Tuesday, July 2, 2013

LEAD PAINT DEFENDANT UPDATE: BALTIMORE & D.C. --- Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")

Lead Paint Defense Law Update in Baltimore:

Landlords in Baltimore --- is there chipping, flaking or peeling in your property? If so, beware. Take precautions.

Look for chipping, peeling, or flaking paint on interior and exterior walls, window sills, wells and frames, door frames, ceilings, wooden trim, stairwells, floors and porches. Lead dust is most often created by the opening and closing of old windows and doors.
Remember that renters of your property can file petitions for rent escrow in District Court to raise the issue of lead paint and other hazardous conditions in your property.
Landlords are required by law to perform “risk reduction” on pre-1950 properties.
"Risk Reduction" is a series of treatments by an accredited repair person who are specially trained to perform the repairs to minimize the risk of lead exposure to you and your tenants.

These treatments include:
- The removal and repair of chipping, flaking, peeling paint.
- The capping of window wells with vinyl or aluminum.
- The use of special cleaning procedures to pick up lead dust once repairs are completed.
Why is the issue of lead exposure in Baltimore so important?

Because, if you live in or own an older house (generally built before 1950) in Baltimore, lead paint is a public health problem --- particularly since it may harm pregnant women or young children.

In fact, for a number of years now, Baltimore has ranked among the most hazardous cities in the U.S. for lead poisoning. The East Coast (U.S.) major cities of Baltimore, New York and Philadelphia have, among other locations, serious lead paint problems. In Baltimore, a majority of lead paint poisoning cases occur in Park Heights, Sandtown and Middle East.

Which Baltimore dwellings are covered by Maryland's lead paint laws?

If you live in or own a rental house built before 1950, the house (if not occupied by the owner) falls under a special Maryland law that protects tenants and imposes certain duties on landlords. The law also limits a landlord’s liability if s/he can meet certain standards. In addition, owners of houses built between 1950-1978 may also participate in the special liability limitation program.

A recommended resource and starting place is the MD Department of the Environment’s "Lead Line" website. The site includes "What Every Parent Should Know About Lead", tips on how to identify lead paint hazards, a special package of material for tenants, owner rights and responsibilities plus resources if you suspect lead is present (including laboratories for testing, lead blood level information and lead paint abatement services and contractors).

Comparing State and Federal Laws

Federal and state laws address lead poisoning issues in slightly different ways. A shared feature is that each law requires that specific information be given to current and new tenants. Both Federal and Maryland law require landlords to give to each tenant the pamphlet “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home”. Maryland law also requires distribution by landlords of an additional pamphlet entitled “Lead Poisoning Prevention - Notice of Tenants’ Rights”.

For detailed information about the federal law and how to obtain copies of the federally mandated pamphlet, call the National Lead Clearinghouse at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323) or the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning at 410-534-6447.

In addition, for detailed information about the Maryland law and how to obtain copies of the state-mandated “Notice of Tenants’ Rights” call the Maryland Lead Poisoning Hotline at 1-800-776-2706, or TDD (410) 631-3009, or the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning at 800-370-LEAD.

Maryland Lead Poisoning Prevention Program

In 1994 the General Assembly established the Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for the purpose of reducing the incidence of childhood lead poisoning while maintaining the stock of affordable rental housing. This program requires owners of older residential rental properties to meet certain risk reduction standards. It also provides more affordable insurance and the protection of limited liability for owners who comply. It is administered by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). For more information call the Lead Poisoning Hotline at 1-800-776-2706, or TDD (410) 631-3009. Read the Law: MD Code, Environment § 6-801- 6-852; Article 48A, Secs. 734-737; Real Prop. § 8-208.2

Following is a summary of the law:

The owners of all rental dwelling units built before 1950 must comply with this law. Owners of units built between 1950 and 1978 may choose to comply and thus benefit from limited liability.

The law exempts rental units owned or operated by federal, state, or local government or by a public, quasi-public, or municipal corporation, provided the property is subject to standards that are at least as strict as the standards established by this law.

To Obtain Liability Protection, Owners Must:

Register all rental dwelling units with the Maryland Department of the Environment before December 31, 1995. Owners who acquire affected property after that date must register within 30 days after acquisition.

Effective February 24, 1996, owners must distribute, by a verifiable method, the “Notice of Tenant’s Rights” and “Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home” pamphlets to all new tenants at the inception of a new tenancy. For existing tenants, they must receive both copies every two years by a verifiable method.

Meet the Full Risk Reduction standard upon each change in tenant occupancy before the unit is re-rented. These standards can be met by either passing a test for lead dust or by undertaking appropriate lead hazard treatment such as removing chipping, peeling, or flaking paint, stripping and repainting, replacing, or enclosing interior window sills with approved materials, making bare floors smooth and cleanable.

Have all treated units certified by an MDE-accredited inspector.

Comply with specific Risk Reduction standards when notified of certain conditions such as chipping paint or the presence in the unit of a child or pregnant woman with an elevated blood lead level of 15 Fg/dl or higher.
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is one of Maryland's and Washington, D.C.'s premier lead paint defense firms.

Along with its expertise in lead paint defense work, the firm is very highly regarded in the areas of criminal defense and civil litigation, medical malpractice and wrongful death, personal injury and transactional legal matters.

Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]

MARYLAND/VIRGINIA BLACK FARMERS UPDATE: By Attorney & Author Charles Jerome Ware, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

I. RECENT (2013) FARM BILL

Thursday, June 20th, 2013: The U.S. House of Representatives today rejected the proposed $500 billion farm bill [www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/06-20-2013].

II. In Re Black Farmers discrimination litigation settlement.

Congress set aside $1.25 billion for this settlement. These federal funds are separate from other lawsuits, and may only be used for this specific settlement.

Thursday, June 20th, 2013: The "Ombudsman" for the In Re Black farmers discrimination litigation settlement issued a report on the "progress in implementation" of the settlement, including the following information.

Claim forms have been made available to "about 89,057 claimants".
Claim forms have been "timely submitted to the Claims Administrator by about 37,925 claimants".
Claim forms submitted by class members are "complete".
[www.inreblackfarmersombudsman.com/ombudsman, P.O. Box 19100, Washington, D.C. 20036/1-866-686-8682]

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")

Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]

BLACK FARMERS CLASS ACTION CASE:

TIMOTHY PIGFORD, et al. v. ANN VENEMAN, Secretary of the U.S Department of Agriculture, and CECIL BRWEINGTON, et al., v. MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Civil Class Action Cases Number 97-1978 (PLF) and Number 98-1693 (PLF); Filed: August 28, 1997, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; Case "Settled and Terminated": April 14, 1999; Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 3rd, 2005 in re the Court's January 2005 Opinion denying a previous motion by a group of Black Farmers to modify the Consent Decree, by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors.

1. Terms of the Consent Decree

Under the consent decree, an eligible recipient is an African American who (1) farmed or attempted to farm between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, (2) applied to USDA for farm credit or program benefits and believes that he or she was discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race, and (3) made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997. The consent decree set up a system for notice, claims submission, consideration, and review that involved a facilitator, arbitrator, adjudicator, and monitor, all with assigned responsibilities. The funds to pay the costs of the settlement (including legal fees) come from the Judgment Fund operated by the Department of the Treasury, not from USDA accounts or appropriations.

2. Case history

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Timothy Pigford, who was joined by 400 additional African-American farmer plaintiffs. Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture, was the nominal defendant. The allegations were that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate price support loans, disaster payments, "farm ownership" loans, and operating loans, and that the USDA had failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination.

After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.

The Pigford consent decree established a two-track dispute resolution mechanism for those seeking relief.

The most widely used option was called "Track A" which could provide a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability.

Track A claimants had to present substantial evidence (i.e., a reasonable basis for finding that discrimination happened) that:

claimant owned or leased, or attempted to own or lease, farm land;
claimant applied for a specific credit transaction at a USDA county office during the applicable period;
the loan was denied, provided late, approved for a lesser amount than requested, encumbered by restrictive conditions, or USDA failed to provide appropriate loan service, and such treatment was less favorable than that accorded specifically identified, similarly situated white farmers; and
the USDA’s treatment of the loan application led to economic damage to the class member.

Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the "Track B" process. Track B claimants had to prove their claims and actual damages by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., it is more likely than not that their claims are valid). The documentation to support such a claim and the amount of relief are reviewed by a third party arbitrator, who makes a binding decision. The consent decree also provided injunctive relief, primarily in the form of priority consideration for loans and purchases, and technical assistance in filling out forms. Finally, plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw from the class and pursue their individual cases in federal court or through the USDA administrative process.

This settlement was hastily approved on April 14, 1999, by Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

[see, "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers," Congressional Research Service, Tadlock Cowan (January 13, 2009); www.blackfarmercase.com; cnsnews.com/news/article/ "Thousands of Black Farmers File Claims in USDA Discrimination Settlement"; www.washingtonpost.com/02-19-2010/ "U.S. Approves Settlement for Black Farmers"; www.reuters.com/2010-02-18/"Black Farmers Win $1.25 billion in Discrimination Suit"]

07/01/2013, Charles Ware's New Laws Update: Maryland, Virginia, Drones, Guns, Et Al.

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

Also see, "Understanding the Law: A Primer," by Attorney and Author Charles Jerome Ware.

It's July 1st, 2013 --- mid-year --- and new laws are going into effect all over the United States.

Maryland: Gas tax increases by 4 cents. Many Maryland drivers will probably go to Virginia to buy their gas since Virginia's gas tax is actually decreasing. New smoke detector law requires 10-year lithium battery in battery-only smoke detectors (and must be sealed). Sales of crib bumper pads are banned. Early voting registration permitted. "Compounding" pharmacies now subject to state review. These pharmacies change medicine to fit the needs of a particular patient.

Virginia: Virginia's "lewd and lascivious cohabitation" law is repealed. This law made it a misdemeanor to live with or be romantically involved with a person to whom one was not married to. Consequently, this law made every unmarried couple, living together, criminals. Texting while driving is now a "primary" offense in Virginia.

A person will receive at least one year in jail if they are found to be purchasing a firearm in the state for the purpose of reselling it to a buyer who is prohibited from owning a firearm also known as a strawman purchase. This was a Class 5 felony but is now a Class 4 felony. The public records of concealed handgun permits will not be made public. They will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

— GUNS: State legislatures across the U.S. discussed gun laws in the wake of mass shootings that shocked the nation in 2012. Most efforts to pass restrictions faded amid fierce opposition. Only a handful of states enacted new limits, some of which go into effect Monday. Among them Colorado is notable for requiring background checks for private and online gun sales and outlawing high-capacity ammunition magazines. At least 18 states, however, have gone the other way and loosened gun laws. Kansas laws set to take effect will allow schools to arm employees with concealed handguns and ensure that weapons can be carried into more public buildings.

— TECHNOLOGY: Dozens of states examined technology laws. Recently passed legislation in eight states will prevent businesses from demanding passwords to social media sites as a condition of employment. The law in Washington state also stops employers from compelling workers to add managers as "friends" so their profile can be viewed. Four states updated tech laws to allow drivers to show proof of car insurance on an electronic device, such as a smartphone.

— CARS: A handful of states have restricted cellphone use while driving. Starting July 1st, 2013 in Hawaii and West Virginia motorists will have to put down handheld devices. Meanwhile, in South Dakota beginning drivers will face similar restrictions. Utah also enacted limits for newbies with a law that has already taken effect. A few states have banned texting while driving. Other state laws affecting drivers will make it illegal to smoke in a car with a child, raise highway speed limits, crackdown on drunken drivers and raise gas taxes.

— ABORTION: Nationally, state lawmakers proposed more than 300 bills that would have restricted abortions, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. At least 13 state legislatures passed new limits, though two are waiting for governors to sign off. Notably, a bill that would have closed almost every abortion clinic in Texas was dramatically defeated by a Democratic filibuster and a restless crowd in late June. The Texas governor, however, has ordered another special legislative session to push the bill through. North Dakota has passed the nation's strictest abortion law, which takes effect in August, banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

—DRONES: An Idaho law taking effect Monday forbids anyone from using an unmanned aircraft for spying on another. Virginia has passed a ban preventing authorities from using drones for the next two years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Four other states approved anti-drone regulations, though legislation aimed at law enforcement in Texas isn't effective until fall.

— SEXIST LANGUAGE: Washington State's lawmakers are completing work to strip the state's books of sexist language. References to "his" will be changed to "his or her," college "freshmen" will become "first-year students" and "penmanship" will be called "handwriting."

— JACKPOT: Wyoming residents might soon consider 7, 1 and 13 as lucky numbers. A Cowboy State law kicking in Monday calls for the state to establish a lottery for the first time, leaving a dwindling list of only a handful of states without such a prize drawing.

— ELECTION DAY DRINKING: Kentucky has lifted a ban on election day drinking. It was one of the last states with Prohibition-era restrictions on the sale of alcohol while polls are open.

— EDIBLE LANDSCAPING: Maine lawmakers this session have directed officials to plant edible landscaping, such as fruit trees or berry shrubs, around the Statehouse.

Monday, July 1, 2013

CHARLES JEROME WARE: "TOP LAWYERS IN MARYLAND"

Charles Jerome Ware, Esquire

Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors

One Thousand Century Plaza Building

10630 Little Patuxent Parkway

Suite 113

Columbia, Maryland 21044-2104

PH: (410) 730-5016

FAX: (410) 730-7603

EMAIL: CHARLESJEROMEWARE@MSN.COM

WEB: WWW.CHARLESJEROMEWARE.COM

Personal Injury. Medical Malpractice. Criminal Defense. Civil Litigation.

Class Action Lawsuits. Antitrust. Corporate Law. Family Law. Entertainment Law.

Immigration Law. DWI/Traffic. Estate Planning. Elder Law.

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]

CHARLES JEROME WARE is the consummate trial attorney. He litigates on both the state and federal levels throughout the United States every year: including Maryland, Washington, DC, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, et al. Education: Talladega College (B.A., With Honors, 1970); Howard University School of Law (J.D., With Distinction, 1975). Experience: Staff Member, U.S. Senate, 1973-1975. In-House Legal Counsel, Lecturer and Writer, Boston University, 1975. Assistant Director, Lecturer and Writer, Boston College Law School, 1976. Trial Attorney, U.S. Justice Department, 1979-1982. U.S. Immigration Judge, 1980. Special Assistant

United States

Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, 1982-1984. Special Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 1983-1986. General Counsel for the Maryland State Conference of the NAACP, 1988-1994. Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Saint Paul’s College, Lawrenceville, Virginia, 1986-1987. Member: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland State and American Bar Associations; the Supreme Court of the United States; The District of Columbia Bar; U.S. District Court of Maryland; U.S. District Court of DC; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; National Bar Association; The Association of Trial Lawyers of America; Maryland Trial Lawyers Association; American Inns of Court; Founder and President, The William Monroe Trotter Political Research Institute; Co-Founder and President, The Maryland Elder Abuse Hotline; Co-Creator and Host, “The Lawyer’s Mailbox” Radio Program, WEAA-FM Radio. Some Major Clients include: AFRAC Industries; former mayor of Atlanta/U.S. Congressman/United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young, II; former Boston Celtic Sam Jones; the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Sir Speedy, Inc.; The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association; actor Danny Glover; Dr. Deepak Chopra, M.D.; Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority (WMAA); entertainer Vanity; professional announcer Michael Buffer; late Marvin Gaye’s wife Sherrill Gaye. Some Major Cases include: Hall, et al. vs Burger King, $750 million class action discrimination and antitrust lawsuit; Andrew Jackson Young III vs District of Columbia, et al., police brutality lawsuit; Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Board, class action discrimination lawsuit; Terrence Johnson vs State of Maryland, petition for writ of habeas corpus lawsuit; Cheryle Adams vs All-State Insurance, et al, automobile and pedestrian personal injury lawsuit. Awards: Charles Hamilton Houston Award for Outstanding Trial Advocacy, by the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., 1989; Chief Justice Earl Warren Legal Scholar. Lecturer: Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), the California Bar, the Maryland Bar, the Florida Bar, the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA), the National Bar Association, the American Bar Association, Harvard Law School, Oxford University in England, the University of London in England.

CHARLES J. WARE: AABAAC "BEST ATTORNEYS"

Charles Jerome Ware, Esquire

Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors

One Thousand Century Plaza Building

10630 Little Patuxent Parkway

Suite 113

Columbia, Maryland 21044-2104

PH: (410) 730-5016

FAX: (410) 730-7603

EMAIL: CHARLESJEROMEWARE@MSN.COM

WEB: WWW.CHARLESJEROMEWARE.COM

Personal Injury. Medical Malpractice. Criminal Defense. Civil Litigation.

Class Action Lawsuits. Antitrust. Corporate Law. Family Law. Entertainment Law.

Immigration Law. DWI/Traffic. Estate Planning. Elder Law.

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

United States

SCOTUS SPEAKETH: "DOMA IN A COMA", "DOUBTING THOMAS" & "SCALIA THE PESSIMIST" --- Update By Charles Ware

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

"DOMA IN A COMA"

The Supreme Court handed down two rulings on June 26, 2013 --- United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry --- bolstering same-sex marriage by ruling part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and allowing a lower court ruling to stand that struck down California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

In the first decision, United States v. Windsor, the court ruled today that a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples, is unconstitutional.

And in a separate opinion, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the court dismissed a case that asked the court to overturn a lower-court decision striking down the California marriage law. The decision paves the way for marriages to resume in California.

Details on United States v. Windsor:

The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage,” for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.

[United States v. Windsor, Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Docket No. 12-307, Op. Below: 2nd Circuit, Opinion Written: Justice Kennedy, Decision: June 26, 2013]

Syllabus on Hollingsworth v. Perry:

After the California Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the California Constitution, state voters passed a ballot initiative known as Proposition 8, amending the StateConstitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Respondents, same-sex couples who wish to marry, filed suit in federal court, challenging Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and namingas defendants California’s Governor and other state and local officials responsible for enforcing California’s marriage laws. The officials refused to defend the law, so the District Court allowed petitioners—the initiative’s official proponents—to intervene to defend it. After a bench trial, the court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and enjoined the public officials named as defendants from enforcing thelaw. Those officials elected not to appeal, but petitioners did. The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court: whether official proponents of a ballot initiative have authority to assert the State’s interest in defending the constitutionality of the initiative when public officials refuse to do so. After the California Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit concluded that petitioners had standing under federal law to defendProposition 8’s constitutionality. On the merits, the court affirmed the District Court’s order.

Held: Petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court’sorder. Pp. 5–17.

[Hollingsworth, Et Al. v. Perry, Et Al., Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), No. 12-144, Opinion Below: 9th Circuit, Opinion Written: Justice Roberts, CJ, Decision June 26, 2013]

"SCALIA THE PESSIMIST"

"Justice Scalia predicts the future, once again, in gay-marriage dissent" --- [www.abajournal.com/news/article, June 27, 2013].

Ten years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia warned in Lawrence v. Texas that the Supreme Court majority had created “a massive disruption of the current social order” by striking down a Texas law barring sodomy.

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision,” he wrote. Based on the court majority’s reasoning, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?”

The Washington Post and U.S. News note Scalia’s prediction, as well as his new slippery-slope warnings in his dissent Wednesday in United States v. Windsor. The majority opinion cited equal protection and due process considerations when it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") that bans federal benefits to same-sex married couples.

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,” Scalia wrote in his Windsor dissent. He points to wording in the majority opinion finding that supporters of DOMA acted to “disparage and to injure” same-sex couples, to “demean,” to “impose inequality” and to impose “stigma.”

“As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘ “bare . . . desire to harm” ’couples in same-sex marriages. … How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”

Mother Jones magazine highlighted “the best (or worst) lines from Scalia’s angry dissent” in an article that began this way: “Justice Antonin Scalia is not a big fan of gay sex, gay marriage, or gay anything.”

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]

[www.scotusblog.com/U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry/June 26, 2013; abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme Court/June 27, 2013]

BIRTH INJURY/PERINATAL SAFETY UPDATE: Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, A National Law Firm

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

Patient safety and the obstetric team's central role in providing quality care have been on the forefront of national and international health care discussions for many years. Advances in care for perinatal and neonatal patients have reduced the frequency of morbidity and mortality. However, perinatal litigation is increasing and the U.S. is ranked higher than many countries for frequency of perinatal morbidity and mortality!

Clinical challenges remain in many areas such as interpretation of fetal heart rate patterns and neonatal response to treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis.

Clinical documentation has increasingly been key in the outcome of litigation. "If it wasn't written, was it done"?

Documentation. Documentation. Documentation: 3 Keys.

[see, "Birth Injuries, The Law & Perinatal Safety", Contemporaryforums.com]

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The national medical malpractice, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of automobile death, criminal defense, personal injury, medical malpractice, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.

Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]

The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."