Texting and Driving, Identity Theft and an OJ Update

Click HERE To Listen: 05-16-12 Paul Samakow

The first story Andy & Paul talked about involved texting and driving.  Well, almost.  As an auto accident attorney, Paul has a special pet-peeve against people who text while driving.  A case now going on in New Jersey, where two people on a motorcycle were hit by an errant teenager texting while driving his car, involves claims against the person who sent the text to the teenager.  The victims both lost their left legs, truly an unnecessary tragedy brought about by a very bad habit many people engage in…  the crux of this case is whether the person who sent the text to the driver knew, or should have known, that the driver was driving… if not, it might be hard to hold the sender responsible.

Next, Andy asked Paul about New York’s highest court recently ruling that watching child pornography was not against the law.  Explaining the ruling, technology is involved.  The NY court found that because some images are captured automatically in temporary files on your computer, this was not “exercising dominion and control” over the image, as it would be if you printed, saved or downloaded the image.  The distinction is probably moot now in NY, because, thankfully, the NY legislature is moving to make watching child porn illegal, however you do it.

The last story they guys talked about involved the curious situation of convicted thief OJ Simpson.  It seems he has found an attorney to try to overturn his conviction from 4 years ago.  Paul wondered why the attorney would take the case, but beyond, offered that the “ineffective assistance of counsel” claim probably is not going to work.

Paul’s tip of the day involved Identity Theft.  To learn how to minimize the potential damage if you are a victim, listen to the clip.

Labels: Identity Theft, free speech, freedom vs. security, in the courtroom, personal injury, privacy, radio show

DNA, Jury Tampering & Pit Bulls

Click HERE To Listen: 05-02-12 Paul Samakow

Call this the Maryland and Florida day.  Andy asked first about the Maryland High Court’s recent ruling taking away the police procedure of securing DNA samples from individuals arrested for violent crimes.  Paul explained the background and offered he was very against the Court’s ruling.  Up until last week, the police, in the processing of the arrest, routinely took fingerprints, photographs and DNA samples of people arrested for violent crimes.  The DNA sampling was done by a simple swab in the person’s mouth with a cotton stick.  No muss, no fuss, and certainly not “invasive”. This was done to use it to see if the individual was involved in other crimes.  Good idea said Paul.  Now, the Maryland Supreme Court says “no” because it’s unconstitutionally invasive.  Paul had Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler’s Motion to the Court to reconsider.  Let’s hope Maryland’s Justices reverse themselves.

Next, in Florida, a West Palm Beach judge is going to decide if several jurors who allegedly pressured another juror to vote “guilty” constitutes jury misconduct or even jury tampering.  The case involved the conviction of Wellington, Florida polo mogul John Goodman, on charges of DUI Manslaughter.

Again in Florida, in Naples, a knucklehead with a history of petty thefts went into a McDonalds, asked for a cup to take some water, and filled the cup with coffee.  When the manager asked him to pay for it, the guy got abusive, and wouldn’t leave.  The police came and arrested him.  Because of his prior misdemeanor convictions, and this minor theft, and disorderly conduct, and trespassing, the guy now faces a 3rd degree felony.

Paul’s tip of the day brings us back to Maryland, where the Maryland Supreme Court again is in the news.  They declared that if you own a pit bull dog, and it bites somebody, you are liable.  Period.  No defense.  Learn what this really means by listening to the segment.

Labels: freedom vs. security, in the courtroom, privacy, radio show

Immigration, John Edwards & Streaming Movies

Click HERE To Listen: 04-25-12 Paul Samakow

Paul and Andy talked about John Edwards, the former Presidential candidate charged with 6 criminal charges relating to funds Edwards gave to his former mistress, Rielle Hunter.  The issue hinges on whether these funds were campaign contributions, in which event Edwards is in big trouble, or gifts from wealthy friends designed to help him keep his affair secret.  The prosecution’s case will largely rest on the credibility of Andrew Young, a former Edwards aide and confidant.  Paul’s take:  tough prosecution, Edwards will be exonerated.

Next, Paul and Andy talked about Arizona’s tough immigration law, which the Supreme Court is taking up today.  Is the law, considered the toughest ever on the immigration population, unconstitutional because it usurps Federal law, which is said to control the nation’s immigration law, or is the law just to supplement the Federal law, to help Arizona keep crime down and, keep resources from being spent, and keep Arizona jobs for Arizona residents?  Paul’s take:  Feds win.  Doesn’t matter if the Congress passes the law being proposed by some Democrats.  That law would clearly wipe out any state law that touches on immigration.  We’ll wait and see what the Supreme Court does.  Andy offered numerous excellent problems that would be created if the Democrat’s law being proposed is passed.

Finally, a story about MetLife Life Insurance company presented that allowed Paul to discuss his “love” of the insurance industry.  MetLife agreed to a settlement of about $500 Million, to pay the beneficiaries of life insurance policies that were never paid.  Policies were issued 20-30 years ago, and the beneficiaries never knew their loved ones had the policies.  So, if they didn’t know, what’s the rub? MetLife should have notified them that the policies existed and that money was on its way.  In stark contrast,  MetLife vigorously checks the Social Security Administration’s Death List to stop payments due to people that have died.  By agreeing to the settlement, MetLife agreed to conduct a thorough  search for beneficiaries and to implement a monthly matching process.

Paul’s tip of the day involved streaming movies and songs.  Listen to the clip to determine if this activity is legal!

Labels: freedom vs. security, in the courtroom, radio show

Strip Searches, Groupon & Police Versus Dog

Click HERE to Listen: Paul Samakow on 04-04-12

Paul and Andy got right into it today with a discussion about the Supreme Court’s ruling just days ago, allowing strip searches, nationwide, in any state, any city, any town, for ANY offense.  Unbelievable!  Simply not paying a traffic ticket could land you in jail and having to take your clothes off, be subjected to a body cavity search, all in the name of protection against the possibility you may be smuggling in contraband, or have weapons on  you… Paul’s view:  nuts!

Next, Andy asked about the recent Groupon class action suit settlement.  Groupon’s coupons expired, often before consumers could use them.  The settlement of $8.5 Million now establishes a fund for refunds if the local merchant won’t allow you to redeem your coupon.  This applies to all coupons purchased before December 1, 2011.

Andy then wanted the details on the $620,000 verdict in Frederick, Maryland.  In January, 2010, a police officer, according to the Mr. Brooks and his wife, came into their home without permission, to serve a juvenile civil warrant.  Once in the home, the officer shot their dog.  The dog survived, by the way.  The Brooks sued for civil rights violations and won  the huge verdict.  The police officer didn’t help himself at trial:  he couldn’t explain why the dog caused him to shoot.

Paul’s tip of the day involved not complaining publicly if the complaint could be slanderous.  Listen to the show to hear all of Paul’s thoughts on these stories and his complete comments on his tip.

Labels: freedom vs. security, in the courtroom, privacy, radio show

The Trayvon Martin Case, Supreme Court debate & Online Dating

Click HERE To Listen: Paul Samakow on 03-28-12

Andy and Paul squared off today on Paul’s last comment, at the end of talking about Trayvon Martin.  Trayvon, killed in Florida by a community watch captain, facts still to be determined and grand jury being empaneled on April 10th…  Paul offered that he didn’t like the fact that the community watch captain had a gun, saying Trayvon would still be alive if the watch captain didn’t have a gun.  Andy offered up the self defense argument.  They agreed to disagree.

Next, Paul educated us about the distinction between a Worker’s Compensation claim and a lawsuit against the employer as it relates to the current suits against the National Football League (NFL), the most recent one a class action suit with former Redskin, Mark Rypien as the named Plaintiff.  The lawsuit, now one of about 51 or 52 currently in state courts all over the country, alleges that the NFL knew all of the hits to the head in games and practices would cause permanent neurologic and cognitive problems. Listen to find out why these are not Worker’s Compensation claims.

The final topic discussed today involved the voluntary agreement between Match.com, E-Harmony and Spark Networks (match-making services) and the California Attorney General, to screen and block sexual offenders and those with fake profiles from using the services.  This agreement arose out of horrible case last year when a woman was raped by a man set up through Match.com.

Paul’s tip was to put a family member’s name and telephone number in your cell phone under ICE — In Case of Emergency — so if there is an emergency, first responders or rescue people know who to contact.

Finally, Andy congratulated Paul on his joining the Washington Times Communities (on-line forum) as a columnist.  Search “Paul Samakow” to see the articles he’s written thus far:   http://communities.washingtontimes.com/

Listen to the whole segment.

Labels: free speech, freedom vs. security, gun control, in the courtroom, personal injury, radio show, safety, social networking