Legal Briefs | San Francisco Attorneys

Ex-Spouses Can Ruin Each Other's Credit
By Kimberly Palmer, US News and World Report
Posted 8/20/07
Dear Alpha Consumer,

After finding out I had numerous collection accounts on my credit, I ordered credit reports from the three major credit bureaus, TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. I discovered that my ex-wife must have used my name to lease equipment, which led to the collection accounts.

I would like to clear the accounts from my credit report. How can I do this?

The best way to clear up your credit depends on whether or not you are a victim of identify theft, says David Rubinger, spokesman for Equifax. If your ex-wife used your name and Social Security number to take out credit without your knowledge, then she has stolen your identity.

To the credit reporting agencies, it doesn't matter if you've been victimized by a stranger, a friend, or an ex-wife. Shutting down the unauthorized accounts, filing a fraud report with the police, and telling the credit reporting agencies to place a fraud alert on your account are the first steps to reclaiming your credit.

If, on the other hand, your ex-wife is simply using credit cards that you previously owned together, then the situation is a bit stickier. If you are still registered as a co-owner of the credit card that she uses, you are probably still liable for any charges made on it, explains Experian spokesman Rod Griffin. "If you have a joint account, you're considered fully responsible for that debt," he says. (Griffin adds that in some states with community property laws, all accounts opened during marriage are considered joint, regardless of whose name is on them. The Internal Revenue Service publishes an overview of the tax-related laws in community property states, which include Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.)

You can, however, still file a dispute with the reporting agencies, as well as with the store where the equipment was leased. You have the best chance of being successful if you clearly explain the situation and why you should not be liable for the charges. The reporting agencies have 30 days to investigate and respond?but unless you have a good reason why you're not responsible for the charges, such as identify theft, then you're probably out of luck.

Post-divorce credit problems, which are common, usually can be avoided by closing joint accounts. "The safe thing to do is to cancel all the cards and make both spouses get cards in their own names," says Evan Hendricks, author of Credit Scores & Credit Reports.

The Federal Trade Commission warns divorcing couples that the divorce decrees they negotiate, such as a commitment that one ex-spouse will pay off credit card debt, does not absolve the other ex-spouse from responsibility from the perspective of the credit reporting agencies. Creditors can still demand payment from the other spouse, which can negatively affect credit scores if it goes unpaid.

In other words, your financial life may still be intertwined with your ex-wife's, even long after the marriage is over.

A nice artilce on how to help children through the divorce process.

----------

Divorce Doesn't Have To Destroy The Kids
Victoria Clayton
MSNBC contributor

If celebrity life is any reflection of the real world, divorce has gotten uglier than ever, even when kids are involved. Bitter disputes between Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards and Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger have played out in the public eye. And, of course, the Britney Spears-Kevin Federline custody battle has turned into a televised train wreck.

But experts say such high-profile messy divorces may actually be contributing something positive to the world of parenting. By demonstrating so clearly what not to do when the fairy tale ends, these divorces are raising awareness that more can be done to protect the kids.

For instance, since Britney and K-Fed were ordered by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to attend a course called Parenting Without Conflict, attention has been focused on the idea that divorcing couples need special parenting skills, notes Craig Ogulnick, the program's coordinator for L.A. County.

"The bottom line with our program and others like it is to show [separating] parents that there is a way to give their kids a fair shot at a better childhood," says Ogulnick, who is a marriage and family therapist. "The research is clear that divorce with conflict is unquestionably bad for the kids."

About 50 percent of counties throughout the nation now have classes for parents who are divorcing, according to research by Karen Blaisure and colleagues at Western Michigan University. In roughly two-thirds of these counties they're mandatory for all divorcing parents. Throughout the country and online there are also private workshops and services designed to teach couples how to separate but continue to be good parents.

In Texas, for example, there are Children In The Middle classes. The University of Minnesota offers an extension class titled Parents Forever. In Denver, there are Parenting After Divorce classes. Online there's uptoparents.org, a free interactive Web site that attempts to remind divorcing couples of their children's needs. There's also a site called ourfamilywizard.com that provides a place for each parent to access private and shared family calendars, and post messages and reminders.

The idea is that if families are going to separate, children will fare better if the separation is easier and more amiable. In fact, Blaisure's research did find that parents who took classes had an improvement in communication.

Less clear is the research on children of amicable divorce. Findings are beginning to emerge that indicate unhappy marriages with civil divorces can have positive or neutral effects on families, says Virginia Rutter, a senior researcher with Council on Contemporary Families (CCF), a nonprofit organization in Chicago dedicated to studying family issues. "We're starting to see that parents can divorce and still do well by the children."

Indeed, Guy Gabriel, an actor and yoga instructor in Los Angeles, says his experience leads him to believe that children can fare fine if parents keep their tempers in check. Four years ago Gabriel and his wife temporarily separated after 14 years of marriage. Their children were 7 and 13 at the time.

Although he acknowledges his wife and he had all the emotions of any separating couple - including anger, fear, disillusionment and depression - they made a pact not to show these emotions in front of the children. "From the beginning we stuck with the idea that if the parents are amiable toward one another the kids won't get tainted from the anger," says Gabriel.

His children remained with his wife in their home and Gabriel, using the ideas of nonviolence and clear communication he learned through yoga studies, made sure he was calm and reassuring to them. He also visited or at least talked to them every day. "I wanted their lives to remain as normal as possible so we didn't put them in disarray as well," he says. According to Gabriel, both kids continued to do well in school, extracurricular activities and at home.

Don't put them in the middle
Constance Ahrons, a San Diego psychologist and author of "The Good Divorce," says, indeed, the Gabriels did exactly what she advises. Kids do poorly, she says, when they see parents doing poorly. "I always tell separating couples to try to minimize the transitions. If there's any way to hold on to the house and have the kids stay there, do it. Keep the conflict to a minimum and never put the children in the middle."

Angus Strachen, a family therapist in Los Angeles who has counseled separating celebrity couples as well as non-celebs, says parents also shouldn't criticize the other parent to the children.

"Parents should go to a mediator and shout at the ex or go to a therapist but don't do this in front of children," he says. "And don't let kids overhear your phone calls. I don't know how many children tell me they hear all kinds of things from their parents talking on the phone."

Trish Horner and her estranged husband completed a court-mandated parenting class when they split last year, and the Riverside, Calif., mom of two says she's learned a lot about how to handle the divorce so that the kids aren't always dragged into the disputes.

"Now I really understand how important it is," she says. "If I need to complain or vent, I take a walk with my friend."

If handled properly, say Ahrons and Strachen, separation and divorce do not have to be devastating for children. Children can thrive even if parents are no longer together.

Professionals note, too, that while Britney and Kevin have not been shining examples of a healthy split, plenty of other celebs have been. Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe, Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise, Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid, and the reigning queen and king of good divorces Demi Moore and Bruce Willis don't grab headlines for their fights or family court dates.

Divorced, but still parents
"When I started in the late 1970s it was inconceivable that former spouses could get along," says Ahrons. "But now people are understanding that for their children's health they have to find a way to work together. They don't have to be friends necessarily but they do have to be co-parents."

Perhaps learning how to kindly part ways may even be contributing to another trend. The divorce rate has been falling continuously over the past quarter-century and is now at its lowest level since 1970. Calculating divorce rates is tricky and researchers argue that the data can be misleading (for example, marriage rates are also falling). But, says Rutter of CCF, it is conceivable that in the near future the commonly held belief that half of marriages end in divorce rather than death will be revised in favor of marriage.

The Gabriels are one couple that didn't end up contributing to the divorce statistic. They handled their six-month separation so, well, lovingly, he says, that they decided to give the marriage another chance.

"It was a negative time but at the same time we handled it in a positive way and it made us stronger," says Gabriel. "By separating and being co-parents we learned to appreciate and respect one another better." Through it all, he says, the kids have continued to do well. "I'm still amazed at my kids. They're excelling and they sort of took the whole thing in stride."

According to psychologist P. Leslie Herold, president of Solutions for Families, a company that provides workshops for divorcing parents, this isn't entirely uncommon. "What we're teaching is basically how to communicate. We've had many people tell us that if they'd used these skills or gone to this class very early on they wouldn't be divorced."

However, Herold concedes he doesn't aim to eradicate divorce. "My hope is that someday people just see divorce as one of life's possible transitions. We all go through transitions and we can learn how to handle them so they don't impact our parenting."

Victoria Clayton is a freelance writer based in California and co-author of "Fearless Pregnancy: Wisdom and Reassurance from a Doctor, a Midwife and a Mom," published by Fair Winds Press.

I am pretty reluctant to put this article up. But, it is a good example of a misinterpretations of the law. The article says, "a friend of mine claims that the Texas legal system is totally anti-female." Well, that may be (I don't know I don't practice in Texas), but the article goes on to say that Texas is not a community property state. Not true. It says Texas puts a cap on child support where California does not. This is a gross oversimplification that does not tell a fair story, for Californians or for Texans. Bottom line is if you want real advice, get it from a lawyer who can tell you what your rights really are.

----------

Don?t let him take you to Texas for a divorce
By SHARON WOODSON-BRYANT 03.JAN.08
It had been a long time since I listened to Steve Harvey?s radio show, so I had no idea that he and his wife were divorced or that I was about to unravel a juicy black soap opera to entertain me over the holidays.

There wasn?t much on TV and I decided to catch up on my reading. So I was surprised to stumble on a story about a lawsuit filed in November by Harvey?s ex-wife, Mary Harvey. She claimed that both Harvey and their long-time Houston attorney, Ricky Anderson, conspired against her during their 2005 divorce proceedings by convincing her to let Anderson represent both parties. The result, according to the lawsuit, was an unfair settlement leaving the former Mrs. Harvey out in the relative cold.

What?s more, Mary Harvey claims that one of the reasons her former husband pressured her to use Anderson as her attorney was to settle the divorce quickly and quietly in order to protect Steve Harvey?s public image. She accused the performer of trying to cover up his adultery, his poor and neglectful parenting ?and physical and mental abuse of? Mary Harvey.

According to the complaint, ?All of this was also done under the guise of protecting Steve Harvey?s image, who attempts to promote a packaged do-good, likable, Christian-type image in the public eye.? Among the claims, Mary Harvey was suing for breach of contract, common law fraud, professional negligence and conspiracy.

As I continued online research, I learned that Harvey had been married for 10 years and his divorce from Mary became final in December 2005. Then last July MediaTakeOut.com reported that Harvey and his fianc?e Marjorie Bridges were secretly wed in a small religious ceremony in a ?romantic setting? in Hawaii. The ceremony was performed by the Rev. T.D. Jakes, and was attended by the couple?s close family and friends. This marriage will be the third for both of them.

Always looking for a good plot, I began to wonder if Mary?s complaint had anything to do with the recent remarriage. I also questioned why a woman filing for a divorce would agree to use a lawyer who was also working for the husband. But what was even more puzzling was that she ended up with only $1,000 a month for herself and their son, Wynton.

According to the lawsuit, when Mary Harvey asked about child support, Anderson told her she could not legally receive more than $1,000 a month, despite the fact that community assets, including property in Texas, several bank accounts, investments and business interests are estimated at more than $10 million. In addition, Mary Harvey did not receive health insurance or continued payments from the couple?s businesses as she was promised.

Nevertheless, Anderson told Mary Harvey before signing the papers that she was getting a ?great deal,? it states in the complaint. He also told her that the estate would be divided equally, but when it came time to sign the divorce papers the day the couple appeared in court, Anderson told Mary Harvey she needed to sign the papers quickly and did not give her a chance to read the documents. Afterwards, once the divorce was granted, the lawyer refused to divide up the property as he said he would do.

Still not understanding how something this unfair could happen, a friend of mine claims that the Texas legal system is totally anti-female. She said that this is why so many men try to figure out some way to file for divorce in this state instead of filing in other equitable jurisdictions. They have a cap on child support and unlike California, it is not a community property state so the woman will never get a 50-50 split. Unless they try what Mary Harvey did.

According to the Dallas Morning News online, Steve Harvey was not laughing on Dec. 12 when he had to testify during a hearing regarding a motion of contempt concerning finances and property in question from their divorce. ?State District Judge Robert Dry did not make a ruling at the hearing, but did remind Mr. Harvey at one point that one possible punishment was jail time if the contempt ruling went against him. Mr. Harvey looked shocked and had a few words with his attorney before taking the stand.?

Well, guess what? Right before Christmas, according to MediaTakeOut.com, the shocking abuse lawsuit came to an end. Apparently Steve decided to open up his wallet and his ex-wife is very close to reaching a monetary settlement. There was no more joking around with him facing jail time if the judge ruled that he had contemptuously withheld vital information.

According to one person familiar with the case, Steve offered Mary approximately $10 million to settle the suit and Mary is expected to accept the offer. MediaTakeOut.com said that the insider revealed ?Court documents have Steve?s net worth at around $20 million, so he?s basically offering half of everything he owns to make this lawsuit go away. ... He really wants this lawsuit, and all the nasty allegations in it, to disappear because it?s starting to hurt his image.?

I say the moral to this story is if you are having marital problems don?t let your man talk you into moving to Texas. And no matter where you live, always get your own lawyer.

Those of you who know me or have read this blog probably have figured out I am personally pretty moderate on the issues that come up in child support (when representing clients, I put their beliefs forward on these issues, not my own). Yes, a lot of very bad situations can arise: people in very serious debt, people being put in jail, loosing licenses, etc. But, the one thing I see time and time again that people do not do which could prevent ALL of this is to file a motion for modification as soon as something happens.

The attached press release is interesting. But, I do think Mr. Pemberton is going about it the wrong way. Finishing his protest in front of Comm. Wightman's court room is abrasive and does not make his point. The Commissioner is a very good one; she knows the law well, works very hard to help people out. The Commissioner does not have a lot of discretion, however. Most child support laws are inflexible and mandatory. If Mr. Pemberton wants change then the proper place is in front of the legislature.

----------

MARINA DEL REY, Calif., Jan. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Government waste has
reached epidemic proportions, Kermit Pemberton says, and the child support
system that is supposed to protect the child is draining money from both
the system and the parent paying the support. Hard working parents' lives
are being destroyed because of this national greed, and Mr. Pemberton is
tired of it.

On January 20-21, 2008, Mr. Pemberton is going to hold a hunger strike
in protest of what he perceives as overzealous agencies that are dipping
into the pockets of Americans. His protest will begin at 12:30 p.m. and end
12:30 p.m. the next day in front of Commissioner Rebecca Wightman's
courtroom in San Francisco at Civic Plaza in front of City Hall. He also
has a scheduled court date on January 23, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in her
courtroom.

Mr. Pemberton is also going to hold a hundred parent march starting at
6 p.m. and ending at 7 p.m. on January 21, 2008. Having been abused by the
system himself, he has dedicated himself to making the public aware of the
waste of their tax dollars. Fed up with the injustices himself, Mr.
Pemberton has dedicated all his spare time to organizing activities and
creating informative websites to help citizens be informed and fight
governmental waste and excess.

To embrace what he is fighting for, the rights of the children for the
sake of the children, Mr. Pemberton will be holding a carnival with the
theme "Focus on the Kids," on Sunday, January 20th at the Civic Park in San
Francisco. Located at 350 McAlister, this public event is free and all
rides are free for the kids. We invite all the parents that are in similar
situations to come down and show their support.

As a victim of the system Mr. Pemberton says he has had his bank
account levied, his credit ruined, and his passport and driver's license
threatened. He wants the public to know that this could happen to you, too.
Thousands of dollars can potentially be spent to fight these impositions of
the government while most citizens are powerless to fight government
bureaucracy.

This man has paid more that six thousand dollars in travel expenses
alone, and his crusade does not want the average citizen to go through the
same injustices that he has gone through.

A decent article on restraining orders. The article has it mostly right. Any person who is in immenent fear may seek a restraining order. It begins with a request that is filed with the court. Most times, a request is granted and a temporary restraining order is issued. This needs to be served personally on the other person by someone other than the complainant. On it, there is a date of when the court hearing will be. The temporary restraining order is in effect from the moment the temporary order is served. But, it expires on the court date.

----------

My Boyfriend Is Really Annoying
Can I file a restraining order?
By Juliet Lapidos, slate.com
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008, at 5:29 PM ET

Britney Spears reportedly filed a restraining order against her paparazzo boyfriend, Adnan Ghalib, after discovering that he was tipping off his agency with photo ops. Last Monday, Florida resident Rachelle Washington petitioned for a protective injunction against Patriots' wide receiver Randy Moss. Under what circumstances can you order an unwanted admirer to get the hell away from you?

Fear of imminent harm. Laws vary somewhat from state to state, but across the country it's possible to obtain a temporary restraining order by swearing, under oath, that you have reason for alarm. There's no jury, the alleged harasser need not be present, and the burden of proof is virtually nonexistent; judges issue orders on behalf of anyone with a credible complaint. ("He threatened to hit me and I'm scared" but not "It freaks me out when he stares at me.") Under these guidelines "my paparazzo boyfriend sold pictures of me" would not pass muster, so either Britney had a more substantial complaint or the latest tabloid tale is just a rumor.

Temporary injunctions have a lifespan of maybe a week or two. Exact terms depend on the situation, but a basic order requires the offending party to stay at least 500 feet away from the victim's person and property. Occasionally, judges require offenders to surrender any firearms in their possession to local law enforcement. Case in point: Randy Moss was asked to hand over any concealed weapons permits to the Broward County Sheriff's Office.

After the temporary injunction expires, the victim can try to extend the restraining order in court. At a hearing, both parties are present and the victim must present "clear and convincing" evidence that abuse occurred or is likely to occur. The victim testifies about the harassment she experienced, and may present police reports or dated pictures of injuries. Witnesses who overheard threats or were present during a fight may also testify. Then the accused gets a chance to mount a defense. If the judge rules in the victim's favor, he'll issue a long-term restraining order, sometimes called a "final injunction." In California, where Britney Spears resides, a post-hearing order can last up to five years.

Many states distinguish between restraining orders issued for victims of domestic violence (sometimes called a "protective order") and other kinds of abuse (a "peace order"). Procedurally, they're very similar?first a temporary injunction, then a hearing, followed by a long-term order. But protective orders can impose farther-reaching penalties?not just a "stay away" mandate but the forced payment of child support, for example?and may last longer. Furthermore, there are some technical differences in eligibility and in the definition of abuse. In Maryland, for example, protective orders may be issued against current and former spouses, roommates, relatives, or anyone with whom the victim has had a child. Abuse, in such cases, means an act that causes serious bodily harm or places the petitioner in fear of serious harm, rape, or false imprisonment. Peace orders, by contrast, are issued against those who are not intimately related to their victim, and the definition of abuse is broader: It includes stalking, destruction of property, and trespassing.

What happens if you falsify a petition? Probably nothing, since it's hard to disprove a state of mind. That is, if you claim you're scared for your life, who's to say you aren't? Technically, however, you could be charged with making a false declaration. And what happens if you violate a restraining order? You'd probably face a criminal charge, a suspended sentence contingent on good behavior, and a fine?or possibly a short stay in jail.

C.A.: Clarifies Scope of Statutory TRO in Parentage Cases

By STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer

The standard restraining order issued in parentage cases prohibiting a parent from removing a child from the state without the other party?s consent or a court order does not require a parent to bring a nonresident child into the state, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled Friday.

Div. One held that San Diego Superior Court Judge David Oberholtzer did not err when he issued a temporary custody order allowing a Colorado woman who filed custody proceedings in California to continue living in Colorado with her child, rather than return to California, because Family Code Sec. 7700 raises no presumption that a parent residing in another state with a child at the time he or she seeks assistance of a California family court must return the child.

The issue arose after the woman, who had previously lived with the child?s father?her boyfriend?in San Diego, moved to Colorado with the child when the relationship deteriorated. One month after leaving, she filed a petition in the San Diego Superior Court to establish that the man was the child?s father, and requested that the court determine custody and visitation, and appropriate child support.

No Agreement

The parties were unable to reach an agreement as to a custody sharing plan through mediation, so Oberholtzer adopted the mediator?s recommendation that the child reside primarily with the mother. He entered a judgment of paternity establishing the man as the child?s father, and temporary custody orders allowing the child to remain in Colorado and granting the father visitation.

Oberholtzer later granted shared legal custody to the couple, awarding primary physical custody to the mother and adopting a detailed visitation schedule providing for visitation to occur in San Diego and Colorado, respectively.

The father appealed, arguing that the trial court should have required the mother to return the child to California when it issued the temporary custody order, rather than allowing them to remain in Colorado. He contended that the restraining order that automatically issues under Family Code Sec. 7700 when a petition is filed required that the child be returned to California, and that the court erred in failing to issue an order to that effect.

Trial Court Upheld

Writing for the court, Justice Cynthia Aaron rejected the man?s contention and affirmed the trial court?s decision.

?As the trial court pointed out,? she wrote, ?the statute does not state that a child who is already residing in another state at the time the petition is filed must be returned to California. Rather, the provision states only that a parent may not remove the child from the state, absent written permission from the other party or an order of the court, once the petition has been filed.?

Noting that the child was not in California at the time the petition was filed, Aaron said that there was no indication that the mother had removed the child from the state unlawfully because no party had petitioned the court for an order determining custody at the time.

Although California courts have jurisdiction to make custody determinations with respect to nonresident children in certain circumstances under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Aaron wrote that there was ?no reason to believe that the Legislature intended that children living elsewhere be returned to California anytime a custody proceeding has been initiated in California.?

?Child?s Best Interest?

She concluded that, even if the court were to accept the father?s contention that Sec. 7700 created a presumption that a parent must return a nonresident child, and that failure to do so would violate the automatic temporary restraining order, ?the trial court?s first concern is the child?s best interest.?

?If the trial court has the power to permit a party to remove a child from the state after a petition has been filed?,? she wrote, ?the court must have the authority to determine?that a child who has previously been removed from the state need not be returned?if doing so would not be in that child?s best interest.?

Writing that the trial court ?clearly believed that? under the circumstances, Aaron concluded that the order permitting the child to remain in Colorado was warranted and that Oberholtzer had not abused his discretion.

In an unpublished portion of the opinion, she also concluded that Oberholtzer applied the correct standard in issuing his custody determination, and that he did not abuse his discretion in granting the mother custody. She also wrote that the father had waived procedural errors that he claimed deprived him of a fair hearing for failure to raise them in his opening brief.

Justices Judith L. Haller and Patricia D. Benke joined Aaron in her opinion.

The case is Sarah B. v. Floyd B., 08 S.O.S. 774.

I thought this was an interesting article. California is one of the states mentioned that does not use the term divorce, rather dissolution. We also abandoned alimony in favor of spousal support.

----------

Let's Leave 'Marriage' at the Altar
By Nancy D. Polikoff, Washington Post

The bill in the Maryland General Assembly that would eliminate the term "marriage" for all and replace it with domestic partnership deserves serious consideration ["Bill Would End Civil Marriage, Create Domestic Partnerships," Metro, Feb. 5]. More than semantics are at stake.

Marriage has a long history of exclusion: slaves, interracial couples and same-sex couples have been denied it. For centuries, marriage eliminated a woman's separate legal identity, subjugated her to her husband, and determined whether her children were full citizens or "illegitimate." Many people consider marriage to be moored to religious doctrine, so Sen. Jamie B. Raskin's argument for turning it into a solely religious institution is sound.

There's precedent for breaking with past family law terminology. About a dozen states no longer have "divorce." Instead couples end their legal relationship through a process called dissolution. Divorce was historically a nasty business, with one "innocent" spouse, the other at "fault" and both subject to social stigma. "Dissolution" is less value-laden and contentious. It is also a term associated with ending partnerships, so the choice of "partnership" to signify the commitment that two people make to each other is consistent with the modern trend.

Similarly, numerous states have eliminated "alimony." For centuries its definition was sex-specific; only men could pay alimony and only women could receive it. Even after modern reform made alimony gender-neutral, the old connotation of a man's lifelong obligation to support his wife remained. So new terms such as "maintenance" or "support" replaced "alimony," signifying a shift in thinking. Some states have also abandoned the terms "custody" and "visitation" when referring to the post-dissolution placement of children, preferring "parenting time" or "parental responsibility." The old words implied that one parent "won" control of the children and the other "lost." The new words remove the implication that one parent matters more than the other.

Those who enter domestic partnerships in Maryland would be free to say they are married, just as those who dissolve their unions in California, Florida, Connecticut and the other states with dissolutions probably say they are divorced. The state does not police people's vocabulary. It does, however, signify modern ideals through official nomenclature. For that, the state should use the language of partnership and leave marriage to religion.

How homeowner's exemption is handled in a divorce
Mary Southall
Marin Independent Journal

Q: My husband and I own a Marin home, but we are divorcing. With my own money I bought a nearby Marin home and moved there, while my husband remains in the family home to fix it up prior to sale. My question has to do with my property taxes: Do I qualify for the homeowner's exemption on my new home, since as a married couple we qualified for the homeowner's exemption on our family home, and we still own it?

A: The answer is "maybe yes." According to information provided by the Marin County Assessor's Office: "Since March 7, 1973, a married woman has the right to retain her own legal residence in the state of California notwithstanding the legal residence or domicile of her spouse." To qualify for the exemption, the home must be her principal residence.

Allow me to add that the above sentence was quoted from a document that is 40 pages long. Hence it can safely be assumed that there will be dozens of exceptions to the rule. Please consult the Marin County Assessor's Office. The mailing address is 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 208, San Rafael, CA 94903; the e-mail address is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; and the phone number is 499-7215.

Also, it is up to the taxpayer to notify the assessor's office of any changes in status, and an exemption might hinge on its timeliness.

FIVE THINGS YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS

Are you considering registering as Domestic Partners? If you are, it's important that you know that there are several legal implications that come along with your new status, including how you file your tax returns.

1) Both parties need to fill out the Declaration of Domestic Partnership, available at http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/dp_formsfees.htm. In order to qualify as Domestic Partners, the couple needs either to be of the same sex, or opposite sex couples must include at least one person who is over 62 and meets the eligibility requirements of the Social Security Act. For more details, check out the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form.

2) Once you're officially an RDP, you must file your tax returns in California as Married/RDP Filing jointly, Married/RDP filing separate, or if requirements are met, Head of Household. For Federal purposes, RDP's must file as single of Head of Household if requirements are met.

3) And, since you and your domestic partner will be filing different returns between the IRS and the State of California, you may face additional time and expense as a result. Also, when combining tax returns for an RDP in California, certain items (e.g., capital losses, Section 179 expense deduction) may be limited.

4) The termination of an RDP is similar to a divorce should you need to end the partnership. Once the RDP is registered, the ability to file as a single person in California no longer exists. The RDP is not terminated until the court issues a final decree, and if support is awarded, it may be taxable income to one party and a deduction to the other.

5) The bottom line is that declaring your relationship as an RDP has real legal ramifications and demands serious investigation.

Unfortunately, I have had a lot of experience litigating domestic violence issues. What is critical to understand, and this article makes very clear, is that a restraining order does not guarantee safety. They are helpful, but not complete protection.

----------

Restraining orders no guarantee of safety
By Robert Salonga and Malaika Fraley
Contra Costa Times
Article Launched: 09/27/2008 06:16:40 PM PDT

Margarita Sandoval was diligent about meeting all the conditions to uphold the restraining order she filed against her husband.

When he twice violated the order with threatening phone calls, she told police. When he came to see her and violently tried to coerce her into relinquishing the financial claims tying up their divorce proceedings, she called police again, and officers arrested him.

But Felix Sandoval made bail before charges could be filed, and within two months he went after his wife in an armed rampage, slaying a relative and police officer before police killed him.

The outcome was a tragic reminder of the limitations of a domestic violence restraining order. Law enforcement and advocates for victims of domestic violence maintain the court orders are effective as long as victims know they need to do more than just have the document in hand.

"It's not a force field," Antioch police Lt. Leonard Orman said. "But it is a tool for us and the public. Instead of telling people to leave, (with an order) we can arrest somebody."

More than 1,500 domestic violence restraining orders were filed in Contra Costa County in 2007, according to Bay Area Legal Aid. California law distinguishes a domestic violence restraining order from a civil order by the existence of a relationship between the parties.

Just a modest portion are prosecuted. From April to June this year, the District Attorney's Office received 90 complaints of restraining order violations, which led to prosecution in 35 cases. Charges for just over a third of violations is typical for the office, Contra Costa County District Attorney Robert Kochly said.

To successfully try a restraining-order violator, Kochly said prosecutors need a documented pattern of abuse and noncompliance or corroborating evidence such as witnesses, property damage or injuries. Without this, he said, the complaint risks being viewed as a "he said-she said" instance, not enough to secure a conviction.

Victims also risk compromising an order by letting violations go unreported, or contacting the restrained person in the spirit of reconciliation. Reporting every instance is important, Orman said.

"What we find a lot of times is that people want to enforce them at their pleasure," he said. "That takes away the power (the order) holds."

Two recent homicides in Contra Costa County illustrated how a restraining order ? or any court order ? falls short against a determined offender.

On Aug. 7 in Bay Point, Javier-Francisco Valladolid, 38, went to the home where his wife was staying and killed a relative, 34-year-old Graciela Guitierrez, and his 4-year-old son before fatally shooting himself.

Guitierrez was watching Valladolid's children while his estranged wife, Maria Elena Ventura Guitierrez, was in court trying to formalize a temporary restraining order.

Then on Sept. 6, Felix Sandoval, 49, stormed a Martinez hair salon looking for his wife and ended up in a nearby apartment. There he shot and killed her cousin, 44-year-old Catalina Torres. In a gunbattle with police, Sandoval fatally shot veteran Martinez police Sgt. Paul Starzyk, whose final act was to fire the bullet that fatally wounded the gunman, saving five other people inside the apartment.

In the Sandoval case, Kochly said a complaint from an assault that preceded the slayings had not yet been forwarded to his office. Police have said they were awaiting toxicology tests based on the suspicion that Felix Sandoval was high on methamphetamine in that incident. Besides coming within 100 yards of his wife, he also had violated the restraining order by possessing ammunition.

But he made bail in under two hours, and would have remained free even if immediately charged, Kochly said.

"I don't believe there was anything that could have been done to have incapacitated him," Kochly said. "Certainly there is no piece of paper that can guarantee protection from someone intent on causing harm ? not by a long shot."

Susun Kim, managing attorney for the Contra Costa regional office of Bay Area Legal Aid, agreed with Kochly.

"If a person is so deranged, so desperate that he's willing to kill his children and his spouse, what order will this person listen to?" Kim asked.

Kim said domestic violence victims need to view the killings with the proper perspective ? they're extremely rare ? and realize that the overall benefits of filing for a restraining order greatly outweigh the chances of tragedy.

"It happens very rarely," Kim said. "I've been doing this 11 years, representing domestic violence survivors, and none of my clients have ever been hurt or killed."

Most people served with a restraining order comply, said Concord police Detective Rick Rivera, one of two investigators dedicated to a monthly domestic violence caseload of about 100 in the county's largest city. About 10 percent of restraining order violations in Concord are committed by chronic offenders, Lt. Andrew Gartner said.

"(A restraining order) ends the behavior for a lot of people," Rivera said. "Once they're served, they realize, 'It's no longer between me and my partner. It's between me and the state.'"

Furthermore, Kim said, domestic violence victims are empowered by the educational process entailed in filing.

"They learn how to protect themselves," Kim said. "It also changes the power dynamics of the relationship."

That sense of power can fuel the persistence needed to get violators prosecuted.

"Victims should never grow tired of reporting violations of restraining orders. Multiple reports show a pattern of disregard for the judge's orders and can be combined later to further justify the seriousness of the matter and the state of mind of the offender," Gartner said.

Even so, Silvia Torres-Lim??n, who lost her sister, Catalina Torres, to one of the extreme, rare cases, wants to see harsher punishment to stop particularly violent offenders.

"It's better to be too severe than to be regretful," she said.

In the absence of stiffer penalties ? violations are classified as misdemeanors, though officers can make arrests based on observed evidence of assault or abuse ? Kim said her agency is working with county police departments to standardize response practices, so that instances of family violence are consistently and thoroughly investigated and reach the District Attorney's Office. Concord's domestic violence team, led by Rivera, Detective Greg Pardella and two civilian family violence victim advocates, is one model for that effort.

Meanwhile, law enforcement agencies say they're working earnestly to ensure the orders are enforced. They note that while the system's shortcomings never fail to garner attention, the successes are difficult to quantify.

"It's one of those immeasurable things," Orman said. "How do you know about the ones that worked?"

I thought this was a good article on how to make marriages work.

----------

The science of a long marriage

SARAH HAMPSON
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
October 2, 2008 at 9:10 AM EDT

Want to have a long marriage like Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward did?

Well, the right thing to say to your wife in the midst of an argument could be as simple as this: "Honey, let's not get upset. When our brains age, we'll become more adoring companions."

Alternatively, you could say, "Just think of all the emotional-attachment synapses we'll be laying down in our brains if we make it to our 25th anniversary."

Who knows? You, too, could have a 50-year happy marriage like Mr. Newman, the Hollywood legend whose greatness behind the scenes received just as many accolades, if not more, than his acting career when he died last week at the age of 83.

He is iconic for his husband-hood in an age when marriage is increasingly seen as a rite of temporary and convenient passage - one you glide through and leave as you might a party you'd thought you'd enjoy - not just in the Los Angeles hotbed of sex, beauty and ambition, but in the culture at large.

Mr. Newman rarely discussed his marriage. To Playboy magazine, he once explained his marital fidelity by saying he didn't need to go out for hamburger when he had steak at home.

But usually, he would politely say "I don't like to discuss that" when interviewers pressed for the secrets of his long, happy marriage.

But now, there is scientific and psychological insight into the benefits of long-term marriage, and the reasons why marriages that survive often become better as they age. In the long run, marriage is a state of being that suits, even enhances, human biology, experts say.

"There are biological changes that occur in aging in the so-called 'blue spot' of the brain, an area that has to do with anger, aggression, anxiety. That area literally loses neurons as we age," which means those emotions are less acute, explains Maggie Scarf, a therapist and author of several books including September Songs: The Good News About Marriage in the Later Years.

Ms. Scarf uses this and other research to explain the surprising evidence she found in interviews with couples aged 50 to 75 that sticking out a marriage, even a contentious one, brings a level of happiness that few of the participants could have predicted earlier on.

"There was still a source of annoyance and irritation. It was just that it was handled in a different way. The intensity of their conflict never reached the rage stage."

It's a comforting thought: We may be wired to fall in love, but we are also de-wired to get along in our dotage.

There is also a psychological shift among older couples that makes marriage easier and better, she says. "As people age, there is an unconscious or maybe conscious motivation to move toward the 'positivity effect,' " she says, citing medical research from Stanford University in California. "People realize that more years of their life have passed than are ahead. Time is like an oil supply that is running out, and as it runs out it becomes more valuable, and people think about how to use that time in a way that makes them happy."

Ms. Scarf is not advocating that people stay in marriages that are truly miserable. "There are real reasons why people divorce," she acknowledges. But she thinks that couples need to know the benefits in store if they ride out the bad patches.

"Marriage is a journey, and things turn around," says Ms. Scarf, a wife of 55 years, mother of three children, and grandmother of eight. She and her husband haven't "floated here on a cloud of bliss" she says of the long marriage that gives her pleasure and meaning.

Divorce is in vogue, which may make couples contemplate it without enough consideration, she says. "I don't think couples in long-term happy marriages have a voice, and they should have one, because the voices of the divorced people are much noisier."

The cultural obsession with romantic love as opposed to the opportunities - and biology - of long-term commitment also encourages divorce, says Mark O'Connell, a marriage therapist and psychology professor at Harvard Medical School who wrote The Marriage Benefit: The Surprising Rewards of Staying Together.

"There is the biology of falling in love, but there is also a biology of long-term attachment," he said in an interview. "If you look at research, it is clear that there are increased activities in pleasure and addiction centres in people's brains when they are falling in love, and down the road there is increased activity in the centres that have to do with long-term memory and long-term learning - the kinds of places that have to do with the laying down of enduring attachment.

"But we have this idea that the early falling in love is this intense, passionate biological experience, and that the rest of it is just sort of social convention that we have to deal with as a compromise."

Self-help books that suggest ways for couples to "get back to earlier passion" are unrealistic, says Dr. O'Connell, a husband of 24 years and father of three children. "If we have a model of love that says we should be happy all the time, people are disappointed. But they can't live like that because that's not the way love works."

One of the greatest opportunities of marriage is the ability to understand yourself, he adds. Contrary to popular belief - that divorce is the crucible to self-actualization - it is marriage that is a potential gateway to true self-expression.

"In a marriage, people get into places with each other that are often going to be reflections of [the] most pained and difficult and vulnerable parts of themselves, the places that they most need to wrestle with individually," he explains. "People work on their marriages to get along, but there is a lot of potential for personal growth. So, in fact, divorce can be the antithesis of self-expression, and is, in fact, self-denial."

This is a wonderful article that hits the nail on the head. Divorce is too often a miserable experience for husbands, wives, and kids. While it is certainly an emotional time, the situation can be made so much better by working together to make the vast changes in lives.

----------

Happily divorced ever after
By Maureen Salamon
CNN.com

(LifeWire) -- After her divorce three years ago, Lori Hilliard was filled with rage, pain and sadness -- until a few simple words from Mister Rogers put things into perspective.
Some ex-spouses forge new relationships that look more like friendship and aim to bury the rancor of the past.

Some ex-spouses forge new relationships that look more like friendship and aim to bury the rancor of the past.

The mother of four came across a book that featured a quote from the gentle host of TV's "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood": "So in all that you do, in all of your life, I wish you the strength and the grace to make the choices which will allow you and your neighbor to become the best of whoever you are."

"When I read that quote, something in my heart just shifted and I knew what my divorce was going to be," says Hilliard, 44, an occupational therapist for children with disabilities.

Today, she and her former husband, Timothy, 43, co-parent their children in a relationship they both say works better than their marriage ever did.

"It has been so powerful for my kids to see a functional relationship out of this. We're making the most of it," she says.

Timothy Hilliard, who lives near Lori in Lehigh, Utah, and communicates constantly with her to juggle the care of their children, including a son with Down syndrome, agrees.

"Our relationship basically runs just the way it did when we were married, except without the sex and the arguing. I can tell you, I don't miss the arguing," the marketing executive says.
Don't Miss

* Will I ever trust again?

For many parents, divorce is an arduous, exhausting ordeal. But it doesn't have to be. Some forge brand-new relationships that look more like friendship and aim to bury the rancor of the past.

Allies or animosity?

New York City matrimonial lawyer Nancy Chemtob says about 80 percent of divorcing couples her firm represents are parents, to whom she stresses the benefits of remaining allies even if they cannot remain married.

"It's really in everyone's best interests," says Chemtob, a founding partner of the firm Chemtob Moss Forman and Talbert. "As much animosity as there is, when they realize their common interest... it's going to make everyone's lives easier."

Of course, "happily divorced ever after" is simply not possible for everyone. Chemtob notes that one spouse's fury over the other's marriage-busting infidelity can prevent harmony from ever taking root. And sometimes a divorcing couple just can't break the discord that has simmered over years or decades.

Bonnie Russell and her ex-husband, Mark Barber, tried to stay friends after their 1990 split, but agree that their efforts failed.

"Initially it was an OK divorce," says Russell, a freelance publicist in her 50s from Del Mar, California, who was married to Barber for about four years. "But when I went for more custody, it turned into a horrible divorce."

"We tried to visit; we tried to be civil," says Barber, a 56-year-old lawyer in San Diego who ended up with full custody of the couple's only child, a daughter, who is now 20. "But this is not a success story."

Trial and error

When custody isn't an issue, ex-spouses often try to maintain a relationship focused on one of the few things they may still agree on: their offspring. Russell Wild, 52, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, says he and his former wife, Susan, 51, never lost sight of their commitment to their two children, ages 15 and 12.

The Wilds, married for 22 years, divorced in 2003 and two years later co-wrote "The Unofficial Guide to Getting a Divorce."

"We had seen many attempts at amicable divorce fail among family and friends," says Russell Wild, 52, a financial planner. "We knew it wasn't going to be easy. Married people fight, divorced people fight . . . you just can't let it take control of you and destroy you."

When it comes to raising their children, Wild and his ex-wife strive for consistency. "(We) are a single government, and the kids know that," says Wild. "We always back each other up."

If Travis Hill's career choice is any indication, such Herculean efforts by divorcing parents can pay off. Hill, 32, believes he became a psychotherapist because of how well his mother and father handled their split 14 years ago.

"They were very good at distinguishing the problems in their relationship from their concerns about us kids," says Hill, of Germantown, Tennessee, who now has a wife and young daughter. After the divorce, Hill's father continued to share Christmas Day with his family, as well as some weekends and other holidays. "Now that grandkids are in the picture, because my parents were able to stay on friendly terms, it's much easier."

Striving for the 'good divorce'

The pros of such an arrangement are numerous, according to Hill: from nurturing children's mental health and emotional resilience to smoothing extended family ties.

But "ultimately, it's still a divorce," he says. "Divorce is not a happy thing ... and you still have to go through the pain of what a divorce is."

Attorney Chemtob offers these tips for exes to help make a "good divorce" possible:

? Put your kids first: "The most important thing to children is that they still have a relationship with both of their parents," she says.

? Don't be petty: Make sure every discussion isn't a rehash of why you got divorced. "It's not about winning a fight anymore."

? Be inclusive: "If you'd include a friend who has nowhere to go on Thanksgiving or birthdays, why not include your ex-spouse?"

With the rise of bankruptcy filings (specifically Chapter 7 and Chapter 13) there are more and more cases of divorce with bankruptcy issues. This article is a good overview of a small sample of the issues. If you need additional information about bankruptcy, please feel free to contact our sister-firm the Law Offices of M. Tilden Moschetti or visit its blog.

----------

Bankruptcy During Divorce
by Sherrie Bennett
(from lawyers.com)

If you think you're headed for divorce and have a lot of debt between the two of you, it might make sense to file for bankruptcy before starting a legal divorce proceeding. Filing bankruptcy first can simplify the divorce by clearing out some of your debt. This can make it easier to negotiate how the remaining debts should be divided, and protect you from your soon-to-be-ex's bankruptcy filing down the road.

Also, you and your spouse might want to consider filing a joint bankruptcy before the divorce. Not only will this make the final division of any remaining debts even easier, but filing a joint bankruptcy is cheaper than filing two separate ones.

In either event, bankruptcies and divorces have serious impacts on each other, especially with respect to your property and personal finances.
Effect of Bankruptcy on Divorce

When one or both spouses file bankruptcy, all the community property, that is, property that was bought or acquired during the course of the marriage, becomes a part of the bankruptcy estate and is available to pay debts. The bankruptcy estate is simply all of your property that you own at the time the bankruptcy is filed.

When you or your spouse file a bankruptcy, an automatic stay immediately prevents creditors from collecting on most debts. But the automatic stay doesn't prevent you from asking a divorce court to order your spouse to pay child support or alimony.

Once a bankruptcy court decides property is "exempt," that is, it is not part of the bankruptcy estate and so it is not available to be sold to pay debts, a divorce court can then divide that property. Property exemptions are defined not only by federal law (the "Bankruptcy Code"), but also by the laws of the state in which the bankruptcy is filed.

Some examples of federal exemptions include:

* A specified dollar amount for real property that is for his or her residence, and
* A specified dollar amount for one motor vehicle, such as your primary car

Property Settlements and Bankruptcy

Negotiating a property settlement in the midst of bankruptcy is complicated. Debts related to a property settlement are presumed to be "nondischargeable" in bankruptcy, meaning that the person who files bankruptcy can't have those debts wiped out and must still be responsible for them. But the bankruptcy court will wipe out those debts if the person filing for bankruptcy can show:

* That he or she can't pay the debt and still take care of him or herself and any dependents, or
* That wiping out the debt would result in a benefit to the person filing the bankruptcy that outweighs any harm done to his or her former spouse or child by nonpayment

So if you think your spouse is contemplating bankruptcy after your divorce is final, you'll want to word your property settlement in such a way that your soon-to-be-ex's obligation looks and acts as much as possible like a support obligation instead of a property settlement. That is so simply because support obligations are more difficult to have discharged.

How do bankruptcy courts decide what's support and what's property settlement? It varies greatly by state, but courts have based their decisions on such questions as:

* Does the obligation terminate or reduce with the occurrence of certain events, like remarriage or a child turning 18?
* Is the obligation in installments or a lump sum?
* Are there minor children?
* What is the relative health and education of the parties?
* Was there a need for support at the time of the divorce?

If your bankruptcy hasn't been filed yet, these distinctions and problems probably won't effect you. For many bankruptcies filed on or after October 17, 2005, any obligation between former spouses can't be dischargedin bankruptcy. So, a spouse with an alimony and/or child support obligation can't have that obligation discharged in bankruptcy if the bankruptcy petition was filed on or after October 17, 2005.
Property Liens

One way to protect yourself in a divorce negotiation if you think your spouse may be contemplating bankruptcy in the future is to take a security lien as a backup to debts your spouse is to pay you after the divorce. The lien should be on property your spouse is to be awarded in the divorce, preferably property that means a lot to your spouse. That way, if your spouse later asks the bankruptcy court to discharge the debt he or she is supposed to pay, you can seize the property to pay the debt.
Indemnity Clauses

Another precaution in the face of a soon-to-be-ex-spouse talking about bankruptcy is to have a "hold harmless" or "indemnity" clause written into the divorce decree, requiring your spouse to pay certain debts or repay you if a creditor makes you pay the debt. If your ex-spouse later files bankruptcy, you can go to bankruptcy court and ask the judge to enforce the indemnity agreement. While an indemnity agreement won't guarantee you'll get paid, it's one more factor for the bankruptcy judge to consider.

As you can see, the issues of going through divorce and bankruptcy at the same time are confusing at best, and highly damaging at worst. If you find yourself in this position, it makes sense to find a bankruptcy lawyer who can help you with all the issues.

Couples who decide to part ways will have to go experience one of the most emotional times of their life. They will not only be parting ways with there once believed soul mate, but they have to also determine how to live on a single source of income, where they will be living, and how to maintain their credit and restructure their financial future.

It is wise to begin with the biggest asset, which is commonly their home and is the framework of their finances. You will have to ask yourself if you should sell or refinance. You have to figure out the appraised value of the house. Who will live at the house and how the other spouse will be paid for their share of equity. These questions can only be answered on a case to case basis, because no two cases in divorce that are the same.

On a home when there is no mortgage, this may be as simple as drawing up a deed to transfer interest. A spouse who is keeping the home will either have Equity Loan, refinancing or Line of credit. The loan equity or line of credit will be the most effective, because a lot of them have few or no closing rate involved. The objective of this loan is to pay the other spouse for their share of the property's accumulated equity.

One more important thing to understand is that if there is a home mortgage, both spouses are liable for the monthly compensation of the mortgage; this mortgage should be paid off either through a sale or refinance.

In California, a deed will only transfer the title; it will not give the non-occupying spouse from mortgage's obligation. Paying off the existing mortgage (through a refinancing) will be the only way to do this. Caution is needed when the non-occupying partner agrees for the other partner who is staying in the home to refinance the divorce has been completed.

This need to achieve as soon a possible prior the divorce court proceedings has been completed. The early part of divorce will expose some very important aspects like whether or not the occupying spouse can qualify for a loan by themselves to release the non-occupying spouse from the mortgage responsibilities; if they are not able to do this, the best wager or speculation might be just to sell the house. Also if the occupying spouse likes to keep the house, the help of an professional mortgage expert can assist structure this one, like adding one family member to the loan to assist the occupying spouse which qualifies his or her to the loan.

Once the process of divorce has been completed, and the occupying spouse is not qualified, then the non- occupying spouse will still have the obligation in debt; or if the occupying spouse gives payments that are late. This could definitely affect the non-occupant spouse ability to qualify for a new mortgage in buying a new house.

A common problem these days is the decreasing values. Many couples find themselves with a home that is upside down in value. One way to solve this just to let the judge make the sound decision; or if you are considering to take credit flaw, then a short scale can be solve the problem in selling a mortgage that is upside down.

As I sit to write this, I'm aware that a lot of the recent columns are about death.

A requiem for the bill to increase permanent disability monies. An obit for California's vocational rehab.

And today, the apparent death of Wilkinson. Wilkinson?

Wilkinson was the decades old case (followed by a line of followup cases) that allowed successive injuries to the same body part to be rated as one injury rather than split into different ratings.

The policy rationale behind Wilkinson was that successive injuries often combined synergistically into a more serious level of disability, justifying a higher monetary recovery.

Opponents of Wilkinson derided the decision as allowing injured workers to receive "lucky bucks". A 30% disability would produce a higher monetary award than successive 15% awards.

Today, Wilkinson stands on life support. Several months ago the 1st District Court of Appeal upheld a unanimous WCAB decision in Benson vs. Permanente which essentially ruled that the Wilkinson rule no longer applied due to the 2004 comp reform changes. The California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the 1st District's Benson ruling.

The California Supreme Court had ordered the 2nd District Court of Appeal to hear two cases involving the same issue. Those decisions are now rendered (though "unpublished", unlike Benson). The 2nd District reaches the same conclusion as the Benson court.

One case is Vilkitis v. WCAB:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B209235.PDF

The other is Forzetting vs. WCAB:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B209323.PDF

It's possible but unlikely that the Supreme Court will grant a hearing in either case. As a practical matter, the Wilkinson doctrine is on life support, and will die soon.

Injuries must now be rated successively. Splitting ratings up between a succession of smaller events rather than combining the rating will result in sharply reduced awards for some workers.

If there is a silver lining for disabled workers, it may be that Subsequent Injury Fund awards may be pursued more often. In an e -blast today, attorney Richard Jacobsmeyer claims that with the AMA rating many internal medical problems at a rather high level, in some circumstances SIF claims may become more viable (provided the SIF thresholds are met) , and predicts an uptick in SIF claims from many of the more sophisticated applicants attorneys.

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com
(have a tip? an idea to share? you can e mail me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )

PETA is upset.

That's the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They're upset because Obama swatted a fly with gusto during an interview with journalist John Harwood. I must say his assertive swatting looked pretty good to me. The bigger question, it seems, is whether Obama can use some of that high but dwindling popularity to take on the herd of cats called Congress before the window to achieve healthcare reform closes.

Meanwhile, up in River City, Governor Schwarzenegger gave California Senate Pro-Tem a metal sculpture of bull testicles, presumably to highlight that it will take some cojones to solve the California budget chasm.

It was that kind of week.

In our workers' comp world, perhaps SCIF should take some swatting lessons from our President. But perhaps it's too late.

Like the pesky fly that keeps coming back, the tint of scandal continues to follow the State Compensation Insurance Fund. A new regime now runs SCIF, but the old regime is under the microscope.

A possible criminal microscope.

Who'd a-thunk there might be rapscallions in California's comp insurance industry?

Search warrants have been served at the offices of a former SCIF director, and more searches of other former personnel may follow. This could get very interesting.

Here's the L.A. Times piece on these developments:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s ... 4915.story

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com
(have a tip? feedback? you can e mail me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )

Is California fatally dysfunctional?

If so, is the problem that we have too many people with too many needs that are too reliant on the state for help? That we've ramped up too many programs that we can't pay for?

Or that we haven't developed a workable revenue stream, since a large percentage of state income taxes are paid by very high earners whose income falls in times of economic challenge?

Here's one take on what's gone wrong.

"How California Became Ungovernable".

That's the thesis of Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine, a pair of experienced reporters who've covered the California political scene for decades.

As we sit on the verge of going to IOUs to pay the state's bills, their argument is worth sharing:
http://www.calbuzz.com/2009/06/how-cali ... overnable/

Upcoming: I'll soon be attending the CAAA Squaw Valley meetings. Check back for some live blogging from there.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

There's word today that Governor Schwarzenegger is threatening a third state employee furlough day.

Despite "user funding", only some SCIF employees are currently exempted from the
current two day furlough.

A three day furlough would further slow business at the state's Workers' Compensation
Appeals Boards. User funding is not saving the WCAB from pain.

As of Friday afternoon, the legislative impasse continues. In late afternoon remarks to the California Applicants Attorneys Association, State senator Mark DeSaulnier noted that "Dickens would be amazed if he came back to California now". DeSaulnier, the Chair of the Senate Industrial Relations Committee, noted that we currently have a "Winchester House" of government by initiatives that have led us to this crisis.

Also of interest: DeSaulnier noted that it is likely that Governor Schwarzenegger will not support the bill to extend the right to predesignate a doctor before a worker is injured.The right to predesignate sunsets at the end of 2009 unless it is extended by statute.

DeSaulnier has his hat in the ring for the U.S. House seat being vacated by Ellen Tauscher. Also running is Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, who many disabled worker advocates feel played a role (as Insurance Commissioner) in creating a crisis mentality that led to the harsh 2004 workers' comp reforms.

In my next post I'll cover more from the Squaw Valley CAAA conference.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

Immigration reform is one of the most contentious issues facing the country. Perhaps that's one reason that it seems to have been put on the
second-tier agenda by President Obama.

Better to spend political capital on healthcare reform, climate change legislation, and national security issues.

Immigration is an issue never far in the background for California workers. Labor standards enforcement task forces have focused on industries such as restaurants, car washes, laundries and other service industries which are heavy users of immigrant labor. Many employers in these industries do not carry workers' comp insurance on all their workers and do not observe wage and hour laws. California has no jurisdiction over immigration violations. The focus of state enforcement has been on employer conduct and working conditions.

The federal ICE raids of the last few years were heavily criticized by immigrants rights advocates and many in the labor community. Workers were said to have been terrorized, and hard-working individuals criminalized and families torn apart by worker raids.

The first sanctuary movement focused on helping immigrants from war torn El Salvador and Guatemala. The "Second Sanctuary" movement has focused on helping undocumented workers seeking a better standard of living north of the border.

Some of these advocates argued that "no person is illegal" and essentially argued against any sort of increased border enforcement or interior enforcement. Some argued that enforcement is futile and that the entire focus needs to be on wages and working conditions, to end exploitation of workers by a corporate America that wants and uses cheap labor with a wink and a nod.

Meanwhile, there's been quite a bit of debate in Sacramento over how illegals impact various education, health and prison costs as the state struggles to balance a giant budget deficit.

Others argued for enforcement against illegals, but for the focus to be on employers. Historically, employers have not been faced with tough consequences for hiring illegals.

Take a company like L.A. Apparel. The trendy clothing manufacturer, located in downtown L.A. has a manufacturing labor force of around 5,600, a third of whom are illegals.

It's been unclear until now what approach the Obama administration would take. High U.S. unemployment and the growing sense that a cartel-dominated, out -of-control Mexico may constitute a national security threat, have complicated the issue.

We now have an answer to what Obama intends. There will be a shift.
The focus will be on employers. There may be increased incentive for employers to use E-Verify, the voluntary system designed for employers to check Homeland Security and Social Security databases. E-Verify has its own set of problems, but it is one tool available to employers who are serious about compliance.

Check out this piece from the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 438.story?

Here's the New York Times story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/us/03 ... nted=print

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

Deep Throat would have gagged if he'd lived long enough to see the current shenanigans at The Washington Post.

Once upon a time The Post was widely respected for its investigative journalism. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman played the intrepid reporters Woodard and Bernstein.

Presidents and Congressional titans had to mind their Ps and Qs lest The Post reveal their shenanigans. Top editors and owners of The Post managed to be of Washington society, but above it.

California's major metro papers covered Sacramento politics, but never in a manner that was as thorough as The Post covered D.C.

That's why it has been particularly disturbing to see the recent ethical meltdown at The Washington Post.

The Post has hawked a pay-to-play schmoozefest for industry reps (lobbyists) to join politicians and Post writers at a series of salon dinners at the home of Post publisher Katherine Weymouth.

These events were not pot-lucks. Invited participants (such as Kaiser Permanente) were to pay $25,000 for the privilege of having a meaningful discussion about healthcare reform. Access was being brazenly sold.

Here is a copy of an invitation sent from Weymouth's own e mail account:
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issue ... -email.pdf

When the scheme was revealed by Politico (a new media) site, all hell broke loose. Dreadfully embarassed, the Post's executive editor Marcus Brauchli and Weymouth claimed that the "flyer" for the event was poorly designed and not vetted.

And on Sunday Weymouth penned a missive to readers claiming that it was all a mistake and promising to deliver a paper of journalistic integrity. The mea culpa note read in a most lawyerly fashion, and was not terribly convincing. Media critics responded with a Bronx cheer.

Weymouth never really explained how such an event could be planned in such detail (to take place at her home!) without her participation in the planning. And with politicians invited with her e mail account.

Today The Post announced a series of internal reviews to get to the bottom of what happened.

Unfortunately, this is not rocket science. One of our biggest and (formerly) most influential papers has devolved into a parody of the influence peddlers it investigates and covers.

The damage to the paper may not be irreparable. But the damage to Weymouth's leadership at The Post is grievous.

Why should you care?

For two reasons, basically.

First, we're in a transition period. Metro newspapers are dying. No one under 35 reads them except online (or on Kindle). You're reading this blog instead of reading a paper. Newsmags such as Newsweek and Time are now a pencil-thin joke. But in this period we still look to a few of the marquee newspapers for credible information amid the morass of junk on the web and in the blogosphere. This circus at The Post further demeans the print media.

Second, the healthcare debate is coming down to the wire. Anxious to avoid the political train wreck that occurred when Hillarycare proposals hit Congress during the Clinton Administration, Obama has been content to let Congress study and debate the issues. Various committees are working on plans, with or without a public plan option and with or without taxation of employer sponsored health benefits.

Various health industry groups have hired almost any ex-politician they can get their hands on to ensure access to the Senators, Congressmen and committee staff folks who will be writing any reform legislation.
The Post's "salon dinners" go right to the heart of this process, selling what is left of journalistic integrity on what is likely to be the defining issue of Obama's first term.

California workers' comp may be indirectly affected by the federal healthcare reform package, perhaps in ways we won't know until we see the package. That's why it's a background story worth bringing to the attention of my readers.

UPDATE:
Here are more details that have emerged as Politico received more documents on all of this:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelca ... on_offer_.

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

I'm starting to see them. Are you?

I'm talking about laid off folks who look rather desperate. Today my client, a bright young twentysomething, tells me he is one of 17 laid off at the non-profit where he was working. The program is radically downsizing in hopes it can survive the economic storm in bare bones form.

In downtown Oakland-known locally as Oaksterdam due to the flowering of "pot clubs"- many new condos sit partially built. Next to Oakland's Federal Building a promising townhouse project is shrink wrapped. The developers are said to be headed toward bankruptcy.

Normally, electricians, plasterers, and painters would be swarming over that project. Today it sits dead, like a huge shrink wrapped load on a pallet.

As a workers' comp blog, this is about workers. Despite hopes that the tide is turning, unemployment continues to rise. And workers are working less hours, which means that there is extra capacity in the system, so the recovery will be slow.

It's still early, but there are major concerns that the "stimulus" has been a bust. Presidential adviser Laura Tyson (from UC Berkeley) has said that we may need a second stimulus.

Here's an excellent article by political analyst Jay Cost, taken off the Real Clear Politics site, arguing that Obama has made a strategic mistake the way the stimulus was done. It's a provocative argument:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horser ... mistake_1.

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

With more sophisticated "sports medicine" and rigorous training regimes, you'd think injuries would be down in professional baseball.

Wrong.

Injuries seem to be up. Exactly why is a complicated question. Steroid
use? Reduced amphetamine use? Manipulation of "disabled lists"? Statistical anomaly?

All you ballpark addicts may enjoy this analysis by Michael S, Schmidt in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/sport ... mp;sq=base

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

A 20% cut?

That's part of the Governor's budget plan that would affect public workers.
That includes staff at the WCAB district offices (judges and clerical staff)
and Division of Workers Compensation personnel.

Three furlough days per month (which amounts to a 15% cut) and an additional 5% cut for a 20% grand total.

The next 3 Fridays will be dark at the WCAB.

If some of the judges and clerks seem a little grumpy, I'm sure you'll understand.

If you are a claimant, it may take a bit longer to get your case on the court's calendar. Lien claimants will wait longer for their money.
Insurers reserves may be tied up a bit longer.

Such is the reality in our "user funded" system. But without user funding the cuts would be way more Draconian.

Here's a piece from the Sacramento Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/20 ... 20Politics

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

If you were Steve Poizner, yesterday was a great day.

Insurance carriers have recently been announcing large planned workers' comp price increases. Employers Direct filed for a 33.9% rate hike and then announced plans to leave the California market. SCIF, the largest insurer, filed for a 15% increase (others, were much lower, with Zenith at 4% and AIG at 7.5%).

The WCIRB (Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau) had recommended a 23.7% rate hike to Insurance Commissioner Poizner.

Poizner responded with a smackdown. He recommends no increase in the price benchmark. For a guy running for governor, that's a good stance that will play well in the press and with the employer community. It also seems to reinforce what applicant attorneys have said: concern about increasing costs may be blown out of proportion.

But Poizner's smackdown, which is only advisory, is basically a feelgood
announcement. Carriers are free to set their own pricing, and are doing so. The market will establish pricing.

More significant is the Commish's commentary on how the industry needs to emulate the way some self-insureds (such as Safeway) are handling their doctor networks and utilization review.

Poizner questioned whether utilization review has become a wasteful item. Stats show that UR overhead has been a fast-increasing cost item in California's comp system. Perhaps it is time to do UR on UR.

More on all this later. For now, here's a link to the Poizner announcement:
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0 ... dOrder.PDF

And a link to the actual decision:
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0 ... dOrder.PDF

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

As the budget impasse continues in Sacramento, various interest groups await a deal that may affect their constituency. The workers' comp community is no different.

TV ad wars on the cuts have begun.

What leverage do state workers generally (and WCAB employees specifically) have in the process? Perhaps more than you might think.
There's always the possibility of a strike. Most workers at the WCAB district offices are SEIU members.

That possible strike strategy was raised by the SEIU last week:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com ... espon.html

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

Mid July.

The Big Five may have a budget deal within 24 hours. We'll see government shrinking. Schwarzenegger's governorship will be further defined as his term begins to sunset.

So it's interesting to see Meg Whitman up the ante. She's tossed in $15 million of her own money, bringing her campaign over the $25 million mark.

Money doesn't equal success in California politics. Just ask Al Checchi and Michael Huffington.

But this will buy her street cred as a candidate, and a huge early media
presence. It'll be interesting to see if she uses some of that dough to lay out a vision for California workers' comp. In all likelihood, there'll be the same platitudes about the importance of keeping costs low to keep jobs in California.

When the total index of unemployed and underemployed in California is over 20%, that's likely to be a compelling message.

But as the recent rejection of WCIRB forecasts by Commissioner Poizner shows, there's great debate about what is driving California workers' comp costs and what to do about it.

We're starting the wind-down of the Schwarzenegger years. and there'll be increased concern about how our system will fare under the next administration.

Here's a San Jose Merc piece on the Whitman campaign:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews ... source=rss

And here's a trenchant piece by David Leonhardt of the New York Times on the state of our economy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/busin ... hardt.html

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

Sometime over the next month we'll see a definitive health reform package emerging from Congress.

Congressional committees in the House have advanced a plan; various Senate committees are working on a plan. High earning doctors and lawyers may be surtaxed. Or those high earners may find their deductions limited. Or perhaps regular working folks who have insurance through their employer or union will be taxed. Your can of soda and your Snickers bar may be taxed.

And all of this may happen on a party line vote.

But whatever reform emerges, many are afraid that it will lead to "rationing". The fear of "rationing" has been a rallying call for many who oppose reform. These critics fear that government bureaucrats with green eyeshades will limit access to treatments, resulting in arbitrary denials of lifesaving help.

What is "rationing"? What are the philosophical issues behind it? Below I'll share a link to an analysis of "rationing" by Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer.

But first, note that we already have a type of "rationing" in California's comp system. In adopting the ACOEM guidelines (part of MTUS, the medical treatment utilization system), California has elected to do a form of rationing. Healthcare dollars (from comp premiums and self-insured reserves) are allocated only to certain preferred treatments.

Injured workers wishing non-preferred treatments must jump through procedural hoops and show substantive rebuttals to overcome the rationing.

It's all part of one trend in healthcare, which is focused on "effectiveness
research". Groups of doctors (or healthcare administrators) may set standards. Those standards are debatable, and the quality of the standards depends on the quality of the underlying research and politics that went into the evaluation process. Moreover, such standards may take a "one size fits all" approach to healing.

In the national healthcare reform debate, holding down costs are key.
Employers have been dropping healthcare coverage for workers, and the escalation of medical costs threatens to swamp our economy. It's not sustainable.

Like an invasive weed species, healthcare costs threaten to crowd out other national priorities.

One solution may be "rationing". In essence, setting controls on how much our system can pay, or is prepared to pay, for healthcare. And working backwards from those numbers to what we'll cover, with an option for people to supplement coverage if they so choose.

That's where we're probably headed as a nation, like it or not. The actual rationing decisions would come later, in enabling regulations and policies away from the klieg lights of Fox and CNN.

This sort of thinking won't go over well in workers' comp, where the philosophical underpinning is that the employer is liable for whatever treatment is necessary to "cure or relieve" the effects of the injury.

But if there is ultimately a system that adopts some "rationing", it will put increased pressure on workers comp systems to do the same.

Peter Singer's article does an excellent job of exploring some of the philosophical choices that are involved in "rationing". Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magaz ... nted=print

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

A major priority for unions has been the so called "card check".

That's the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have required employers to immediately recognize a union when a majority of workers sign a card indicating that they want to join a union. This has been touted as a way to bolster union membership, which has been in decline for decades.

Aggressive union busting tactics and unfriendly labor relations board rulings have made organizing workers tougher. Card check would simplify union organizing and make it more difficult for employers to intimidate workers interested in a union.

But the current reality is that there aren't enough votes in the U.S. Senate to move the card check bill in its proposed form. A number of Democrats have qualms about the bill, including Senator Feinstein.

So there's word today that the bill will be amended and watered down.
The new bill will require shorter union campaigns and faster elections.

While this would be an improvement over current law, it's a bitter pill for the organized labor movement. Hopes had been high that a Democratic controlled Congress would pass a strong card check law.

This comes at a time when many unions are under great pressure, particularly public-employee unions who may see large layoffs or furloughs due to budget problems at the state and local level.

Here's some more information on the card check bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/busin ... r=1&hp

Stay tuned.

On another note: Workers Comp Executive reported today that the sale of part of SCIF (or its reserves or book of business) is still alive. The Executive noted that they have heard that the proposed sale is one item that will be used by the Big 5 to balance California's budget. That's despite the fact that SCIF's board has taken a stand against a sale. If the Executive's story is correct, we're entering a very uncharted time in California's workers' comp. Look at the following:
http://www.wcexec.com/articles/WCE01-20090716-001.html


Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

More on the possibility of an SEIU strike that could affect personnel at the WCAB boards:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com ... ers_w.html

From the Sacramento Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifor ... 36145.html

A strike of clerical personnel at the WCAB could bring activity at the district offices to a crawl. Clerks and secretaries open and process the mail, handle calendaring, and many other functions necessary to keep the system running.

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

No short term relief for state workers in the budget deal?

That's what appears to be shaping up:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com ... erm_r.html

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

John sez, "The town of Tiburon, California has a scheme to photograph and record the license plate number of every single vehicle that enters the municipality, in order to 'fight crime.' But don't worry: 'As long as you don't arrive in a stolen vehicle or go on a crime spree while you're here, your anonymity will be preserved,' said Town Manager ...

Big five-column photo of Moraga-Orinda fire Chief Pete Nowicki in Monday's Wall Street Journal - though it might not be the kind of celebrity he welcomes.

WASHINGTON a ' President Obama pushed back hard against critics of his health care overhaul plan Monday, vowing to fight "the politics of the moment" but also giving ground on his tight timetable for passage of legislation.

Matt Kuntz to be interviewed by "Healing the Grieving Heart" Hosts, Dr. Gloria Horsley and Dr.

American politicians could take a lesson from Irish Senator David Norris -- a civil rights activist whose lifelong fight for gay rights and status as the first openly gay pol to be elected in Ireland has earned him the comparison as the Emerald Isle's "Harvey Milk." That's because he's fearless: irreverent, shockingly plain-spoken, enormously ...

California parks officials can enforce a ban on nudity at any state beach, even in areas that have been informally designated as "clothing optional," a state appeals court says.

London Shaw, 21, was arrested Friday at a home on Kirkwood Avenue in the Bayview, where he barricaded himself for five hours before surrendering.

Retail brokerage firm TD Ameritrade Inc. agreed on Monday to repurchase $456 million in auction-rate securities from investors as part of a settlement with the New York Attorney General's office and Securities and Exchange Commission.

A Charles Schwab Corp. unit is fighting back against New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo a s tactics to obtain a settlement over its marketing and sales of auction-rate securities.

Almost six years after Sheila Westphal, 51, was last seen alive, El Paso County sheriff's investigators found what appeared to be one of Westphal's thumb bones and two fingernails at her husband's home in Montana Vista, prosecutors told a jury Monday.

The four most seriously injured victims in a weekend light-rail crash were improving Monday, as a union official said the operator of the train had blacked out just before the crash with a parked train.

The person said Monday that the bid came after several studios, including Paramount, Universal, 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros., were shown footage last week.

SEIU President Andy Stern issued a staff memo last week saying: 'we are close to putting the dispute with UNITE HERE behind us.' Stern said he was optimistic that a settlement was near, and that 'we and the members of Workers United don't want more fights.' But Stern's rosy assessment has no basis in reality.

Richard Scrushy's bank accounts have been seized in an attempt to collect some of the $2.8 billion he was ordered to pay HealthSouth Corp.

July 21, 2009, 8:43 AM / Richard Scrushy's bank accounts have been seized in a bid to collect some of the $2.8 billion he was ordered to pay for a fraud that nearly bankrupted Alabama-based HealthSouth Corp.

Lawyers for HealthSouth shareholders said Monday papers were served on more than a dozen banks where Scrushy is believed to have accounts.

The South Carolina attorney general who has threatened to prosecute Craigslist for prostitution-related ads wants a federal judge to dismiss the company's lawsuit against him, according to court papers filed this week.

SCHEDULE Plenty of afternoon action around the majors UNDATED Brandon Moss hit Pittsburgh's season-high fifth homer of the game leading off the ninth inning and the Pirates beat visiting Milwaukee 8-7 to win a series against Milwaukee for the first time in nearly two years.

Homeowner Associations Wield Great Power Amid Foreclosures - News Story - KTVU San Francisco : "Often, the homeowners association will hire a collection agency to do the work for them.

South Carolina's attorney general has asked a federal judge to dismiss a complaint against him by Craigslist.

Their job prospects battered by a deep recession, fewer immigrants are being caught trying to cross illegally into the U.S. than at any time since the 1970s, say two reports based on new federal data.

Once more, for old time's sake. Lost somewhere between the news of Sacramento's impending raid upon municipal revenue streams and President Obama's comfy jeans, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors yesterday passed the city's contentious, agonizing $6.6 billion budget.

A 26-year-old American-born Long Island man who traveled to Pakistan and trained in a Qaeda camp there last year has been charged with taking part in a rocket attack against a United States base in Afghanistan , according to court papers unsealed on Wednesday.

Prosecutors in northeastern Pennsylvania are charging a woman with the criminal neglect of five foreign exchange students.

A judge approved a proposal for a cadre of secured lenders to take over the Young Broadcasting stations in bankruptcy court in lower Manhattan this afternoon, clearing a significant hurdle toward completing the deal.

Agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency raided the Houston clinic of Dr. Conrad Murray, the cardiologist who was working as Michael Jackson's personal doctor at the time of the singer's death.

Even more than the largely forgotten popular institution The Goldbergs, Yoo-Hoo commemorates the one-woman dynamo who created and sustained it: Gertrude Berg.

Prosecutors in northeastern Pennsylvania are charging a woman with the criminal neglect of five foreign exchange students.

By Paul McNamara on Wed, 07/22/09 - 3:27pm. A wiki operator who was browbeaten by Apple's legal team into removing posts about circumventing the company's music-playback software tells me he is relieved that the iTunes proprietor has changed its tune and he'll be able to restore the disputed pages.

The South Carolina attorney general who has threatened to prosecute Craigslist for prostitution-related ads wants a federal judge to dismiss the company's complaint against him, according to court papers filed this week.

A public interest group is trying to use the Freedom of Information Act to crack more than three decades of secrecy surrounding how the U.S. government deals with wrongdoing by intelligence agencies.

San Francisco's city attorney is asking a judge to shut down a longtime North Beach strip club for repeatedly violating state and local laws.

A public interest group is trying to use the Freedom of Information Act to crack more than three decades of secrecy surrounding how the government deals with wrongdoing by intelligence agencies.

Prosecutors in northeastern Pennsylvania are charging a woman with the criminal neglect of five foreign exchange students.

South Carolina's attorney general has asked a federal judge to dismiss a complaint against him by Craigslist.

A public interest group is trying to use the Freedom of Information Act to crack more than three decades of secrecy surrounding how the government deals with wrongdoing by intelligence agencies.