Home » Posts tagged "California"

Fund Capital America California?s Premiere Plaintiff Personal Injury Cash Advance Company to Exhibit at the 50th Annual California Attorney?s of California Convention

Fund Capital America California’s Premiere Plaintiff Personal Injury Cash Advance Company to Exhibit at the 50th Annual California Attorney’s of California Convention













Fund Capital America


San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) October 27, 2011

(CAOC Convention Booth #111) Fund Capital America – California’s premiere plaintiff personal injury cash advance company to exhibit at the 50th Annual California Attorney’s of California Convention (CAOC) in San Francisco, CA, on November 10-13, 2011 at the Palace Hotel.

Fund Capital America provides plaintiff’s in California with personal injury cash advances for their pre or post settlement lawsuits. The company works with traditional personal injury cases such as automobile accidents, motorcycle accidents, truck accidents, commercial vehicle accidents, construction accidents, birth accidents, railroad accidents, train accidents, boating accidents, wrongful death, slip and fall, premise liability, burn accidents, brain accident, product defect accidents, nursing home negligence and dog bites.

Fund Capital America takes a look at the lawsuit and the case is analyzed by an expert team of legal underwriters. The lawyer for the accident or attorney for the accident (plaintiff’s personal attorney) will help the plaintiff with the application for a cash advance. Lawsuit litigation is serious business, but the aim is to take some of the financial pressure off of the plaintiff.

Personal injury attorneys in California represent many different types of accidents and injuries. When a client has suffered a personal injury, why should the attorney allow the plaintiff’s financial circumstances cause them to have to settle the case earlier than necessary in order to alleviate the their financial burden. The plaintiff should be free from financial woes, while their case settles, so the attorney can get the highest settlement that is deserved. Injured victims should have the ability to sustain themselves and their families, while awaiting settlement on their personal injury lawsuits. When an injured victim has to choose between low-ball settlements or the necessities of life such a food, rent, and clothing; nobody wins. Non-recourse personal injury cash advances provide a solution that allows the injured victim to take the financial advantage away from the insurers. Non-recourse cash advances can help clients who are having financial difficulties. There are No credit checks, monthly payments, upfront out of pocket fees, notes or security required of the plaintiff. Remember, there is no payment until the case settles. Cash advances are not secured by a lien on personal credit or home equity. If the Plaintiff doesn’t win the case, they don’t owe us back a dime.

The CAOC California Attorney’s of California is the leading California organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the constitutional right to trial by jury for all consumers and championing the cause of those seeking justice through our California civil justice system. CAOC is an organization of more than 3,000 attorneys who represent plaintiffs and consumers who seek responsibility from wrongdoers. CAOC Attorney’s represent consumers injured or killed by defective products or drugs. People who suffer discrimination because of age, gender, disability or race. People who are injured or killed because of another’s negligent acts. The represent California citizens whose civil rights have been violated.

Fund Capital America is California’s Premiere Personal Injury Cash Advance Company providing competitive interest rates and fast turn around times. Fund Capital America utilizes a simple one page application for the plaintiff’s attorney to fill out and provides us the scope of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit and the nature of the litigation. The company knows that when the clients needs cash, they need it fast.

Fund Capital America knows that when a personal injury case has caused the plaintiff an economic burden, they need to be alleviated immediately. The company works with top rated law firms, all across California to provide financial assistance when it’s desired the most. Cash advances are from $ 500 to $ 200,000. It’s fast, simple and easy. The company provides a fast 48-72 hours turn around time on the application. If the application is not approved, there is no application fee cost.

Fund Capital America:

Competitive: We compete to give you competitive pricing.

Secure: All personal information is secured and kept confidential.

Solid: We have been in business for 5 years serving personal injury plaintiff’s.

Convenient: Based in Los Angeles. Servicing Northern and Southern California.

Whether the plaintiff has been involved in a personal injury cases such as automobile injury, motorcycle injury, truck injury, commercial vehicle injury, construction injury, birth injury, railroad injury, train injury, boating injury, wrongful injury, slip and fall injury, premise liability injury, burn injury, brain injury, product defect injury, nursing home negligence injury and dog bites.

Call today at 310-424-5176 or email us at info (at) FundCapitalAmerica(dot)com.

For more information please visit http://www.FundCapitalAmerica.com.

###









Attachments


























Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Related The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on November 10, 2011 by , Reply

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement as Proposition 8 Passes in the State

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement as Proposition 8 Passes in the State











Los Angeles (PRWEB) November 5, 2008

As reported today by the Wall Street Journal California voters passed Proposition 8. According to California Family Law Attorney Veronika Melamed of the law offices of Feinberg & Waller, A.P.C., the measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California. Now that the voters of California have passed Proposition 8, and amended the State’s Constitution, what does this mean for the state and for the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that have been solemnized since June 17, 2008? And, what can proponents of same-sex marriage do now?

The voters of California have chosen to amend the state’s Constitution to explicitly provide that, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Coming in reaction to the state’s Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage in California, opponents of same-sex marriage sought assurance that no future court decisions would again grant same-sex marriage rights in California.

The California Supreme Court is delegated with the task of upholding the state’s Constitution and assessing whether the laws enacted by the Legislature and the voters comply with the Constitution. In carrying out this task, the Supreme Court’s decision in May 2008, granting same-sex couples the right to marry, was based on its interpretation of the California Constitution and whether Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5, defining marriage as, “between a man and a woman” comported with the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s Constitution.

In the course of its analysis, the California Supreme Court ruled that Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5 were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and that same-sex couples could marry in California. The Supreme Court’s decision was based solely on constitutional analysis, and centered on the fact that the prohibition against same-sex marriage was a law, and that it violated the Constitution. This, then, became the foundation for Proposition 8: unlike the state’s previous attempts to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman through the enactment of legislative provisions, such as with 2000’s Proposition 22 which added Family Code Section 308.5, this year opponents of same-sex marriage placed an initiative on the ballot to actually amend the California Constitution.

The difference is significant: while the Supreme Court may strike down laws for being in violation of the State’s Constitution in performing its job of enforcing the Constitution, the Supreme Court lacks the power to overrule a constitutional provision. By making Proposition 8 an amendment to the Constitution, the law ensures that the Supreme Court must enforce the provision, and must now ensure that other laws comply with this Constitutional provision.

And now the questions begin: with a Constitution that may now prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, through its definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, what will happen to those same-sex marriages that were solemnized when marriage between same-sex couples was “legal?” And, if the public wants another change, what can be done to “undo” Proposition 8? The question of what happens to current same-sex marriages has no easy answer, nor is the passage of Proposition 8 the last California may hear on the topic of same-sex marriage.

One of the main issues that must be resolved in answering the question of what will happen to current same-sex marriages is whether the new constitutional amendment is retroactive in its application; that is, does it now invalidate the same-sex marriages that occurred following the Supreme Court’s ruling in May 2008? As reported in the Los Angeles Times, some constitutional scholars believe that the new amendment will only affect prospective same-sex marriage, leaving intact those same-sex couples that married before Proposition 8 passed. The experts base their opinions on judicial history where courts have traditionally made constitutional amendments retroactive only if they were explicitly written that way, resisting an abrogation of people’s rights and freedoms unless directly mandated to do so. In support of the argument that Proposition 8 is not intended to apply retroactively, scholars point out to the Los angeles times that nothing in the proposed language states that the constitutional amendment will be retroactive in its application. Furthering the argument against retroactive application is California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s statement issued through his office on August 4, 2008, that Proposition 8 will be prospective in its application, leaving intact the same-sex marriages entered into prior to its passage.

Others say that the retroactive application of Proposition 8 will depend on whether the Proposition was intended by the voters to be retroactive, and point to the language contained in the California Voter Guide which states that, “A ‘YES’ vote on this measure means: The California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Those who believe that Proposition 8 will be retroactive in nature argue that the language in the California Voter Guide expressly states, and informs the voting public, that passage of the proposed amendment will affect the validity and recognition of same-sex marriage, and will apply regardless of when or where the marriages were performed. The implication in this interpretation of the Proposition goes beyond California’s borders: in addition to invalidating same-sex marriages performed in California, the State and its agencies and offices will be prohibited from recognizing or validating same-sex marriages performed in any other state or country, even if legal and recognized where performed.

Ironically, as both positions have legal validity, it will be up to the California Supreme Court – the same court whose ruling allowed same-sex marriage – to interpret whether Proposition 8 was intended to be retroactive or prospective. And until such time as this question is decided, same-sex married couples will be in a “legal limbo” waiting for third parties to determine their fate. If it is eventually determined that Proposition 8 was, in fact, retroactive, then same-sex couples will find their marriages to be of no legal effect in California, and they will be denied the rights and expectations they had enjoyed until Proposition 8 was passed. If, however, Proposition 8 is found to be prospective in its application, then there will be a group of same-sex couples who will continue to be married, most likely forfeiting that appellation only in the event that they should ever divorce.

What options are available to those who still oppose Proposition 8 , and what can be done about the constitutional language in the future? If the language proposed by Proposition 8 is part of the California Constitution, one of the alternatives for proponents of same-sex marriage is to change the Constitution. Proponents will need to draft language proposing a repeal of any newly-enacted amendment or an altogether new amendment to be included in the Constitution. They will then need to raise the requisite 694,354 signatures to have the amendment certified for the next electoral ballot. California will then go through the same battles and arguments as it did during this election, with the voters again determining whether the Constitution will be amended on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The other alternative is further legal battles. Opponents of Proposition 8 may argue to the courts that passage of the amendment is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits any group from being treated differently than any other. Opponents may also argue that passage of Proposition 8 is violative of the U.S. Constitution’s Contracts Clause prohibiting states from enacting laws that impair contracts, and that marriage is, after all, nothing more than a contract. Both of these arguments will likely be undertaken in the federal courts, and may eventually end up being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear these arguments.

For the full history of same-sex marriage in California go to the article Same sex Marriage in California at http://www.Feinbergwaller.com/CM/Custom/family-law-Publication.asp

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Related The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on August 6, 2011 by , Reply

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling











Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) June 2, 2009

California Family Law attorney Mary Ellen Waller says the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court on the validity of Proposition 8 is a dangerous ruling for all minorities. The following is a statement by Waller analyzing the decision:

The Court has handed the mob a loaded weapon that can too easily be used to pursue inappropriate discriminatory goals and agendas. The ruling undermines the judiciary’s authority to protect minority rights and it substantially alters the California Constitution as a document of independent force and effect.

In its ruling, the Court has altered the procedural process regarding Constitutional initiatives having to do with civil rights. They have done so by removing the procedural requirement that initiatives affecting only individual liberties go through the more rigorous, deliberative process known as Constitutional revision (as opposed to Constitutional amendment). The implications of this ruling have a far-reaching and chilling effect on state constitutional rights as this ruling has eased constraints on the ability of the majority interests in our State to discriminate. Indeed, it has been a hallmark of our State Constitution, our Federal Constitution, and the very fabric upon which our political and social systems in this nation were formed that we operate on a system of majority rule with protection for minority rights. Great and honorable steps against “tyranny of the majority” have been undertaken throughout our history, and sweeping policy attitudinal changes and reforms have been imposed to protect the rights of the minority in society.

This is why, for example, it is against the law to refuse to hire an individual because of their race or ethnic origin; why it is illegal to deny equal access to government based on a suspect classification (such as race, gender, religion, etc). These issues are very often hotly contested and debated, yet to our credit as a people very often we have been able to rise above our own individual prejudices and dislikes. We have enacted laws that are designed to protect the members of a minority group, members of, in Constitutional parlance, a “suspect class.” Race is generally considered to be the most easily recognizable example of a suspect classification, and there are indeed many others as well.

This assessment of the high Court’s “invitation to discriminate” falls far short of mere speculation or conjecture; a discriminatory pattern of behavior by the majority towards minorities is a well-documented reality throughout history. Let us recall that Nazi Germany started with German citizens being stripped of their rights for no reason other than their religion, Japanese-Americans of this country went from curfew to internment, women were not allowed to vote, and blacks were “separate”, “but equal,” a concept that is all too blatantly adopted by the Proposition 8 ruling. The Proposition 8 ruling opens the door for a majority of California voters to adopt future measures designed to gradually reduce or eliminate fundamental rights of vulnerable minorities. Click here to read more http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilyLawBlog.com

Mary Ellen Waller is a family law attorney licensed in California and New York. She is a shareholder of Feinberg & Waller, APC, a firm practicing exclusively in the area of family law with offices in Calabasas and Beverly Hills, California. The Daily Journal, the State of California’s legal newspaper, recently published an article by Waller entitled, “Whatever the Prop.8 Outcome, Some Families Will Be Stuck in Legal Limbo”. An in-depth analysis and report on the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 can be found at http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilylawBlog.com

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







More The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on July 20, 2011 by , Reply

Muslim Holy Man Brings Peace Pilgrimage to Southern California

Muslim Holy Man Brings Peace Pilgrimage to Southern California










Lake Arrowhead, CA (PRWEB) September 15, 2004

High atop the San Bernardino Mountains „Ÿ sometimes called the “Alps of Southern California” „Ÿ and nestled in a magnificent forest of pine, cedar, and dogwood lie the clear blue waters of Lake Arrowhead. Most visitors are attracted to this beautiful mountain resort by the many recreational activities, including hiking, camping, and water sports. Some say that just basking in the sheer beauty of the 5100-foot mountain retreat makes them feel closer to God.

In this idyllic setting, the pleasures of the physical will give way to the rewards of the spiritual when Sidi al-Jamal, one of the holiest teachers from the Muslim world, brings his five-day Become a Messenger for Peace program to Lake Arrowhead October 4-8.

This program is a journey of discovery and illumination. Students will learn the truth of the message of God sent to us through all the prophets throughout time. Students will find the truth of who God created them to be; heal their hearts of anguish and fear; discover the unconditional love and peace that already live deep within the heart; become an instrument of peace through whom God works; and shine the divine light of God to see clearly the meaning and purpose of life.

Sidi wants to share the message of world peace with as many people as possible, so The Jaffe Institute has waived tuition fees for people who will be visiting Sidi for the first time.

Sidi, the head teacher at one of the three holiest mosques in Islam, is in the US to deliver a message from the Muslim world of peace, love, mercy, justice, and true freedom. Shaykh Muhammad Said al-Jamal ar-Rifa’i ash-Shadhuli, affectionately called Sidi by his seven million students world-wide, is a prominent spiritual leader at the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. He is Head of the Higher Sufi Council in Jerusalem and the Holy Land and a long-time advocate of world peace. This program is the conclusion of a three-month tour which Sidi began in July to bring a message of peace to the people of the United States, and to help clear up the misconceptions many Americans have about the Muslim faith, Islam, and Sufism.

Sufism is a branch of the Islamic faith, says Dr. Robert Ibrahim Jaffe, a master teacher in the Sufi Way and founder of The Jaffe Institute, and he notes that it is different from the perception that most Americans have of the Islamic religion.

Sidi wants everyone to know that his message is not about any one religion but about surrendering to the truth, the spirit, and the love; it’s about the universal rather than the parochial love of God.

Sidi is committed to opening this love in the hearts of people regardless of their identification with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, one of the other religions, or no religion at all. He is here to help the people to unite as one under God.

Sidi will help those who long for peace to become messengers of peace. Healers and aspiring healers who are searching for new ways to support their clients will be rewarded with an all-new healing method.

# # #



















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Related Freedom Of Religion Press Releases

Posted on July 17, 2011 by , Reply

“Constitution IQ” Highest in California, Arkansas Most Improved According to Annual Constitution Day Poll

“Constitution IQ” Highest in California, Arkansas Most Improved According to Annual Constitution Day Poll











Chicago, IL (PRWEB) September 15, 2008

With the 221st anniversary of the signing of the Constitution approaching on September 17th, Californians know a lot about the landmark document, according to a recent poll of 54,377 Americans by constitutionfacts.com.

While Americans in the South Atlantic region (DC, DE, GA, FL, MD, NC, VA and WV) scored higher than other regions, California led the country with the highest score on the annual constitutionfacts.com constitution day poll — averaging 8.406 — more than a full point above the national average and displacing West Virginia from the number-one ranking last year. The state showing the most improvement over 2007 was Arkansas climbing from a 6.826 average score to 7.629, surpassing the national average of 7.305 on a 10 point rating scale.

“Besides Math, English and other academic areas … probably the most important subject any of us should know is our country’s Constitution and our Constitutional rights, and it looks like Californians are scoring well in this area,” according to Keir Walton, publisher of the annual Constitution Day poll at constitutionfacts.com, a website dedicated to helping people understand the Constitution.

According to the poll, more than 81 percent of Americans knew that laws were made by Congress, 84 percent that criminals have the right to hear witnesses against them, and 79 percent that they have the right to invoke the 5th amendment to avoid self-incrimination.

The Constitution is considered remarkable because it has stood the test of time. It was written for a country with four million people. Now the U.S. is home to more than 300 million people, and there have only been 27 amendments to the Constitution — including the Bill of Rights — in 221 years

While Constitution IQ scores are surprisingly strong, an expanded poll of 32,983 Americans by constitutionfacts.com highlighted confusion between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Only 37 percent of Americans knew that the Constitution took effect in 1788, instead confusing it with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which occurred 12 years earlier in 1776.

Walton said that even educators are guilty of the mix-up. One time, he said, an elementary school teacher produced a play in which John Hancock signed the Constitution — even though Hancock signed the Declaration, not the Constitution. Also, a high school superintendent, during a graduation ceremony, said that the words “All men are created equal” appear in the Constitution. Actually, they appear in the Declaration of Independence.

Walton says he hopes that by providing a handy and accessible website containing copies of the country’s three main historical documents — the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation — myths and misinformation about these documents can be eradicated.

To find out your Constitution IQ, and see how you compare with others statewide and nationally, take the online poll at http://www.constitutionfacts.com.

The online, non-scientific poll of 54,377 Americans was conducted by constitutionfacts.com from August 1, 2007 – July 31, 2008. Participants were evenly split between women (49.4%) and men (50.6%) with an average age of 30 years old. Regionally, South Atlantic had the highest average score of 7.55, followed closely by the New England region, averaging 7.49. Alarmingly, four of the U.S. regions — East North Central, East South Central, Mountain and West South Central dropped below the national average of 7.305 this year, up from two regions last year. Alaska had the highest percentage of perfect scores followed by DC, Mississippi, Hawaii, South Dakota, North Dakota, Illinois and Missouri. For more information on the poll, visit http://www.constitutionfacts.com

Contact:

Keir Walton

630-922-1627

keir.walton@constitutionfacts.com

http://www.constitutionfacts.com

# # #





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







More The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on June 8, 2011 by , Reply

California San Diego County Driving Constitutional Rights Writ Mandamus Lawyers Attorneys

JAMES V. PEPIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
July 22, 1969

The Department of Motor Vehicles ordered Plaintiff (James V. Pepin’s) driver’s license suspended for his refusal to submit to any of the blood alcohol tests required by Vehicle Code, section 13353, after he was arrested by an officer who had reasonable cause to believe he was driving while drunk.  Plaintiff brought mandamus in the superior court to compel the DMV to reinstate his driving privileges.  The Superior Court of San Diego County denied the driver’s application for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant Department of Motor Vehicles to reinstate a driving license.  Plaintiff driver sought review the above judgment.

Issues:

Whether the trial Court erred in denying the Plaintiff Writ of Mandamus?
Whether § 13353 violate the driver’s right to equal protection?

Conclusion:

Pepin un-meritoriously asserts that because section 13353 does not permit an exception for “employment-livelihood” cases, similar to that of Vehicle Code, section 13210, he is denied the equal protection of the laws.  The issue is whether section 13353 arbitrarily discriminates against certain classes of persons who refuse to take the chemical test, as opposed to other classes who also refuse the test.  No discrimination exists.  No particular class of person is selected for suspension for refusing a chemical test.

The suspension is mandatory, not discretionary.  Pepin did not have a constitutional right to refuse to take the chemical test.

Hence the Court affirmed the trial Court’s Judgment.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.  The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law.  The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore.  The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge.  The New York office is in New York City.  The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County.  The California office is in Orange County, CA.

The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.

 

Article from articlesbase.com

Posted on May 2, 2011 by , Reply

San Diego California Publishing Attorney Talks About Publishing, Elections, the Media, and Constitutional Law

No matter where you live, whether it is in San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, La Jolla, Del Mar, Pacific Beach, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos, Mission Beach and Escondido or the cities of Huntington Beach, Anaheim Hills, Yorba Linda, Buena Park, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Hills, Buena Park, Temecula, Indian Wells, La Quinta, or Palm Springs, unless you haven’t turned on the television or read a newspaper during the 2008 Presidential election, or looked at the internet, you have seen claims by the Republican campaign that the publishing media is biased.

Attacking the media has long been a tactic of national candidates. In this election, once again, we have seen this tactic employed, yet with little of the success it enjoyed in previous Presidential campaigns.  As an election and  constituitonal lawyer, one can only applaud this lack of success in the use of this tactic in this election.

For the most part in this Presidential campaign, one candidate has been leveling these attacks on the press with regularity and with increasing anger, John McCain. While newspapers expect this to some extent, the public that is not wedded to one side of the fence or the other appears to be tiring of the attacks.

Recently, John McCain denounced the New York times in the strongest words, following a Times report that McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had been pain nearly million by mortgage entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. McCain’s chief strategist, Steve Schmidt said the New York Times is no longer a journalistic organization but is 150 percent in the tank for Barack Obama. Schmidt earlier attacked MSNBC as being an organ of the Democratic National Committee, and said the news media are on a mission to destroy Sarah Palin.

Unfortunately for John McCain, it has since been reported in the press that McCain’s campaign manager’s lobbying firm owned by his campaign manager has received ,000/month for nearly three years and that and that the campaign manager was paid ,000/month for nearly five years by an advocacy organization that he headed and which was financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fight regulation. It has further been reported that McCain’s senior advisor, his campaign’s vice chairman, and his Congressional liaison, also made large sums of money from Fannie and Freddie lobbying or were in firms that did.

In an apparent attempt to deflect attention away from his mistaken attack on the New York Times story, McCain then announced he was suspending his campaign to immediately fly to Washington after awaking that morning to find a report in the Washington Post that he was behind in the polls by nine points. Soon after attempting to criticize that finding, and knowing what the disaster Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric would be aired that night, McCain chose to dump his appearance on the David Letterman show, upstage the Couric interview with his own interview on the CBS News, and announce the suspension of his campaign that was in reality, never a suspension.

In hindsight of course, McCain’s actions were a huge error in judgment. His dilly-dallying around New York after ditching Letterman were picked up on and hammered at him unmercifully for two nights on the David Letterman show and later on the Daily Show, other news shows, on the internet and in the press. By the time he arrived the next day in Washington, it had already been announced that there was bipartisan support for the bailout bill, that just as quickly dissipated upon his arrival. It was reported that his campaign had not been suspended and Letterman, among others joked at his expense why he must have felt he could not leave his campaign in the hands of Sarah Palin, when she was seen incapable of answering simple questions put to her by Katie Couric. And after announcing he would not take part in the debate until there was either a bailout bill or great progress toward one, he had to fly back from Washington for the debate with no bailout bill in hand and Congress much less united than when he had arrived.

In the past, attacking the press has proved fruitful for Presidential candidates. This time the attack is falling on deaf ears and has either been the exception to the rule that it will help a candidate, or there is a change taking place in what a candidate risks if he is wrong.  As an election, campaign, publishing, marketing, media and constitutional law attorney, one can only conclude that negative attacks by the candidates are not working as they used to, whether it is against the media or against the other candidate.  The public has become weary of such tactics and it is showing in the polls.

Visit the Sebastian Gibson Law website at http://www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com . If you have a publishing, literary, first amendment, media, marketing or constitutional law issue, come to an experienced law firm who can represent you as your California Publishing Lawyer, your San Diego Constitutional Attorney and your attorney throughout Southern California. We have the resources and knowledge to represent you from San Diego to Orange County, from Huntington Beach and Newport Beach to Long Beach, Santa Monica, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. We also represent clients inland from Anaheim to Temecula, from Rancho Cucamonga to Palm Springs and Indian Wells.

The Sebastian Gibson Law Firm serves all of San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs and Palm Desert, the Coastal Cities from La Jolla, Carlsbad and Del Mar to Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana and up to Ventura, Oxnard, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. We also serve the Inland Empire cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Temecula, Riverside and San Bernardino and all the cities in the Coachella Valley and high desert, from La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella to Yucca Valley and Victorville.


Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com if you have a publishing issue of any kind. We have the knowledge and resources to represent you as your San Diego Publishing Lawyer and California Publishing Attorney or your attorney in and around the cities of Palm Springs, Palm Desert, San Diego, Orange County, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Malibu, Beverly Hills, Pacific Palisades, Santa Ana, Laguna Beach, Anaheim, Riverside, Chula Vista, Irvine, San Bernardino, Huntington Beach, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, La Jolla, Del Mar, San Marcos, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Garden Grove, Palmdale, Long Beach, Corona, Yorba Linda, Escondido, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Victorville, Carlsbad, Temecula, Murrieta, Mission Viejo, El Cajon, Vista, Westminster, Santa Monica, Malibu, Westwood, Hesperia, Buena Park, Indio, Coachella, Del Mar, Oxnard, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Cambria and Santa Barbara.

Article from articlesbase.com

NightmareRH’s Production Presents Runescape Constitution Update Guide/Review (Commentary)! This is a review of the most worthless update ever!Also please remember to subscribe. My other youtube channel: www.youtube.com Please subscribe to it so you will be the first to view my videos. www.NightmareRH.net My site, free guides and forums -=-=-=-=-DISCLAIMER-=-=-=-=- RuneScape is a registered trademark of JaGeX Limited. I do not claim, or have any, affiliation with JaGeX Ltd. This video was not intended for any personal gain, only for entertainment purposes. All comments by others are their own and I do not take responsibility for their actions. Consider this, free advertising www.runescape.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Posted on April 2, 2011 by , Reply

Palm Desert and San Diego California Constitutional Lawyer Analyzes the $700 Billion Bailout Plan as it Was First Proposed to Congress

Unless you are in a coma, it doesn’t matter where you live in California, in Corona del Mar, San Diego, Orange County, CA, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Riverside, Chula Vista, Irvine, San Bernardino, Huntington Beach, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Garden Grove, Palmdale, Corona, Escondido, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Victorville, Carlsbad, Temecula, Murrieta, Mission Viejo, El Cajon, Vista, Westminster, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, Hesperia, Newport Beach, Buena Park, Indio, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells or Coachella, you will have somehow heard there is an economic crisis going on, and that Congress passed a whopping $700 billion bailout plan.

 

What you may not know, is that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s draft proposal for the bailout of financial service firms on Wall Street as it was presented to Congress was an unconstitutional power grab of monumental proportions.

 

Under Paulson’s plan, no oversight, no review and no challenges would have been allowed by the courts, by Congress or by individuals. Henry Paulson had proposed that he effectively be appointed economic czar.

 

Under Section 8 of his initial proposal, which for years to come, will undoubtedly form the basis for questions on bar exams for law students, “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act, are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

 

Under Section 8 of this Act, the Treasury Secretary would arguably have become a more powerful figure than our largely missing-in-action President, more powerful than the head of the Federal Reserve, the SEC and Congress combined, and as such in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

The draft proposal was in conflict with the Constitution for the simple reason that our nation’s most important document provides that every member of the executive branch, including the Treasury Secretary, is subject to legislative and executive review. Neither Congress nor the executive may delegate its authority to a cabinet member. It would have been like Congress delegating all its power to Sarah Palin, or to a single congressman, or to Superdog for that matter.

 

As hard as it is to violate the nondelegation clause in the Constitution, if there has ever been a proposal to come out of the executive branch which does a good job of it, it has been argued that this is probably the one.

 

The question is, did the President tell Paulson to get a blank check from Congress and to heck with the Constitution or did Paulson come up with this on his own? Did the President and Paulson really believe that if they told Congress they needed this power in 24 hours like the TV show, that Congress, even the Republicans in Congress, would give it to him?

 

In bad times even more so than in good times, we expect the leaders of this country to protect the Constitution of the United States, not to usurp the powers it conveys on other branches of government. Let us hope that in the coming days and months as this country tries to mend itself from this economic crisis, that Congress remembers what the executive branch seems to have forgotten – the Constitution.  

 

If you have a constitutional, or first amendment law issue in San Diego, Newport Beach, Irvine, Orange County, La Jolla, in the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Palm Springs or anywhere in Southern California, we have the knowledge and resources to be your California Constitutional Lawyer and your Palm Springs and San Diego Business Attorney. Be sure to hire a California law firm with business and constitutional law experience who can serve areas such as Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Anaheim, Irvine, Newport Beach, Carlsbad, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Fullerton, Del Mar, San Diego, Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Buena Park, La Jolla, Oxnard, Ventura, La Quinta, and Santa Barbara so you are properly represented.

 

If you have a constitutional, first amendment or business law issue of any kind, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn how we can assist you.

The Sebastian Gibson Law Firm serves all of San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs and Palm Desert, the Coastal Cities from La Jolla, Carlsbad and Del Mar to Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana and up to Ventura, Oxnard, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. We also serve the Inland Empire cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Temecula, Riverside and San Bernardino and all the cities in the Coachella Valley and high desert, from La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella to Yucca Valley and Victorville.


Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com if you have a constitutional, first amendment or business law issue of any kind. We have the knowledge and resources to represent you as your California Constitutional Lawyer and Palm Desert Business Attorney or your attorney in and around the cities of Palm Springs, Palm Desert, San Diego, Orange County, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Laguna Beach, Anaheim, Riverside, Chula Vista, Irvine, San Bernardino, Huntington Beach, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, La Jolla, Del Mar, San Marcos, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Garden Grove, Palmdale, Long Beach, Corona, Yorba Linda, Escondido, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Victorville, Carlsbad, Temecula, Murrieta, Mission Viejo, El Cajon, Vista, Westminster, Santa Monica, Malibu, Westwood, Hesperia, Buena Park, Indio, Coachella, Del Mar, Oxnard, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Cambria and Santa Barbara.

Posted on June 18, 2010 by , Reply