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.]
This blog and its contents are presented as a public service, and should not be considered legal advice. The reader is encouraged and urged to seek directly legal advice, consultation, and answers to legal questions from a qualified attorney.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) And The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (in Chicago) Say It's OK For Citizens To Record Police.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has declined to review an appeal from the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago of a controversial Illinois state law making it a felony crime to videorecord police officers on the job.
The Seventh Circuit appeals court had ruled that the Illinois law was unconstitutional. In refusing to hear the state of Illinois' appeal, the Supreme Court effectively agreed with the Seventh Circuit appeals court decision.
The law had been challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, and a divided panel of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed earlier this year that it “restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests" and, "as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment’s free speech and free-press guarantees,” as Judge Diane Sykes explained in the majority opinion.
Meanwhile, a number of citizens throughout the country say they have been charged with a crime (often obstruction) while recording police on the job. A Massachusetts man is facing a wiretapping case after allegedly posting a video on YouTube that shows him instructing a female passenger how to use an electronic device to record a traffic stop by Shrewsbury police. Irving Espinosa-Rodrigue, 26, is scheduled for a pretrial hearing in January, reports the Shrewsbury (Massachusetts) Daily Voice.
Among other accounts of such incidents recently posted on the Photography Is Not a Crime site, Daniel J. Saulmon tells PINAC that he spent several days in jail earlier this month after being arrested in Hawthorne, Calif., while filming police on a public street. He faced an obstruction case, but says the charges against him have been dropped.
[The ABA Journal, www.abajournal.com/news/article/ "Supreme Court Gives Nod To Citizens Who Record Police, Amidst Reports Of Mulitiple Arrests"/November 26, 2912/ by Martha Neil; Chicago Tribune, www.chicagotribune.com/news/"Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Ban Taping Of Police In Illinois"/ November 26, 2012/ by Jason Meisner]
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests
The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and
Contests
Authors: Charles Ware
Subjects: Science, Science for Kids
Tags: Contests, Secret Science, Strategies, Sweepstakes
Price: $12.95
Paperback: 166 pages
Publisher: Outskirts Press (July 26, 2012)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1432793888
ISBN-13: 978-1432793883
Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.5 x 0.6 inches
Shipping Weight: 8 ounces
When it comes to lotteries, sweepstakes and contests, there are ways to improve your odds or probability of winning. They are discussed in this book, with a lot of detail and some humor. Blind reliance on luck or chance is not necessary to win lotteries, sweepstakes and contests. The "4Ps" of persistence, preparation, poise and a positive mental attitude are necessary to win on a consistent or regular basis. Therefore, just about anyone is capable of winning.
Charles Jerome Ware is a noted author and attorney, microeconomist, lotterician, sweepstaker and contester. He is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors. Dr. Ware is a highly successful and life-long sweepstaker and contester. He is also a successful lotterician who, for several years, has investigated, monitored and researched lotteries throughout the United States and several foreign countries. Dr. Ware is the recipient of numerous awards for his accomplishments in law and other areas. He lives in Columbia, Maryland.
When it comes to lotteries, sweepstakes and contests, there are ways to improve your odds or probability of winning. They are discussed in this book, with a lot of detail and some humor. Blind reliance on luck or chance is not necessary to win lotteries, sweepstakes and contests. The "4Ps" of persistence, preparation, poise and a positive mental attitude are necessary to win on a consistent or regular basis. Therefore, just about anyone is capable of winning.
Charles Jerome Ware is a noted author and attorney, microeconomist, lotterician, sweepstaker and contester. He is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors. Dr. Ware is a highly successful and life-long sweepstaker and contester. He is also a successful lotterician who, for several years, has investigated, monitored and researched lotteries throughout the United States and several foreign countries. Dr. Ware is the recipient of numerous awards for his accomplishments in law and other areas. He lives in Columbia, Maryland.
"COURAGEOUS" CATHOLIC CHURCH STRIPS 92-YEAR-OLD PIOUS PRIEST OF DUTIES
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.]
Reverend William Brennan is a 92-year-old Jesuit priest in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. By all accounts he is a good and pious minister of the Gospel. He is morally and ethically sound. He is not a criminal. He is not a pedophile, not a sex offender, and not an abuser of any type. He is not a monster.
However, according to the Catholic Church's Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Reverend William Brennan is worse than the above-stated conditions:
As a direct result of his ministerial actions and involvement at the liturgy in which Rev. Janice Sevre-Duszynska was a participant, Rev. Brennan has been stripped of his priestly duties.
Among the severe penalties heaped upon Fr. Brennan by the Catholic Church in Milwaukee include:
[usnews.nbcnews.com/news/2012-12-08/ "Priest Stripped of Duties for Celebrating Mass with Woman Priest"; ncronline.org/news/people/ "Jesuit, 92, Penalized After Eucharistic Liturgy With Woman Priest"]
"GOOD JESUIT. BAD JESUIT."
Reverend William Brennan is a 92-year-old Jesuit priest in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. By all accounts he is a good and pious minister of the Gospel. He is morally and ethically sound. He is not a criminal. He is not a pedophile, not a sex offender, and not an abuser of any type. He is not a monster.
However, according to the Catholic Church's Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Reverend William Brennan is worse than the above-stated conditions:
He is a priest who presided who a Eucharistic liturgy with a woman priest last month in Columbus , Georgia
As a direct result of his ministerial actions and involvement at the liturgy in which Rev. Janice Sevre-Duszynska was a participant, Rev. Brennan has been stripped of his priestly duties.
Among the severe penalties heaped upon Fr. Brennan by the Catholic Church in Milwaukee include:
- Suspension of priestly faculties, prohibiting him from performing any priestly duties in public [He is NO longer a priest];
- Refraining from contact with media, "through a phone, email, or any other means" [The proverbial "Gag Order"];
- Not appearing as a Jesuit at any "public gatherings, protests or rallies" [The classic "Stay Away" Order]; and
- Not leaving the Milwaukee area "for any reason" without his superior's permission [Essentially, "Incarceration"].
[usnews.nbcnews.com/news/2012-12-08/ "Priest Stripped of Duties for Celebrating Mass with Woman Priest"; ncronline.org/news/people/ "Jesuit, 92, Penalized After Eucharistic Liturgy With Woman Priest"]
"BLIND FAITH," POST-NASAL DRIP INSUFFICIENT FOR MURDER RELEASE: The Case of Robert O. Marshall of New Jersey
This blog is presented by the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware,
P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors: "Still working. Still
committed. Still here to make a difference."
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.]
A New Jersey insurance salesman, Robert O. Marshall, age 72, whose contract-for-hire murder of his wife became high profile after author Joe McGinniss wrote a best-selling true crime book about it, Blind Faith, that was made into a television miniseries, has been denied early release from prison.
Marshall, who is serving a life sentence, had argued that health problems and a model disciplinary record in prison should result in his early release.
However, New Jersey State Superior Court Judge Wendel E. Daniels said Marshall’s list of alleged health problems, ranging from diabetes to post-nasal drip, “does not rise to the level of severity to warrant release,” especially given the nature of his crime against his 42-year-old wife, Maria.
Marshall was originally sentenced to the death penalty. But he won a sentence reduction from Daniels in 2006 after a federal judge found that he hadn't received effective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his murder trial and the state decided not to retry the penalty phase of the case.
Marshall, who has been incarcerated since his arrest in December 1984 for his wife's slaying several months earlier, had sought a further sentence reduction, to 30 years, from Daniels, according to the newspaper.
He will be eligible for parole in 2014, after serving 30 years.
As presented in the McGinniss book, Marshall was convicted of hiring men from Louisiana to murder his wife during a purported robbery after he pulled off the Garden State Parkway into an isolated picnic area one night in September 1984.
Marshall was having an affair with another woman at the time.
The New York Times reported about the 2006 resentencing, noting that one of the Marshalls' three sons said he believes his father is innocent, while another said he believes his father is guilty. “I accept full responsibility that my actions led to her death,” Marshall said of his wife at the hearing, at which he also acknowledged having made “terrible mistakes," the Times reported. “I’m deeply sorry for my actions, but I can’t change the past," he continued. "However, I can change the future.”
[www.abajournal.com/news/article/12-07-2012/ 'Wife-Murderer Made Infamous By 'Blind Faith' Book And TV Movie Is Denied Early Release"; "Blind Faith", the book is a best-selling 1989 "true crime" novel by author Joe McGinniss, based upon the 1984 case in which American businessman Robert O. Marshall was convicted of the contract killing of his wife, Maria; In 1990, Blind Faith was adapted by screenwriter John Gay into an Emmy Award-nominated TV miniseries starring actors Robert Urich, Joanna Kerns, and Joa Spano; The Star Ledger (New Jersey), Saturday, May 13, 2006, "Prosecutor Won't Retry Penalty Phase of Marshall Case," by Maryann Spoto; articles.philly.com/February 13, 1990/ "For Roby Marshall, 'Blind Faith' Is A Reminder Of The Pain" by Kurt Heine; crime.about.com/05-14-2006/"Blind Faith" Killer Escapes Execution, by Charles Montaldo]
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.]
A New Jersey insurance salesman, Robert O. Marshall, age 72, whose contract-for-hire murder of his wife became high profile after author Joe McGinniss wrote a best-selling true crime book about it, Blind Faith, that was made into a television miniseries, has been denied early release from prison.
Marshall, who is serving a life sentence, had argued that health problems and a model disciplinary record in prison should result in his early release.
However, New Jersey State Superior Court Judge Wendel E. Daniels said Marshall’s list of alleged health problems, ranging from diabetes to post-nasal drip, “does not rise to the level of severity to warrant release,” especially given the nature of his crime against his 42-year-old wife, Maria.
Marshall was originally sentenced to the death penalty. But he won a sentence reduction from Daniels in 2006 after a federal judge found that he hadn't received effective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his murder trial and the state decided not to retry the penalty phase of the case.
Marshall, who has been incarcerated since his arrest in December 1984 for his wife's slaying several months earlier, had sought a further sentence reduction, to 30 years, from Daniels, according to the newspaper.
He will be eligible for parole in 2014, after serving 30 years.
As presented in the McGinniss book, Marshall was convicted of hiring men from Louisiana to murder his wife during a purported robbery after he pulled off the Garden State Parkway into an isolated picnic area one night in September 1984.
Marshall was having an affair with another woman at the time.
The New York Times reported about the 2006 resentencing, noting that one of the Marshalls' three sons said he believes his father is innocent, while another said he believes his father is guilty. “I accept full responsibility that my actions led to her death,” Marshall said of his wife at the hearing, at which he also acknowledged having made “terrible mistakes," the Times reported. “I’m deeply sorry for my actions, but I can’t change the past," he continued. "However, I can change the future.”
[www.abajournal.com/news/article/12-07-2012/ 'Wife-Murderer Made Infamous By 'Blind Faith' Book And TV Movie Is Denied Early Release"; "Blind Faith", the book is a best-selling 1989 "true crime" novel by author Joe McGinniss, based upon the 1984 case in which American businessman Robert O. Marshall was convicted of the contract killing of his wife, Maria; In 1990, Blind Faith was adapted by screenwriter John Gay into an Emmy Award-nominated TV miniseries starring actors Robert Urich, Joanna Kerns, and Joa Spano; The Star Ledger (New Jersey), Saturday, May 13, 2006, "Prosecutor Won't Retry Penalty Phase of Marshall Case," by Maryann Spoto; articles.philly.com/February 13, 1990/ "For Roby Marshall, 'Blind Faith' Is A Reminder Of The Pain" by Kurt Heine; crime.about.com/05-14-2006/"Blind Faith" Killer Escapes Execution, by Charles Montaldo]
MARYLAND FAMILY LAW UPDATE: THE INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION, CUSTODY AND "THE HAGUE CONVENTION" TREATY
This family law update is presented by the national general practice law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, as a public service. The firm is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, and its motto is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
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.]
Over the years, due principally to the international diversity of its residents, the state of Maryland has certainly had its share of international diversity of its residents, the state of Maryland has certainly had its share of international child abduction and custody cases. In fact, over the past year or so this law firm has been involved in such cases including the countries of Colombia, Canada, Mexico, Pakistan and the United Kingdom.
"THE HAGUE CONVENTION," The International Child Abduction Remedies Act, and CHAFIN v. CHAFIN.
On December 5, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Chafin v. Chafin, a case involving the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Under the Convention, a child is to be returned to his or her country of “habitual residence” if the child has been taken to another country in violation of the Convention.
The question in Chafin is whether an appeal of a U.S. district court’s ruling in a child abduction case becomes moot if the parent who won in the district court takes the child back to the child’s country of habitual residence while the appeal by the losing parent is pending.
[see, twitter.com/CharlesJWare; Attorney Charles Ware's Blog, Wednesday, December 5, 2012, "Supreme Court Considers Immigration Deportation And International Custody Law Issues: Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware on Chafin v. Chafin, Docket No. 11-1347; CharlesWare.blogspot.com/2012/12]
Pursuant to the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11601-11610 (2000) and the "Hague Convention" on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a parent may file a petition for return of their minor child/custodian to the child's country of "habitual residence" if it appears that the child has been wrongfully abducted. Once an Order has issued from the U.S. District Court returning the child to the petitioning custodian and an appeal has been filed by the respondent the Circuits are spilt as to whether the return of the child to the country of "habitual residence" renders the appeal moot.
The Eleventh Circuit, in Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (2001), held that such an appeal is clearly moot since the relief sought by petitioner has been granted and the Court had "no authority 'to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions ... which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before [the Court]''' Bekier at 1054. The Court provided that no actual affirmative relief could be provided to the appellant. However, this decision and others like it has come under great scrutiny by other Circuits. Specifically the Fourth Circuit, in Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491 (2003), has held that "[c]ompliance with a trial court's order does not moot an appeal (of a Petition for Return of Custody under the aforementioned Acts) if it remains possible to undo the effects of compliance or if the order will have a continuing impact on future action." Fawcett at 494.
The Fourth Circuit in Fawcett held that even after the return of a child in compliance with the lower court's order that "this Court can [affect the matter in issue]." Id. To consider the merits of an appeal and potentially reverse the lower court's decision would have a considerable effect.
In contrast, arguably, the Eleventh Circuit's position on this particular matter eliminates the basis and purpose of the appeal process. Whether an appeal of a District Court's ruling on a Petition for Return of Children pursuant to International Child Abduction Remedies Act and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction becomes moot after the child at issue returns to his or her country of habitual residence.
Such is the case in the Eleventh Circuit's Bekier case, leaving the United States Court system lacking any power or jurisdiction to affect any further issue in the matter. Or should the United States Courts retain power over their own appellate process, as in the Fourth Circuit's Fawcett case, and maintain jurisdiction throughout the appellate process giving the concerned party an opportunity for proper redress.
This law firm will continue to follow this matter to the end of the appeal process in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The final decision by SCOTUS is expected in 2013.
[beforeitsnews.com/opinion/12-8-2012/ Chafin v. Chafin; www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/ Chafin v. Chafin; www.scotusblog.com/2012/08/ "Court Grants One New Case..."; jurist.org/paperchase/2012/12/ "Supreme Court Hears Argument In International Child Abduction Case"; www.abajournal.com/News/12-06-2012/ "Supreme Court Considers International Custody Dispute Involving Armgy Sergeant"; www.reuters.com/08-13-2012/ "Supreme Court To Hear..."; www.law.com, The National Law Journal/12-05-2012/ "Justices Appear Uneasy With Ramifications..."]
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.]
Over the years, due principally to the international diversity of its residents, the state of Maryland has certainly had its share of international diversity of its residents, the state of Maryland has certainly had its share of international child abduction and custody cases. In fact, over the past year or so this law firm has been involved in such cases including the countries of Colombia, Canada, Mexico, Pakistan and the United Kingdom.
"THE HAGUE CONVENTION," The International Child Abduction Remedies Act, and CHAFIN v. CHAFIN.
On December 5, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Chafin v. Chafin, a case involving the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Under the Convention, a child is to be returned to his or her country of “habitual residence” if the child has been taken to another country in violation of the Convention.
The question in Chafin is whether an appeal of a U.S. district court’s ruling in a child abduction case becomes moot if the parent who won in the district court takes the child back to the child’s country of habitual residence while the appeal by the losing parent is pending.
[see, twitter.com/CharlesJWare; Attorney Charles Ware's Blog, Wednesday, December 5, 2012, "Supreme Court Considers Immigration Deportation And International Custody Law Issues: Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware on Chafin v. Chafin, Docket No. 11-1347; CharlesWare.blogspot.com/2012/12]
Pursuant to the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11601-11610 (2000) and the "Hague Convention" on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a parent may file a petition for return of their minor child/custodian to the child's country of "habitual residence" if it appears that the child has been wrongfully abducted. Once an Order has issued from the U.S. District Court returning the child to the petitioning custodian and an appeal has been filed by the respondent the Circuits are spilt as to whether the return of the child to the country of "habitual residence" renders the appeal moot.
The Eleventh Circuit, in Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (2001), held that such an appeal is clearly moot since the relief sought by petitioner has been granted and the Court had "no authority 'to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions ... which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before [the Court]''' Bekier at 1054. The Court provided that no actual affirmative relief could be provided to the appellant. However, this decision and others like it has come under great scrutiny by other Circuits. Specifically the Fourth Circuit, in Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491 (2003), has held that "[c]ompliance with a trial court's order does not moot an appeal (of a Petition for Return of Custody under the aforementioned Acts) if it remains possible to undo the effects of compliance or if the order will have a continuing impact on future action." Fawcett at 494.
The Fourth Circuit in Fawcett held that even after the return of a child in compliance with the lower court's order that "this Court can [affect the matter in issue]." Id. To consider the merits of an appeal and potentially reverse the lower court's decision would have a considerable effect.
In contrast, arguably, the Eleventh Circuit's position on this particular matter eliminates the basis and purpose of the appeal process. Whether an appeal of a District Court's ruling on a Petition for Return of Children pursuant to International Child Abduction Remedies Act and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction becomes moot after the child at issue returns to his or her country of habitual residence.
Such is the case in the Eleventh Circuit's Bekier case, leaving the United States Court system lacking any power or jurisdiction to affect any further issue in the matter. Or should the United States Courts retain power over their own appellate process, as in the Fourth Circuit's Fawcett case, and maintain jurisdiction throughout the appellate process giving the concerned party an opportunity for proper redress.
This law firm will continue to follow this matter to the end of the appeal process in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The final decision by SCOTUS is expected in 2013.
[beforeitsnews.com/opinion/12-8-2012/ Chafin v. Chafin; www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/ Chafin v. Chafin; www.scotusblog.com/2012/08/ "Court Grants One New Case..."; jurist.org/paperchase/2012/12/ "Supreme Court Hears Argument In International Child Abduction Case"; www.abajournal.com/News/12-06-2012/ "Supreme Court Considers International Custody Dispute Involving Armgy Sergeant"; www.reuters.com/08-13-2012/ "Supreme Court To Hear..."; www.law.com, The National Law Journal/12-05-2012/ "Justices Appear Uneasy With Ramifications..."]
Friday, December 7, 2012
CHARLES JEROME WARE NAMED TO THE INAUGURAL EDITION OF WHO'S WHO IN BLACK BALTIMORE, 2010: "MOST INFLUENTIAL"
Charles Jerome Ware is president of the national law firm Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors. He is a renowned trial attorney, with several celebrity clients and numerous successful cases to his credit. Headquartered in nearby Columbia, Maryland, and with multiple offices throughout the country, the firm specializes in complex civil and criminal litigation, and catastrophic injury, wrongful death and class action lawsuits.
Ware is a former federal administrative law judge, and he was the youngest immigration judge in the history of the U.S. Additionally, he has served as chief legal and antitrust counsel to the chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, assistant U.S. Attorney for Maryland and the Eastern District of Virginia, and senior trial attorney in both the antitrust and criminal divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as executive vice president and general counsel for St. Paul's College, among other positions.
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, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
Ware is a former federal administrative law judge, and he was the youngest immigration judge in the history of the U.S. Additionally, he has served as chief legal and antitrust counsel to the chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, assistant U.S. Attorney for Maryland and the Eastern District of Virginia, and senior trial attorney in both the antitrust and criminal divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as executive vice president and general counsel for St. Paul's College, among other positions.
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, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
DR. BENJAMIN S. CARSON SR., ATTORNEY CHARLES JEROME WARE, MAYOR STEPHANIE RAWLINGS-BLAKE, et al.: "WHO'S WHO IN BLACK BALTIMORE" (The Inaugural Edition)
Charles Jerome Ware is president of the national law firm Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors. He is a renowned trial attorney, with several celebrity clients and numerous successful cases to his credit. Headquartered in nearby Columbia, Maryland, and with multiple offices throughout the country, the firm specializes in complex civil and criminal litigation, and catastrophic injury, wrongful death and class action lawsuits.
Ware is a former federal administrative law judge, and he was the youngest immigration judge in the history of the U.S. Additionally, he has served as chief legal and antitrust counsel to the chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, assistant U.S. Attorney for Maryland and the Eastern District of Virginia, and senior trial attorney in both the antitrust and criminal divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as executive vice president and general counsel for St. Paul's College, among other positions.
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, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
Ware is a former federal administrative law judge, and he was the youngest immigration judge in the history of the U.S. Additionally, he has served as chief legal and antitrust counsel to the chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, assistant U.S. Attorney for Maryland and the Eastern District of Virginia, and senior trial attorney in both the antitrust and criminal divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as executive vice president and general counsel for St. Paul's College, among other positions.
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, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)