TUCSON 2013 BOOK FESTIVAL: Charles Jerome Ware, Author and Attorney

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
University of Arizona, Gallagher Theatre
March 9th, 2013
C-SPAN 2, BOOKTV, booktv.org

Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:

(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952

Ware's blogs and twitter include, inter alia:

http://charlesware.blogspot.com

http://www.thelawyersmailbox.blogspot.com

http://www.twitter.com/CharlesJWare

http://open.salon.com/blog/charlesjware

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

[See, Amazon.com, iUniverse.com, Outskirts Press, BooksAMillion.com, Barnesandnoble.com, www.Kobobooks.com, bookstore.iuniverse.com, books.google.com, www.buscalibre.com, www.diesel-ebooks.com, www.allbookstores.com, www.ebookmail.com, www.ebay.com, www.scribd.com, www.deepdiscount.com, www.betterworldbooks.com, www.landmarkonthenet.com, www.shopping.com, www.lawbooks-online.com, newmexicoveterinaryboard.us, www.booktopia.com.au, The Immigration Paradox-NY-Times.com, the Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases, www.2shared.com, www.textbooksrus.com, www.valorebooks.com, www.waterstones.com, www.getcited.org, www.fishpond.co.nz, www.bookfinder4u.com, ebookstore.sony.com, www.bookdepository.co.uk, www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15, C-SPAN2/Book TV, BookTV.org, Miami Book Fair, International Summit on Books, American Library Association (ALA) Book Fair, National Book Festival, Baltimore Book Festival, inter al]

$1 BILLION VERDICT REVERSED: EXXON MOBIL v. FORD (Md. Ct. of Appeals, 02/26/13), www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

On February 26, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed a $1 billion jury verdict in punitive damages awarded in Baltimore County on behalf of several Jacksonville, Maryland residents and businesses [see, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, No. 16, Court of Appeals of Maryland, February 26 2013].

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.]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

The damages struck down by Maryland's highest court were in connection with one of the largest gas leaks in Maryland state history: a 26,000-gallon leak at an Exxon Mobil-owned gas station in Baltimore County in 2006.

The Court also slashed a large number of the compensatory damages awarded by the jury, which originally came to about $500 million.

Now, seven years after the 2006 verdict, the site of the Exxon station in Jacksonville, Baltimore County, Maryland remains fenced in. Closed for "environmental remediation".

The defendant in the class-action case, Exxon Mobil, has a "deadline" of June 2014 to complete treatment of the area's groundwater. In the meantime, residents in the community are buying their own drinking water --- and will probably be doing so for years to come.

As typical, there were multiple cases combined in this enormous class-action:

In Albright, the Court of Appeals reversed the fraud verdict. Plaintiffs’ fraud theory was based on allegedly fraudulent statements that Exxon made to government officials. Plaintiffs contended that the public officials relied on Exxon’s false statements to the detriment of them—i.e., the public. The Court held that Maryland does not allow a third party to recover damages for fraud purely on the basis of a fraudulent statement made to the government.

Overall, the Court held that none of the Plaintiffs were able to prove any of their fraud theories by clear and convincing evidence. Because the fraud verdicts were reversed, all the punitive damages stemming therefrom were reversed as well. In addition, because of the absence of fraud, there was no permissible recovery for emotional distress attendant to property damage. The Court therefore reversed jury awards on that basis as well.

In both Albright and Ford, the Court also considered whether emotional distress damages could be awarded due to the Plaintiffs’ fear of contracting cancer arising from the leak. The Court held that a Plaintiff can recover emotional distress damages for fear of contracting a latent disease if Plaintiff demonstrates: 1) he was actually exposed to a toxic substance due to the defendant’s tortious conduct; 2) which lead him to, objectively and reasonably, fear that he would contract a disease; and 3) as a result of the objective and reasonable fear, he manifested a physical injury capable of objective determination.

The Court reversed jury awards to many of the Plaintiffs due to their failure to prove the elements of this cause of action.

The Plaintiffs were also awarded damages for medical monitoring in connection with the gas leak, although Maryland courts have never explicitly recognized a cause of action for medical monitoring.

The Court held that in Maryland, a Plaintiff may recover damages for medical monitoring costs, usually through the administration of an equitable fund, upon a showing that: 1) the plaintiff was significantly exposed to a proven hazardous substance through the defendant’s tortious conduct; 2) that as a proximate result of the significant exposure, the plaintiff suffers a significantly increased risk of contracting a latent disease; 3) that the increased risk makes periodic diagnostic medical examinations reasonably necessary; and 4) that the monitoring and testing procedures exist which make early detection and treatment of the disease possible and beneficial. Again, the Court reversed jury awards to many of the Plaintiffs in the case for their failure to prove the elements of this cause of action.

The Court also held that the Plaintiffs should not have been allowed to recover damages for both diminution in property value AND past loss of use and enjoyment of real property as the recoveries were duplicative. The Court held that Plaintiffs could only recover damages for diminution in property value and reversed the verdicts for past loss of use and enjoyment.

Overall, many of the damages awarded to the Plaintiffs in these cases ended up being overturned.

[This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance]

AMERICA'S WORST BANK? --- According to MONEY.MSN.COM and the CFPB

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

According to money.msn.com (03-29-2013, article by Aimee Pichi), and based largely upon its predominant share of consumer complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), America's worst bank is Bank of America (BAC-0.41%).

This distinction coincides with bank of America's consistent image as one of the "most disliked companies in America".

But the newly released database of complaints from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is giving some numbers and perspective to just exactly how much people revile Bank of America.

The bottom line? The hate is fairly staggering.

The biggest share of complaints consumers lodged during the past 16 months were targeted toward B of A, according to an analysis of the data from The Wall Street Journal.

Nearly 23% of the 90,000 complaints were tied to B of A, while Wells Fargo (WFC -0.32%) came in second place with 14% of total complaints, and JPMorgan Chase (JPM +0.60%) placed third, with 11%, The Journal found.

Many complaints leveled at Bank of America are tied to mortgages, with about one-third of overall mortgage gripes linked to the bank. It's the legacy of the bank's purchase of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, called "the deal from hell" by the Boston Business Journal.

The bank has booked more than $40 billion in expenses tied to the Countrywide purchase since 2010.

[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; money.msn.com/now/post/aspx/ "Hate Bank of America?  Join the Crowd"/3-29-2013; online.wsj.com/article/3-29-2013/ "BofA Tops Financial-Complaint List"; www.masslive.com/business-news/01-14-2013/"Editorial: Bank of America's acquisition of Countrywide Financial the worst deal ever"]

MICHAEL JACKSON DEATH UPDATE: From The Wrongful Death Warehouse (www.CharlesJeromeWare.com)

KATHERINE JACKSON, ET AL. v. AEG LIVE LLC, ET AL., Civil Case No. BC445597 (Wrongful Death Case), Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District (Case filed September 15, 2010).

Deceased superstar entertainer Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, individually as well as in her legal capacity of guardian ad litem her son's three children --- Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II --- is suing giant entertainment company AEG LIVE LLC and others.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company and its agents breached its contract with Michael Jackson to provide proper physical care and treatment, as well as safety, for him ("MJ") [Complaint, paras. 3, 4, 5].

The lawsuit claims that AEG was negligent in their hiring of Dr. Conrad Murray as "MJ's" personal physician [Complaint, paras. 7, 26, 27, 28, et al.].

In the suit, Katherine claims AEG's contract with Michael "created a legal duty for AEG to act reasonably toward the physical well-being of Michael Jackson."

In the document, Katherine also blames AEG for hiring Dr. Murray without a proper background check -- claiming, "AEG did not provide a doctor who was truly looking out for Jackson's well-being and did not provide equipment." [Complaint, paras. 84, et al.].

The suit also alleges AEG caused emotional distress to Michael's son Prince because he witnessed Michael suffering and dying, and "he was put in a position as bystander to these tragic events." [Complaint, paras. 91, 92, 93].

Kenny Ortega, who produced the planned London concerts for Michael, is also named as a defendant [Complaint, para. 14].

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

The national criminal defense, 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 criminal defense, automobile death, personal injury, 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."

FLORIDA v. JOELIS JARDINES, 569 U.S. ___ (March 26, 2013): ANALYSIS BY CHARLES WARE

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
twitter.com/CharlesJWare
CharlesWare.blogspot.com
TheLawyersMailbox.blogspot.com

In the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), No. 11-564, Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines, On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida, March 26, 2013:

Question: whether using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of the home is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Court's Decision: The government's use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

SYNOPSIS

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the use by police of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, requiring probable cause and a search warrant.

The Court's opinion in this 5-4 decision was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined by four justices, while four other justices dissented. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg, filed a concurring opinion.

27 U.S. states and the Federal government, among others, had supported Florida's argument that this use of a police dog was an acceptable form of minimally invasive warrantless search.

Background

On November 3, 2006, an anonymous, unverified tip was given to the Miami-Dade Police Department through its "crime stoppers" tip-line, indicating that the residence of Joelis Jardines was being used as a marijuana grow house.

About a month later, on December 6, 2006, two detectives and a drug-detection dog approached the residence, while other officers of the Miami-Dade Police Department established perimeter positions around the residence, with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in stand-by positions as backup units.

As summarized by the written opinion of the District Court of Appeals:

"... the detective went to the home at 7 a.m. He watched the home for fifteen minutes. There were no vehicles in the driveway, the blinds were closed, and there was no observable activity."

After fifteen minutes, the dog handler arrived with the drug-detection dog, "Franky". The handler placed the dog on a leash and accompanied the dog up to the front door of the home. Franky alerted to the scent of contraband.

The handler told the detective that the dog had a positive alert for the odor of narcotics. The detective went up to the front door for the first time, and smelled marijuana. ... The detective prepared an affidavit and applied for a search warrant, which was issued. A search was conducted, which confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside the home. The defendant was arrested.

—Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, State of Florida v. Jardines, 9 So.3d 1, 36–37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

While the Miami-Dade narcotics detective was away from the scene in order to secure the search warrant, Federal DEA agents remained behind to maintain surveillance of Jardines' home. The search warrant was secured about an hour later, and was executed by officers from both agencies. The defendant was apprehended by a DEA agent as he attempted to flee through the rear door of the residence. [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, etal.]] 

SLAVERY CONTINUES IN THE MODERN WORLD: Some Facts.

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com

Slavery continues to exist in the modern world. For instance:

More than 100 different products were included on the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2009 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor (PDF), including coffee and tea, cotton, gold and diamonds, fireworks, clothing and shoes, various foodstuffs, soap, soccer balls, surgical instruments, pornography—even Christmas decorations.

Some 20.9 million people around the world are victims of sex trafficking and other types of forced labor, according to the Estimate of Forced Labour report (PDF) released in 2012 by the International Labour Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations. The comparable number in the ILO’s 2005 report was 12.3 million. (Other estimates put the number of forced labor victims as high as 27 million.)

In effect, the ILO’s estimate means that about three out of every 1,000 people inhabiting the planet are victims of modern slavery.

The ILO report estimates 18.7 million of the world’s forced-labor victims are exploited in the private economy. Some 55 percent of those people are women and girls, including 98 percent of the victims of sexual exploitation and 40 percent of those enslaved by other forms of forced labor in the private economy.

Some 4.5 million people, or 22 percent of all enslaved workers, are victims of forced sexual exploitation, according to the ILO report. Another 14.2 million, or 68 percent, are victims of forced-labor exploitation in such economic activities as agriculture, construction, domestic work and manufacturing. The remaining 2.2 million, or 10 percent, are victims of state-imposed forms of forced labor.

No region of the world is free from slavery.

The ILO report estimates that there are some 11.7 million victims of sexual exploitation, labor exploitation or state-imposed forced labor in China, India and the rest of Asia (excluding Japan). There are another 3.7 million in Africa; 600,000 in the Mideast; 1.8 million in Central and South America; 1.6 million in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; and 1.5 million in the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Western Europe.

[www.abajournal.com/magazine/"Slavery Continues to Haunt the Modern World"; U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (200); Trafficking in Person Report (U.S. State Dept., 2012); ABA Task Force on Human Trafficking (2012); "Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children", United Nations (2005)]

CHARLES WARE'S "SCOTUS" UPDATE: SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST "FRANKY" THE DOG

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

On March 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that Florida police violated a homeowner's 4th and 14th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution when they used "Franky", a trained drug-sniffing dog, to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home.

This use of the dog was a "search" within the meaning of the 4th Amendment said the Court, thus requiring "probable cause" and a search warrant. Therefore, "Franky" loses.

The Court's opinion in this 5-4 decision was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined by four justices, while four other justices dissented. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg, filed a concurring opinion. 27 U.S. states and the Federal government, among others, had supported Florida's argument that this use of a police dog was an acceptable form of minimally invasive warrantless search.

[www.abajournal.com/news/article/ "Drug Dog Sniff Outside Home Is Search..."; www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/26/ "Opinion Issued in Florida v. Jardines"; Florida v. Jardines, Docket # 11-564, U.S. Supreme Ct., March 26, 2013; www.nytimes.com/03-26-2013/US/ "Justices, Citing Ban On Unreasonable Searches, Limit Use Of Drug-Sniffing Dogs"]