Mirror of Justice

September 1st Brings Just released Traffic Laws to Texas

July 19th, 2009 at 01:59pm Under Traffic Law

A number of notable Texas traffic and driving laws meant to
improve safety on the roads and drivers
education cognisance go into effect on Sep 1.

Motor vehicle operators under the age of Operators will now have
a harder time getting traffic tickets elminated from their
automobile operators. SB 1005 provides that if a driver younger
than 25 years of age commits a traffic offense classified as a
moving violation, the judge must demand the driver to complete a
classroom based or online defensive
driving course. In addition, if the driver holds a
provisional driver license – in other words, is under 25 years
of age – they must submit to a Texas DPS road test in addition
to taking an offline or online defensive
driving course. Failure by the driver to meet this
requirement will result in a final conviction for that traffic
offense.

Proof of insurance will be enforced through the new Texas law SB
1670. This law requires the Department of Insurance, in
conjunction with Texas Dept. of Transportation and other
authorities, to establish a verification program for vehicle
insurance in order to try and trim down the amount of uninsured
drivers.

SB 1257 prohibits use of wireless communications hardware
(including cellular phones) for the first six months after
teenagers get their driver licenses. The bill also disallows
passenger bus motor vehicle operators carrying minors from using
wireless communications devices, except in emergencies or when
the bus is stopped. Use of wireless equipment has become
omnipresent and is under suspicion of causing accidents.

Many of the items covered by these laws are discussed in the
available Texas defensive driving courses offered up online and
in classroom settings. Prices may vary for operators safety
courses but the lower limit they can be by law in the state
of Texas is $25.

Sept. 1 2005 Will bring New Traffic Laws to TX

July 19th, 2009 at 01:59am Under Traffic Law

A number of notable Texas traffic and driving laws meant to grow
safety on the roads and drivers
education cognisance go into effect on September 1.

Motor vehicle operators under the age of Automobile operators
will now have a harder time getting traffic violations elminated
from their 25. SB 1005 provides that if a driver younger than
automobile operators years of age commits a traffic offense
classified as a moving violation, the judge must necessitate the
driver to complete a classroom based or online defensive
driving course. In addition, if the driver holds a
provisional driver license – in other words, is under operators
years of age – they must submit to a Texas Department of Public
Safety road test in addition to taking an offline or online defensive
driving course. Failure by the driver to meet this
requirement will result in a final conviction for that traffic
offense.

Proof of insurance will be enforced through the new Texas law SB
1670. This law requires the Department of Insurance, in
conjunction with Texas Dept. of Transportation and other
authorities, to constitute a substantiation program for
automobile insurance in order to try and trim back the total of
uninsured motor vehicle operators.

SB 1257 prohibits use of wireless communications equipment
(including cellular telephones) for the first six months after
teenagers get their driver licenses. The bill also interdicts
passenger bus drivers transferring those under 18 from utilizing
wireless communications hardware, except in emergencies or when
the vehicle is stopped. Use of wireless equipment has become
omnipresent and is under suspicion of stimulating accidents.

Many of the items addressed by by these laws are discussed in
the available State of Texas defensive driving courses offered
online and in classroom settings. Prices could vary for drivers safety
courses but the lower limit they can be by law in the state
of Texas is $25.

Texas law fails mentally disabled boy, sentenced to 100 years for 1st offense

July 15th, 2009 at 09:00pm Under Disability Law

Hans K. June 14, 2009

When an 18-year-old with severe cognitive disabilities performed sex acts on a 6-year-old neighbor, the modest town of Paris, Texas, was unforgiving. But Aaron Hart’s punishment, 100 years in jail for a single incident, has stunned veteran disability rights advocates, who believed counseling, probation or even placement in a group home would have sufficed for a first-time offender with the intellectual maturity of a First-grader.

The municipality of Paris (Population 26,000) is located in Lamar County, Texas. The Country motto: “Where the past meets Progress” The County District Attorney is Gary Young. The judge in this case; Eric Clifford , Lamar County 6th District Court Judge has quickly crawled under a stone and took his information of the Counties Web page: 119 N. Main,Paris, Texas 75460 Phone deleted, Fax deleted, E-Mail deleted. All other County judges and officials have their details listed on the web site.

The sentence raises important questions about how people with severe disabilities are prosecuted in Texas, at a time when both state lawmakers and the U.S. Supreme Court are considering the proper punishment for persons who are young, mentally disabled, or both. Repeat child molesters and rapists routinely receive lesser sentences than Hart’s.

The day following the press announcement about the Aaron Hart’s sentence, Texas Governor signed legislation aimed at improving safety and management of the state’s institutions for the mentally disabled. The system has been stung by allegations of extensive abuse, including fights between residents staged by workers. Dozens of residents have died under suspicious circumstances and hundreds of employees have been disciplined for mistreating residents. A 2008 review by the federal Department of Justice reported that residents’ civil rights were being violated.

“Those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Perry said.

Governor Perry obviously has not heard about the trial of Aaron Hart. Calls to his office by various news organizations have not been returned.

Aaron Hart, who has an IQ of 47 (which equates to age 6-7), was found to be mentally retarded as a child and placed in a special school curriculum. He never learned to read or write. His speech is unsteady. His disabilities made him a victim of bullies who stole his bikes and his shoes, his father said. After graduation, Hart, who does not have the capacity to work, was a regular presence in the neighborhood. He made friends with some younger boys, playing video games and doing household chores to earn money. On the eve of his arrest, he was excited about a fair coming to town and asked a neighbor if he could mow her lawn to get a few dollars. She found him in the back shed fondling her 6-year-old stepson. When the policemen arrived, they read Hart his rights, and he confessed to what he had done. As they transported him to jail, he asked repeatedly whether he would get paid for mowing the lawn.

Young, the prosecutor, said that once a psychologist found Hart competent to stand trial, it was obvious the 18-year-old “knew right from wrong.” He said choosing diversion over prison was not an option. Under the law, those convicted of serious felonies such as sexual assault of a child are not eligible for diversion programs. He further said that while he sympathizes with Hart’s “mental health challenges,” he stands by his commitment to prosecute Hart on five counts related to the incident. it is common for prosecutors to pursue various charges in a trial involving one incident, not knowing which direction the jury will support.

David Pearson, Hart’s appellate attorney, said he has never seen a worse miscarriage of justice.

Pearson blames Hart’s trial attorney, who had the responsibility of explaining Hart’s disability to the judge and jury. That attorney, appointed by the court because Hart’s family could not afford counsel, did not apply for special accommodations, such as a liaison who could help the respondent understand what was happening in court. Nor did he endeavor to summon witnesses who could testify to Hart’s mental condition, Pearson said.

And he did not get a subsequent opinion after a court-appointed doctor found Hart competent to stand trial. That meant Hart no longer qualified for prison diversion options, like group homes and institutional settings for disabled offenders.

The first trial attorney, Ben Massar, did not answer repeated telephone calls to his office.

Faced with a five-count guilty plea, a jury convicted Hart in February and sentenced him to three 30-year prison terms and two five-year terms, one for each category of offense. Lamar County Judge Eric Clifford, who made the determination to stack the sentences into one 100-year prison term, said neither he nor the jury loved the concept of prison for Hart, but felt there was no other option.

“In the state of Texas, there is not a whole lot you can do with somebody like him,” said Clifford, who rejected Hart’s first request for a new trial.

Jurors tell a separate story. They say that during deliberations, they repeatedly sent notes to the judge asking if there were alternatives to prison, which they said the judge did not answer clearly. They said they were sure Hart would serve a concurrent sentence and were flabbergasted when Clifford stacked the sentences.

Hart’s father, Robert, said that while his son may look like a man, mentally, he is as young as his victim. He said the one silver lining in this case is that his son does not understand how serious his situation is.

“He keeps saying he will be out soon, he will be home with us, that maybe he will get probation,” he said. “It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever had to hear.”

So is this a combination of a small town incompetent judge mixed with an overzealous D.A. and a defective judicial system in Texas? You be the judge.

Lawmakers in Texas are working out the last kinks on a bill that would require law enforcement officials who take someone with obvious cognitive disabilities into custody to enable a court magistrate know within 72 hours. The court magistrate would have to order a regional mental health or mental retardation authority to evaluate the person immediately and would allow that assessment to be considered during the trial’s penalty phase.

Legal Malpractice Lawyer for Medical Lawsuit Claim

July 14th, 2009 at 07:07am Under Legal Malpractice

The most common legal malpractice claims arising from medical malpractice lawsuit claims are failing to file the lawsuit before the statute of limitations expires, failing to timely file expert report, and failing to have an adequate expert report.1.Statute of LimitationsThe statute of limitations in a medical malpractice case is generally two years from the date of the negligent act, and the lawsuit must be filed and defendants served before the expiration of those two years.The statute of limitations in a legal malpractice case based on a medical malpractice claim does not begin to run until two years from the time of the legal injury or until the attorney-client relationship and/or attorney’s duties to a client have terminated.2. Expert Report DeadlineTexas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §74.351(a) requires a healthcare liability claimant to produce, within 120 days after filing suit, one or more expert reports detailing each Defendant’s standard of care, how the Defendant breached the standard of care and how it caused the claimant’s damages.3. Expert Report Requirements In order to be adequate, the medical expert report must represent an “objective good faith effort” to comply with the definition of an expert report under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 74. The objective good faith standard requires an expert report to provide an adequate analysis of each of the statutory elements of the definition of an expert report:(a)Applicable standard of care;(b)The manner in which the care rendered by the physician or healthcare provider failed to meet the standards and;(c)The causal relationship between that failure and the injury, harm or damages claimed.Further, the Texas Supreme Court has held that to constitute a “good faith effort”, the report must at minimum inform the Defendant of the specific conduct called into question and provides a basis for the trial Court to conclude the claims have merit. In the event that the claimant fails to meet the expert report requirements and deadline, the trial court must dismiss the claim. The claimant then has a legal malpractice claim against the attorney for the failure to meet the report deadline and/or requirements.

Career of Fellow Texan Lance Armstrong Highlights the Need for More Sports Law Attorneys

July 12th, 2009 at 10:19pm Under Entertainment Law

Some superstar athletes develop such a close association with the city or state in which they perform that you cannot mention one without the other quickly coming to mind.  Do you think of Peyton Manning without the city of Indianapolis being part of the picture?  Of course not.  Unless, that is, you are from Tennessee and you still associate the Hall of Fame quarterback with that “other” UT school that drapes itself in bright orange.  Michael Jordan may have studied and played ball at the University of North Carolina and had an awkward late stint with the Washington Wizards, but he always will be associated with Chicago.  Here in Texas, we have developed or displayed plenty of amazing athletic talent on the fields and in the arenas.  There is a reason that every movie and television program revolving around high school football takes place in Texas.  Just think about some of the household names that have played their sport in our state—Troy Aikman, Vince Young, David Robinson, Tony Parker, Nolan Ryan, and Fred Biggio just to name a few.  One athlete of whom we are especially proud is native (Austin) Texan Lance Armstrong.  Everyone by now, knows his amazing accomplishments and compelling personal story. 

Just after his twenty-fifth birthday in 1996, Lance Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer that had spread to his abdomen, lungs, and brain.  Even after drastic surgeries and treatments to remove the diseased areas of his organs, doctors gave Armstrong less than a fifty percent chance of survival.  Obviously, he did make a full recovery following this devastating diagnosis and went on to win the Tour de France for a record-breaking seven consecutive years, from 1999 to 2005.  Lance Armstrong used his celebrity status to create the Live Strong Foundation, an organization which works to inspire and empower people affected by cancer.  Who doesn’t own, or know someone who owns, one of those famous yellow bracelets that have become a marketing phenomenon for the cause?  Armstrong’s dedication to shining a light on cancer research is closely felt here in Texas, as well as in the halls of Congress and in charitable circles around the world.

With his high profile and healthy bank account, there certainly have been times at which Lance Armstrong has needed the services of an aggressive attorney to defend his name and image.  Most notably, Armstrong has faced ongoing allegations that he has used steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs, a claim, which he has always adamantly denied.  A book titled L.A. Confidentiel: Les secrets de Lance Armstrong was published in France in 2004 and purported to include interviews with those close to Armstrong who could account for his supposed use of steroids.  Even though its author, David Walsh admitted that it contained only circumstantial evidence, the allegations caused a great deal of unwanted publicity.  In 2005, a former employee named Mike Anderson testified in court filings that he found suspicious drugs without an attached doctor’s prescription in Armstrong’s hotel room in Spain.  The following year, Armstrong’s former teammate, Frankie Andreau, and his wife shared in court testimony that they had witnessed conversations between Lance Armstrong and his doctor back in 1996 during which he admitted to use of various drugs.  The accusations that Lance Armstrong used illegal drugs to boost his performance, particularly during his recovery from cancer, continue to follow the athlete.  He has vowed to continue to use legal and media channels aggressively to clear his name, guaranteeing that attorneys in Texas will be revisiting the relevant laws concerning steroid use, defamation, and other content that may prove helpful to Armstrong’s efforts.

Last week, Lance Armstrong encountered another challenge to his professional standing.  During the first stage of the Vuelta of Castilla and Leon race in northern Spain, Armstrong broke his collarbone and is now back home in Austin for surgery and recovery.  He had a steel plate and twelve screws inserted in an effort to stabilize the collarbone.  Despite this obvious setback, Lance Armstrong still has hopes to race in the Tour de France in July.  As his team manager Johan Bruyneel said, “A broken collar bone in the month of March does not at all compromise the start of the Tour de France or your performance in the Tour de France.”  In Armstrong’s case, it appears that the time he will spend away from his chosen profession is not going to be extensive.  For some other athletes, the time out of the limelight can prove to be more problematic.  If a long-term injury or personal circumstances keep someone away from the playing field or racing circuit for an extended period and the public starts to forget about his star power, the financial and marketing commitments that have been made to the athlete might be unceremoniously dropped.  Effective legal counsel can be crucial in an athlete’s desire to maintain standing in his profession and its related monetary perks.

There is strong evidence to support the idea that athletes, as well as celebrities who have followed other avenues of public notoriety, should always keep a sports and entertainment lawyer nearby.  From the first professional contract that is signed to the allegations against one’s character that are inevitably made in hopes of financial gain to the unfortunate instances in which an athlete makes a decision to engage in illegal activity, there will be legal issues that need to be addressed.  Lance Armstrong has discovered this truth through the unending reports of his use of performance-enhancing drugs.  Undoubtedly, Armstrong’s Live Strong Foundation also employs attorneys to ensure that contributions are being used effectively and that cancer patients seeking assistance are given proper advice.  He may find more cause for an attorney’s expertise if this current injury threatens his promised livelihood or negotiations over missed engagements are required.  With opportunities to defend such high-profile personalities and protect their futures, the area of sports and entertainment law is a specialized one of high stakes and great reward. http://www.belolaw.com