Ganar la lotería: LOS SECRETOS DE GANAR POR DR. CHARLES JEROME WARE!!!

Ganar la lotería: LOS SECRETOS DE GANAR POR DR. CHARLES JEROME WARE!!!

(Libro Nuevo En Inglés) "La ciencia secreta de ganar loterías, sorteos y concursos": leyes, estrategias, fórmulas y estadícas; Periferia Presna: Denver (2012); amazon.com

Cuando se trata de loteríias, sorteos y concursos, hay maneras de mejorar sus probabilidades o probabilidades de ganar. ellos se discuten en este libro, con um montón de detalles y un poco de humor.

Confianza ciega en la suerte o el azar no es necesario ganar loterías, sweepstakes y concursos.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) TO REVIEW MARYLAND DNA LAW IN 2012: Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware (www.CharlesJeromeWare.com)

The United States Supreme Court announced on Friday, November 9th, 2012 that it will review Maryland's DNA law, which so far allows police to collect samples of suspects' genetic material (without their permission) for possible matches to other crimes, in 2013.

The Maryland DNA law, a key crime-fighting initiative of Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, was ruled unconstitutional by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the State's highest court in April 2012.  However, in July 2012, SCOTUS's Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr., issued an order allowing police to continue collecting the DNA samples from suspects, signaling that the highest court in the nation may ultimately consider and weigh in on the issue.

The case at issue is Maryland v. King, S. Ct. Docket No. 12-207 (Term: OT 2012), 425 Md. 550, 42 A. 3d 549 (2012), which comes from a previously unsolved 2003 rape case in Salisbury, Maryland.  When a DNA sample was taken from the suspect, Alonzo Jay King, Jr., after an arrest on unrelated assault charges in 2009, it was used to convict him of the earlier unsolved rape crime of 2003.  Declaring that the use of King's DNA violated his constitutional rights, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) overturned his conviction on April 12, 2012 and remanded the case back to trial court.

It is anticipated that a key issue to be raised before SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) is whether the collection (or taking) of suspects' DNA before they are even convicted of crimes and using the DNA samples to link the suspects to previous or future crimes violates their right of privacy and constitutes an unlawful search and seizure under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Maryland DNA law went into effect in 2009.  Supporters of the law equate the collection of DNA from suspects to the collection of fingerprints. 

The law is officially titled: The Maryland DNA Collection Act, Md. Pub. Saf. Code Ann. § 2-501 et seq. (Lexis 2011).

[articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-11-09/new/ "Supreme Court Will Review Md. DNA Law"; www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/ Maryland v. King, 07/30/2012, No. 12A48, U.S. Supreme Court; www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/maryland-v-king]

COLUMBIA, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND WRONGFUL DEATH ATTORNEYS: www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

When anyone dies through the negligent act or omission of another, a wrongful death claim can result. Our law firm as well as our affiliates specialize in achieving large financial recoveries from our successful prosecution of wrongful death cases as well as other significant personal injury matters.

Wrongful death claims are brought on behalf of the Estates of persons whose deaths were caused by catastrophic or devastating legal events such as automobile accidents, product failures, medical and dental malpractice, and other forms of negligence.

A wrongful death claim can develop from any type of personal injury case that results in the death of someone.

The death of a loved one is a profound and horrendous event that can have far-reaching consequences.

The law in a wrongful death case in Maryland is multifaceted and our attorneys at Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., a national wrongful death firm, have both the experience and the expertise to build sound cases against all of the involved negligent parties.

Call us for your free consultation at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129; or visit us at our website: www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

MARYLAND: $2.8 Million Med-Mal Award Reversed By Court of Special Appeals

Dr. Roger Schneider had a good day in appellate court on June 1st, 2012. On that day the Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued its opinion in the case, Schneider v. Little, CSA No. 1346, September Term 2010, Reported. Opinion by Judge Berger, Argued on May 8, 2012.

The appellate court ruled that lack of board certification may not be used against physicians on trial for medical malpractice. Secondarily, the court further ruled that the trial judge erred when he excluded the CT scan from being introduced at trial by the defendant physician. Therefore, the appellate overturned the jury's verdict of $2.8 million against the Bel Air, Maryland vascular surgeon.

[thedailyrecord.com/2012/06/04/Court of Special Appeals]

MARYLAND GAMBLING LAWS versus NEW JERSEY GAMBLING LAWS versus NEVADA GAMBLING LAWS: An Overview by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

MARYLAND GAMBLING LAWS

On November 6th, 2012, by a majority vote approving "Question 7" on the state's ballot, Maryland voters expanded recently instituted gambling in Maryland that would: (1) allow table games in addition to existing slot machines; (2) increase the statewide cap on the number of slots; and permit a 6th casino in the state to be located at National Harbor in Prince Georges County.  It is argued that the passage of Question 7 would bring Maryland's young casinos closer in line financially with those casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey and Las Vegas, Nevada.

Under the new gambling law, the casino operators would be allowed to keep a larger share of revenue ---- somewhere between 39% and 51% --- as compensation for the added competition.  It is reported that the new law allows the six casinos to be full-blown Las Vegas-styled casinos, complete with roulette wheels and poker tables, and they will be open 24 hours a day.

Excerpts from the Maryland Code, "Maryland Gambling Laws", Title 12 and 13

- Maryland Code, Section 12-101 (Definitions);
- Section 12-102 (Betting, Wagering, Gambling, etc.);
- Section 12-103 (Playing certain games);
- Section 12-104 (Gaming device, or building, vessel, or place for gambling);
- Section 12-105 (Gambling on vessel or building or other structure on or over water within the State);
- Section 12-106 (Raffles);
- Section 12-107 (Pari-mutuel betting);
- Section 12-110 (Recovery of gambling loss);
- Section 12-201 ("Lottery device" defined);
- Section 12-301 (Possession or operation of slot machine);
- Section 12-303 (Antique slot machine).

Title 13.  Same-Local Provisions

- 13-201 (Definitions;
- 13-202 (Application of Subtitle);
- 13-203 (Gaming Event Without Personal Benefit-Allowed);
- 13-204 (Prizes and Gaming Devices Allowed);
- 13-205 (Management of Gaming Event);

NEW JERSEY GAMBLING LAWS

- New Jersey Constitution:

- Criminal Law

• 2A: 40-1 (Gaming transactions unlawful);
• 2A: 40-2 (Liability of stakeholder or person receiving wager);
• 2A: 40-5 (Action by loser to recover money or property lost at gaming, with costs; limitations);
• 2A: 40-6 (Informer action to recover money or property lost at gaming; limitation; costs)
• 2C: 2-6 (Liability for conduct of another; complicity);
• 2C: 37-1 (Definitions);
• 2C: 37-2 (Promoting Gambling);
• 2C: 37-3 (Possession of Gambling Records);
• 2C: 37-4 (Maintenance of  a Gambling Resort;
• 2C: 37-4.1 (Shopboard gambling, crime; grading; exception);
• 2C: 37-5 (Gambling offenses, presumption):
• 2C: 37-6 (Lottery offenses; no defense);
• 2C: 37-7 (Possession of a gambling device), "Casino Control Act" (1977);
• 2C: 43-6 (Sentence of Imprisonment for Crime; Ordinary Terms; Mandatory Terms);
• Licensed Gambling (5:8-24: "Bingo Licensing Law");
• "Casino Control Act": On February 1, 2011, Governor Chris Christie signed into law Bill S-12, which makes significant changes to the regulation of casino gaming in Atlantic City.  Authority over the daily operation of casinos was transferred from the Casino Control Commission to the Division of Gaming Enforcement.

NEVADA GAMBLING LAWS (LAS VEGAS)

Nevada Revised Gambling Statutes:

• NRS 171.015 (Jurisdiction of offense commenced without, but consummated within, this state consummation through agent);
• NRS 194.020 (Persons liable to punishment);
• NRS 195.020 (Principals);
• NRS 463.01473 ("Electronic transfer of money" defined);
• NRS 463.0152 ("Game" and "Gambling game" defined);
• NRS 463.0153 ("Gaming" and "Gambling" defined);
• NRS 463.016425 ("Interactive gaming" defined);
• NRS 463.0191 ("Slot machine" defined);
• NRS 463.0193 ("Sports pool" defined);
• NRS 463.0196 ("Tournament" defined);
• NRS 463.01962 ("Wager" defined).

- Regulation of Persons Involved in Gaming:

• NRS 463.160 (Licenses required);
• NRS 463.360 (Penalties);
• NRS 465.015 (Definitions: "cheat", etc.);
• NRS 465.070 (Fraudulent Acts);
• NRS 465.083 (Cheating); et al.

[www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Nevada; www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Maryland;
www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/NewJersey; collegepark.patch.com/articles/"Question7"/ October 25, 2012; www.onenewspage.us/n/us/ "Question 7"/ November 5, 2012; www.washingtonpost.com/local/md.politics/ "More groups join Maryland's costly campaign on expanded gambling/ November 4, 2012; columbia. patch.com/articles/ "Question 7: A Primer..."; articles.baltimoresun.com/11-08-2012/news/bs-md-gambling].

LA MARYLAND "DREAM ACT": LO QUE HACE Y QUE NO HACER

Un informe del Procurador Charles Jerome Ware, ex juez de inmigración de los Estados Unidos. El señor Ware es un principal en la firma nacional de Charles Jerome Ware, PA, Abogados y Consejeros.

El Maryland "Dream Act" ha pasado por el voto popular. Ahora es la ley de Maryland. En esencia, el "Dream Act" permite a los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados que califican para acceder a otros estados en las tasas de matrícula de la universidad, así como ayuda financiera del estado.

Although the Maryland "Dream Act" gets its name from the more commonly-discussed federal legislation on the subject, this state law is far more limited in scope of relief.

For instance, the proposed federal "Dream Act" legislation, if passed, would provide a process or pathway to citizenship for qualifying undocumented young people who attend college or serve in the military. The Maryland "Dream Act", however, does not address the issue of citizenship at all.

The Maryland "Dream Act" does, however, allow certain undocumented students to better access state funding for higher education.

To qualify for the Maryland "Dream Act", undocumented students need to have attended a Maryland high school for at least three (3) years and be able to prove that their parents or themselves have paid taxes.

Initially, under Maryland's new law, students that qualify would be required to attend a community college. However, after two years of community college, the students can transfer to a 4-year university. According to some reports, the new law is estimated to cost the state $3.5 million by 2016. It was approved by a 58.3% to 41.7% popular vote.

[www.washingpost.com/ Maryland Politics/ Md. Voters Approve 'Dream Act' Law/ 11-7-2012; abcnews.go.com/ Maryland Dream Act Projected To pass/ 11-07-2012; ballotpedia.org/ Maryland In-State Tuition Referendum, Question 4 (2012)]

A $17,900,000 Recovery!!! --- EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) and EMS (Emergency Medical Service) Medical Negligence: The Basics by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware

The lawyers and staff at Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, a national law firm, represent victims who have been injured by the negligence of EMTs (Emergency Medical Technicians), EMS (Emergency Medical Service) personnel, and paramedics.  The firm's motto is: "Still working.  Still committed.  Still here to make a difference."

First responders such as EMTs, EMSs, and paramedics provide critically important care that greatly influences and affects a person's immediate health and well-being, ultimate survival, as well as their future quality of life.  These medical professionals have a duty to respond promptly and to properly diagnose and address medical symptoms.  They also have an additional duty to create and preserve accurate records of their observations as well as the treatment they provide.

Some examples of Paramedic, EMT and EMS negligence include:

1. Failure to respond in a timely manner;
2. Failure to bring required equipment to the scene;
3. Failure to create and preserve accurate records;
4. Failure to maintain ambulatory equipment;
5. Failure to properly use medical devices;
6. Administering the wrong medicine or incorrect dosage;
7. Failure to maintain proper EMT, EMS and paramedic certifications;
8. Failure to properly staff ambulances; and
9. Negligent driving to the hospital.

EMT and EMS Medical Negligence Statistics:

    1. Medical malpractice lawsuit statistics for basic EMT malpractice in the USA:

• 78 medical malpractice reports were made to the National Practitioner Databank regarding basic EMT’s in the US 1990-2004 (NPDB Summary Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)

 

    2. Medical malpractice lawsuit statistics cardiac EMT malpractice in the USA:

• 23 medical malpractice reports were made to the National Practitioner Databank regarding cardiac or critical care EMT’s in the US 1990-2004 (NPDB Summary Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)

 

    3. Medical malpractice lawsuit statistics for intermediate EMT malpractice in the USA:

• 16 medical malpractice reports were made to the National Practitioner Databank regarding intermediate EMT’s in the US 1990-2004 (NPDB Summary Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)

 

SOME EMT and EMS Negligence Settlements:

 

(1) $17,900,000.00 RECOVERY: From failure of EMTs on two (2) emrgency calls to advise hospitalization to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff, age 35, with a kidney stone complaint of severe continuing pain and numbness; failure of emergency hospital staff to place a stent to bypass ureter obstruction; as a result, Plaintiff suffered septic shock, gangrene, loss of both hands and feet, optic nerve damage, blindness in one eye, and diminished vision in the other eye [New York State].

 

(2) $5,000,000.00 CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT: Failure of airboat rescue squad (EMS personnel) in negligently overloading an airboat which contained the strapped-in decedent.  The airboat consequently took on water and drowned the decedent during the attempted medical transport to an awaiting ambulance.

 

The plaintiff estate (of the decedent) sued the rescue squad for negligence and failure to properly train the staff.  The defendants denied the allegations and claimed immunity [New Hampshire].

 

(3) $3,500,000.00 RECOVERY: Paramedic (EMT) Medical Malpractice; Emergency Department Negligence; Intubation into esophagus instead of trachea by EMTs; Cardiac and respiratory arrest; wrongful death at age 26.

 

This paramedic (EMT) medical malpractice action involved the wrongful death of a 26-year-old female claimed was a routine asthma attack.

 

The plaintiff estate alleged that the paramedics employed by the defendant county negligently intubated into the plaintiff's esophagus instead of her trachea, thereby causing her ultimate death (Florida).

 

(4) $825,000.00 SETTLEMENT: Wrongful Death; Negligence by Paramedics (EMTs). 

 

Plaintiff estate's decedent, a 61-year-old man, married without children, awoke at his customary hour and took Naprosyn which had been prescribed for arthritic discomfort. The decedent complained to his wife that he was feeling itchy and not well. Emergency medical technicians were summoned. The decedent's wife reported to the EMTs the history of the medication, the rash, and itching. The EMTs found the decedent in the bathroom slumped over, administered oxygen, attempted to insert an oral phalangeal airway, placed him on a backboard, and carried him out.

 

The patient was described as being combative (he was literally fighting for air) and pulling off his oxygen mask. Two paramedics arrived at the scene as the plaintiff's decedent was being put into an ambulance. One of the paramedics, the primary defendant in this case, took charge and assumed medical control. Despite clear signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis, neither paramedic administered epinephrine. After approximately 11 minutes, the plaintiff's decedent went into cardiac arrest while in the ambulance. The defendant paramedic inserted an endotracheal tube and administered lidocaine. Despite attempts at defibrillation, both in the ambulance and it the emergency room, the plaintiff's decedent was unable to be resuscitated [Massachusetts].

[www.bwglaw.com/ Paramedic and EMT negligence; www.rightdiagnosis.com/ EMT and Medical Malpractice; www.jvra.com/Verdict/ 11-07-2012]