Eliminating Judicial Favoratism – New York Judges’ Rules

The Fund for Modern Courts has recently made a recommendation to judges in the State of New York. They have recommended to judges, who have accepted a campaign contribution of $1,000 or more from a lawyer or an interested party in a case, to recuse themselves from handling the case. Previously, in 2003, a commission in New York State recommended a $500 cut off for judges to recuse themselves. This suggestion was not accepted by New York Judges.

The best method for eliminating questions involving favoritism related to campaign contributions would be for the State of New York to set up a well thought out politically independent merit selection process for judges. This would eliminate the need for judges to campaign. It would also remove any question as to judicial favoritism regarding campaign contributors.

–Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq.

Picture courtsy of progressivestates.org.

Death By Firing Squad

There are 35 states in the United States of America that currently have death penalty statutes on their books. Utah is the only state in American that still has uses a firing squad as a method of execution.

On Friday April 23, 2010, a judge in Utah agreed to an inmates request that the death penalty that was rendered against him be carried out, in what can be considered on old west style of justice, by firing squad.

Ronnie Lee Gardner, 49 years of age was given a choice as to how the death penalty would be carried out. His choice was either lethal injection or to be shot in front of a firing squad that included a team of five men. Death by firing squad is a carry over from Utah’s territorial history.

Mr. Gardner has been advised that his appeals have been exhausted. He was convicted of killing a lawyer during a shoot-out in April 2005. The shoot-out resulted from Mr. Gardner trying to escape. His execution is scheduled for June 18.

Query: Will it be televised?

The criminal defense lawyers at The Law Office of Elliot Schlissel are available anytime at 800-344-6441 or by e-mail.

Picture courtesy of civilliberty.about.com.

Long Term Care Hospitals – A Capitalist Solution

During the past quarter of a century there have been over 400 long term care hospitals built in the United States. These hospitals do not provide acute care for specific illnesses. They are, generally speaking, holding facilities for individuals who are too sick for nursing homes but not sick enough for regular hospitals.

Patients often stay for many weeks or months in these facilities. Many of these patients are senior citizens. Long term care hospitals have a much higher rate of bed sores and infections among their patients than regular hospitals. They are also more profitable than regular hospitals. They generally do not do surgery in the long term care facilities or handle medical emergencies. Patients needing these services are transferred to general hospitals. 

A large portion of the bills paid for the treatment at long term care hospitals are paid by Medicare. For profit, long term care hospitals often spend less money on patients and have higher profit margins than regular hospitals.

Inspections in the past 3 years in long term care hospitals have found increasing levels of violations of healthcare standards. Many long term care hospitals do not maintain staff physicians on a 24 hour basis. If you have a friend or loved one in along term care facility, you should monitor their treatment to see to it that they are provided with an appropriate level of medical care.

Should you have any problems regarding a hospital stay or a stay at a long term care facility, feel free to contact the Law Office of Elliot S. Schlissel at 1-800-344-6431 or email us at schlissel.law@att.net.

–Elliot Schlissel, Esq.

Picture courtesy of life123.com.

Congress Should Help Homeowners

The federal government has bailed Wall Street firms out to the tune of $700,000,000.00. This is a form of corporate welfare. The restructuring was done to prevent large Wall Street firms from going bankrupt. Instead of amending the Bankruptcy Law to help these Wall Street firms, the government simply gave them $700,000,000.00 in loans.

Recently, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and Lloyd Blankfein received millions of dollars in salary packages. The government bails out Wall Street and the Wall Street tycoons get richer and richer. During this period of time, between 7.1 million and 7.9 million households according to mortgage bond trader, Amherst Securities, fell behind in their mortgage payments and are subject to losing their home.

It is estimated that as many as 25% of all the homes in the United States have mortgages on them that are greater than the value of their home. The term used to describe this situation is calling the home “under water”. President Obama had initially asked that when individuals do mortgage modifications with their banks that the banks restructure their mortgage so they only have to pay an amount equal to the value of their home. The banks have refused to do this. The mortgage modifications by banks in the United States modify the payments but do not reduce the amount that is owed.　

The Bankruptcy Law Needs to Be Changed

The United States Constitution reserves all rights to make laws concerning bankruptcies to the federal government. Congress passes all laws that deal with bankruptcy.

Congress needs to strengthen the bankruptcy court’s ability to restructure mortgage loans when individuals file bankruptcy. Congress has already bailed out Wall Street. Now they need to bail out the American homeowner. Unfortunately, the large financial institutions in this country oppose any modifications to the Bankruptcy Law to help out homeowners.

Congress needs to help the American homeowner and modify the Bankruptcy Laws to deal with the issue of restructuring mortgages that are under water. Congress has already bailed out the financial industry to the tune of $700,000,000.00, now they need to bail out the American homeowner!

Should you have questions concerning bankruptcy or mortgage modifications, feel free to contact the Law Office of Elliot S. Schlissel to discuss these matters at 1-800-344-6431 or email us at schlissel.law@att.net.

–Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq.

Picture courtesy of grassland properties.

May/December Romance Needs a Pre-Nuptial

Aging movie stars often have relationships with young beautiful women. There are many examples of these “May/December” relationships. Michael Douglas, age 65, is married to the beautiful Catherine Zetta Jones, age 40. Lorenzo Lamas, age 52 is engaged to be married to Shawna Craig, age 23. Bruce Willis, who was formerly married to Demi Moore, is 54. He recently married, Emma Hearning, a 30 year old model. He trumps his ex-wife, Demi, who is 47 years old and married to the 32 year old, Austin Kutcher.

How do these aging movie stars avoid losing their shirt when these Hollywood marriages fail. One way, that anyone with assets can avoid losing a substantial portion of their assets in a divorce is to have a Pre-Nuptial Agreement. Pre-Nuptial Agreements basically set up a plan for the division of assets and for spousal support (alimony) should the marriage fail. The agreements are straight forward and deal with all financial marital issues.

Pre-Nuptial Agreements are now commonly used by individuals who are married more than once during their lifetime. They deal with problems presented at the time of divorce, they also deal with inheritance rights in the event one of the parties to the marriage (usually the older man) dies first.

I have written many Pre-Nuptial Agreements in my legal practice that deal with May/December marriages. I often wonder about the basis of these relationships. Is it the financial security the deep pocketed man provides or is it true love? I am sure love is a factor but I very rarely come across a May/December marriage where the man is both older and poor!

Should you have a question about a Pre-Nuptial or Post-Nuptial Agreement, feel free to give the Law Office of Elliot S. Schlissel a call at 1-800-344-6431 or email us at schlissel.law@att.net.

–Elliot Schlissel, Esq.

Picture of Bruce Willis & Emma Hearning courtesy of iVenus.com.

Five Million Dollars for Drowning Victims’ Families

In 1997, Eugenie Poleyeff, went swimming on 29^th Street and Collins Avenue in Miami Beach. Eugenie ran into trouble and screamed for help. Zachery Breaux, a jazz guitarist, jumped into the water. Zachery’s wife and children ran up and down the beach looking for a life guard.

Zachery eventually reached Eugenie in the water. However, he was not able to rescue her. In fact, they both drowned. Both Frederica Breaux and Israel Poleyeff, a rabbi, brought lawsuits. These lawsuits claim that the City of Miami was negligent in failing to have life guards. They also claimed that there should have been riptides warnings at the beach on the date of the incident. The lawsuits indicated that Miami Beach had parking facilities, shower facilities and concession stands for beach goers but had no life guards or notifications to beach goers concerning riptides.

The courts in Florida found there was no liability. In a decision in 2009, the Florida Supreme Court eventually ruled that cities had a responsibility to warn beach goers of dangerous conditions that they were aware of.

After a decade long battle, the family of Zachery Breaux, received a court award of $5,000,000. Unusual situations and unusual injuries may involve liability. Should you, a friend or family member be injured, you should consult the Law Office of Elliot S. Schlissel for a consultation as to whether the injuries are actionable. So e-mail us or give us a call anytime at 800-344-6431.

-Elliot Schlissel, Esq.

Picture courtesy of sky.com.

False Arrests & Wrongful Shooting By Police

A couple in Louisville, Kentucky were looking for a hotel room. They had their two young children in the car. Two unmarked cars blocked their vehicle and men emerged from these vehicles with guns in their hands.

The man (Mr. Brewser), thinking the couple were going to be robbed fled nearly ran over one of the men with drawn guns. Eventually, he realized that he was being chased by the police. When the police stopped him he told them he thought he was being robbed. The men were in plain clothes and no one identified themselves as a police officer.

The police slammed Mr. Brewer to the ground, causing him injury. While the police were pursuing him they were shooting at the Brewer’s vehicle. Courtney Pruitt, who was in the vehicle with her small children was shot in the arm. Mr. Brewer and Courtney Pruitt have sued the Louisville Metro Police for false arrest and improper shooting.

Sometimes, police officers make mistakes. If you are the subject of improper police conduct, call the Law Offices of Elliot S. Schlissel for a consultation to discuss whether you have a remedy to deal with this unfortunate situation. We can always be reached by e-mail or at 800-344-6431.

–Elliot Schlissel, Esq.

Picture courtesy of loganfamily.ws.

Nursing the Wrong Baby

In January of 2008, Jennifer Spiegel, gave birth to her son. A baby was brought to Jennifer’s room to be fed and Jennifer nursed the baby. Unfortunately, the baby she nursed was not her son!

Eventually, a nurse in the maternity ward discovered that Jennifer was nursing the wrong baby. When Jennifer was made aware of this, she became very depressed. She said it was a horrible internal feeling.

Jennifer has now sued Evingston Hospital in Chicago asking for $30,000 in damages. That’s a lot of money for a small amount of breast milk!

Should you have a problem regarding medical care or a hospital, the Law Offices of Elliot S. Schlissel will be happy to give you a free consultation to discuss whether you have an actionable case. So e-mail us or give us a call anytime at 800-344-6431.

–Elliot Schlissel

Picture courtesy of WellSphere.com.

DWI–Without Driving Your Car!

Here we go again. As we explained back in April of last year, it’s quite possible to get a DWI just for being in or near your car, even if you’re not driving.

One evening in Minnesota, Daryl Fleck, had about a dozen beers. He felt intoxicated and he decided to sleep it off in his car which was parked outside of his house. When the police arrived, he was sleeping in his car with the driver’s side door in an open position.

Daryl had left his keys in the center console of his car. The car keys were nowhere near the ignition. At the time the police arrived the engine was cold and there was no indication the car had been started. The police officers determined that Mr. Fleck was intoxicated. His explanation as to why he was sleeping in the car made no sense to the police.

Minnesota has a legal blood alcohol limit of .08. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Fleck’s blood alcohol level was .18.　

Mr. Fleck was convicted of driving while intoxicated in Minnesota because he had access to the vehicle while intoxicated. He received 48 months in jail plus 5 years probation. He appealed his case all the way up to the Minnesota Supreme Court which affirmed his conviction.

His attorneys were able to show the court that even if Mr. Fleck had put his keys into the ignition and tried to start the car it would not have started. This is because the car was not in running condition.

There have been case in New York that our office has been involved with involving individuals charged with driving while intoxicated who had never started their car. I have repeatedly told clients that in the event they are intoxicated, do not go near your car. The courts have given very liberal interpretations in the State of New York as well as in the State of Minnesota as to when the crime of driving while intoxicated occurs. In New York you simply need to be in your car in the driver’s seat in an intoxicated state with access to the ignition key.

Should you be charged with driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol, it is important that you consult a law firm experienced in handling these matters. For more than 30 years, the Law Offices of Elliot S. Schlissel have represented individuals on DWI and DUI matters. We have provided excellent representation to hundreds of individuals who have been charged with drinking while driving offenses. Should you or a loved one be faced with a criminal charge of driving while intoxicated, e-mail or call us at 800-344-6431. We can help you.

Picture courtesy of wcco.com.

Can the Police Search Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant?

In Ohio, cell phones protected by the 4^th amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.

In a recent decision, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that police officers need to obtain a warrant in order to search a cell phone. This decision by the Ohio Supreme Court takes into consideration the fact that cell phones today go far beyond the means of basic communication. They are mini computers that store large amounts of personal information. From this point forward, the personal information becomes a protected privacy right, at least in the State of Ohio.

Although most searches require warrants, police officers are allowed to search their immediate surroundings when dealing with potential arrests for their own self protection. The Ohio case involves a man named Antwaun Smith. He was arrested on drug charges. At the time of his arrest his cell phone was ceased and later it was searched. The police found information important to their investigation on his cell phone calling records.

The recent ruling of the Ohio State Supreme Court was a divided 4/3 vote. The decision indicated that Mr. Smith’s protection against unreasonable search and seizures under the 4^th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated. The court, in its decision stated that cell phones are “capable of storing a wealth of digitized information”. The court’s decision indicated that individuals using cell phones have an expectation of privacy which is protected by the 4^th Amendment to the US Constitution.　

The Ohio court’s ruling creates a new type of privacy. As hand-held devices become more and more sophisticated, they will contain more and more personal information. Individuals rights of privacy in devices that are basically hand-held mini computers should be protected by the 4^th Amendment to the US Constitution. I have every hope that when a case presents itself, the NY Court of Appeals will make a similar ruling that respects individuals rights of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures of all types of hand-held telephones and computer devices.

Should you, a friend or a loved one be subject to what amounts to be an unreasonable search, the criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Elliot S. Schlissel can use their expertise and diligence to protect your rights and the rights of a friend or a loved one. E-mail or call us at 1-800-344-6431.

Picture courtesy of the Daily Iowan.