AdrLawInfo

Thank you Founding Fathers! Please read the Declaration of Independence: http://www.taxesq.com/declaration.pdf

Why I Support Ron Paul for President

Taxes
First, Ron Paul is the only limited government, lower taxes candidate. He has never voted to increase taxes and desires to cut government spending and taxes needed to support the spending. You cannot increase government (whether it is "infrastructure" as used by the Big Spenders, or transfer payments and subsidies,) and expect to lower taxes.

Free Trade
Ron Paul supports real free trade not more governmental organizations such as NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. Free trade is simple... we won't tax imports and other countries do not tax our exports.

War and Foriegn Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. We have no business making "regime changes" and trying to knock down or prop up other governments. We are not and can never be the policemen of the world.

Personal Liberty
The biggest threat to personal liberty is the government. We must limit the ability of the government to collect and store data about citizens' personal matters. Every government agency restricts individual choice. We need to cut back on government and increase personal freedom. The Constitution has a very limited role for the Federal government. Washington has no business being involved with education, abortion, religion, race relations, housing, etc. These are the rights left to the individuals and the states.

Yes, Ron Paul CAN WIN
The so-called "practical" political commentators say that Ron Paul can't win so we should unite behind a "winner" even if we do not support their views. This is the old "unite for unity" trap and is akin to Machiavelli's "the end justifies the means" argument. Let's vote for the best person...Ron Paul for President in 2008!

Ronald J. Cappuccio

Click Here to contribute to Ron Paul's Campaign

Labels: privacy, ron paul. government, taxes

Firm's Mishandling of Arbitration Leads to $10M Award, Malpractice Finding


A Delaware federal judge has found a New York law firm liable for legal malpractice for mishandling an arbitration resulting in a $10 million award against a client. Lawyers from Fox Horan & Camerini failed to adequately investigate the obligations contained in the agreement at issue in the arbitration and therefore failed to make an argument that would have prevented their client being found liable, the judge ruled, holding that the firm breached the standard of care owed to the client.
Click Here for the full Article.

On July 28, 2005, the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in State v. Williams affirmed the confidentiality of statements made to a mediator during the course of a municipal court sponsored mediation session pursuant to Rule 1:40. In this case, the defendant sought to call the municipal court mediator who had attempted to resolve a municipal court case involing the defendant as a defense witness at a subsequent criminal trial in Superior Court.

The Supreme Court, in a 5 to 2 decision, ruled that the effectiveness of the mediation process in municipal court is based in large measure upon the confidentiality that the Rules of Court provide for the people involved in the process. In order to relax the Rule providing for this confidentiality (also known as the mediator's privilege) the moving part must demonstrate that a.) the need for the substantially outweighs the interest in protecting the confidentiality and b.) the evidence is not otherwise available. This interpretation by the Court is in conformity with the recently enacted Uniform Mediation Act, NJSA 2A:23C-1 thru 13.

In the opinion, note the Court's assertion that the right of confrontation is not absolute and the analysis of Rule 1:1-2 dealing with the relaxation of Court Rules.

In a decision that some are calling an important victory for consumers’ rights, a sharply divided Supreme Court of California has ruled arbitration clauses that prohibit class actions are unenforceable under state law. For the complete article click here.

The 9th Circuit cut in front of the California Supreme Court on Tuesday by ruling that the state's stringent ethics rules for neutral arbitrators are trumped by federally sanctioned standards -- an issue the state high court is set to tackle next week. California's arbitration standards conflict with those of self-regulating organizations, which are approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 9th Circuit opinion held that rules used by SROs maintain uniformity nationwide.
Full Article

Despite finding that an arbitrator committed a "glaring" mistake when he premised his ruling on language that did not exist in a collective bargaining agreement, the 3rd Circuit has ruled that the award must stand because it nonetheless "draws its essence" from the CBA. At issue in the case was whether a medical employee's exercise of seniority rights to "bump" outside her classification -- displacing the least senior person in that classification -- was supported by the CBA.
Click Here for Article