You work Children's Court - like I do - and you hear things. Especially when you're representing kids in CPS cases that are within a day's drive of the US-Mexico border.
And, this week, I learned some thought-provoking info about running Mexican nationals across the border. Each immigrant pays $1500 to the smuggler (here, we call them coyotes) to get him safely to his US destination.
At $1500/head, that's really good money. And it is apparently a booming business in a bad economy.
Sure, Border Patrol knows about this. They're trying. But think about it. You are a Mexican American, or I suppose you could be anyone as long as you have contacts in Mexico.
You aren't educated, and you've got kids to raise. Times are tough.
So, you make some arrangements and you drive your car down near the border. Maybe you stop at the Dairy Queen outside of Laredo. Maybe you just pull up next to a certain mile marker not far from Brownsville.
And, suddenly, 7 people rush to your car, or minivan, or SUV, and jump in. You speed off, and within an hour or two, you've dropped them off at their cousin's house. In San Antonio, or Austin, or San Marcos or somewhere.
And, in one afternoon, you've made $10,500.00.
Sure, that's gross revenue. You'll have to pay the Mexican contact some of it. You'll maybe have to pay the drug cartels a portion, if they know you're operating. But even if those costs run 50%, you've still made $5250 in one afternoon.
And $5250 net for one afternoon's driving is very good money indeed.
For more, read this discussion of women becoming coyotes.
3/05/2009
3/04/2009
US Supreme Court approves drug lawsuits in state court -- FDA approval isn't synonimous with immunity. Good.
Okay, first things first -- here's the link to the actual US Supreme Court slip opinion, issued today in Cause No. 06-1249, styled Wyeth v. Levine, certiorari to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
It's a pre-emption case. 6-3 decision.
The high court has ruled that federal law does not pre-empt the claims made by the plaintiff, Diana Levine, that the defendant, Wyeth Laboratories, did not provide adequate warnings concerning the use of the IV-push method of administering its drug Pherangan. In other words, FDA approval doesn't shield the drug manufacturer from responsibility for monetary damages as defined by state personal injury law.
As a result, Wyeth is facing paying big money liability under Vermont state law for the improper administration to Levine of its drug, which entered her artery and not her vein as it should have, causing immediate gangrene and the ultimate amputation of her arm. (In her initial trial, the Vermont jury awarded Diana Levine $6.7 million - and I don't know what she's going to get now, what with all that interest covering all these years.)
Her job? Professional musician (pianist and guitarist). Did I mention big money yet?
Today, there's lot of coverage (like this article in USA TODAY and this one in USNews & World Report) about the US Supreme Court's decision.
As well there should be.
First, the high court could have written this opinion narrowly. It didn't. If you take the time to read it, it's quite broad. Don't think this wasn't intentional.
Second, there are lots of personal injury attorneys out there who know the costs involved in pursuing these type of drug injury cases, and today's decision sure does give them a comfortable level when they're analyzing risk in taking future drug injury cases to trial in state court.
FDA approval, schmoval. You can just hear the plaintiffs' bar tee-heeing with glee.
Third, and best from my perspective, people who have been injured or killed by a lot of sloppy FDA decisions aren't going to have to worry about that FDA pre-emption issue now. Who really trusts FDA approval now, like say folk did in 1980?
There have been too many recalls -- and those "oops" were in a big way. Kids and pets and all sort of innocent folk got hurt and killed by products that initially got the FDA okey-dokey.
My vote? Levine v. Wyeth was a good decision, even if you can already hear the cries of "lawsuit abuse" in the wings.
It's a pre-emption case. 6-3 decision.
The high court has ruled that federal law does not pre-empt the claims made by the plaintiff, Diana Levine, that the defendant, Wyeth Laboratories, did not provide adequate warnings concerning the use of the IV-push method of administering its drug Pherangan. In other words, FDA approval doesn't shield the drug manufacturer from responsibility for monetary damages as defined by state personal injury law.
As a result, Wyeth is facing paying big money liability under Vermont state law for the improper administration to Levine of its drug, which entered her artery and not her vein as it should have, causing immediate gangrene and the ultimate amputation of her arm. (In her initial trial, the Vermont jury awarded Diana Levine $6.7 million - and I don't know what she's going to get now, what with all that interest covering all these years.)
Her job? Professional musician (pianist and guitarist). Did I mention big money yet?
Today, there's lot of coverage (like this article in USA TODAY and this one in USNews & World Report) about the US Supreme Court's decision.
As well there should be.
First, the high court could have written this opinion narrowly. It didn't. If you take the time to read it, it's quite broad. Don't think this wasn't intentional.
Second, there are lots of personal injury attorneys out there who know the costs involved in pursuing these type of drug injury cases, and today's decision sure does give them a comfortable level when they're analyzing risk in taking future drug injury cases to trial in state court.
FDA approval, schmoval. You can just hear the plaintiffs' bar tee-heeing with glee.
Third, and best from my perspective, people who have been injured or killed by a lot of sloppy FDA decisions aren't going to have to worry about that FDA pre-emption issue now. Who really trusts FDA approval now, like say folk did in 1980?
There have been too many recalls -- and those "oops" were in a big way. Kids and pets and all sort of innocent folk got hurt and killed by products that initially got the FDA okey-dokey.
My vote? Levine v. Wyeth was a good decision, even if you can already hear the cries of "lawsuit abuse" in the wings.
2/18/2009
Alan Greenspan to the Economic Club: It's Almost as Bad as the 1930s
Well, he talks about fear being a big problem, and then sandwiches that bit of ham with all sorts of skeery talk.
If you'd like to read what former Federal Reserve King Alan Greenspan said to the Economic Club of New York today, Yahoo News has most of his speech here.
Here are the tidbits that everyone is going with (IHT, Bloomberg, Financial Times):
... the current worldwide recession will "surely be the longest and deepest" since the 1930s ...(I read this to mean that it's going to be as bad or worse as that of the Great Depression)
"[t]o stabilise the American banking system and restore normal lending, additional TARP funds will be required ..." (how many trillions is he thinking about? Does no one remember the German printing presses?)
the plummet "cannot persist indefinitely...." (this too shall pass?)
the housing market must recover for this horror to end, and "the prospect of stable home prices remains many months in the future...." (wasn't this the guy that everyone's blaming for the housing bubble mess?)
The stock market is being impacted by "a degree of fear not experienced since the early 20th century .... Certainly by any historical measure, world stock prices are cheap. But as history also counsels, they could get a lot cheaper before they turn."(I read this as please, people, keep buying cuz that's all that's keeping this thing afloat.))
If you'd like to read what former Federal Reserve King Alan Greenspan said to the Economic Club of New York today, Yahoo News has most of his speech here.
Here are the tidbits that everyone is going with (IHT, Bloomberg, Financial Times):
... the current worldwide recession will "surely be the longest and deepest" since the 1930s ...(I read this to mean that it's going to be as bad or worse as that of the Great Depression)
"[t]o stabilise the American banking system and restore normal lending, additional TARP funds will be required ..." (how many trillions is he thinking about? Does no one remember the German printing presses?)
the plummet "cannot persist indefinitely...." (this too shall pass?)
the housing market must recover for this horror to end, and "the prospect of stable home prices remains many months in the future...." (wasn't this the guy that everyone's blaming for the housing bubble mess?)
The stock market is being impacted by "a degree of fear not experienced since the early 20th century .... Certainly by any historical measure, world stock prices are cheap. But as history also counsels, they could get a lot cheaper before they turn."(I read this as please, people, keep buying cuz that's all that's keeping this thing afloat.))
1/16/2009
No Matter What, You're Having a Better Month Than Judge Samuel Kent. Here's Why
Judge Samuel Kent is the first federal judge in HISTORY to be charged with sex crimes, and he's coming up for trial on January 26th. Seems the prosecution not only has two former employees willing to testify against him, but they've added an Obstruction of Justice charge. Wo Nelly.
That obstruction charge kicks it over the fence in my book. But, why drone on here, when Mike Lowe's Criminal Lawyer blog does it so well?
Go read all about Ol' Judge Kent at the Lowe blog. Kent is done.
That obstruction charge kicks it over the fence in my book. But, why drone on here, when Mike Lowe's Criminal Lawyer blog does it so well?
Go read all about Ol' Judge Kent at the Lowe blog. Kent is done.
1/15/2009
Who Is Jose Baez Besides Being Casey Anthony's Attorney?
After reading today at Examiner.Com that Jose Baez's past experience involves winning 32 out of 34 trials while working as an intern at a Public Defender's Office as well as doing internet training at Lexis-Nexis, I was shocked.
How did this guy get to be the lead counsel on the biggest case of the year? And however snooty this may sound, Casey Anthony BETTER have a dream team if this is the type of experience we're talking about here.
Most defense attorneys work years before they take on felony cases of this magnitude, where the death penalty is involved. And that's before you add in all the media hoopla. What gives?
Here's what I found out about Jose Baez.
1. First of all, his website doesn't allow you to read his bio page - it just clicks back to the home page when you attempt to go there. Nice, expensive website.
2. WESH-TV in Orlando reports that it has checked out his recent past experience in their records; however when you compare this to the Baez site with its four "success stories," it's duplicative.
Plus, there's only FOUR and they are the kind of wins you'd expect an aggressive, Young-Turk type of defense attorney to have on his site at this point. NOTHING near to the complexity of the Anthony matter.
3. You can't pull up his information at Martindale, when is a site owned by Lexis - purportedly, his former employer. He's not in Martindale???? What??????
4. The Florida Bar Association shows Jose Angel Baez to be in good standing with them, with offices in Kissamee, Florida. He was admitted to practice in September 2005.
5. I found a site, avvo.com, that reports Jose Baez got his law degree from St. Thomas School of Law - while Investigation Discovery quotes Baez's web site as Baez having a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Criminology from Florida State University. Same source also quotes the Baez site as Baez working for the Public Defender's Office since 1995.
Okay.
We know that he's been licensed to practice for around 3 years when he takes the Casey Anthony case.
We know that he's got an office in Kissimmee, and he's paid for a very nice website.
We know he's not listed in Martindale (a real red flag to lawyers out there).
Today, I can't get anything off the website. However, it appears that those seeking information about Baez have had access to it, and it's been from his own website that they've reported his "success stories" as well as his background and experience.
Personally, I'll give Jose Baez this: as a trial lawyer, you go into a courtroom and take responsibility for another human being.
It takes a whole lot of chutzpah to do that job. Courage, huevos, whatever you want to call it.
And it's clear that Jose Baez has that in spades.
What's not clear is what the heck Jose Baez thinks he's doing, representing Casey Anthony. Her defense is something that even the most seasoned of advocates would find challenging.
He's gone out and got himself some co-counsel. Good. Great.
Because there's a thing called "ineffective assistance of counsel" that every jailhouse lawyer can chant like a mantra upon appeal and if my search of the web is all we've got to put in an appellate brief here, well - Katie Bar the Door.
Point of Error comin'.
Unless, of course, on the first day of trial we get a Surprise Change in Lead Counsel -- a Mystery Lawyer who reveals himself or herself as things tee up (wouldn't that make a great Nancy Grace Bombshell?)....
Update: After a self-imposed gag order on posting regarding the Casey Anthony Case, I have begun posting again beginning June 3, 2011. For reasons on the gag, and why I decided to lift it, you can read my June 3d post.
You May Also Be Interested in Elements State Must Prove to Win - Three Prongs to First Degree Murder in Florida and Circumstantial Evidence vs. Direct Evidence.
How did this guy get to be the lead counsel on the biggest case of the year? And however snooty this may sound, Casey Anthony BETTER have a dream team if this is the type of experience we're talking about here.
Most defense attorneys work years before they take on felony cases of this magnitude, where the death penalty is involved. And that's before you add in all the media hoopla. What gives?
Here's what I found out about Jose Baez.
1. First of all, his website doesn't allow you to read his bio page - it just clicks back to the home page when you attempt to go there. Nice, expensive website.
2. WESH-TV in Orlando reports that it has checked out his recent past experience in their records; however when you compare this to the Baez site with its four "success stories," it's duplicative.
Plus, there's only FOUR and they are the kind of wins you'd expect an aggressive, Young-Turk type of defense attorney to have on his site at this point. NOTHING near to the complexity of the Anthony matter.
3. You can't pull up his information at Martindale, when is a site owned by Lexis - purportedly, his former employer. He's not in Martindale???? What??????
4. The Florida Bar Association shows Jose Angel Baez to be in good standing with them, with offices in Kissamee, Florida. He was admitted to practice in September 2005.
5. I found a site, avvo.com, that reports Jose Baez got his law degree from St. Thomas School of Law - while Investigation Discovery quotes Baez's web site as Baez having a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Criminology from Florida State University. Same source also quotes the Baez site as Baez working for the Public Defender's Office since 1995.
Okay.
We know that he's been licensed to practice for around 3 years when he takes the Casey Anthony case.
We know that he's got an office in Kissimmee, and he's paid for a very nice website.
We know he's not listed in Martindale (a real red flag to lawyers out there).
Today, I can't get anything off the website. However, it appears that those seeking information about Baez have had access to it, and it's been from his own website that they've reported his "success stories" as well as his background and experience.
Personally, I'll give Jose Baez this: as a trial lawyer, you go into a courtroom and take responsibility for another human being.
It takes a whole lot of chutzpah to do that job. Courage, huevos, whatever you want to call it.
And it's clear that Jose Baez has that in spades.
What's not clear is what the heck Jose Baez thinks he's doing, representing Casey Anthony. Her defense is something that even the most seasoned of advocates would find challenging.
He's gone out and got himself some co-counsel. Good. Great.
Because there's a thing called "ineffective assistance of counsel" that every jailhouse lawyer can chant like a mantra upon appeal and if my search of the web is all we've got to put in an appellate brief here, well - Katie Bar the Door.
Point of Error comin'.
Unless, of course, on the first day of trial we get a Surprise Change in Lead Counsel -- a Mystery Lawyer who reveals himself or herself as things tee up (wouldn't that make a great Nancy Grace Bombshell?)....
Update: After a self-imposed gag order on posting regarding the Casey Anthony Case, I have begun posting again beginning June 3, 2011. For reasons on the gag, and why I decided to lift it, you can read my June 3d post.
You May Also Be Interested in Elements State Must Prove to Win - Three Prongs to First Degree Murder in Florida and Circumstantial Evidence vs. Direct Evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)