Lawyerup09: April 2009

« January 2009 | Main | May 2009 »

April 2009

April 27, 2009

Trial Version of SPUDS for on-line interactive TRUMBA Calendar

calendar spud.

<html><head><title></title></head><body> <div style="width:600px; padding:24px 25px; border:2px solid #516B92; margin-bottom:20px;">
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.trumba.com/scripts/spuds.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript">
$Trumba.addSpud(
{ webName: "trumbaualumni",
spudType: "main"});
</script></div></body></html

Posted by Melissa Sugar-Gold at 07:07 AM in spuds | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

When do the police need a warrant to make an arrest?

As long as the police have good reason (called "probable cause") to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person they want to arrest committed the crime, they can, with just one exception, make an arrest without asking a judge for a warrant.

The exception? There are few places where the adage "a man's home is his castle" still applies, and an arrest at home is one of them. The police must have a warrant to arrest a person at home if the arrest is for a non-serious offense -- such as a simple assault -- and there is no fear that the person they want to arrest will destroy evidence or cause harm to the public

If I'm arrested, do the police have to "read me my rights"?

No. However, if they start questioning you but haven't read you your rights, they can't use anything you say as direct evidence against you at trial. What are these rights? Popularly known as the Miranda warning (ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona), your rights consist of the familiar litany invoked by TV police immediately upon arresting a suspect: This is somewhat confusing because too many people believe that Just because the police did not read you your rights that anything you say will be excluded from evidence against you. Not exactly true:

There are two requirements that must both exists before Miranda Warnings are necessary

(1) You, or the suspect, the alleged offender, the accused must be in custody.

This in and of itself is confusing, because what exactly does "custody" mean? There have been so many cases {Jurisprudence} on this very topic that it would take a life time to read all of the case law. Bottom line & in a very brief nutshell, a person is in actual police custody for the onset of Miranda to kick in if an average person under the same or similar circumstances would feel that he/she is not free to leave.

Having said that, it is not necessarily a requirement that the accused be

{a} Handcuffed

{b} even @ the police station

{c} you do not have to be under arrest

in fact custody can and has occurred at a person's own home. The courts look @ each case on an individual basis and make the decision of whether a person is "in Custody" for the purposes of Miranda based on the "totality of the circumstances.

Some factorrs to be considered in determining the totality of the circumstances are"

This list is in no way exhaustive:

(1) Did the person voluntarily go to the police station to answer questions- if so less chance of actual custody, however once @ the police station was the person free to leave or free to cease answering questions at anytime, if so then less chance of custody. However given the circumstances would an average reasonable person feel that he was not free to leave , even though he was free to leave? then more likely the courts will hold "in custody"

(2) How Long was the person questioned, was he free to use the restroom, get a soft drink, make phone calls- probably not custody

(3) Did the police give the person the impression that they HAD to come to the police station- then more likely Custody

(4) was the person threatened or intimidated by police, whether the questions occurred on the street, at the police station , or in the persons home? how many police involved, if a large number of uniformed police present and guns drawn- custody

again, I stress, each case much be determined on an individual case by case analysis

THE SECOND PART OF THE TWO PART PRONG

(2) Interrogation

are the police asking questions in an interrogating manner. Or better said, are the questions designed to illicit an incriminating response, if so then this is interrogation, if not and the questions are just basic fact gathering questions such as "what is your name? Where do you live?
Probably not going to be held by a court to rise to the level of interrogation

so you need

custody + interrogation = CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION

WITHOUT THE ABOVE, MIRANDA DOES NOT KICK IN

HOWEVER, ONCE A PERSON UNEQUIVOCALLY ASSERTS HIS 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS, ONCE A PERSON ASSERTS HIS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY---ALL QUESTIONING MUST IMMEDIATELY STOP AND IF THE POLICE INITIATE QUESTIONING AGAIN, WHATEVER IS SAID IS INADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW

Of course, just as with every law of criminal procedure there are multitude of exceptions. This is far too extensive of a topic for em to even begin to cover all of it, I am merely sharing the very bare bone minimum basics:

EXCEPTIONS:

(1) If the accused is the one who initiates the resuming of the talk

(2) If the accused is not unequivocal is asserting his rights:

{a} I want a lawyer......questioning must stop

{b} I think maybe it would be a good idea if I spoke to an attorney ...not enough to require questioning to stop

NONE OF THE ABOVE OR BELOW INFORMATION IS IN ANY WAY A SUBSTITUTE TO THE URGING THAT IF YOU ARE EVER QUESTIONED BY THE POLICE. ALWAYS ASK FOR A LAWYER AND REFUSE TO SPEAK UNTIL YOUR LAWYER ARRIVES OR UNTIL ONE IS APPOINTED FOR YOU. NO MATTER WHAT THE POLICE SAY, DO, OR PROMISE.

NEVER FORGET THAT THE POLICE ARE PERMITTED BY LAW TO USE TRICKERY TO GET YOU TO TALK

You have the right to remain silent.
If you do say anything, what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This part of the warning is usually omitted from the screenplay.)

It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or in the middle of an open field: If you are in custody (deprived of your freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question you and use your answers as direct evidence at trial. If you are not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street for questioning about a recent crime and the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.

Posted by Melissa Sugar-Gold at 03:49 AM in Criminal Law | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Common Criminal Law & Procedure Questions

What's the best way to assert my right to remain silent if I am being questioned by the police?

If you're taken into custody by the police, you don't have to use any magic words to let police officers know that you want to remain silent. You can simply say nothing in response to police questions. Or, after an officer gives you a Miranda warning, you can stop the questioning by saying something like:

I want to talk to an attorney.
I won't say anything until I talk to an attorney.
I don't have anything to say.
I don't want to talk to you anymore.
I claim my Miranda rights.

If the police continue to question you after you have asserted your right to remain silent, they have violated Miranda. As a result, anything you say after that point -- and any evidence gleaned from that conversation -- will not be admissible at your Trial

Will a judge dismiss my case if I was questioned without a Miranda warning?

No. Many people mistakenly believe that a case will be thrown out of court if the police fail to give Miranda warnings to the arrested person. What Miranda actually says is that a warning is necessary if the police interrogate a suspect and want to use any of her responses as evidence. If the police fail to give you a Miranda warning, nothing you say in response to the questioning can be used as evidence to convict you.

In addition, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates the Miranda rule, that evidence is also inadmissible at trial. For example, if you tell the police where a weapon is hidden and it turns out that you gave this information in response to improper questioning, the police will not be able to use the weapon as evidence unless the police can prove that they would have found the weapon without your statements.

WHAT EXACTLY CAN THE POLICE DO TO ME WHEN THEY ARE ASKING ME QUESTIONS? CAN THEY FORCE OR COERCE ME TO GIVE A STATEMENT OR A CONFESSION?

Information that you voluntarily disclose to a police officer (after you have been properly warned) is generally admissible at trial. The key word is "voluntary." Police officers are not allowed to use physical force or psychological coercion to get you to talk to them. The days of the rubber hose, protracted grilling under bright lights, and severe sleep deprivation are pretty much over. If police officers obtain information through any of these illegal means, the information cannot be used by the prosecutor at trial. In addition, under the rule known as "the fruit of the poisonous tree," any evidence that the police obtain as the result of a coerced statement is equally inadmissible.

Defendants often claim that police officers coerced them into talking. And it's just as common for police officers to say that the defendants spoke voluntarily. If the police physically coerce a defendant into talking, the defendant can support his coercion claims with photos of marks and bruises. But actual police brutality is unusual, and a defendant cannot usually offer independent evidence to support his claims of psychological coercion. Judges, believing that defendants have a greater motivation to lie than do police officers, usually side with the police and conclude that no coercion took place.

IF I AM ARRESTED CAN THE POLICE FORCE ME TO GIVE A DNA SAMPLE?

Yes. Many people believe that being required or forced to give bodily samples -- such as blood, hair,saliva or fingernail clippings -- is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's protection against self-incrimination, found in the Fifth Amendment. But the U.S. Supreme Court thinks otherwise. It has ruled that the Fifth Amendment protects communications only, and that bodily samples are physical evidence and therefore not covered by the protection against self-incrimination

Posted by Melissa Sugar-Gold at 03:46 AM in Criminal Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 23, 2009

SOLO PARACTICE UNIVERSITY- LAW PRACTICE FOR PRACTICING LAWYERS

..........A NEW SCHOOL FOR PRACTICING ATTORNEYS -SOLO PRACTICE UNIVERSITY

........law practice for practicing lawyers

....... A unique new place for lawyers, built by lawyers

While I am sure many of you are saying to yourselves right about now, " What? More School? Is this Lady Crazy? Who wants more school? Not a lawyer, right. Certainly not a recent law school grad who has just endured the grueling , & physical & emotional draining of the Bar Examination"

Think about it, think back to Law School. Unless it has changed considerably since I was in school, Law school teaches old case law, logic,& how to one day hopefully solve legal problems. In a nut Shell Law School is designed to reprogram you. Reprogram how we think & how we write.

How many of you had a professor in law school who said this: "I want you to forget everything you have learned up till now about how you learn and I want you to completely forget how you were taught to write?"

You know the Prof., the one who said that , did so just after he said " LOOK TO YOUR LEFT, NOW LOOK TO YOUR RIGHT. GOOD, GET A GOOD LOOK, BECAUSE CHANCES ARE YOU WILL NEVER SEE THESE PEOPLE AGAIN, NOT AFTER THE FIRST SEMESTER, BECAUSE TWO OF YOU WILL NOT BE HERE." And we all knew what he meant. Two out of every three were expected to flunk out, not make the cut. I am sure this was designed to scare the hell out of us. Me, I was already scared to death.

I was the very first Sacrifice in Prof. Rooney's Property class, meaning that on the very first day of class, I was the lucky chic called upon by the Prof. Those of you who attended a law school that used the Socratic method of teaching can surely understand the humility I was put through for over 25 minutes as I stood in the class and answered questions about some Year 1800 case; the facts, the issue, the courts holding. Did I agree with it? If I did then you could bet the teacher did not and vice verse. No canned briefs of caw notes allowed in this class.

Professor Rooney was very bright. He never missed a chance to remind us the he graduated number 2 from his Harvard Law School class; Ralph Nader was number one.

Here I am some 25 years later. I can still spit off the definition of the "Rule against perpetuates" I still cannot tell you what that definition means. I can however tell you this:

There was not one single class in law school that taught us how to actually be a lawyer, certainly not a trial lawyer; not how to go out and get clients or how to keep them happy. In a nut shell again, Law School does not teach us how to be a good lawyer. Our skills and technique are unique to each of us and they are developed over years of practice, yes that is right, PRACTICE. PRACTICING LAW.

You cannot learn it from a lecture. You have to learn it from hands on experience. It is trial and error and the more you do something, anything, the better you get at it.

The one thing I did not have when I first started practicing law, but that we all have the opportunity to take advantage of now is the benefit and wisdom of some of the very best, the elite , the creme de la creme, the instructors at the newly launched Solo Practice University. SPU does not just benefit new law school graduates; it offers a wealth of experience and knowledge to those of us who have left the comfort of the corporate world, of the mega Law Firms, of the Government guaranteed pay Check, to do what many of us have only dreamed of- to open our own firm, to hang our shingle, to work for ourselves, to FLY SOLO.

A NEW SCHOOL FOR PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

SOLO PRACTICE UNIVERSITY OR JUST PLAIN SPU. YEP, I GO TO SPU AND I LOVE IT.

I have been following Consultant, Susan Cartier Liebel on line for as long as I have been following Blogs.. Admittedly I am a late bloomer when it comes to Legal Blogging or "Blawging", but once I started, it did not take long for me to catch the BIOG FEVER. I owe this to Susan. Her excellent Blog "BUlLD A SOLO PRACTICE was (is) my inspiration. It was (is) also the very first place on the Internet that I turn to for help, advice, information, ideas, suggestions, and links to other great Blogs now that I have my own wings; now that I left my cushy paycheck job to Hang my Shingle and Fly Solo.

Thanks to Susan and now to SPU I am soaring my wings and enjoying my flight~~~~which is after all, what it is all about.

My all time favorite legal blog and probably what keeps me tap tap tapping away on the computer board and chip, chip, chipping away at my private practice belongs to Susan Liebel Cartier, She kept me inspired as I learned (still learning) to blog and as I quenched my endless thirst for knowledge.

I am pleased to announce that my long (but well worth it) wait for Susan Cartier's launching of the web based educational community and networking community forum for lawyers and law students is well under way and it is a big hit.

Susan Cartier Liebel founder of Solo Practice University has launched us into the future of legal practice. SPU is the new highway for the practice of law for solo practitioners. So if life is a highway and SPU is the new highway: Get your motor running, get out on the highway....

I have enrolled as a student and I could not be more pleased or impressed with the on line program, the faculty, the available courses and the community groups.

Susan and co-founder Dave Carson said it best " This is a unique community for lawyers built by lawyers, because well, we kinda 'get' solo lawyers"

To read more about Susan or to get hooked on her informative and interesting blog, please visit her @ http://www.buildasolopractice.soloparacticeuniversity.com

There are far too many excellent and reputable staff members for me to name them all in this post. I do however, feel compelled to mention a couple of the elite. I am sure I will have more to add and comment on once I get busy with my courses and get to know my instructors.

Another author of one of my favorite blogs, Arnie Hertz, author of "Legal Sanity" has joined SPU faculty and is teaching a course called "Legal Sanity Career Strategies: Work Smart Live Free"

To read more about Arnie Hertz or to just join is the heated debate on whether a solo should find a niche and stick to or spread their wings thin and practice the kitchen sink approach to law, you will find his blog interesting and a pleasure to read. Please visit http://www.legalsanity.com

And another notable author, Jay Foonberg, author of the Best Seller, " How to Start and build a Law Practice" THE BOOK as many of us solos refer to it, and often referred to as the 'Bible for new solos" has joined the SPU faculty. He is teaching more than one course so I will just comment on the course I am currently enrolled in. Let me just add that I live by this mans books. I am never without my torn, worn, written it, highlighted book "how to start and build a law practice. If you do not already own this book and you want to succeed in your own law practice, go to www.foonberglaw.comor you can make your puchase from the American Bar Association, where members get quite a big discount at www.abanet.orgwherever you go, just go and buy a new copy of this book. It is worth the extra few bucks to purchase it new. You will want to earmark your own spots and you will need all the white space to take your own notes, It is well worth the cost and it is a resourse book that you will actually use and use ona regular if not daily basis.

Foonberg is teaching as his first course "Client Relations 101: teaching lawyers how to improve client relations" This course is based on his "Nine Steps to a Successful Law Practice" Now, who among us cannot use a course or a refresher course in client relations? Think about it? first of all what is the number one reason clients make complaints about theirr attorneys the the disciplinary committee? Yes, You guessed it. Lawyers not having enough contact with theirr clients or the contact not providing the clients with sufficient information about the status of ther case. Of course none of us want t be reported to the bar, but that is putting the cart before the horse. Before we can have a client Rupert us, we have to know how to go out there and get clients. Without clients, we do not have a law practice. This Course will not only help layers learn how to get clients, but how to make them happy, keep them coming back and better yet, get our clients to refer us more clients. Of course while learning how to keep our clients happy we will simultaneously be covering our behinds and avoiding those dreaded bar complaints.

For more information about Jay Foonberg or to order one of his many best selling books, or to order the books he has available at the American Bars association, please visit Jay's website.

www.foonberglaw.com

Find out for yourself what SPU is all about, what all the hoop-lah is. Read what students have to say: Like, Glenn a current student writes

"You have injected new enthusiasm into my veins" I love that one. Glenn would do well writing novels, he certainly has a way with words that grab us and hook us from the start.

"...SPU is like a Giant Candy Store..." ~~Karen Holmes

I could go on & on, but this is one place you have to visit and witness for yourself; to appreciate all that it has to offer.

The originality alone is remarkable and there is nothing else like this.

LAW PRACTICE FOR PRACTICING LAWYERS...WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT

THE JURY IS BACK, THE VERDICT IS IN, IT I UNANIMOUS: SOLO PRACTICE UNIVERSITY IS A HIT AND WITH THE TOPNOTCH FACULTY AND THE COMMUNITY GROUPS, I BELIEVE IT IS THE REAL DEAL AND THIS LAW SCHOOL IS HERE TO STAY.

SUSAN CARTIER LIEBEL & DAVE CARSON HAVE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT LAWYERS ARE NOT ALL SHARKS AND A GREAT NUMBER OF US WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT HELPING CLIENTS AND DOING IT WELL AND A GREAT NUMBER OF EXPERIENCED AND SEASONED LAWYERS HAVE VOLUNTEERED A VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR TIME TO MAKE THE TRANSITION TO SOLO PRACTICE SMOOTH FOR THE LAWYERS AND BENEFICIAL FOR THE CLIENTS.

I do believe SPU, just may be the answer to save us from the tiresome, overused and worn out lawyer jokes. So those of you who just have to poke fun at professionals, it is time to start refreshing your memory with your used car salesmen jokes. Our profession, our noble profession just moved up several notches. We are a people serving group, a problem solving group. And as you can see we have pulled together for the greater good of the the lawyers and the public.

I am delighted to be on my own in private practice. I began my solo practice just two years ago. I can only imagine the heights to which i will fly with he help of SPU. If only they had been around when i first hung my shingle, i would probably be soaring so high I would be with the eagles, or as my darling paralegal loves to refer to herself and our law firm, the legal beagleand the paralegal-eagles.

I am flying solo and i could not be more content. I am now in the unique position of offering my clients all of the outside and above the call of duty help and counseling that they want, need and deserve. Something I was always prevented from doing when I worked for big conglomerates. the big guys never had time for the people. When we as lawyers, get too big for our britches that we cannot spare extra time and go that one step further for a client, well, then, we kinda don 'get' what the practice of law is all about.

My new creed: Let me never forget that I took an oath to work in profession designed to serve the people and their needs. If I ever forget that and begin to act like a fat-cat big-shot attorney, someone e-mail me this post and knock my ass down a notch or two or more....

I do believe, however that as long as I stay connected to SPU, the values, moral, and ethics of the greatest lawyers around will forever remain with me and as a part of my soul.

Thank you Susan for the opportunity to fly solo and......to soar...... fly high.....

For more information on Solo Practice University, the faculty, the available courses, the mission, the purpose, the tuition, enrollment policy, take minute now, do not put it off until tomorrow and look into this true wave of our future,

Check out "LAW PRACTICE FOR PRACTICING LAWYERS'

go to www.solopracticeuniversity.comyou will not be disappointed, there truly is something available and helpful to all attorneys and staff.

Posted by Melissa Sugar-Gold at 07:42 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Change

When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves. ~Victor Frankl

Posted by Melissa Sugar-Gold at 03:51 PM in DAILY QUOTES, MESSAGE, LIFE'S LESSONS | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 22, 2009

OVERZEALOUS SCHOOL OFFICIALS TAKE STRIP SEARCH TOO FAR

Dear ACLU Supporter,

When Savana Redding was just 13 years old, she was strip-searched by school officials for allegedly possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen. This traumatizing search was based solely on the false and uncorroborated accusation of a classmate who was caught with similar pills.

Overzealous school officials violated Savana's rights and called into question basic constitutional protections for all students in schools across America.

This morning, the Supreme Court heard arguments from ACLU attorney Adam Wolf in this powerful case.

Savana and her mother, April, recorded a short video with Graham Boyd, an attorney here at the ACLU who is working with them. I think you’ll find it moving to meet a real hero who’s taken her case to the Supreme Court.

Please watch this powerful video, and send a message of support to Savana and her mother.

Watch the video to learn more about this incredibly powerful story. Then, please take a moment to send Savana a note of encouragement.

It offends both common sense and the Constitution to undertake such an excessive, humiliating search based on nothing more than an uncorroborated accusation.

We hope the Supreme Court will recognize that such violations have no place in America’s schools and will act to protect the privacy of all children.

Savana Redding and her mother have endured a lot in the past six years to bring their case this far -- they deserve our respect and our thanks. Please take a minute to write a message of support. It will be included with messages from ACLU supporters all across the country and presented to Savana and her mother in the weeks ahead.

Without people like Savana and April willing to walk into court to defend their rights, much of the ACLU's work would not be possible. We owe them more than our admiration. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

I hope you'll listen to their story and share your message today.

Thank you for supporting this fight.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

Posted by Melissa Sugar-Gold at 12:27 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 06, 2009

I am Back & will update all post on a regular basis

Hello everyone. I am glad to finally be back to my very "novice" Blog. Some of you may have noticed that I have been MIA for a while. I have read your comments asking me to complete many of the post I began and I fully intend to do just that. Beginning this week with my follow up to "Virtual assistants" as promised I researched the top five and I have happily chosen one for my own law firm and will post the pros and cons of each this week.

In addition, I noticed that many of you showed great interest the first part of my article on In "Emotional Affairs" and as promised I will conclude my findings and my poll this week.

I am currently in New Orleans catching up on my much need C.L.E. hours. It is hard to find time for the hours when you run a solo practice, but believe me this is when we need to make sure we keep current on the law , more than ever.

As soon as I finish my hours I intend to complete all post I began and then I intend to post information and my personal experience to something new and quite unique for solo firms.

I recently enrolled ( after eagerly waiting for the program to get up and running) in an on line class, well it is more like a law school for lawyers.

IT IS CALLED SOLO PRACTICE UNIVERSITY, and I cannot stress the benefits of enrollment in this program. Many of the classes have already started, but do not let that hinder you; you can play catch up with live video taped classes. Many classes are still TBA. The faculty is amazing and includes many of the experienced attorneys whose books I already read and use everyday in my practice.

Tomorrow before I head off to my seminar I will publish the link to this amazing, cutting edge program that will benefit not just new attorneys, but all solos and even veteran attorneys and all of you who are contemplating flying solo

Until tomorrow. Goodnight...and I am really enjoying this flight, flying solo that is, and now that I have the support and knowledge of such amazing lawyers at the click of my mouse, I can only see my solo flight soaring higher and higher

Posted by Melissa Sugar-Gold at 03:55 AM in FLYING SOLO WITH HELP | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 03, 2009

ShareThis Product Features ShareBox Video

Posted using ShareThis

Posted by Melissa Sugar-Gold at 11:29 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

glo_title

Nice to Meet You, One Trillion Dollars

Posted using ShareThis

Posted by Melissa Sugar-Gold at 06:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 02, 2009

SUPREME COURT UPDATE

Harbison v. Bell , Warden

No. 07-8521

In reversing a 6^th Circuit opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal a denial of federally appointed counsel, and that federally appointed counsel may represent clients in state clemency proceedings and be compensated for that representation. Following Tennessee state courts’ rejection of Petitioner’s conviction and death penalty challenges, a federal public defender had been appointed to represent him in a habeas petition. Upon denial of that petition, counsel sought to continue representing Petitioner in state clemency proceedings since Tennessee does not provide counsel for such proceedings. The District Court had denied the motion, and the 6^thCircuit had affirmed.

For a copy of the slip opinion, see: http://www.supremec ourtus.gov/ opinions/ 08pdf/07- 8521.pdf.

For More updates visit us @ www.sugarlawfirm4u.com