup. Vinnie Paul further held distain for Anselmo due to alleged negative comments he made toward Darrell in the press.
Rita Haney went on the record saying that Anselmo was essentially just as responsible for the murder of Abbott as the man who actually shot him on stage. She went on to claim that if Anselmo did not force the breakup of Pantera, Darrell would not have been playing the small, dismal venue on the night of his murder. At the height of Pantera’s fame, they were playing in much larger arenas with heightened security. Upon investigation of Abbott’s death, it was revealed that the gunman acted out because he was upset about Pantera’s demise and he held Darrell responsible. It was also later determined that the gunman had severe mental issues.
In response to Rita Haney’s claims, the legal issue boils down to reasonable forseeability; more specifically, was it foreseeable that Darrell Abbott would be murdered if Anselmo had not broken up the band.
While it may be factually true that had Anselmo not left Pantera, Abbott would not have formed a new band and would not have been playing in the smaller venue on the night of his murder. However, for anyone, including Rita Haney, to hold Anselmo responsible for the actions of a mentally ill murderer is not legally plausible to say the least.
To be deemed legally responsible for certain actions, whether they are criminal or tort, the issue of foreseability comes into play. If a party acts in a way where it is reasonably foreseeable that said actions would have a negative impact upon another, that party would be deemed legally culpable.
For example, if a person drinks an abundant amount of alcohol and then drives their car home, it is reasonably foreseeable that they may cause an accident and that other people may be injured or killed as a result. In this scenario, it would be justified to hold a drunk driver responsible for the harm they cause to people they hit with their car while under the influence of alcohol. The same cannot be said regarding the actions of Phil Anselmo as they pertain to his departure from the band Pantera.
While it may be true that had Anselmo not left Pantera, Abbott would not have been playing in the smaller venue on the night if his murder. It can also be assumed that the man who shot and killed him would not have done so had Pantera stayed together as a band. However, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Darrell Abbott would have been murdered by a mentally ill fan based on Anselmo’s decision to leave the band. The actions of the crazed gunman on the night of December 8, 2004 superceded anything that Phil Anselmo did with regard to his involvement in the demise of Pantera.
When it comes to legal culpability, reasonable foreseeability is the ultimate measuring stick. Often people want to point fingers and place blame where it doesn’t legally belong. Before they do, they should take a step back and ask themselves whether or not it is reasonable, under the circumstances, to hold said person responsible.
In the case of the Pantera tragedy, both Vinne Paul Abbott and Rita Haney were understandably emotional. In the heat of the moment, they immediately lashed out at Phil Anselmo. While it may be reasonable to be upset with him on a professional level, it is absolutely unreasonable and outright wrong to hold him legally responsible for the death of Darrell Abbott.
As a fan of Pantera, I hope Anselmo and Vinnie Paul make amends, but as of this writing, it doesn’t appear it is going to happen in the foreseeable future.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Thursday, November 24, 2011
The Laws of Black Friday
1. The laptop that is advertised at $150 is not nearly worth waiting in line at midnight for.
2. The 42 inch Flat Panel TV for $199 will be long gone prior to your arrival at your favorite local retail store.
3. Coffee up. Black Friday shopping is serious business and you will be dealing with a plethora of seasoned veterans who will stop at nothing to save a moderate amount of money.
4. Have a game plan. Make a list and check it twice. You will be eaten alive if you plan to window shop and browse. I found this out the hard way. My wounds are still healing from the Wal Mart mosh and shuffle of 2007.
5. Use the buddy system. Never enter the vicious waters on Black Friday alone. Bring your wife, friend or cousin who owes you money. Trust me, strength in numbers is essential on this post holiday extravaganza.
Happy shopping! Hope to see you at Dennys for a post shopping feast.
Marty Carbone, Attorney at Law, Carbone & Carbone LLP
Monday, November 14, 2011
Vetting a Vehicle & Traffic Attorney
Getting issued a traffic ticket can be an extremely taxing experience, both mentally and monetarily. When faced with a vehicle and traffic violation, one should seek out proper guidance from an attorney who regularly deals in this area of law. One would be surprised as to how many lawyers out there do not know the ins and outs of traffic law. It may not be one of the more glamorous areas of law, but when representing a client with a traffic infraction, the attorney should not just "phone it in" as a no brainer. There are several things to take into account before accepting a proper plea on a client's behalf.
No matter how small the violation, it is always in one's best interest to be proactive in getting their ticket handled swiftly and properly. Here are some helpful tips to consider when vetting an attorney to handle your traffic infraction:
1. Location. Make sure the attorney you choose has some familiarity with the area in which you received a ticket. Small Town and Village courts have a lot of idiosyncrasies that local attorneys are likely to know about and can better be of service to you. Also, the less travel time an attorney has to make to court, the less likely he/she is to charge.
2. Communication. Make sure that when you contact a traffic attorney, he/she is up front with you and conveys his/her advice in an articulate fashion. Most attorneys will offer a free initial phone consultation. Based off this consultation, size up what the attorney has to offer and if you establish a good rapport, this is a positive indication as to how the attorney-client relationship is likely to go.
3. Price. Be mindful that there are some attorneys out there who advertise a very low flat fee, but once you hire them, they change their tune and inflate the price to reflect your “special” or “unique” circumstances. The old saying holds true in that “You get what you pay for.” Don’t be so quick to hire an attorney solely on price, as more often than not, the lowest priced attorney is not necessarily the most competent attorney.
4. Referrals. Do an online search when hiring a traffic attorney. If someone refers an attorney by name, check them out for yourself, either by doing a google or bing search or by going directly to their website. In this day and age, most attorneys have their own website. If they don’t, that may tell you something right of the bat. By going to an attorney’s website prior to speaking with them, you will get a chance to go into the conversation already knowing something about them and when speaking to them, you can see if the information they give you “jibes” with the information that is on their site. You would be amazed as to how many attorneys don’t know that they even HAVE a website, let alone know what content about them and their services is on it.
5. Experience. Make sure that the attorney you hire to represent you in your traffic matter has actually handled cases like yours in the past. Many attorneys dabble in all sorts of areas of law and if traffic is not one they handle on a regular basis, they are not in a good position to advocate in your best interest. The attorney you choose does not have to have a legacy dating back to the 1800’s. Nor do they require “over 50 years combined experience.” More times than not, an attorney who has handled his/her fair share of vehicle and traffic cases will suffice. Just make sure that this area of law is one in which they consistently and continuously take on. You certainly don’t want to hire an attorney who has tons of experience in traffic law, but has been out of the loop for a good number of years. Like mentioned above, all City, Village, and Town courts operate a bit different and have their own way of doing things. By hiring a lawyer who is “in the know” will ultimately be of best interest to your legal needs.
No matter how small the violation, it is always in one's best interest to be proactive in getting their ticket handled swiftly and properly. Here are some helpful tips to consider when vetting an attorney to handle your traffic infraction:
1. Location. Make sure the attorney you choose has some familiarity with the area in which you received a ticket. Small Town and Village courts have a lot of idiosyncrasies that local attorneys are likely to know about and can better be of service to you. Also, the less travel time an attorney has to make to court, the less likely he/she is to charge.
2. Communication. Make sure that when you contact a traffic attorney, he/she is up front with you and conveys his/her advice in an articulate fashion. Most attorneys will offer a free initial phone consultation. Based off this consultation, size up what the attorney has to offer and if you establish a good rapport, this is a positive indication as to how the attorney-client relationship is likely to go.
3. Price. Be mindful that there are some attorneys out there who advertise a very low flat fee, but once you hire them, they change their tune and inflate the price to reflect your “special” or “unique” circumstances. The old saying holds true in that “You get what you pay for.” Don’t be so quick to hire an attorney solely on price, as more often than not, the lowest priced attorney is not necessarily the most competent attorney.
4. Referrals. Do an online search when hiring a traffic attorney. If someone refers an attorney by name, check them out for yourself, either by doing a google or bing search or by going directly to their website. In this day and age, most attorneys have their own website. If they don’t, that may tell you something right of the bat. By going to an attorney’s website prior to speaking with them, you will get a chance to go into the conversation already knowing something about them and when speaking to them, you can see if the information they give you “jibes” with the information that is on their site. You would be amazed as to how many attorneys don’t know that they even HAVE a website, let alone know what content about them and their services is on it.
5. Experience. Make sure that the attorney you hire to represent you in your traffic matter has actually handled cases like yours in the past. Many attorneys dabble in all sorts of areas of law and if traffic is not one they handle on a regular basis, they are not in a good position to advocate in your best interest. The attorney you choose does not have to have a legacy dating back to the 1800’s. Nor do they require “over 50 years combined experience.” More times than not, an attorney who has handled his/her fair share of vehicle and traffic cases will suffice. Just make sure that this area of law is one in which they consistently and continuously take on. You certainly don’t want to hire an attorney who has tons of experience in traffic law, but has been out of the loop for a good number of years. Like mentioned above, all City, Village, and Town courts operate a bit different and have their own way of doing things. By hiring a lawyer who is “in the know” will ultimately be of best interest to your legal needs.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Every Vote Counts...Literally
With election day right around the corner I thought I would share a personal experience as it pertains to an election campaign.
One hears the phrase "Every vote counts" during times of election, but this term holds very true to myself and my family in a very literal sense.
My father and law partner, Martin A. Carbone, Sr., was the acting City Court Judge in Mechanicville, NY for 12 years before seeking the top judicial spot. Prior to his campaign in the fall of 1991, he had already served a year as the full time City Court judge, as his predecessor fell ill and could not complete the remainder of his term.
In order to successfully seek re-election, my dear old dad not only had to fight with the powers that be to finish out his current term, but he also had to change political parties in order to be endorsed and run on a major party line.
My family and I felt like it was us against the world so to speak and we went full speed ahead in my dad's quest to remain City Court judge.
To add insult to injury, my father broke his foot right at the begining of his campaign and was unable to go door to door and meet the public at large. I, who was 16 at time, took his place along with my mother. Together we canvassed the majority of the city of Mechanicville spreading the good word on behalf of my dad.
On election night, things were tense because the race for judge was a dead heat. When the night was over, it appeared that my dad had lost the election by 4 votes. However, the absentee ballots were not accounted for so we had to wait about a week to get the final results.
When all the votes were in, my father had won the election by 4 votes. The celebration was short lived, however, as his opponent challenged the validity of some of the absentee ballots in NY Supreme Court and the election was overturned in his favor by one vote.
Our family was initially devastated, but we brushed ourselves off and filed an appeal in the NY State Appellate Division. The appeal took a few months and my dad quietly lived in exile, away from the confines of his city court chambers.
I remember like it was yesterday when I was in my high school band class and a fellow class mate came up to me and said that I was wanted in the main office. I asked what the problem was and he said my father was on the phone. This struck me as odd since my father had never called me at school before. Remember, this was before cell phones, email and text.
I picked up the phone, praying that nobody died. On the other end, I hear my dad simply say "5-0." Confused, I asked him to repeat what he said. He again only said "5-0." Having not a clue what he meant, I said, "5.0 Mustang?" (they were popular at the time) He said "No, 5-0 decision in our favor."
It then hit me that he was reffering to the 5 judge panel that sat on the NY Appellate Division. To win an appeal, one needs at least 3 of the 5 judges to rule in your favor. In our case, all 5 judges ruled in my dad's favor, hence the "5-0."
I lost my mind after I realized what happened and everyone in the school office looked at me like I was nuts, but I couldn't have cared less.
As a result of the Appellate Division's decision, the election was now overturned in my father's favor when one absentee ballot was thrown out and one was reinstated. The one that was reinstated was initially rejected in Supreme Court because it was filled out in green ink. The judge who threw it out must have overlooked the fact that the law was changed in 1974 allowing absentee ballots to be filled out in ANY color ink, not just blue or black, which had been the standard prior. So with the luck of the Irish, the green ink absentee ballot put my dad one vote over the top and named him City Court judge.
The war was not quite over until April 1, 1992, when the NY Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, refused to hear my father's opponent on appeal. It was over. It was official. On April Fool's Day, my father was officially named City Court judge of Mechanicville.
The moral of this long winded story is every vote counts. Quite literally in my father's case. One vote determined the outcome of his election. If one person who voted for my dad had instead sat back and decided that they didn't need to vote because they wouldn't make a difference, they would have been gravely mistaken. Unfortunately, this is the attitude of a lot of voters, especially when it comes to the major elections.
I experienced how every vote counts up close and personal. On election day, if anyone out there decides not to vote solely on the notion that their vote doesn't count, rest assured, it does. Who knows, your vote just might be the deciding factor. Literally.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
One hears the phrase "Every vote counts" during times of election, but this term holds very true to myself and my family in a very literal sense.
My father and law partner, Martin A. Carbone, Sr., was the acting City Court Judge in Mechanicville, NY for 12 years before seeking the top judicial spot. Prior to his campaign in the fall of 1991, he had already served a year as the full time City Court judge, as his predecessor fell ill and could not complete the remainder of his term.
In order to successfully seek re-election, my dear old dad not only had to fight with the powers that be to finish out his current term, but he also had to change political parties in order to be endorsed and run on a major party line.
My family and I felt like it was us against the world so to speak and we went full speed ahead in my dad's quest to remain City Court judge.
To add insult to injury, my father broke his foot right at the begining of his campaign and was unable to go door to door and meet the public at large. I, who was 16 at time, took his place along with my mother. Together we canvassed the majority of the city of Mechanicville spreading the good word on behalf of my dad.
On election night, things were tense because the race for judge was a dead heat. When the night was over, it appeared that my dad had lost the election by 4 votes. However, the absentee ballots were not accounted for so we had to wait about a week to get the final results.
When all the votes were in, my father had won the election by 4 votes. The celebration was short lived, however, as his opponent challenged the validity of some of the absentee ballots in NY Supreme Court and the election was overturned in his favor by one vote.
Our family was initially devastated, but we brushed ourselves off and filed an appeal in the NY State Appellate Division. The appeal took a few months and my dad quietly lived in exile, away from the confines of his city court chambers.
I remember like it was yesterday when I was in my high school band class and a fellow class mate came up to me and said that I was wanted in the main office. I asked what the problem was and he said my father was on the phone. This struck me as odd since my father had never called me at school before. Remember, this was before cell phones, email and text.
I picked up the phone, praying that nobody died. On the other end, I hear my dad simply say "5-0." Confused, I asked him to repeat what he said. He again only said "5-0." Having not a clue what he meant, I said, "5.0 Mustang?" (they were popular at the time) He said "No, 5-0 decision in our favor."
It then hit me that he was reffering to the 5 judge panel that sat on the NY Appellate Division. To win an appeal, one needs at least 3 of the 5 judges to rule in your favor. In our case, all 5 judges ruled in my dad's favor, hence the "5-0."
I lost my mind after I realized what happened and everyone in the school office looked at me like I was nuts, but I couldn't have cared less.
As a result of the Appellate Division's decision, the election was now overturned in my father's favor when one absentee ballot was thrown out and one was reinstated. The one that was reinstated was initially rejected in Supreme Court because it was filled out in green ink. The judge who threw it out must have overlooked the fact that the law was changed in 1974 allowing absentee ballots to be filled out in ANY color ink, not just blue or black, which had been the standard prior. So with the luck of the Irish, the green ink absentee ballot put my dad one vote over the top and named him City Court judge.
The war was not quite over until April 1, 1992, when the NY Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, refused to hear my father's opponent on appeal. It was over. It was official. On April Fool's Day, my father was officially named City Court judge of Mechanicville.
The moral of this long winded story is every vote counts. Quite literally in my father's case. One vote determined the outcome of his election. If one person who voted for my dad had instead sat back and decided that they didn't need to vote because they wouldn't make a difference, they would have been gravely mistaken. Unfortunately, this is the attitude of a lot of voters, especially when it comes to the major elections.
I experienced how every vote counts up close and personal. On election day, if anyone out there decides not to vote solely on the notion that their vote doesn't count, rest assured, it does. Who knows, your vote just might be the deciding factor. Literally.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Friday, October 14, 2011
Steve Jobs and the Law
With the passing of the incomparable Steve Jobs, one cannot come across a tech article or blog without the mention of his name. With that being said, it is arguable that without Steve Jobs, we would have no blogs to even read. Steve Jobs without a doubt had a significant influence on countless people's lives in terms of technology.
While that may be a mere understatement, what some do not realize is that Steve Jobs in some way, shape or form changed how we as a society function in terms of business across countless platforms. Jobs made computers "cool." His intent was to implement them into our daily lives, for the average person, not for the select "computer literates" that at one time, were very few and far between.
Steve Jobs' influence has been very apparent in the legal world in recent years. The iPad, for example, has only been around for less than two years, but numerous attorneys routinely bring them into the court room, replacing voluminous files and dates books. At one time, paper calendar organizers were a staples item for any busy lawyer. Since the advent of smartphones, specifically the now iconic iPhone, even some of the most "old school" attorneys have ditched their paper planners in favor of their always up to date and synced iPhone.
Steve Job's influence in technology has also been felt in the realm of legal research. More and more law firms are ditching their trusted voluminous legal books, treatises, and journals for online materials. While Jobs did not invent the internet or computers themselves, he had and continues to have an integral impact as to how we use said resources in our everyday lives.
Steve Jobs, simply put, made computers and technology hip, cool, and fun. He made a once complicated venture user friendly and allowed the masses to enjoy what previously only those in NASA could cope and understand. Jobs paved the way for modern computer icons such as Mark Zuckerberg, Sean Parker, Shawn Fanning and Biz Stone. It is arguable that the whole social media revolution would have been brought to the forefront had it not been for Steve Jobs paving the way.
Lawyers, in my opinion, are greatly indebted to Steve Jobs for providing such devices such as the iPad and iPhone, which now serve as a "mobile office" for many attorneys working in the trenches. Steve Jobs, indirectly, did something that very few thought was possible. He made lawyers cool.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
While that may be a mere understatement, what some do not realize is that Steve Jobs in some way, shape or form changed how we as a society function in terms of business across countless platforms. Jobs made computers "cool." His intent was to implement them into our daily lives, for the average person, not for the select "computer literates" that at one time, were very few and far between.
Steve Jobs' influence has been very apparent in the legal world in recent years. The iPad, for example, has only been around for less than two years, but numerous attorneys routinely bring them into the court room, replacing voluminous files and dates books. At one time, paper calendar organizers were a staples item for any busy lawyer. Since the advent of smartphones, specifically the now iconic iPhone, even some of the most "old school" attorneys have ditched their paper planners in favor of their always up to date and synced iPhone.
Steve Job's influence in technology has also been felt in the realm of legal research. More and more law firms are ditching their trusted voluminous legal books, treatises, and journals for online materials. While Jobs did not invent the internet or computers themselves, he had and continues to have an integral impact as to how we use said resources in our everyday lives.
Steve Jobs, simply put, made computers and technology hip, cool, and fun. He made a once complicated venture user friendly and allowed the masses to enjoy what previously only those in NASA could cope and understand. Jobs paved the way for modern computer icons such as Mark Zuckerberg, Sean Parker, Shawn Fanning and Biz Stone. It is arguable that the whole social media revolution would have been brought to the forefront had it not been for Steve Jobs paving the way.
Lawyers, in my opinion, are greatly indebted to Steve Jobs for providing such devices such as the iPad and iPhone, which now serve as a "mobile office" for many attorneys working in the trenches. Steve Jobs, indirectly, did something that very few thought was possible. He made lawyers cool.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Getting Pulled Over
Getting pulled over by the police while driving can be a very shocking, startling, and extremely stressful experience. For most drivers, this has happened at least on one occasion and it is something that should not be taken lightly during the moment it is occurring.
Typically, a driver is pulled over by an officer of the law when they are breaking some sort of traffic law, such as speeding, running a red light or stop sign, etc. Other reasons may include suspicion of driving while intoxicated or other criminal offenses. When one views the flashing red light in their rear view mirror, it is important not to go into complete panic mode and disobey said blinking cherry.
When one is summoned to pull over, they should do so immediately. This is common sense of course, but one would be amazed on how many drivers do not do so immediately and suffer the wrath of the patrolling officer once they do indeed stop.
It is vitally important to remain in your vehicle once an officer pulls you over. In this day and age, an officer never knows who can be a danger to their person so they will be quick to defend themselves if they feel threatened by one's actions. Simply stay in your car and follow the officer's lead. They will often open the conversation with either "License and registration" or "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Your response to either of those questions should be in a respectful tone and in compliance to what they are asking. Do not refuse to offer your license and registration, even if you feel as though you have done nothing wrong. Do not aggressively argue with the officer, as this will only aggravate the situation, ultimately costing you further hardship down the road.
You may ask the officer questions, such as what you were doing wrong and so on, but do so in a respectful manner. One does not have to be meek. Simply get your questions across and then continue to follow the officer's direction. Sometimes the less you say the better, as certain things can be used against you when the officer is writing up their ticket, or tickets as the case may be. Remember, the police have heard every excuse in the book and are in no mood to listen to something they likely heard 20 times already that day.
By refusing to give your license and registration to the patrolling officer, one opens themselves up to not only traffic violations, but also criminal charges as well. An officer can charge the non-complaint driver with obstruction of governmental administration, which is a class A misdemeanor. If you catch the officer in a real bad mood, they could even compound the charges and issue a citation for disorderly conduct, failure to comply with an order, and even throw in a parking on pavement violation to add insult to injury.
So if one is ever pulled over by an officer of the law, please be sure to let cooler heads prevail and do what is asked at the time of incident. If you feel that you were targeted or charged unjustly, the time to fight the charges is after the initial stop is over. Do not try to "fight city hall" while on the side of the road. Take your time, seek counsel if necessary, and proceed accordingly. A short fuse and bad attitude can be extremely costly in the long run. Greet the officer with a smile and live to fight another day.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Typically, a driver is pulled over by an officer of the law when they are breaking some sort of traffic law, such as speeding, running a red light or stop sign, etc. Other reasons may include suspicion of driving while intoxicated or other criminal offenses. When one views the flashing red light in their rear view mirror, it is important not to go into complete panic mode and disobey said blinking cherry.
When one is summoned to pull over, they should do so immediately. This is common sense of course, but one would be amazed on how many drivers do not do so immediately and suffer the wrath of the patrolling officer once they do indeed stop.
It is vitally important to remain in your vehicle once an officer pulls you over. In this day and age, an officer never knows who can be a danger to their person so they will be quick to defend themselves if they feel threatened by one's actions. Simply stay in your car and follow the officer's lead. They will often open the conversation with either "License and registration" or "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Your response to either of those questions should be in a respectful tone and in compliance to what they are asking. Do not refuse to offer your license and registration, even if you feel as though you have done nothing wrong. Do not aggressively argue with the officer, as this will only aggravate the situation, ultimately costing you further hardship down the road.
You may ask the officer questions, such as what you were doing wrong and so on, but do so in a respectful manner. One does not have to be meek. Simply get your questions across and then continue to follow the officer's direction. Sometimes the less you say the better, as certain things can be used against you when the officer is writing up their ticket, or tickets as the case may be. Remember, the police have heard every excuse in the book and are in no mood to listen to something they likely heard 20 times already that day.
By refusing to give your license and registration to the patrolling officer, one opens themselves up to not only traffic violations, but also criminal charges as well. An officer can charge the non-complaint driver with obstruction of governmental administration, which is a class A misdemeanor. If you catch the officer in a real bad mood, they could even compound the charges and issue a citation for disorderly conduct, failure to comply with an order, and even throw in a parking on pavement violation to add insult to injury.
So if one is ever pulled over by an officer of the law, please be sure to let cooler heads prevail and do what is asked at the time of incident. If you feel that you were targeted or charged unjustly, the time to fight the charges is after the initial stop is over. Do not try to "fight city hall" while on the side of the road. Take your time, seek counsel if necessary, and proceed accordingly. A short fuse and bad attitude can be extremely costly in the long run. Greet the officer with a smile and live to fight another day.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Avoiding a Speeding Ticket
1. Know your surroundings. Make sure you are not driving excessively through a school or work zone. Points are assessed double in such zoned areas so be sure to stay odometer-alert when passing through.
2. Don't assume the "Within 10 Miles an Hour Rule." This mythical unwritten rule can come back to haunt those who take faith in it. Many people are under the wrongful assumption that the police will not pull a driver over if they are speeding within 10 miles over the posted limit. This is simply not the case so be careful and try to keep that needle as close as possible to what the signs say.
3. Keep your car in good working order. Make sure both headlights are functioning and that all tail and brake lights are working. Also, make sure that all windows are within the legal tint limit. Nothing infuriates a police officer more than a car with tint that is too dark and violates NY's rules against such cosmetics. Cops often look for little things such as a broken tail light and expired registration in order to issue a ticket to the poor unsuspecting driver. Be proactive and be sure to keep your car registered, inspected and in all around tip top shape.
4. Don't give a police officer attitude if they pull you over. Again, nothing makes a cop more likely to issue a ticket than a mouthy, obnoxious driver. Simply ask the officer why they pulled you over and remain calm, cool, and collected. You still may receive a ticket, but by remaining civil, the officer is less likely to issue further penalties and fines.
5. Go with the flow of traffic. Don't insist on being the rabbit of the pack. Simply remain in check with the surrounding vehicles and all will remain status quo.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
2. Don't assume the "Within 10 Miles an Hour Rule." This mythical unwritten rule can come back to haunt those who take faith in it. Many people are under the wrongful assumption that the police will not pull a driver over if they are speeding within 10 miles over the posted limit. This is simply not the case so be careful and try to keep that needle as close as possible to what the signs say.
3. Keep your car in good working order. Make sure both headlights are functioning and that all tail and brake lights are working. Also, make sure that all windows are within the legal tint limit. Nothing infuriates a police officer more than a car with tint that is too dark and violates NY's rules against such cosmetics. Cops often look for little things such as a broken tail light and expired registration in order to issue a ticket to the poor unsuspecting driver. Be proactive and be sure to keep your car registered, inspected and in all around tip top shape.
4. Don't give a police officer attitude if they pull you over. Again, nothing makes a cop more likely to issue a ticket than a mouthy, obnoxious driver. Simply ask the officer why they pulled you over and remain calm, cool, and collected. You still may receive a ticket, but by remaining civil, the officer is less likely to issue further penalties and fines.
5. Go with the flow of traffic. Don't insist on being the rabbit of the pack. Simply remain in check with the surrounding vehicles and all will remain status quo.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Filing in Family Court
Dealing with a family court matter can be one of the most stressful experiences a person may face. More than any other court, family court involves all sorts of emotions stemming from a plethora of different angles. When faced with a family court issue such as custody, neglect or family offense, the first thing one must do is be aware that they themselves may file at any time within the applicable family court.
For those who are not familiar with the family court process, fear not. Most clerks at the family court level are very much aware that most people are filing for the first time and that their stress level may be at an all time high.
The family court clerk will provide you with the appropriate paperwork, free of charge and with the needed guidance that goes along with it. They can not give you legal advice, but in terms of what to fill out and how to go about doing so is what they are there for.
Most family court petitions provided by the clerk are fill in the blank style so don't worry if you are not up on your legalese. Once the applicable petition is filled out, someone from the court will notarize your signature and file accordingly. From there, a court date will be assigned to your case. If at any time after you file a petition and wish to seek legal counsel, one has every right to do so. The petitions filed can always be amended and modified so don't worry if something is filed in error.
Family court matters can be an emotional roller coaster. However, do not let the initial filing of papers hinder you in fighting for what you believe is in the beat interest of yourself and your children.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
For those who are not familiar with the family court process, fear not. Most clerks at the family court level are very much aware that most people are filing for the first time and that their stress level may be at an all time high.
The family court clerk will provide you with the appropriate paperwork, free of charge and with the needed guidance that goes along with it. They can not give you legal advice, but in terms of what to fill out and how to go about doing so is what they are there for.
Most family court petitions provided by the clerk are fill in the blank style so don't worry if you are not up on your legalese. Once the applicable petition is filled out, someone from the court will notarize your signature and file accordingly. From there, a court date will be assigned to your case. If at any time after you file a petition and wish to seek legal counsel, one has every right to do so. The petitions filed can always be amended and modified so don't worry if something is filed in error.
Family court matters can be an emotional roller coaster. However, do not let the initial filing of papers hinder you in fighting for what you believe is in the beat interest of yourself and your children.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Friday, September 2, 2011
Making a Good Impression in Court
Top 5 Ways to Make a Good Impression in Court
1. Dress for success! Make sure you wear something appropriate for the situation. I know a lot of people are the "T-Shirt and Jeans" type, but that is not the proper attire for court. One does not have to wear a 3 piece suit, however, just something neat and professional looking. A good fail safe outfit for males would be a pair of dress pants and a shirt and tie. That look never goes out of style and it is appropriate for just about any situation. For the ladies, I am less versed in women's fashion, but something conservative is most always a safe bet.
2. Body language is key when appearing in court. Do not give the judge attitude and do not act disrespectful toward the other parties. Nothing turns a judge off more when parties start arguing with each other in open court. When addressing the judge, always end your statement with "Your Honor" or "Judge." When asked a question, answer by stating yes or no. Do not say "Yeah," Uh Huh," and other similar slang phrases.
3. Be prepared. When appearing for court, regardless of what type of matter it is, always do your homework and be ready to address the issues head on. Looking as if you are hearing the case for the first time will not only annoy the judge, but will also show the other party that you are ill prepared and not taking things seriously.
4. Show the court staff respect. Most courts have officers that assist with the overall procedure of the court. When entering the court building, litigants are often required to go through a metal detector for security purposes. Even the lawyers must abide by this. When doing so, do not roll your eyes at the officer and give him or her a hard time. Time and time again I see people arguing with the court officers because they do not want to be bothered with taking everything out of their pockets and taking off their belts, etc. By acting this way, it gives off a negative impression and will translate in the court room because you are now in a foul mood. Plus, the court officers will not show you any leeway as it pertains to who gets to see the judge first and so on. It pays to be nice to everybody, and that includes the court officers and clerks who are there to simply to their job and nothing more.
5. Communication. By communicating with the other party in a positive and productive manner, the judge will appreciate your decorum. Most court cases can be settled more efficiently if the opposing parties simply have a meeting of the minds prior to court and then put their settlement on the record. Regardless of the their differences, if parties keep the lines of communication open during negotiations, it will make way for an easier way to resolve the issues when appearing before the judge. Judges hate to have to sort through the minutia during a hearing. If the parties thoroughly communicate with the another, the judge will be able to better assess what is at the heart of the matter and will be able to adjudicate more efficiently.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup.com
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
2. Body language is key when appearing in court. Do not give the judge attitude and do not act disrespectful toward the other parties. Nothing turns a judge off more when parties start arguing with each other in open court. When addressing the judge, always end your statement with "Your Honor" or "Judge." When asked a question, answer by stating yes or no. Do not say "Yeah," Uh Huh," and other similar slang phrases.
3. Be prepared. When appearing for court, regardless of what type of matter it is, always do your homework and be ready to address the issues head on. Looking as if you are hearing the case for the first time will not only annoy the judge, but will also show the other party that you are ill prepared and not taking things seriously.
4. Show the court staff respect. Most courts have officers that assist with the overall procedure of the court. When entering the court building, litigants are often required to go through a metal detector for security purposes. Even the lawyers must abide by this. When doing so, do not roll your eyes at the officer and give him or her a hard time. Time and time again I see people arguing with the court officers because they do not want to be bothered with taking everything out of their pockets and taking off their belts, etc. By acting this way, it gives off a negative impression and will translate in the court room because you are now in a foul mood. Plus, the court officers will not show you any leeway as it pertains to who gets to see the judge first and so on. It pays to be nice to everybody, and that includes the court officers and clerks who are there to simply to their job and nothing more.
5. Communication. By communicating with the other party in a positive and productive manner, the judge will appreciate your decorum. Most court cases can be settled more efficiently if the opposing parties simply have a meeting of the minds prior to court and then put their settlement on the record. Regardless of the their differences, if parties keep the lines of communication open during negotiations, it will make way for an easier way to resolve the issues when appearing before the judge. Judges hate to have to sort through the minutia during a hearing. If the parties thoroughly communicate with the another, the judge will be able to better assess what is at the heart of the matter and will be able to adjudicate more efficiently.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup.com
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Friday, August 26, 2011
Coping With a Criminal Charge
When faced with a criminal charge, whether it be a felony or misdemeanor, there are numerous things one should take into account before dealing with the issue head on.
First, one should know their basic rights. Everyone is familiar in some fashion with the "Miranda Rights, " which begin with "You have the right to remain silent." This statement is an extremely important one in that it gives the accused the right to not say anything that would potentially incriminate themselves in the future. More often than not, defendants are convicted not on the actual accused crime itself, but on the criminal procedure that follows thereafter. All sorts of verbose technicalities ensue during a criminal investigation and if one were to slip and say the wrong thing out of context, that statement can and will be taken at face value. This is why remaining silent during an arrest is key.
Once an official criminal charge is imposed, one of the first things a defendant should do is seek proper counsel. This may be a no brainer, but it is important that one chooses an attorney that regularly handles criminal cases. As already mentioned, criminal law and procedure has all sorts of twists and turns and only an experienced criminal defense attorney will adequately be ready for what rocky roads may lie ahead.
After a suitable attorney is chosen, be sure that the lines of communication are very open. Like with most things in life, there can be little productivity without good communication. Often legalese can get quite overwhelming, not to mention the fact that most people, including some lawyers, don't even understand half the words they are saying. It is important to ask the attorney pin point questions about your case and to reiterate any issues that are not overtly clear. One should avoid simply nodding their head in agreement to whatever the lawyer says, when in reality they have no clue as to what is going on. This approach is understandable since most people when facing a criminal charge are scared, confused and simply want to get things over with as quickly as possible. While understandable, this approach can be quite costly in terms of what charges are implemented on your behalf. Again, keep the lines of commutation between yourself and counsel open so that one does not become a victim of criminal procedure. If you are not happy with the plea offer the prosecution has put on the table, strongly communicate this to your attorney so that he/she can act accordingly. The accused always has a right to trial, so if one believes that justice is not being served, they have that option.
Ultimately when faced with a criminal charge, the key is to take an initial step back and assess your current predicament. As the saying goes, the best offense is a good defense, so take your time in planning a course of action. A good friend of mine once told me that it's always best to measure twice and cut once. Enough said.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
First, one should know their basic rights. Everyone is familiar in some fashion with the "Miranda Rights, " which begin with "You have the right to remain silent." This statement is an extremely important one in that it gives the accused the right to not say anything that would potentially incriminate themselves in the future. More often than not, defendants are convicted not on the actual accused crime itself, but on the criminal procedure that follows thereafter. All sorts of verbose technicalities ensue during a criminal investigation and if one were to slip and say the wrong thing out of context, that statement can and will be taken at face value. This is why remaining silent during an arrest is key.
Once an official criminal charge is imposed, one of the first things a defendant should do is seek proper counsel. This may be a no brainer, but it is important that one chooses an attorney that regularly handles criminal cases. As already mentioned, criminal law and procedure has all sorts of twists and turns and only an experienced criminal defense attorney will adequately be ready for what rocky roads may lie ahead.
After a suitable attorney is chosen, be sure that the lines of communication are very open. Like with most things in life, there can be little productivity without good communication. Often legalese can get quite overwhelming, not to mention the fact that most people, including some lawyers, don't even understand half the words they are saying. It is important to ask the attorney pin point questions about your case and to reiterate any issues that are not overtly clear. One should avoid simply nodding their head in agreement to whatever the lawyer says, when in reality they have no clue as to what is going on. This approach is understandable since most people when facing a criminal charge are scared, confused and simply want to get things over with as quickly as possible. While understandable, this approach can be quite costly in terms of what charges are implemented on your behalf. Again, keep the lines of commutation between yourself and counsel open so that one does not become a victim of criminal procedure. If you are not happy with the plea offer the prosecution has put on the table, strongly communicate this to your attorney so that he/she can act accordingly. The accused always has a right to trial, so if one believes that justice is not being served, they have that option.
Ultimately when faced with a criminal charge, the key is to take an initial step back and assess your current predicament. As the saying goes, the best offense is a good defense, so take your time in planning a course of action. A good friend of mine once told me that it's always best to measure twice and cut once. Enough said.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Myths about Lawyers in the Media
When it comes to viewing lawyers in the media, most people have a stereotypical view. After having been exposed to TV dramas such as Law & Order, The Practice, Boston Legal, etc. the average citizen has several preconceived ideas about what a typical lawyer does while engaged in battle among the confines of court. Some may think a good attorney has to bang his or her fist in plain sight in order to show that they are adequately advocating for their client. People often think that a good lawyer always has an answer in any given situation and must always come up with some sort of wise and profound retort. Unfortunately, however, this is simply not reality and certain myths about lawyers in the media should be looked at more closely.
As the media often does, the role of the lawyer has been sensationalized just a tad over the last several decades. Don't get me wrong, most lawyers are extremely passionate when it comes to their craft. A good lawyer will always zealously advocate for their clients, but ways in which this advocacy have been depicted on the news and television unfortunately have been mistaken for the norm.
More often than not, most of the "magic" attorneys do is done behind closed doors. The public, and most times the actual client is not even privy to initial negotiations and tactics. Lawyers will usually contact opposing counsel well before they are set to appear in court and discuss matters at length, with the intention to come to some sort of mutual agreement or settlement. Once these "unsensational" negotiations take place, more often than not, matters are pretty much set and when the parties do appear in court, the "drama" is kept to a bare minimum.
From the perspective of a person who does not deal in legal matters on regular basis and gets most of their legal education form Law & Order, it would appear on its face that one attorney, or both, as it may, did not really zealously advocate for their client in a passionate manner. People often think that if an attorney doesn't say more than five words in front of a judge isn't properly doing his or her job effectively. Little do they know, however, that this "unengaged" attorney may have already put in countless hours behind the scenes negotiating with the District Attorney. Also, lawyers often "burn the midnight oil" while drafting vital court documents such as petitions, memorandums, and other pertinent motions. Filming a lawyer drafting a memorandum of law at his or her computer or doing legal research for numerous hours typically does not make for riveting television so it is usually left out.
TV also usually depicts opposing counsel battling each other as if they were Roman Gladiators set to fight to the death. Again, in reality, most lawyers have to work with each other time and time again and bridges are not always burnt on the first go around. A good lawyer does not take litigation personally when it comes to the advocacy from opposing counsel. Therefore they do not verbally bash their opponent, but rather rely on the issues and facts presented and go from there. They do not jump up on their soap box and preach sermon after sermon, day after day. In fact, if one were to go down to their local town, city, or county court and watch what goes on during a typical day, I would bet the observer would be a little bored and disillusioned with the whole process.
While watching legal dramas are often fun and interesting to watch, one should keep in mind that just like their favorite episode of Seinfeld, it is all done in the realm of fiction and in no way should be construed as "real world" lawyering. Where else but on television could Captain James T. Kirk be taken seriously as an attorney? William Shatner's character Denny Crane on Boston Legal was a silver tongue in the court room, but the majority of his actions were as real as a Klingon.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
As the media often does, the role of the lawyer has been sensationalized just a tad over the last several decades. Don't get me wrong, most lawyers are extremely passionate when it comes to their craft. A good lawyer will always zealously advocate for their clients, but ways in which this advocacy have been depicted on the news and television unfortunately have been mistaken for the norm.
More often than not, most of the "magic" attorneys do is done behind closed doors. The public, and most times the actual client is not even privy to initial negotiations and tactics. Lawyers will usually contact opposing counsel well before they are set to appear in court and discuss matters at length, with the intention to come to some sort of mutual agreement or settlement. Once these "unsensational" negotiations take place, more often than not, matters are pretty much set and when the parties do appear in court, the "drama" is kept to a bare minimum.
From the perspective of a person who does not deal in legal matters on regular basis and gets most of their legal education form Law & Order, it would appear on its face that one attorney, or both, as it may, did not really zealously advocate for their client in a passionate manner. People often think that if an attorney doesn't say more than five words in front of a judge isn't properly doing his or her job effectively. Little do they know, however, that this "unengaged" attorney may have already put in countless hours behind the scenes negotiating with the District Attorney. Also, lawyers often "burn the midnight oil" while drafting vital court documents such as petitions, memorandums, and other pertinent motions. Filming a lawyer drafting a memorandum of law at his or her computer or doing legal research for numerous hours typically does not make for riveting television so it is usually left out.
TV also usually depicts opposing counsel battling each other as if they were Roman Gladiators set to fight to the death. Again, in reality, most lawyers have to work with each other time and time again and bridges are not always burnt on the first go around. A good lawyer does not take litigation personally when it comes to the advocacy from opposing counsel. Therefore they do not verbally bash their opponent, but rather rely on the issues and facts presented and go from there. They do not jump up on their soap box and preach sermon after sermon, day after day. In fact, if one were to go down to their local town, city, or county court and watch what goes on during a typical day, I would bet the observer would be a little bored and disillusioned with the whole process.
While watching legal dramas are often fun and interesting to watch, one should keep in mind that just like their favorite episode of Seinfeld, it is all done in the realm of fiction and in no way should be construed as "real world" lawyering. Where else but on television could Captain James T. Kirk be taken seriously as an attorney? William Shatner's character Denny Crane on Boston Legal was a silver tongue in the court room, but the majority of his actions were as real as a Klingon.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Don't Ignore a Seatbelt Ticket
Most everyone knows the slogan "click it or ticket." Getting a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt may seem like a minor infraction but could in fact come back to haunt you down the road, no pun intended.
In New York, a seatbelt infraction does not carry any points but does impose a fine. It also appears on the guilty party's driving record. By appearing on a driver's record, it can have an adverse effect when attempting to plea to a reduced charge in the future to a speeding violation or failure to obey a traffic device. These infractions carry points as well as fines.
Now here is where ignoring a seat belt ticket can come back to bite you. Let's say one is ticketed for not wearing their seatbelt and instead of attempting to show up for court and requesting a reduction in the charges, the individual simply mails in the ticket pleading guilty and pays the fine accordingly. This is all well and good, but now the seatbelt violation will show up on a driver's abstract, which is a history of that person's driving record. If the individual gets a speeding ticket in the future and attempts to plea to a reduction, such as parking on pavement, which carries no points, the ADA or local prosecutor will take a look at the abstract, see the seatbelt violation and assume that they were pulled over previously for speeding and the police officer gave them a break and issued a ticket for a seatbelt violation instead of the speed. Now keep in mind, this scenario does not always occur and in theory, prosecutors are never to "assume" anything. However, the reality is that a seatbelt violation on a driver's abstract often sends up a red flag, even though on its face it is not as serious of a violation as a speed or other type of moving violation.
When faced with a seatbelt charge, a smart thing to do is plead not guilty and request for a reduction to a charge of parking on pavement. As stated earlier, this is a non moving infraction that carries no points to one's license. More importantly, a parking on pavement charge doesn't appear on a driver's abstract. The guilty party simply pays the fine and it is never seen again. The extra time and effort will truly pay off down the road, pun now intended, if encountered with more severe charges.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
In New York, a seatbelt infraction does not carry any points but does impose a fine. It also appears on the guilty party's driving record. By appearing on a driver's record, it can have an adverse effect when attempting to plea to a reduced charge in the future to a speeding violation or failure to obey a traffic device. These infractions carry points as well as fines.
Now here is where ignoring a seat belt ticket can come back to bite you. Let's say one is ticketed for not wearing their seatbelt and instead of attempting to show up for court and requesting a reduction in the charges, the individual simply mails in the ticket pleading guilty and pays the fine accordingly. This is all well and good, but now the seatbelt violation will show up on a driver's abstract, which is a history of that person's driving record. If the individual gets a speeding ticket in the future and attempts to plea to a reduction, such as parking on pavement, which carries no points, the ADA or local prosecutor will take a look at the abstract, see the seatbelt violation and assume that they were pulled over previously for speeding and the police officer gave them a break and issued a ticket for a seatbelt violation instead of the speed. Now keep in mind, this scenario does not always occur and in theory, prosecutors are never to "assume" anything. However, the reality is that a seatbelt violation on a driver's abstract often sends up a red flag, even though on its face it is not as serious of a violation as a speed or other type of moving violation.
When faced with a seatbelt charge, a smart thing to do is plead not guilty and request for a reduction to a charge of parking on pavement. As stated earlier, this is a non moving infraction that carries no points to one's license. More importantly, a parking on pavement charge doesn't appear on a driver's abstract. The guilty party simply pays the fine and it is never seen again. The extra time and effort will truly pay off down the road, pun now intended, if encountered with more severe charges.
For more information or if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to visit us at www.carbonelawyer.com.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Managing Marital Property
When getting a divorce, one of the first items of business that comes up is "who gets what" in terms of martial assets. As with most issues in the wonderful world of law, it all depends.
Typically speaking, when a couple goes through a divorce, the assets, known as marital property, get divided as evenly as possible. The issue then becomes what assets are considered "marital."
A marital asset is any piece of property, including, real, personal or monetary that was acquired and cultivated throughout the course of the marriage. Examples include the marital home, vehicles, bank accounts, and other personal property such as furniture, electronics, etc.
When entering a divorce, the parties may elect to divide up the marital assets any way they so choose. If one spouse elects to let the other have everything, including the kitchen sink, they may do so. If, however, one spouse wants the other to get nothing based on allegations that one spouse earned most, if not all the money in the relationship or if they simply feel that the other spouse does not deserve a fair share of the marital assets, this is where equitable distribution comes into play. Simply because one spouse was the primary bread winner and also put forth the lion's share of effort in terms of making said assets prosper does not cut the other spouse out of his or her fair share of the martial property.
If a coupe cannot come to terms on how to adequately sort out the distribution of martial assets, the logical step would be meditation. If mediation does not lead to an agreeable solution, the parties then can file for divorce in New York Supreme Court. Here, the parties will contest their issues in front of a judge who will ultimately decide on who gets what through the trial process.
For additional articles and information on matrimonial matters, please visit www.carbonelawyer.com
Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law, Carbone & Carbone LLP
Typically speaking, when a couple goes through a divorce, the assets, known as marital property, get divided as evenly as possible. The issue then becomes what assets are considered "marital."
A marital asset is any piece of property, including, real, personal or monetary that was acquired and cultivated throughout the course of the marriage. Examples include the marital home, vehicles, bank accounts, and other personal property such as furniture, electronics, etc.
When entering a divorce, the parties may elect to divide up the marital assets any way they so choose. If one spouse elects to let the other have everything, including the kitchen sink, they may do so. If, however, one spouse wants the other to get nothing based on allegations that one spouse earned most, if not all the money in the relationship or if they simply feel that the other spouse does not deserve a fair share of the marital assets, this is where equitable distribution comes into play. Simply because one spouse was the primary bread winner and also put forth the lion's share of effort in terms of making said assets prosper does not cut the other spouse out of his or her fair share of the martial property.
If a coupe cannot come to terms on how to adequately sort out the distribution of martial assets, the logical step would be meditation. If mediation does not lead to an agreeable solution, the parties then can file for divorce in New York Supreme Court. Here, the parties will contest their issues in front of a judge who will ultimately decide on who gets what through the trial process.
For additional articles and information on matrimonial matters, please visit www.carbonelawyer.com
Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law, Carbone & Carbone LLP
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Taking a Byte out of Apple
With all the heavy tech talk as of late concerning the third version of the already iconic iPad along with a 5th generation iPhone, it again looks like Apple has their work cut out for themselves, both creatively and legally.
As it stands now, electronic giant Samsung is in the midst of suing Apple over alleged patent infringement. Apple in turn threatens to counter sue over basically the same allegations.
As already discussed in one of my previous blogs, one cannot trademark an idea. They can only lay claim to their version, or unique interpretation of said idea. With the recent technological boom of smartphones and tablets, it would appear that all of said products share some similarities. In fact, many of Apple's products share components with other rival companies such as Sony and Samsung themselves.
When companies such as Apple and Samsung start engaging in legal battles over who stole from who first, it creates somewhat of a chilling effect among competitors. It also presents a "Who came first, the chicken or the egg" type scenario. Often times it is too hard to tell who originated what and more often than not, the true "originator" of an idea, such as the iPod, iPaD, Blackberry, Laptop PC, Atari 2600, etc. is a third party who is sadly left out in the cold.
With all the rapid innovation out there right now, the focus should be not on who thought of what first, but instead on how to perfect things and make them more universally proficient for world wide integration.
On a related note, I am still getting over the shock that the iPad I received for Christmas this past year is considered old and "obsolete." What will "they" think of next!
Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law, Carbone & Carbone LLP
www.carbonelawyer.com
As it stands now, electronic giant Samsung is in the midst of suing Apple over alleged patent infringement. Apple in turn threatens to counter sue over basically the same allegations.
As already discussed in one of my previous blogs, one cannot trademark an idea. They can only lay claim to their version, or unique interpretation of said idea. With the recent technological boom of smartphones and tablets, it would appear that all of said products share some similarities. In fact, many of Apple's products share components with other rival companies such as Sony and Samsung themselves.
When companies such as Apple and Samsung start engaging in legal battles over who stole from who first, it creates somewhat of a chilling effect among competitors. It also presents a "Who came first, the chicken or the egg" type scenario. Often times it is too hard to tell who originated what and more often than not, the true "originator" of an idea, such as the iPod, iPaD, Blackberry, Laptop PC, Atari 2600, etc. is a third party who is sadly left out in the cold.
With all the rapid innovation out there right now, the focus should be not on who thought of what first, but instead on how to perfect things and make them more universally proficient for world wide integration.
On a related note, I am still getting over the shock that the iPad I received for Christmas this past year is considered old and "obsolete." What will "they" think of next!
Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law, Carbone & Carbone LLP
www.carbonelawyer.com
Monday, May 30, 2011
Laws of Memorial Day
1. Visiting Lake George Village is a must. While there, Around the World Mini Golf is required to be played along with a quick stop at the Pink Roof for Ice Cream.
2. Clean out the old closet to make room for summer atture. Put away the fleece and sweaters. (Although knowing the weather of the Great North East, they will be back on us in no time flat!)
3. No matter rain or shine, a camp fire is a must. Marshmellows are a definite and hot dogs are strongly suggested. (Nathans are best!)
4. Put the smartphones, ipads, and lap tops away and enjoy the outdoors. Don't worry, Angry Birds will be there when you get back.
5. Take the time to give thanks and appreciation to all the great men and women in our Armed Forces. Cheer them loud and proud!
Marty Carbone, Carbone & Carbone LLP, Attorneys at Law, www.carbonelawyer.com
2. Clean out the old closet to make room for summer atture. Put away the fleece and sweaters. (Although knowing the weather of the Great North East, they will be back on us in no time flat!)
3. No matter rain or shine, a camp fire is a must. Marshmellows are a definite and hot dogs are strongly suggested. (Nathans are best!)
4. Put the smartphones, ipads, and lap tops away and enjoy the outdoors. Don't worry, Angry Birds will be there when you get back.
5. Take the time to give thanks and appreciation to all the great men and women in our Armed Forces. Cheer them loud and proud!
Marty Carbone, Carbone & Carbone LLP, Attorneys at Law, www.carbonelawyer.com
Thursday, May 12, 2011
New York's No Fault Divorce
Recently NY passed new legislation within the domestic relation law that now allows couples to divorce by reason of "no fault." This is similar to divorce by way of irreconcilable differences, which is a divorce option in other states. What this means is that neither party is holding the other responsible for the pending dissolution if the marriage.
Prior to this recent legislation, the quickest way to divorce by way of mutual agreement without holding either party at fault was to file a separation agreement and then live separate and apart for at least one year. After such time, one of the parties would file for divorce and a judgment was typically granted, as the separation agreement would merge or convert into a final divorce decree.
With New York's no fault divorce, the parties relationship must be irreparably harmed and the couple must live separate and apart for at least six month prior to filing for divorce. On its face, this option sounds quick, easy and painless but like virtually everything in life, it's not always that simple.
To be granted a divorce under No Fault, the parties must have all of their ducks in a row pertaining to marital support, child support, and division of marital assets. If there is a dispute with regard to any of these issues, the parties will need to either come to terms prior to filing for divorce under no fault or must otherwise file for divorce under a different statue and litigate their outstanding issues in Supreme Court accordingly.
So before one runs right out and files for divorce under this new legislation, make sure all outstanding issues are taken care of. If not, claiming No Fault will be Your Fault.
For more information on this topic and similar legal matters, such as matrimonial matters and family court issues, please visit www.carbonelawyer.com.
Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Carbone & Carbone LLP, Attorneys at Law
Prior to this recent legislation, the quickest way to divorce by way of mutual agreement without holding either party at fault was to file a separation agreement and then live separate and apart for at least one year. After such time, one of the parties would file for divorce and a judgment was typically granted, as the separation agreement would merge or convert into a final divorce decree.
With New York's no fault divorce, the parties relationship must be irreparably harmed and the couple must live separate and apart for at least six month prior to filing for divorce. On its face, this option sounds quick, easy and painless but like virtually everything in life, it's not always that simple.
To be granted a divorce under No Fault, the parties must have all of their ducks in a row pertaining to marital support, child support, and division of marital assets. If there is a dispute with regard to any of these issues, the parties will need to either come to terms prior to filing for divorce under no fault or must otherwise file for divorce under a different statue and litigate their outstanding issues in Supreme Court accordingly.
So before one runs right out and files for divorce under this new legislation, make sure all outstanding issues are taken care of. If not, claiming No Fault will be Your Fault.
For more information on this topic and similar legal matters, such as matrimonial matters and family court issues, please visit www.carbonelawyer.com.
Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Carbone & Carbone LLP, Attorneys at Law
Friday, April 15, 2011
Providing Legal Protection for your Business
Entering into any business venture always has some sort of risk. There are no guarantees that the business will become successful. More often than not, start up companies fall flat before they even get out of the starting gate.
To protect ones personal and professional assets when entering Into such a venture, one of the easiest and smartest things to do is to form some form of corporate shield, namely an LLC.
An LLC is a Limited Liability Company that affords legal protection to a business as allows said business to be viewed as an entity and not as a living breathing person. With said legal entity status comes legal protection and allows the business to stand out on it's own without holding the members of the entity personally liable for any financial issues and concerns. In other words, if the company goes "belly up," under an LLC the members will not have to sell their homes and put their prized baseball collection on eBay.
To form a Limited Liability Company, one needs to first file Articles of Organization with the Department of State. Once approved, the LLC needs to be published in 2 local newspapers for a set period of time. After the required publication period ends, a Certificate of Publication is filed with the Department of State and that is that. The procedure is relatively painless and well worth it.
For more information on this topic and similar legal matters, such as forming a PLLC, LLP, or PC, please visit www.carbonelawyer.com.
Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Carbone & Carbone LLP, Attorneys at Law
To protect ones personal and professional assets when entering Into such a venture, one of the easiest and smartest things to do is to form some form of corporate shield, namely an LLC.
An LLC is a Limited Liability Company that affords legal protection to a business as allows said business to be viewed as an entity and not as a living breathing person. With said legal entity status comes legal protection and allows the business to stand out on it's own without holding the members of the entity personally liable for any financial issues and concerns. In other words, if the company goes "belly up," under an LLC the members will not have to sell their homes and put their prized baseball collection on eBay.
To form a Limited Liability Company, one needs to first file Articles of Organization with the Department of State. Once approved, the LLC needs to be published in 2 local newspapers for a set period of time. After the required publication period ends, a Certificate of Publication is filed with the Department of State and that is that. The procedure is relatively painless and well worth it.
For more information on this topic and similar legal matters, such as forming a PLLC, LLP, or PC, please visit www.carbonelawyer.com.
Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Carbone & Carbone LLP, Attorneys at Law
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Social Media is No Legal Lame Duck
I have touched upon this topic in the past but after some recent experience I feel it is worth going over again. In this new decade of overwhelming social media, with forums such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, people now open themselves up to more liability in what they say. No more does testimony in court boil down to "he said, she said."
Now with Facebook, practically taking the world by storm overnight, said communication is permanently embedded and one must live with the consequences once they make their proclamations. Judges and attorneys now refer to social media communications without much scrutiny to its authenticity and validity. Most jurisdictions are taking the communication at face value and things progress from there. No more is Facebook and similar technology considered to be "kids stuff." Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook said he wanted to change the world and he did. What is impressive to me is that he went so far as to infiltrate and change the legal system to an extent which has always been historically conservative with regard to change.
In recent news, comedian Gilbert Gottfried made some remarks on his Twitter page that made light of the latest tsunami in Japan. Gilbert was subsequently fired from his job as spokesperson for insurance giant Aflac. For those who are unaware, Gottfried provided the voice of the duck which appeared on virtually all of Aflac's commercials. It is up for debate as to whether Gilbert should of been fired for his Twitter comments alone, but what is not up for debate is the fact that communication on Social Media outlets do not go unnoticed.
So if you are a frequent user of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and the like, make sure what you say is something you are comfortable with the world knowing. If not, comments made in haste can come back to legally haunt you. Just ask Gilbert "Got-fired."
For more on technology within litigation and other similar legal topics, feel free to visit www.carbonelawyer.com.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
Now with Facebook, practically taking the world by storm overnight, said communication is permanently embedded and one must live with the consequences once they make their proclamations. Judges and attorneys now refer to social media communications without much scrutiny to its authenticity and validity. Most jurisdictions are taking the communication at face value and things progress from there. No more is Facebook and similar technology considered to be "kids stuff." Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook said he wanted to change the world and he did. What is impressive to me is that he went so far as to infiltrate and change the legal system to an extent which has always been historically conservative with regard to change.
In recent news, comedian Gilbert Gottfried made some remarks on his Twitter page that made light of the latest tsunami in Japan. Gilbert was subsequently fired from his job as spokesperson for insurance giant Aflac. For those who are unaware, Gottfried provided the voice of the duck which appeared on virtually all of Aflac's commercials. It is up for debate as to whether Gilbert should of been fired for his Twitter comments alone, but what is not up for debate is the fact that communication on Social Media outlets do not go unnoticed.
So if you are a frequent user of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and the like, make sure what you say is something you are comfortable with the world knowing. If not, comments made in haste can come back to legally haunt you. Just ask Gilbert "Got-fired."
For more on technology within litigation and other similar legal topics, feel free to visit www.carbonelawyer.com.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Trials and Tribulations
In the legal world, the trial portion of procedure is looked upon as the final frontier. It is the culmination of pleadings, negotiations, conferences, etc. If a case goes to trial, it basically means that the parties could not reach a settlement and therefore they are putting all of their faith and trust in the presiding judge.
Going to trial, whether it be a civil or criminal matter always carries some risks. Unlike a settlement, the parties face an unknown outcome and are essentially rolling the dice, so to speak. A trial is often look at as an all or nothing type of thing. A person can walk out of the court room as happy as a clam or they can be dragged out kicking and screaming.
For this very reason it is extremely important for litigants to enter into negotiations with an open mind and decent attitude. When it comes to reaching a settlement, the parties have, at the very least, some sort of control over their own destiny. This in part will help guarantee them with an outcome they can live with. One or more parties may not get exactly what they were looking for but with a reasonable settlement, they at least have the opportunity to come to some sort of acceptable compromise.
More often than not, however, emotions get the better of us and we as a whole are not quick to compromise when it comes to issues we believe in and feel strongly about. When this occurs, settlement negotiations typically are thrown out the window and it's off to trial, full steam ahead. This is all well and good, but again, going to trial can be risky business and should only be conducted on legal merit and not on haste and raw emotion.
So the next time you or someone you care about is faced with a legal dilemma, make sure heads remain as cool as possible. In doing so, you will have a greater chance to prevail and prosper.
For more on trial procedure and other similar legal topics, feel free to visit www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
www.twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Going to trial, whether it be a civil or criminal matter always carries some risks. Unlike a settlement, the parties face an unknown outcome and are essentially rolling the dice, so to speak. A trial is often look at as an all or nothing type of thing. A person can walk out of the court room as happy as a clam or they can be dragged out kicking and screaming.
For this very reason it is extremely important for litigants to enter into negotiations with an open mind and decent attitude. When it comes to reaching a settlement, the parties have, at the very least, some sort of control over their own destiny. This in part will help guarantee them with an outcome they can live with. One or more parties may not get exactly what they were looking for but with a reasonable settlement, they at least have the opportunity to come to some sort of acceptable compromise.
More often than not, however, emotions get the better of us and we as a whole are not quick to compromise when it comes to issues we believe in and feel strongly about. When this occurs, settlement negotiations typically are thrown out the window and it's off to trial, full steam ahead. This is all well and good, but again, going to trial can be risky business and should only be conducted on legal merit and not on haste and raw emotion.
So the next time you or someone you care about is faced with a legal dilemma, make sure heads remain as cool as possible. In doing so, you will have a greater chance to prevail and prosper.
For more on trial procedure and other similar legal topics, feel free to visit www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
www.twitter.com/carbonelaw1
www.lakegeorgelawyer.com
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Howard Stern Sues Sirius
Love him or hate him, Howard Stern may have a legitimate lawsuit on his hands. After recently signing a new 5 year contract worth approximately $500 million, the "King of All Media" is gearing up to sue his current employer. While the pending suit gets under way, Stern continues to work for Sirius XM satellite radio, broadcasting his morning radio show every Monday through Thursday.
Not much is currently known regarding the particulars of the law suit at this time but as with most things, it all boils down to the mighty dollar. When Stern signed his initial deal with Sirius back in October 2004, one of the perks of said deal was that Stern was promised certain stock options if the company met certain quotas in terms of subscribers. It has been reported that the quotas were more than met, having exceeded estimated subscriptions by the millions.
Reports claim that Sirius has paid Stern "enough money already" and are under no obligation to pay him any more. The claim stems from Sirius XM not paying out on their agreement to award Howard his stock options. Howard Stern, of course feels as though he has earned said compensation and should get what was initially agreed upon based on the company meeting and ultimately exceeding its business expectations.
The legal dilemma that is raised in all this turmoil is whether Howard and Sirius have a conflict of interest. Certainly the pending law suit makes for an awkward and uncomfortable work environment to say the least. This situation somewhat parallel to the current media frenzy involving Charlie Sheen, producer Chuck Lorre and CBS. Unlike the latter, Howard Stern is continuing to work while said legal issues are dealt with and at the moment is acting extremely professional and keeping things tight lipped.
Time will only tell, but one thing is certain: Howard Stern is Sirius.
For more on Charlie Sheen's legal woes and other similar legal topics, feel free to visit www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
Not much is currently known regarding the particulars of the law suit at this time but as with most things, it all boils down to the mighty dollar. When Stern signed his initial deal with Sirius back in October 2004, one of the perks of said deal was that Stern was promised certain stock options if the company met certain quotas in terms of subscribers. It has been reported that the quotas were more than met, having exceeded estimated subscriptions by the millions.
Reports claim that Sirius has paid Stern "enough money already" and are under no obligation to pay him any more. The claim stems from Sirius XM not paying out on their agreement to award Howard his stock options. Howard Stern, of course feels as though he has earned said compensation and should get what was initially agreed upon based on the company meeting and ultimately exceeding its business expectations.
The legal dilemma that is raised in all this turmoil is whether Howard and Sirius have a conflict of interest. Certainly the pending law suit makes for an awkward and uncomfortable work environment to say the least. This situation somewhat parallel to the current media frenzy involving Charlie Sheen, producer Chuck Lorre and CBS. Unlike the latter, Howard Stern is continuing to work while said legal issues are dealt with and at the moment is acting extremely professional and keeping things tight lipped.
Time will only tell, but one thing is certain: Howard Stern is Sirius.
For more on Charlie Sheen's legal woes and other similar legal topics, feel free to visit www.carbonelawyer.com
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
How to Overcome a DWI or DUI Charge
DWI and DUI charges can hurt your driving record, your pockets, your career and even get you jail time. If you have been recently charged for DUI or DWI, it is not something to take lightly, but it also does not mean the case is closed before you step into the courtroom.
By hiring a decent defense attorney, one who knows what the DUI and DWI laws actually are in different areas, there are many ways that your case can go in your favor and can even get dismissed all together.
There are three categories that arresting officers and district attorneys can fall short in for DUI and DWI cases. Police Officer Procedures, Court Technicalities, and Testing Issues are all avenues that can help you win your case.
Here is a list of topics that may get you out of DWI or DUI hot water:
IMPROPER PROCEDURES BY POLICE OFFICERS
FAILURE TO OFFER MIRANDA WARNING – When the police have failed to properly issue Miranda Warnings, prosecutors cannot use statements from the defendant in custody for a DWI or DUI.
ILLEGAL STOP OF DRIVER – you can’t be pulled over unless your officer has reasonable to believe that a law has been violated.
ILLEGAL SEARCHING – Any evidence illegally obtained from improper searching is not admissible in court. Police cannot search a suspect or their automobile for a minor traffic offense without a driver’s consent or probable cause.
CONDUCT OBSERVATION PERIOD FAILURE – Most courts require that a driver be observed continuously for a minimum period of 15 minutes or more, before a breath test can be given.
WEAVING WITHIN THE LANES IS LEGAL – moving a little bit without crossing any lines is not breaking any law. A vehicle can’t be stopped for that reason.
ANONYMOUS LEAD OF DWI – when an anonymous citizen reported that the driver could be drunk, this is not reason enough to be pulled over in the first place.
POST-DRIVING ALCOHOL IMBIBING – The officer must prove the blood or breath alcohol at the time of driving and of the arrest. Consumption of alcohol after driving would increase results and were not the true levels when the person was operating the vehicle.
Police Procedure has to be followed, or the case could be dismissed in its entirety.
COURT ISSUES
FAILURE TO PROVE DUI – A defendant’s admission to driving does not prove a charge of DUI.
NO SPEEDY TRIAL – If a client is not provided with a trial within a certain period of time, which varies between states, through delays of the court or prosecutor, the charges must be dismissed.
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES ACCOUNTS – In many cases, independent witnesses can have the charges dropped. Witnesses to accidents, bartenders who served the suspect, and even hospital personnel provide testimonies that prove the defendant’s sobriety in court.
PRIOR DISCIPLINARY RECORD OF THE OFFICER – To attack the officer’s credibility for a suspect’s case, a police officer’s previous disciplinary record can be used in hopes of dismissal.
MEDICAL & HEALTH PROBLEM FACTORS – Many factors can affect the outcome of intoxication test results. Medical problems having to do with eyes, arms, neck, back and legs often throw off the results and validity of many field sobriety tests.
BAD WEATHER – Weather reports that show evidence of low visibility, high winds, and other various extreme conditions are often admissible to explain poor driving.
LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE – Sometimes the arrest itself is in question. The suspension of a license can be reversed, when a police officer doesn’t have specific facts to support any arrest for DWI or DUI.
INCONSISTENT POLICE STATEMENTS – Statement made by police both verbally and in written reports, may be used to attack officer credibility in a particular case.
MISLEADING POLICE STATEMENTS – Confusing or exaggerated arresting officer statements regarding the consequences of taking or refusing a blood, breath, or urine test, can have the case thrown out of court.
INTERFERING SUBSTANCES – Many items such as mouth wash, asthma spray, cough drops, paints and even fingernail polish contain forms of alcohol. These artificial means of alcohol can hinder proper blood level results and render the test invalid.
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS – A DWI or DUI misdemeanor charge must be filed within a certain period of time, or the charges can be dismissed.
DWI ON PERSONAL PRIVATE PROPERTY – Often, the court will say that a person who has not driven the car onto a public street, road or highway cannot be charged for drunk driving.
DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT FAILURE – If prosecutor cannot disclose the identity of the state expert, this can be a cause for dismissal.
DUI and DWI TESTING ISSUES
USE OF LACTATE RINGERS – If hospital staff use lactate ringers during the treatment of a suspect, the hospital blood serum results will report elevated readings that are invalid.
TEST EXPERT WITNESSES – Are often required to inspect the validity of blood tests, breath tests, and also field sobriety tests.
FAILURE TO RECORD CERTIFICATION TESTS – the failure to provide the value of the simulator solution used to test validity in breath machines can cause the breath test results to be invalid.
FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING IS INACCURATE – in healthy individuals, the one-leg stand test is only 65% accurate, and the walk-and-turn test is only 68% accurate in determining if a person is under the influence. People with outstanding injuries, weight conditions, medical conditions, and those who are 65 years or older cannot be validly judged by these tests.
NON-STANDARDIZED FIELD TESTS ARE NOT LEGAL – touching your finger to your nose, or saying the alphabet, or counting backwards, all fail as valid sobriety tests.
BREATH TESTING IS INACCURATE –experts believe that one breath test alone is not valid. Breath testing is includes a variance as much s +/- 12.5%, non-specificity for ethanol, etc.
INADMISSIBLE PORTABLE BREATH TESTS – Many states and counties prohibit the use of portable breath testing. They do not allow such results to be used as evidence in DUI trials.
IMPROPERLY ADMINISTERED PORTABLE BREATH TEST– Typically, two tests need to be administered to consider the results evidential in nature. The manufacturers of many different portable breath testing devices require this for accuracy in testing.
BLOOD TEST IS INACCURATE – Police-issued blood tests often fail to follow prescribed rules by labs for proper testing, proper analysis, and/or proper recommended guidelines.
HOSPITAL BLOOD TEST IS WRONG – Sometimes a hospital can be wrong. Hospital blood tests can be wrong from time to time and overestimate a person’s actual blood alcohol levels by as much as 25%. Injured patients also throw off the blood results, due to blood loss and other chemical factors.
UNLICENSED BREATH TEST OPERATOR – Many states require the operator of the breath test to hold a valid operator’s license. If they do not, the breath test result can be deemed inadmissible in court.
BREATHALYZER MALFUNCTION – Most state rules declare that malfunction or repair of the instrument within a certain period of time can allow for the results of the suspect’s test to be presumed invalid.
BREATH TEST LICENSE EXPIRED – Most states require an unexpired operator’s license, or the breath test result is invalid and deemed inadmissible in court.
BREATHALYZER NOT APPROVED – The testing instrument must be listed on the Federal List of Approved Breath Evidential Instruments and the ISP approved list of Devices, or a court can find the results of the said instrument to be inadmissible.
IMPROPERLY ADMINISTERED FIELD SOBRIETY TEST – Field tests that are improperly administered are not valid evidence of intoxication, according to statements made by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration.
VIDEO ISSUES
FAILURES TO PRODUCE DISPATCH VIDEOS – Many counties record everything as a standard today. Failure to produce video proof upon request can sometimes cause all evidence to be suppressed in many courtrooms.
BOOKING ROOM VIDEO PROOF – Many police videotape drivers at the station, where their speech and balance appear, in spite of police testimony to the court.
IN-SQUAD VIDEO PROOF – Quite often, driver performance on field tests is being recorded and these tapes sometimes contradict police testimony.
For additional blogs on this topic and other similar legal issues, feel free to visit http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
By hiring a decent defense attorney, one who knows what the DUI and DWI laws actually are in different areas, there are many ways that your case can go in your favor and can even get dismissed all together.
There are three categories that arresting officers and district attorneys can fall short in for DUI and DWI cases. Police Officer Procedures, Court Technicalities, and Testing Issues are all avenues that can help you win your case.
Here is a list of topics that may get you out of DWI or DUI hot water:
IMPROPER PROCEDURES BY POLICE OFFICERS
FAILURE TO OFFER MIRANDA WARNING – When the police have failed to properly issue Miranda Warnings, prosecutors cannot use statements from the defendant in custody for a DWI or DUI.
ILLEGAL STOP OF DRIVER – you can’t be pulled over unless your officer has reasonable to believe that a law has been violated.
ILLEGAL SEARCHING – Any evidence illegally obtained from improper searching is not admissible in court. Police cannot search a suspect or their automobile for a minor traffic offense without a driver’s consent or probable cause.
CONDUCT OBSERVATION PERIOD FAILURE – Most courts require that a driver be observed continuously for a minimum period of 15 minutes or more, before a breath test can be given.
WEAVING WITHIN THE LANES IS LEGAL – moving a little bit without crossing any lines is not breaking any law. A vehicle can’t be stopped for that reason.
ANONYMOUS LEAD OF DWI – when an anonymous citizen reported that the driver could be drunk, this is not reason enough to be pulled over in the first place.
POST-DRIVING ALCOHOL IMBIBING – The officer must prove the blood or breath alcohol at the time of driving and of the arrest. Consumption of alcohol after driving would increase results and were not the true levels when the person was operating the vehicle.
Police Procedure has to be followed, or the case could be dismissed in its entirety.
COURT ISSUES
FAILURE TO PROVE DUI – A defendant’s admission to driving does not prove a charge of DUI.
NO SPEEDY TRIAL – If a client is not provided with a trial within a certain period of time, which varies between states, through delays of the court or prosecutor, the charges must be dismissed.
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES ACCOUNTS – In many cases, independent witnesses can have the charges dropped. Witnesses to accidents, bartenders who served the suspect, and even hospital personnel provide testimonies that prove the defendant’s sobriety in court.
PRIOR DISCIPLINARY RECORD OF THE OFFICER – To attack the officer’s credibility for a suspect’s case, a police officer’s previous disciplinary record can be used in hopes of dismissal.
MEDICAL & HEALTH PROBLEM FACTORS – Many factors can affect the outcome of intoxication test results. Medical problems having to do with eyes, arms, neck, back and legs often throw off the results and validity of many field sobriety tests.
BAD WEATHER – Weather reports that show evidence of low visibility, high winds, and other various extreme conditions are often admissible to explain poor driving.
LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE – Sometimes the arrest itself is in question. The suspension of a license can be reversed, when a police officer doesn’t have specific facts to support any arrest for DWI or DUI.
INCONSISTENT POLICE STATEMENTS – Statement made by police both verbally and in written reports, may be used to attack officer credibility in a particular case.
MISLEADING POLICE STATEMENTS – Confusing or exaggerated arresting officer statements regarding the consequences of taking or refusing a blood, breath, or urine test, can have the case thrown out of court.
INTERFERING SUBSTANCES – Many items such as mouth wash, asthma spray, cough drops, paints and even fingernail polish contain forms of alcohol. These artificial means of alcohol can hinder proper blood level results and render the test invalid.
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS – A DWI or DUI misdemeanor charge must be filed within a certain period of time, or the charges can be dismissed.
DWI ON PERSONAL PRIVATE PROPERTY – Often, the court will say that a person who has not driven the car onto a public street, road or highway cannot be charged for drunk driving.
DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT FAILURE – If prosecutor cannot disclose the identity of the state expert, this can be a cause for dismissal.
DUI and DWI TESTING ISSUES
USE OF LACTATE RINGERS – If hospital staff use lactate ringers during the treatment of a suspect, the hospital blood serum results will report elevated readings that are invalid.
TEST EXPERT WITNESSES – Are often required to inspect the validity of blood tests, breath tests, and also field sobriety tests.
FAILURE TO RECORD CERTIFICATION TESTS – the failure to provide the value of the simulator solution used to test validity in breath machines can cause the breath test results to be invalid.
FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING IS INACCURATE – in healthy individuals, the one-leg stand test is only 65% accurate, and the walk-and-turn test is only 68% accurate in determining if a person is under the influence. People with outstanding injuries, weight conditions, medical conditions, and those who are 65 years or older cannot be validly judged by these tests.
NON-STANDARDIZED FIELD TESTS ARE NOT LEGAL – touching your finger to your nose, or saying the alphabet, or counting backwards, all fail as valid sobriety tests.
BREATH TESTING IS INACCURATE –experts believe that one breath test alone is not valid. Breath testing is includes a variance as much s +/- 12.5%, non-specificity for ethanol, etc.
INADMISSIBLE PORTABLE BREATH TESTS – Many states and counties prohibit the use of portable breath testing. They do not allow such results to be used as evidence in DUI trials.
IMPROPERLY ADMINISTERED PORTABLE BREATH TEST– Typically, two tests need to be administered to consider the results evidential in nature. The manufacturers of many different portable breath testing devices require this for accuracy in testing.
BLOOD TEST IS INACCURATE – Police-issued blood tests often fail to follow prescribed rules by labs for proper testing, proper analysis, and/or proper recommended guidelines.
HOSPITAL BLOOD TEST IS WRONG – Sometimes a hospital can be wrong. Hospital blood tests can be wrong from time to time and overestimate a person’s actual blood alcohol levels by as much as 25%. Injured patients also throw off the blood results, due to blood loss and other chemical factors.
UNLICENSED BREATH TEST OPERATOR – Many states require the operator of the breath test to hold a valid operator’s license. If they do not, the breath test result can be deemed inadmissible in court.
BREATHALYZER MALFUNCTION – Most state rules declare that malfunction or repair of the instrument within a certain period of time can allow for the results of the suspect’s test to be presumed invalid.
BREATH TEST LICENSE EXPIRED – Most states require an unexpired operator’s license, or the breath test result is invalid and deemed inadmissible in court.
BREATHALYZER NOT APPROVED – The testing instrument must be listed on the Federal List of Approved Breath Evidential Instruments and the ISP approved list of Devices, or a court can find the results of the said instrument to be inadmissible.
IMPROPERLY ADMINISTERED FIELD SOBRIETY TEST – Field tests that are improperly administered are not valid evidence of intoxication, according to statements made by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration.
VIDEO ISSUES
FAILURES TO PRODUCE DISPATCH VIDEOS – Many counties record everything as a standard today. Failure to produce video proof upon request can sometimes cause all evidence to be suppressed in many courtrooms.
BOOKING ROOM VIDEO PROOF – Many police videotape drivers at the station, where their speech and balance appear, in spite of police testimony to the court.
IN-SQUAD VIDEO PROOF – Quite often, driver performance on field tests is being recorded and these tapes sometimes contradict police testimony.
For additional blogs on this topic and other similar legal issues, feel free to visit http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
Monday, March 14, 2011
Getting Tickets for Talking and Texting
Recently New York State passed new legislation within the vehicle and traffic law that makes talking on a cell phone while driving a 2 point penalty on one's license. Previously in 2001, NY passed a law making said action a violation and with it came a fine of up to $100. This made headlines because at the time, NY was the first state to finally crack down and impose such a penalty.
Now, approximately 10 years later, NY has amended the law to include a 2 point penalty along with a fine. No longer is getting a ticket for talking on your latest and greatest cell phone a mere financial nuisance. Now, with the implementation of the points penalty, such behavior can have an adverse effect on ones insurance premiums along with their overall driving record.
Another "hot topic" in vehicle traffic law is texting while driving. This action seems to be more prevalent in this new age of the smart phone boom. However, in November of 2009, NY passed a law making texting while driving a 2 point penalty along with a fine of up to $150. This little known fact does not seem to prevent the masses from doing so because more and more text related accidents are being reported, as odd as that sounds.
Personally, I see people chatting away on their phones while driving all the time and I am amazed due to the fact that it has been over 10 years since the law against doing so was passed.
Bottom line, avoid talking and texting while driving. Not only will you open yourself up to all sorts of legal trouble, but more importantly, one imposes great physical risk to themselves and others when doing so.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Now, approximately 10 years later, NY has amended the law to include a 2 point penalty along with a fine. No longer is getting a ticket for talking on your latest and greatest cell phone a mere financial nuisance. Now, with the implementation of the points penalty, such behavior can have an adverse effect on ones insurance premiums along with their overall driving record.
Another "hot topic" in vehicle traffic law is texting while driving. This action seems to be more prevalent in this new age of the smart phone boom. However, in November of 2009, NY passed a law making texting while driving a 2 point penalty along with a fine of up to $150. This little known fact does not seem to prevent the masses from doing so because more and more text related accidents are being reported, as odd as that sounds.
Personally, I see people chatting away on their phones while driving all the time and I am amazed due to the fact that it has been over 10 years since the law against doing so was passed.
Bottom line, avoid talking and texting while driving. Not only will you open yourself up to all sorts of legal trouble, but more importantly, one imposes great physical risk to themselves and others when doing so.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Winning for Charlie Sheen?
After appearances on the Today Show and Howard Stern’s nationally syndicated radio program on Sirius Radio, Charlie Sheen’s legal team is gearing up to make even more headlines. He is about to take on CBS and Warner Brothers. Sheen says he has Tiger’s blood and Adonis DNA. What does this mean? We don’t know… But we think it means he is not going to go out without a fight and CBS is going to be looking at a legal battle.
Late last week, CBS and Warner Bros. announced that they were canceling the highly rated TV show, due to Charlie Sheen’s condition, and behavior associated with negative statements about the show’s producer Chuck Lorre. Whether this cancellation violates Sheen’s agreement with the said companies, remains to be seen.
The actor’s lawyers have contacted both CBS and Warner Bros. demanding that Sheen’s television contract be honored. This means for that the highest paid actor to date at 2 million dollars an episode would be compensated for the eight canceled episodes of Two and a Half Men.
Sheen is not playing around. He already pictures himself, “Winning,” and he has the means to do so exponentially. The Two And A Half Men star has enlisted one of the top Hollywood attorneys to represent him in this legal battle. Entertainment Lawyer Marty Singer contacted the network and production company on Monday, Feb 28, 2011, to inform them that they were in deed violating their interpretation of Sheen’s contract by canceling the remaining episodes. This means a severance pay of 16 million dollars in payment is due in full, not to mention residuals and other perks.
What are the legal ramifications? Does the contract really allow firing when you say something unsavory about the boss? Singer states that, “This action is outrageous and in direct violation of our client’s legal rights.” Charlie Sheen’s lawyer is arguing that the episodes were in deed canceled not because of Sheen’s condition but rather as a vindictive retaliation from the producer for comments made off the record about him. Singer states that this is going to be a very expensive way to pamper Lorre, so he can save face.
Sheen’s lawyer states that the companies involved will fully be, “accountable for the compensation owed on his contract and to hold Warner Bros. and CBS fully accountable for all of the consequences of their actions.”
Is “winning” in Sheen’s future? We will have to wait and see.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Late last week, CBS and Warner Bros. announced that they were canceling the highly rated TV show, due to Charlie Sheen’s condition, and behavior associated with negative statements about the show’s producer Chuck Lorre. Whether this cancellation violates Sheen’s agreement with the said companies, remains to be seen.
The actor’s lawyers have contacted both CBS and Warner Bros. demanding that Sheen’s television contract be honored. This means for that the highest paid actor to date at 2 million dollars an episode would be compensated for the eight canceled episodes of Two and a Half Men.
Sheen is not playing around. He already pictures himself, “Winning,” and he has the means to do so exponentially. The Two And A Half Men star has enlisted one of the top Hollywood attorneys to represent him in this legal battle. Entertainment Lawyer Marty Singer contacted the network and production company on Monday, Feb 28, 2011, to inform them that they were in deed violating their interpretation of Sheen’s contract by canceling the remaining episodes. This means a severance pay of 16 million dollars in payment is due in full, not to mention residuals and other perks.
What are the legal ramifications? Does the contract really allow firing when you say something unsavory about the boss? Singer states that, “This action is outrageous and in direct violation of our client’s legal rights.” Charlie Sheen’s lawyer is arguing that the episodes were in deed canceled not because of Sheen’s condition but rather as a vindictive retaliation from the producer for comments made off the record about him. Singer states that this is going to be a very expensive way to pamper Lorre, so he can save face.
Sheen’s lawyer states that the companies involved will fully be, “accountable for the compensation owed on his contract and to hold Warner Bros. and CBS fully accountable for all of the consequences of their actions.”
Is “winning” in Sheen’s future? We will have to wait and see.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Snowball Effect
Much like the recent abundance of snowfall, things in life can pile up pretty fast. Sometimes things come upon us so fast, it can be quite overwhelming on the mind, body, and soul.
In the realm of the legal world, things can definitely "snowball" if one does not take proper precautions. Take traffic law for example. More often than not, when someone gets what is at the time, a minor traffic infraction, they will put it off to the last minute in dealing with it and the matter soon escalates into something more serious. By ignoring something as minor and routine as a simple speeding ticket can transform into a misdemeanor in the blink of an eye. If one were to get pulled over again, having not dealt with the speeding ticket prior,
they can be charged with an "AUO" which is aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle, which is a misdemeanor. To lawfully take care of this situation will now cost you more time and money because it is a much greater offence. If, however, one didn't wait for things to "snowball," the issue could have been dealt with in a much easier and less stressful manner.
Things often snowball in the realm of estate planning as well. Here, people often do not take the time to plan for their future and in doing so, they leave themselves and loved ones in a difficult situation if and when things go wrong. For example, a lot of people put off drafting a Will because they feel they are either too young or that it is too morbid of a subject breach at the present time. If tragedy were to strike, however, a whole "blizzard" of negative repercussions could manifest at an alarming rate. One's personal assets could divest to someone other than those in which they were intended. Also, guardianship of children could pass to an individual that was not the first choice of the now deceased or incapacitated parent.
Another area where people become overwhelmed by waiting until the 11th hour is within the wonder world of tax and finances. Waiting until April 14 to start preparing one's taxes usually brings about catastrophic results, both mentally and financially.
By being proactive and thinking round circle, one will only benefit themselves not only in litigation but in life as a whole. I know it has been hard to avoid the snow this miserable winter, but with regard to your legal trials and tribulations, stay out of the cold and avoid the snowball effect.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
In the realm of the legal world, things can definitely "snowball" if one does not take proper precautions. Take traffic law for example. More often than not, when someone gets what is at the time, a minor traffic infraction, they will put it off to the last minute in dealing with it and the matter soon escalates into something more serious. By ignoring something as minor and routine as a simple speeding ticket can transform into a misdemeanor in the blink of an eye. If one were to get pulled over again, having not dealt with the speeding ticket prior,
they can be charged with an "AUO" which is aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle, which is a misdemeanor. To lawfully take care of this situation will now cost you more time and money because it is a much greater offence. If, however, one didn't wait for things to "snowball," the issue could have been dealt with in a much easier and less stressful manner.
Things often snowball in the realm of estate planning as well. Here, people often do not take the time to plan for their future and in doing so, they leave themselves and loved ones in a difficult situation if and when things go wrong. For example, a lot of people put off drafting a Will because they feel they are either too young or that it is too morbid of a subject breach at the present time. If tragedy were to strike, however, a whole "blizzard" of negative repercussions could manifest at an alarming rate. One's personal assets could divest to someone other than those in which they were intended. Also, guardianship of children could pass to an individual that was not the first choice of the now deceased or incapacitated parent.
Another area where people become overwhelmed by waiting until the 11th hour is within the wonder world of tax and finances. Waiting until April 14 to start preparing one's taxes usually brings about catastrophic results, both mentally and financially.
By being proactive and thinking round circle, one will only benefit themselves not only in litigation but in life as a whole. I know it has been hard to avoid the snow this miserable winter, but with regard to your legal trials and tribulations, stay out of the cold and avoid the snowball effect.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Laws of Valentine's Day
1. Russell Stover heart-shaped boxes of chocolate must be distributed to one's significant other each and every year.
2. Buying your wife a new set of snow tires and calling them her Valentine's Day gift is strictly prohibited.
3. Handing one's wife a wad of cash at the end of the day and passing it off as a gift will buy you nothing but grief.
4. Avoid buying flowers from the super market, as they often expire before you reach your car in the parking lot.
5. Do not try to convince your significant other that celebrating Valentine's Day on February 15 is just as good, knowing full well that all candy is now 50 percent off.
6. If you have been married over 5 years, don't bother with stuffed animals.
7. If you live with your significant other, there is no reason to post "Happy Valentines Day" on their Facebook wall. (Unless, of course, you are in the dog house for some other relationship infraction.)
8. If married for over 10 years, a Valentine's Day "high five" is a perfectly acceptable form of affection.
9. If you are a newlywed, make sure that the gifts for your spouse and one's mother do not get mixed up.
10. When all else fails, one can never go wrong with Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.
Marty Carbone, Carbone & Carbone LLP, Attorneys at Law
www.carbonelawyer.com
2. Buying your wife a new set of snow tires and calling them her Valentine's Day gift is strictly prohibited.
3. Handing one's wife a wad of cash at the end of the day and passing it off as a gift will buy you nothing but grief.
4. Avoid buying flowers from the super market, as they often expire before you reach your car in the parking lot.
5. Do not try to convince your significant other that celebrating Valentine's Day on February 15 is just as good, knowing full well that all candy is now 50 percent off.
6. If you have been married over 5 years, don't bother with stuffed animals.
7. If you live with your significant other, there is no reason to post "Happy Valentines Day" on their Facebook wall. (Unless, of course, you are in the dog house for some other relationship infraction.)
8. If married for over 10 years, a Valentine's Day "high five" is a perfectly acceptable form of affection.
9. If you are a newlywed, make sure that the gifts for your spouse and one's mother do not get mixed up.
10. When all else fails, one can never go wrong with Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.
Marty Carbone, Carbone & Carbone LLP, Attorneys at Law
www.carbonelawyer.com
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Chasing Charlie Sheen
What can be said about Charlie Sheen that hasn't already been dissected in the press as of late? The man seemingly has nine lives and by the looks of things he may be closing in on number 8.
In terms of a legal standpoint, Martin Sheen's baby boy has caused quite a stir. As of this writing, his hit CBS show, Two and a Half Men has been shut down and put on indefinite hiatus. This is due to Sheen's current stint in rehab and the show's future is uncertain at this point.
One would think, on a technical standpoint, Sheen must be violating all sorts of terms within his CBS contract. Not knowing the specific terms and particulars, it can't be said for certain that he is, but the mere fact that he is not working due to his own faulty actions would suggest breach.
While Two and a Half men is on unplanned hiatus, there are countless workers that are out of a job, such as the shows writers, film crew, cameramen, etc. This is due to the "questionable" actions of one man. If this situation were to happen in the "real world," said individual would be sued by not only his employer, but also by those individuals in which are negatively affected by said breaching actions.
Again, technically speaking, I would bet my bottom dollar that CBS has every right to fire Charlie Sheen for his latest bout of indiscretions, but they won't. His fellow cast and crew could no doubt bring a legal cause of action against Mr. Sheen, but again, they won't. The reason they won't is sad but simple. It all comes down to money. Two and a Half Men brings in an insane amount of revenue for not only the CBS network, but also in syndication, which is where the real money is at. Just ask Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David.
If CBS were to take any sort of legal action against ol' Charlie, they would no doubt have standing, but in doing so, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
So although it may seem as if Charlie Sheen has 9 lives when it comes to show business, his career, much like his character in the 1980's classic film Red Dawn, would have died had it not been for the surprise success of Two and a Half Men. Had it not been for this show, I would have bet all the money on Wall Street that the only recent role offered to Charlie Sheen would have been on Celebrity Rehab.
Of course, as the great Dennis Miller would say, That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
In terms of a legal standpoint, Martin Sheen's baby boy has caused quite a stir. As of this writing, his hit CBS show, Two and a Half Men has been shut down and put on indefinite hiatus. This is due to Sheen's current stint in rehab and the show's future is uncertain at this point.
One would think, on a technical standpoint, Sheen must be violating all sorts of terms within his CBS contract. Not knowing the specific terms and particulars, it can't be said for certain that he is, but the mere fact that he is not working due to his own faulty actions would suggest breach.
While Two and a Half men is on unplanned hiatus, there are countless workers that are out of a job, such as the shows writers, film crew, cameramen, etc. This is due to the "questionable" actions of one man. If this situation were to happen in the "real world," said individual would be sued by not only his employer, but also by those individuals in which are negatively affected by said breaching actions.
Again, technically speaking, I would bet my bottom dollar that CBS has every right to fire Charlie Sheen for his latest bout of indiscretions, but they won't. His fellow cast and crew could no doubt bring a legal cause of action against Mr. Sheen, but again, they won't. The reason they won't is sad but simple. It all comes down to money. Two and a Half Men brings in an insane amount of revenue for not only the CBS network, but also in syndication, which is where the real money is at. Just ask Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David.
If CBS were to take any sort of legal action against ol' Charlie, they would no doubt have standing, but in doing so, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
So although it may seem as if Charlie Sheen has 9 lives when it comes to show business, his career, much like his character in the 1980's classic film Red Dawn, would have died had it not been for the surprise success of Two and a Half Men. Had it not been for this show, I would have bet all the money on Wall Street that the only recent role offered to Charlie Sheen would have been on Celebrity Rehab.
Of course, as the great Dennis Miller would say, That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The Probate Process
People tend to not like dealing with dreary matters such as preparing for the death of themselves or a loved one. While it is understandable to avoid such topics, it is in one's best interest to take a proactive approach in dealing with their future demise.
The best way to ensure one's estate is handled properly is to make out and publish a will. However, people often put off doing so and then they suddenly pass away, leaving their loved ones "holding the bag." When a person dies without a will, they are said to have died "intestate" and their estate is subject to probate. Unlike when a will is in place, the estate automatically gets divided up among the next of kin, subject to any outstanding creditors. An administrator must be named in order to facilitate the probate process. The administrator is typically a family member of the deceased. When there are multiple family members that are eligible to receive a portion of the estate, such as a group of siblings, one of said siblings is typically elected among the others to act as administrator. To be named as such, letters of administration must be served upon members of the immediate family and need to be signed off on, allowing the named administrator to proceed accordingly. If there is a dispute within the estate, this is where a "stink" is to be made and then the fun of litigation begins within the family as to who is to get what and how much.
Once an agreed upon administrator is set, that person takes the lead in getting all the assets in order, including bank accounts, real and personal property such as houses, land, cars, baseball card collections, etc. Once things are more or less accounted for, time is needed for creditors to make any and all claims they have against said estate. Claims may include credit card debt, outstanding mortgage and car loans, etc. Typically creditors are given 7 months or so to lay claim. Some states and jurisdictions may vary, however. Once creditors are satisfied, the remainder of the estate gets administered to the next of kin, in equal shares. If the bulk of an estate is in real property, such as a house or land, said property would need to be either sold with proceeds going to the family in equal shares, or one or more family members can keep it and "buy out" the others using a fair market value.
The most practical thing to do when a loved one dies intestate (without a will) is to seek advise from an attorney who regularly practices in this area of law. They will guide you through the process and will absolve a boat load of stress from your shoulders. Typically, an attorney's compensation is a percentage of the overall value of the estate. Between 4 and 5 percent is the norm, but again, it differs among states and jurisdictions. Since an attorney receives a percentage of the estate as payment, the administrator usually does not have to worry about coming up with a huge amount of money up front to pay for legal services. Most probate attorneys will require some sort of initial retainer, with the understanding that they will be fully compensated through the estate in the end, after matters are settled.
As stated, being left with the responsibilities of a loved one's affairs after death is unquestionably a stressful and emotionally compromising ordeal. When faced with this situation, remember to take things step by step, one day at a time. If you start feeling overwhelmed, seek guidance and assistance from an experienced attorney who is familiar with the probate process.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
The best way to ensure one's estate is handled properly is to make out and publish a will. However, people often put off doing so and then they suddenly pass away, leaving their loved ones "holding the bag." When a person dies without a will, they are said to have died "intestate" and their estate is subject to probate. Unlike when a will is in place, the estate automatically gets divided up among the next of kin, subject to any outstanding creditors. An administrator must be named in order to facilitate the probate process. The administrator is typically a family member of the deceased. When there are multiple family members that are eligible to receive a portion of the estate, such as a group of siblings, one of said siblings is typically elected among the others to act as administrator. To be named as such, letters of administration must be served upon members of the immediate family and need to be signed off on, allowing the named administrator to proceed accordingly. If there is a dispute within the estate, this is where a "stink" is to be made and then the fun of litigation begins within the family as to who is to get what and how much.
Once an agreed upon administrator is set, that person takes the lead in getting all the assets in order, including bank accounts, real and personal property such as houses, land, cars, baseball card collections, etc. Once things are more or less accounted for, time is needed for creditors to make any and all claims they have against said estate. Claims may include credit card debt, outstanding mortgage and car loans, etc. Typically creditors are given 7 months or so to lay claim. Some states and jurisdictions may vary, however. Once creditors are satisfied, the remainder of the estate gets administered to the next of kin, in equal shares. If the bulk of an estate is in real property, such as a house or land, said property would need to be either sold with proceeds going to the family in equal shares, or one or more family members can keep it and "buy out" the others using a fair market value.
The most practical thing to do when a loved one dies intestate (without a will) is to seek advise from an attorney who regularly practices in this area of law. They will guide you through the process and will absolve a boat load of stress from your shoulders. Typically, an attorney's compensation is a percentage of the overall value of the estate. Between 4 and 5 percent is the norm, but again, it differs among states and jurisdictions. Since an attorney receives a percentage of the estate as payment, the administrator usually does not have to worry about coming up with a huge amount of money up front to pay for legal services. Most probate attorneys will require some sort of initial retainer, with the understanding that they will be fully compensated through the estate in the end, after matters are settled.
As stated, being left with the responsibilities of a loved one's affairs after death is unquestionably a stressful and emotionally compromising ordeal. When faced with this situation, remember to take things step by step, one day at a time. If you start feeling overwhelmed, seek guidance and assistance from an experienced attorney who is familiar with the probate process.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Saturday, January 22, 2011
What's the Big Idea?
When it comes to legally protecting one's ideas with regard to business, things often get a little hairy.
As mentioned in one of my prior blogs, a person cannot technically legally protect their original idea by way of trademark or other means. Instead, they can only lay legal claim to their version of said idea. Imagine, if you will, if the inventor of the wheel made it legally prohibited for another person to create and manufacture a similar circular object.
Once again, I'd like to revisit the topic of Facebook and the recent film, The Social Network. In The Social Network, the creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg was sued by two fellow Harvard students, the Winklevoss twins, who claimed that the basis for Facebook stemmed from their idea, which they in turn shared with Zuckerberg. They shared said idea with an alleged oral contract and understanding that Zuckerberg would use his vast computer skills to help build and cultivate a social networking site. To their chagrin, however, Zuckerberg allegedly took the basis of their idea and created his own version of a social networking site, which ultimately became Facebook. The Winklevoss twins then sued Zuckerberg a few years later and received a reported $65 million settlement.
From a legal standpoint, most experts would say that Zuckerberg didn't break any intellectual property laws. He may not have been very honorable in dealing with his fellow Harvard entrepreneurs, but from a technical standpoint, he arguably broke no laws.
From a prospective juror's viewpoint, however, it may have appeared as though he blatantly stole the social networking site from the Winklevoss brothers. Intellectual property law can be quite verbose and confusing. It was allegedly feared by Zuckerberg's legal team that he would come across as an arrogant "punk" and a none the wiser jury would possibly award the prosecution a lot more money that was ultimately settled for.
It cannot be legally determined that Mark Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook from others because the product in which he produced was very different than what was proposed to him originally by the Winklevoss brothers. Their idea centered around a networking site for Harvard alumni, with idea of possibly expanding to other elite universities. It was more of a private "elitist" type medium. Zuckerberg, however, took their idea, stripped it down and used bits and pieces of it, from which he created "The Facebook," that was intended for a more global audience.
As said earlier, one can only lay claim to their unique version of an idea, not someone else's take or version of it. MySpace is similar to Facebook, but has specific differences. Apple computers are similar to "PC's" but have their own unique features and functions. Iconic cartoons from the 1980's such as The Transformers and Gobots had very similar qualities, yet maintained their own specific identities.
What makes a product, slogan, or entity "click" with people is an intangible quality that can't be harnessed. If somebody comes up with an idea that flops and then another person comes along and puts out their version of said idea and strikes gold, the initial "innovator" typically has no legal recourse.
Years ago, there was a man who attempted to sue Sylvester Stallone, claiming he lifted his idea for what ultimately became "Rocky IV" His lawsuit had no standing because Stallone created his own unique and specific version of an "underdog" story, using original character names, story premise, etc. If Stallone took another person's story and blindly copied it and made a movie about it, that in of itself would have grounds for an intellectual property law suit. This, however, simply was not the case and, Rocky's unblemished reputation lives on in all of our hearts.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
As mentioned in one of my prior blogs, a person cannot technically legally protect their original idea by way of trademark or other means. Instead, they can only lay legal claim to their version of said idea. Imagine, if you will, if the inventor of the wheel made it legally prohibited for another person to create and manufacture a similar circular object.
Once again, I'd like to revisit the topic of Facebook and the recent film, The Social Network. In The Social Network, the creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg was sued by two fellow Harvard students, the Winklevoss twins, who claimed that the basis for Facebook stemmed from their idea, which they in turn shared with Zuckerberg. They shared said idea with an alleged oral contract and understanding that Zuckerberg would use his vast computer skills to help build and cultivate a social networking site. To their chagrin, however, Zuckerberg allegedly took the basis of their idea and created his own version of a social networking site, which ultimately became Facebook. The Winklevoss twins then sued Zuckerberg a few years later and received a reported $65 million settlement.
From a legal standpoint, most experts would say that Zuckerberg didn't break any intellectual property laws. He may not have been very honorable in dealing with his fellow Harvard entrepreneurs, but from a technical standpoint, he arguably broke no laws.
From a prospective juror's viewpoint, however, it may have appeared as though he blatantly stole the social networking site from the Winklevoss brothers. Intellectual property law can be quite verbose and confusing. It was allegedly feared by Zuckerberg's legal team that he would come across as an arrogant "punk" and a none the wiser jury would possibly award the prosecution a lot more money that was ultimately settled for.
It cannot be legally determined that Mark Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook from others because the product in which he produced was very different than what was proposed to him originally by the Winklevoss brothers. Their idea centered around a networking site for Harvard alumni, with idea of possibly expanding to other elite universities. It was more of a private "elitist" type medium. Zuckerberg, however, took their idea, stripped it down and used bits and pieces of it, from which he created "The Facebook," that was intended for a more global audience.
As said earlier, one can only lay claim to their unique version of an idea, not someone else's take or version of it. MySpace is similar to Facebook, but has specific differences. Apple computers are similar to "PC's" but have their own unique features and functions. Iconic cartoons from the 1980's such as The Transformers and Gobots had very similar qualities, yet maintained their own specific identities.
What makes a product, slogan, or entity "click" with people is an intangible quality that can't be harnessed. If somebody comes up with an idea that flops and then another person comes along and puts out their version of said idea and strikes gold, the initial "innovator" typically has no legal recourse.
Years ago, there was a man who attempted to sue Sylvester Stallone, claiming he lifted his idea for what ultimately became "Rocky IV" His lawsuit had no standing because Stallone created his own unique and specific version of an "underdog" story, using original character names, story premise, etc. If Stallone took another person's story and blindly copied it and made a movie about it, that in of itself would have grounds for an intellectual property law suit. This, however, simply was not the case and, Rocky's unblemished reputation lives on in all of our hearts.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tech Integration with Litigation
Just about everyone nowadays has a cell phone. More specifically, most have "smart phones" such as an iphone, Droid, or Blackberry. With these recent “can't live without” pieces of technology comes the ability to communicate in numerous forms with virtually anyone, anywhere, at any time. Because of this recent technological trend, people are more prone to open themselves up to a greater degree of liability as it pertains to their communications. In other words, we as a society need to really watch what we say within the realm of texts, emails, and social networking sites as said communication could be held against us in a court of law.
Practically everyone, including their mothers (and grandmothers) are on Facebook. Facebook is currently the holy grail of the social networking sites and people post everything on there from how tired they are to how much they enjoy chocolate. Due to its public nature, people don't often realize that when they post their dirty laundry on other peoples "wall," said communication can be taken and interpreted out of context. When parties, such as bickering spouses enter litigation in Family Court, these prior communications can come into play and may prove to be at the detriment of the deponent. More often than not, what people post on sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace is meant to be taken in jest. However, on its face, the posts could be interpreted differently and the deponent often has an uphill battle in demonstrating the appropriate context in which it was meant to be taken.
Within the last few years, the concept of text messaging has really become popular within the world of communications, so much so that people often text one another when they are in the same room! This is another area where the information provided within the confines of a text could be drastically misleading and misinterpreted. If one goes through the right channels, a transcript of text chats can be obtained and are often submitted in court as evidence during trial. These types of transcripts do not always hold up under scrutiny, but one should be careful when posting on Facebook and similar sites in order to avoid such hassle.
So the next time you text a friend, co-worker, or family member, be sure that it is appropriate and within the boundaries of the law. Some texts can come back to haunt you. Just ask Brett Favre and Tiger Woods.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Practically everyone, including their mothers (and grandmothers) are on Facebook. Facebook is currently the holy grail of the social networking sites and people post everything on there from how tired they are to how much they enjoy chocolate. Due to its public nature, people don't often realize that when they post their dirty laundry on other peoples "wall," said communication can be taken and interpreted out of context. When parties, such as bickering spouses enter litigation in Family Court, these prior communications can come into play and may prove to be at the detriment of the deponent. More often than not, what people post on sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace is meant to be taken in jest. However, on its face, the posts could be interpreted differently and the deponent often has an uphill battle in demonstrating the appropriate context in which it was meant to be taken.
Within the last few years, the concept of text messaging has really become popular within the world of communications, so much so that people often text one another when they are in the same room! This is another area where the information provided within the confines of a text could be drastically misleading and misinterpreted. If one goes through the right channels, a transcript of text chats can be obtained and are often submitted in court as evidence during trial. These types of transcripts do not always hold up under scrutiny, but one should be careful when posting on Facebook and similar sites in order to avoid such hassle.
So the next time you text a friend, co-worker, or family member, be sure that it is appropriate and within the boundaries of the law. Some texts can come back to haunt you. Just ask Brett Favre and Tiger Woods.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Un-Pleading Guilty to a Traffic Ticket
When one gets a traffic ticket, it would appear that the easiest way to deal with it would be to simply plead guilty and mail it back to the court. More often than not, however, this type of lackadaisical attitude proves to be detrimental down the road. People often don't realize that by blindly pleading guilty to a traffic ticket, it opens them up to obtaining a high amount of points on their drivers license. Along with these points come higher fines and increased insurance rates. Also, drivers with a commercial license run the risk of having their privileges revoked much easier than the average driver.
When one pleads guilty to a traffic ticket and then suffers heavy repercussions as a result, they may attempt to have their prior pleading vacated by filing a Coram Nobis. A Coram Nobis is basically a legal "mulligan" or a "do over." It is a motion made to the court requesting that the prior guilty plea be vacated in order to potentially negotiate a plea to a reduced charge.
It is not guaranteed that by filing a Coram Nobis the prior guilty plea will be vacated. It is simply a motion, or request. It is at the judge's discretion to grant the motion. If they deny the motion, one is pretty much out of luck. However, most courts grant said motions, so long as the individual has a decent reason for the request.
Usually one would hire an attorney to draft a Coram Nobis. Once granted, the attorney would then enter into negotiations with the DA or town attorney to a reduced charge.
From a personal stand point, I completely empathize with anyone who gets a traffic ticket. Let's face it, we've all been there and when it happens, it feels like the end of the world to some of us. Truth is its not that big a deal and can easily be dealt with if one puts in the time and effort. I recommend resisting the natural impulse to simply take the path of least resistance and check off "guilty" on the ticket and hope for the best. Instead, confront the issue and take the appropriate steps in avoiding a potential disaster to your driving record.
Bottom line here is to think before pleading guilty to a traffic ticket. If you do hastily plead guilty and wish to "un-plead," make sure you present the court with a good reason for your request. Typical good reasons are based on unfamiliarity of the current traffic laws, or perhaps you are an out of state driver, again, not familiar with the traffic laws of NY.
So in closing, the best way to deal with the negative impact of a regretted guilty plea is to file a Coram Nobis. For additional information on hiring a traffic attorney, please feel free to read one of my prior blogs, "Top 5 Things to Look for in Hiring a Traffic Lawyer."
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
When one pleads guilty to a traffic ticket and then suffers heavy repercussions as a result, they may attempt to have their prior pleading vacated by filing a Coram Nobis. A Coram Nobis is basically a legal "mulligan" or a "do over." It is a motion made to the court requesting that the prior guilty plea be vacated in order to potentially negotiate a plea to a reduced charge.
It is not guaranteed that by filing a Coram Nobis the prior guilty plea will be vacated. It is simply a motion, or request. It is at the judge's discretion to grant the motion. If they deny the motion, one is pretty much out of luck. However, most courts grant said motions, so long as the individual has a decent reason for the request.
Usually one would hire an attorney to draft a Coram Nobis. Once granted, the attorney would then enter into negotiations with the DA or town attorney to a reduced charge.
From a personal stand point, I completely empathize with anyone who gets a traffic ticket. Let's face it, we've all been there and when it happens, it feels like the end of the world to some of us. Truth is its not that big a deal and can easily be dealt with if one puts in the time and effort. I recommend resisting the natural impulse to simply take the path of least resistance and check off "guilty" on the ticket and hope for the best. Instead, confront the issue and take the appropriate steps in avoiding a potential disaster to your driving record.
Bottom line here is to think before pleading guilty to a traffic ticket. If you do hastily plead guilty and wish to "un-plead," make sure you present the court with a good reason for your request. Typical good reasons are based on unfamiliarity of the current traffic laws, or perhaps you are an out of state driver, again, not familiar with the traffic laws of NY.
So in closing, the best way to deal with the negative impact of a regretted guilty plea is to file a Coram Nobis. For additional information on hiring a traffic attorney, please feel free to read one of my prior blogs, "Top 5 Things to Look for in Hiring a Traffic Lawyer."
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
http://www.lakegeorgelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Foreseeability Factor: The Pantera Tragedy
December 8, 2004 was a very sad day in the world of music as that was the day “Dimebag” Darrell Abbott was murdered while he was literally playing guitar on stage. For those readers that are not a fan of hard rock music, Darrell Abbot was the lead guitarist for legendary heavy metal band Pantera. The band was extremely popular during the 1990’s among heavy metal aficionados and the tragedy that struck in Columbus, Ohio in 2004 remains one of rock’s most tragic deaths.
Pantera broke up in 2003 when singer Phil Anselmo had a falling out with Darrell and his brother, fellow band mate and drummer, Vinnie Paul Abbott. The split was filled with acrimony to say the least and both Anselmo and the Abbott brothers went their separate ways and formed their own respective bands.
Upon the death of Darrell Abbott, Phil Anselmo attempted to attend the funeral of his former band mate but Vinnie Paul and Darrell’s long time girlfriend Rita Haney prevented him from doing so. They harbored great resentment toward Anselmo, as they both felt it was he who was responsible for Pantera’s breakup. Vinnie Paul further held distain for Anselmo due to alleged negative comments he made toward Darrell in the press.
Rita Haney went on the record saying that Anselmo was essentially just as responsible for the murder of Abbott as the man who actually shot him on stage. She went on to claim that if Anselmo did not force the breakup of Pantera, Darrell would not have been playing the small, dismal venue on the night of his murder. At the height of Pantera’s fame, they were playing in much larger arenas with heightened security. Upon investigation of Abbott’s death, it was revealed that the gunman acted out because he was upset about Pantera’s demise and he held Darrell responsible. It was also later determined that the gunman had severe mental issues.
In response to Rita Haney’s claims, the legal issue boils down to reasonable forseeability; more specifically, was it foreseeable that Darrell Abbott would be murdered if Anselmo had not broken up the band.
While it may be factually true that had Anselmo not left Pantera, Abbott would not have formed a new band and would not have been playing in the smaller venue on the night of his murder. However, for anyone, including Rita Haney, to hold Anselmo responsible for the actions of a mentally ill murderer is not legally plausible to say the least.
To be deemed legally responsible for certain actions, whether they are criminal or tort, the issue of foreseability comes into play. If a party acts in a way where it is reasonably foreseeable that said actions would have a negative impact upon another, that party would be deemed legally culpable.
For example, if a person drinks an abundant amount of alcohol and then drives their car home, it is reasonably foreseeable that they may cause an accident and that other people may be injured or killed as a result. In this scenario, it would be justified to hold a drunk driver responsible for the harm they cause to people they hit with their car while under the influence of alcohol. The same cannot be said regarding the actions of Phil Anselmo as they pertain to his departure from the band Pantera.
While it may be true that had Anselmo not left Pantera, Abbott would not have been playing in the smaller venue on the night if his murder. It can also be assumed that the man who shot and killed him would not have done so had Pantera stayed together as a band. However, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Darrell Abbott would have been murdered by a mentally ill fan based on Anselmo’s decision to leave the band. The actions of the crazed gunman on the night of December 8, 2004 superceded anything that Phil Anselmo did with regard to his involvement in the demise of Pantera.
When it comes to legal culpability, reasonable foreseeability is the ultimate measuring stick. Often people want to point fingers and place blame where it doesn’t legally belong. Before they do, they should take a step back and ask themselves whether or not it is reasonable, under the circumstances, to hold said person responsible.
In the case of the Pantera tragedy, both Vinne Paul Abbott and Rita Haney were understandably emotional. In the heat of the moment, they immediately lashed out at Phil Anselmo. While it may be reasonable to be upset with him on a professional level, it is absolutely unreasonable and outright wrong to hold him legally responsible for the death of Darrell Abbott.
As a fan of Pantera, I hope Anselmo and Vinnie Paul make amends, but as of this writing, it doesn’t appear it is going to happen in the foreseeable future.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Pantera broke up in 2003 when singer Phil Anselmo had a falling out with Darrell and his brother, fellow band mate and drummer, Vinnie Paul Abbott. The split was filled with acrimony to say the least and both Anselmo and the Abbott brothers went their separate ways and formed their own respective bands.
Upon the death of Darrell Abbott, Phil Anselmo attempted to attend the funeral of his former band mate but Vinnie Paul and Darrell’s long time girlfriend Rita Haney prevented him from doing so. They harbored great resentment toward Anselmo, as they both felt it was he who was responsible for Pantera’s breakup. Vinnie Paul further held distain for Anselmo due to alleged negative comments he made toward Darrell in the press.
Rita Haney went on the record saying that Anselmo was essentially just as responsible for the murder of Abbott as the man who actually shot him on stage. She went on to claim that if Anselmo did not force the breakup of Pantera, Darrell would not have been playing the small, dismal venue on the night of his murder. At the height of Pantera’s fame, they were playing in much larger arenas with heightened security. Upon investigation of Abbott’s death, it was revealed that the gunman acted out because he was upset about Pantera’s demise and he held Darrell responsible. It was also later determined that the gunman had severe mental issues.
In response to Rita Haney’s claims, the legal issue boils down to reasonable forseeability; more specifically, was it foreseeable that Darrell Abbott would be murdered if Anselmo had not broken up the band.
While it may be factually true that had Anselmo not left Pantera, Abbott would not have formed a new band and would not have been playing in the smaller venue on the night of his murder. However, for anyone, including Rita Haney, to hold Anselmo responsible for the actions of a mentally ill murderer is not legally plausible to say the least.
To be deemed legally responsible for certain actions, whether they are criminal or tort, the issue of foreseability comes into play. If a party acts in a way where it is reasonably foreseeable that said actions would have a negative impact upon another, that party would be deemed legally culpable.
For example, if a person drinks an abundant amount of alcohol and then drives their car home, it is reasonably foreseeable that they may cause an accident and that other people may be injured or killed as a result. In this scenario, it would be justified to hold a drunk driver responsible for the harm they cause to people they hit with their car while under the influence of alcohol. The same cannot be said regarding the actions of Phil Anselmo as they pertain to his departure from the band Pantera.
While it may be true that had Anselmo not left Pantera, Abbott would not have been playing in the smaller venue on the night if his murder. It can also be assumed that the man who shot and killed him would not have done so had Pantera stayed together as a band. However, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Darrell Abbott would have been murdered by a mentally ill fan based on Anselmo’s decision to leave the band. The actions of the crazed gunman on the night of December 8, 2004 superceded anything that Phil Anselmo did with regard to his involvement in the demise of Pantera.
When it comes to legal culpability, reasonable foreseeability is the ultimate measuring stick. Often people want to point fingers and place blame where it doesn’t legally belong. Before they do, they should take a step back and ask themselves whether or not it is reasonable, under the circumstances, to hold said person responsible.
In the case of the Pantera tragedy, both Vinne Paul Abbott and Rita Haney were understandably emotional. In the heat of the moment, they immediately lashed out at Phil Anselmo. While it may be reasonable to be upset with him on a professional level, it is absolutely unreasonable and outright wrong to hold him legally responsible for the death of Darrell Abbott.
As a fan of Pantera, I hope Anselmo and Vinnie Paul make amends, but as of this writing, it doesn’t appear it is going to happen in the foreseeable future.
Carbone & Carbone LLP, Martin A. Carbone, Esq., Attorney at Law
http://www.carbonelawyer.com/
www.facebook.com/carbonelawgroup
http://twitter.com/carbonelaw1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
