Van Nuys News Press » National News

City Attorney Alerts Gun Buyers of Firearms Laws, Responsibilities, Gun Violence Prevention

George Thomas — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:36:24 +0000

In an effort keep guns out of the wrong hands, three top California law enforcement officials began sending letters to all Los Angeles gun buyers. The letter, sent last week by City Attorney Trutanich, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck and California Attorney Kamala Harris to gun buyers during the state’s 10-day waiting period between when a gun is purchased and when it can be picked-up, outlines gun-owner responsibility to report the transfer, sale, loss or theft of a firearm to the state Department of Justice or be prosecuted.

“We have a gun violence epidemic in America and I want to do all that I can as City Attorney in Los Angeles to help change that fact,” said City Attorney Carmen Trutanich. “If you choose to own a gun, we want to make sure that you store it safely, keep it locked up and away from children, and if you sell it or it’s stolen that the sale or theft be reported.”

The gun-buyer letter program began with a federal Project Safe Neighborhoods grant, and will continue with local resources. The City Attorney’s Office goal is to make sure that gun buyers and owners know that they must store their guns safely, keep them locked up and away from children, and if the gun is to be sold or if it is stolen, the sale or theft must be reported.

George Thomas

Congressman Sherman Commends Chief Justice Roberts

Joanne Lewis — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:11:20 +0000

Washington D.C.

Congressman Brad Sherman

“Today Chief Justice Roberts provided a well-reasoned legal analysis based on precedent.

In doing so, he helped bolster confidence in the United States Supreme Court, while dispelling the view that all controversial cases are decided on party lines.

In his opinion, he noted that every reasonable construction of a statute must be considered, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality. He then showed that for over 100 years the Supreme Court has looked at the substance of an enactment to determine whether it is a tax, rather than whether Congress chose to label the enactment a tax.

He then demonstrated that taxes designed to influence behavior are hardly new, and that some of the very first taxes enacted by the Federal Government were designed to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry. In fact almost every tax influences behavior, and often influencing behavior is the primary intent. For example, cigarette taxes are designed to reduce smoking as much as they are to provide revenue.

Roberts then pointed out that the payment due from those who do not purchase health insurance is not a punishment to be imposed on “outlaws.” Rather it is estimated that 4 million people every year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance and that those people are acting reasonably and lawfully—they are not wrongdoers being punished.

Finally Roberts pointed out that Congress’ power to regulate commerce is more restricted than its power to impose taxes, but even its power to impose taxes is not unlimited. Here the tax must be paid by those not buying insurance is not so punitive that Congress has effectively used the tax power to compel. Rather Congress has imposed a system in which it is estimated that 4 million people will decide to pay the tax.

Today I am proud to be a member of the Harvard Law School class of 1979, the class that included Chief Justice Roberts.”

Joanne Lewis

Supreme Court Decision a Victory for Small Businesses Looking for Relief from High Healthcare Costs

Joanne Lewis — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:58:48 +0000

The following is a statement by John Arensmeyer, founder & CEO of Small Business Majority, on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling today upholding the Affordable Care Act.

June 28, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling today upholding the Affordable Care Act is a victory for small business owners who have struggled with the excessively high cost of health insurance for decades. The Affordable Care Act tackles small business owners’ top priorities when it comes to healthcare reform: cost and accessibility. The law will significantly rein in costs while providing more health coverage options for entrepreneurs.

Our opinion polling has found that small businesses support the law, believe healthcare reform is needed to fix the economy and they support key provisions, particularly the healthcare exchanges and tax credits. Many components of the law, including rate review and the Medical Loss Ratio provision, have already resulted in lower premium costs for small employers. It also help ends “job lock,” where a prospective entrepreneur who has a preexisting medical condition cannot leave their job, launch a new company or help grow the economy because they are locked in their job for health benefits. And in 2014 the law calls for health insurance exchanges to be set up in every state, which will do even more to curb costs and boost choice. State lawmakers who have blocked implementation must now step up to the plate and work with local small businesses to establish these new competitive marketplaces.

The political circus that has surrounded this law for the past two years hasn’t done anything to help small business owners struggling with high costs. Today’s ruling lets us get back to what’s important: implementing the law and getting small business owners the financial relief they’ve been waiting for.

Small Business Majority is a national small business advocacy organization, founded and run by small business owners, to support America’s 28 million small businesses. The organization conducts extensive opinion and economic research and work with a rapidly growing network of small business owners across the country to ensure their voices are an integral part of the public policy debate. It also hosts the Health Coverage Guide, an independent, unbiased source of information for small businesses about health coverage options. For more information, visit smallbusinessmajority.org.

Joanne Lewis

Yaroslavsky Hails Supreme Court Decision Upholding Affordable Care Act

Joanne Lewis — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:48:34 +0000

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chairman Zev Yaroslavsky issued the following statement in response to today’ s Supreme Court decision substantially upholding The Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s health-care reform legislation:

“Today’s decision by Supreme Court affirms the principle that access to affordable, quality health care is a right, not a privilege. It’s high time in our nation that every man, woman and child have the opportunity to meet their health care needs.

“For the last two years, Los Angeles has been preparing to transition to health care under the Affordable Care Act. With the Supreme Court decision behind us, we can now turn out attention to full implementation of the law in 2014.”

Joanne Lewis

Supreme Court Ruling a Victory for Los Angeles County’s Uninsured Population

Joanne Lewis — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:38:30 +0000

The following is a statement from Mitchell H. Katz, M.D., Director, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

As a result of today’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), over 80% of the 2.2 million people who are currently uninsured in Los Angeles County stand to gain access to affordable insurance coverage.

Over half of these individuals are eligible to receive coverage through Medi-Cal in 2014. This coverage will be contingent on the State of California’s participation in the Medicaid expansion component of the legislation. In anticipation of this expansion of Medicaid, the Department of Health Services (DHS) has already enrolled over 200,000 low-income County residents into Healthy Way L.A., the County’s coverage program known as the “Bridge to Reform.” While the ultimate decision on California’s participation is yet to be determined, the Supreme Court’s decision preserves a path for enrollment into Medi-Cal on January 1, 2014 for these individuals, as well as for three-quarters of a million other low-income Los Angeles County residents.

In addition to those who will be newly eligible for Medi-Cal, three-quarters of a million additional County residents will be able to purchase affordable health insurance through the state’s health insurance exchange, take control of their health, and reduce pressure on our strained County-run health care system. With a sustained commitment to serve as the safety net for low-income Los Angeles County residents, over the coming 18 months DHS will continue to transform our clinics and hospitals into a system of choice for these newly insured.

Beyond the impact of the ACA’s coverage components, DHS will continue to contend with the effects of other aspects of the legislation. Notably, this will include efforts to advocate for fair allocation of the Disproportionate Share Hospital funding cuts which were included in the legislation. These funds are an important revenue stream for Los Angeles County in that they provide a mechanism to reimburse hospitals for provision of uncompensated care. On this issue, DHS will advocate for a fair level and allocation of DSH funding. Finally, in recognition of ongoing fiscal challenges at the federal level, DHS will closely monitor the political environment and advocate for fiscal policies that safeguard DHS’ ongoing ability to serve as a safety net provider in Los Angeles County.

Over the coming weeks to months, DHS will continue to assess the full impact of the Supreme Court’s decision and take the steps necessary to secure a robust health care safety net for Los Angeles County residents.

Joanne Lewis

Everyone Has a Legal Right for Bail Bonds

daryl — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:08:51 +0000

A defendant held in any jail in California, Los Angeles Jail for example, has a right to bail below present law unless there’s sufficient proof or reason not to grant the bail. Any individual charged or accused of committing a crime is presumed innocent till confirmed guilty in a court of law. Simply because of this, any person charged having a crime shouldn’t be denied freedom unless of course there’s good cause to keeping them incarcerated. The main reason for refusing bail to the defendant is if they are accused of an imprisonable offence and you will find substantial grounds for believing the defendant would do one of the following. Most defendants utilize bail bondsman. They are persons that handle the bail bonds transaction and are backed by a surety (insurance company).

Right to Bail

1. Abscond: Which is to escape once the defendant continues to be released. This is also known as skipping bail
2. Commit extra crimes while on bail
3. Interfere with witnesses

The court and judge also consider in to account the following when coping with bail.

1. The nature and seriousness from the crime and the probable technique of coping with the defendant for this crime
2. The character, family members, ancestors, social background, associations, and community ties from the defendant
3. The defendant’s bail record
4. The strength of proof against or for the defendant’s crime

The court or judge may refuse bail for the defendant for that following.

1. For that defendant’s personal safety. Possibly in the situation of domestic violence or if the defendant might be regarded as like a witness or for possible testifying.
2. Where the defendant is already serving a custodial sentence for an additional offence.
3. Exactly where the court finds that it has not been in a position to acquire sufficient proof.
4. Exactly where the defendant has absconded or skipped bail previously or for that present charge.
5. Exactly where the defendant has been convicted but the court is waiting for a pre-sentencing report or inquiry and it would be unable to finish the inquiries or make the report without keeping the defendant in jail.
6. Where the defendant is charged with a non-imprisonable crime, has already been released on bail for the crime with which he’s now accused and continues to be arrested for skipping bail (absconding) or breaching the bail contract.

In 1789 Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act specified which kinds of crimes were bailable and set bounds around the judge’s discretion in setting that said bail. The Judiciary Act states that all non-capital crimes are considered bailable. In capital cases, the choice to detain a defendant in jail, prior to trial, was to be left up to the judge’s discretion.

Bail Reform Act of 1966

In 1966, the Right to Bail altered with the Bail Reform Act of 1966. The Act states that a defendant charged having a non-capital crime is to be released, pending trial, on his individual recognizance (OR) or on individual bond, unless of course the judicial officer determines that such incentives (bail) will not adequately assure his look at trial and all subsequent trial dates thereafter. The judge should choose from a list of circumstances, such as restrictions on travel and others listed above. Defendants charged having a capital crime or who have been convicted and therefore are awaiting sentencing or appeal, are to be released unless the judicial officer has cause to think that no conditions will reasonably assure that the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to anyone. In non-capital instances, The Bail Reform Act doesn’t permit a judge to consider a suspect’s danger to the community, this only happens in capital instances or following a conviction.

New Bail Law in 1984

In 1984 Congress replaced the old Bail Reform Act of 1966. Probably the most significant alter towards the new law is the fact that it allows pre-trial detention of individuals based upon their danger towards the neighborhood; the old law statutes states that pre-trial detention was to become solely based on the danger of flight.

daryl

Help Save Starving Polar Bears

Joanne Lewis — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:51:59 +0000

Polar bears in the Hudson Bay are starving during the long summer months as the ice they rely on to hunt for food melts earlier each spring and later in the fall due to rising global temperatures fueled by carbon pollution. That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing limits on industrial carbon pollution from power plants — and they’re seeking public comments before deciding to take action.

These new clean air standards would help protect the future of polar bears, fight climate change and spark innovation in clean energy technologies. But big polluters are spending millions of dollars on TV ads, lawsuits, and lobbyists to stop them. Help stand up to corporate polluters and create a better future for polar bears. Sign this petition before the deadline and we’ll deliver it to the EPA!

Joanne Lewis

How Do I Find a Legitimate Bail Bonds Agent?

daryl — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:04:43 +0000

How Do I Find a Legitimate Bail Bonds Agent?

One could hear this question asked many times over if they could listen to the thoughts of any relative or friend who has received a call from someone in jail. How do I find a legitimate bail bonds agent? Searching the Yellow Pages just doesn’t happen anymore as most people are perusing the internet for their answers. Lately there has been a big spike in mobile searches for bail bonds agents and the choices are usually listed as A through G on google maps. So the results are in front of you, listed are ten or more bail bonds agents, how do you choose from the myriad of listings?

Choose a bail bonds agent or company very carefully:

Why? Unfortunately the bail bonds industry has taken on some unscrupulous characters with the reason being that there is not a lot of qualifications needed to become a bail bondsman . A few classes to get a license, some time working under another bail bonds company, then you can usually get an insurance agency to back you and you are on your way. This provides quick access to an industry ripe for unethical people to take advantage of.

With that in mind, here are some tips to finding the legitimate bail bonds companies:

Check on the bail agents License. Visit, http://www.insurance.ca.gov/license-status, and click on the license number link if you have their license number, otherwise click on the browse name link and search for the bail bonds agent’s company name. If you don’t find them, choose a different agent, if you do, there will be information about the agent. Listed here will be any other names their company is listed under, the address of their office, the insurance company that backs them, any endorsed agents with their license numbers, and any problems that have been filed against the said company.

For example; there is a company that lost their license one year and then got it reinstated a couple years after that. With that on their record, one should not choose them. Choose the company that has no flaws, there are plenty to choose from.

Check reputation: On the internet you can find many places to do research on companies.

www.bbb.org is the Better Business Bureau. Any business that is legitimate will have a listing here and you can check to see if there were any complaints filed.
www.cbaa.com is a bail agents association. A good bail bonds company will be a part of a bail association.
Also, just typing in the businesses name should bring up some results on the internet, including their website. A good company will have an informative website, not one that is a “sales pitch.”
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/license-status is also a good place to check.

Read their website: Peruse the company’s website, check to see if the address they are representing is on their site. Does the site read like a “sales pitch”?, if so, choose a different company. Do they offer a discounted rate? i.e. 5% or other?, if so, choose a different company. If their site is clean, informative, and has their address and phone number readily placed, you can put them on the list to call.

Do they offer a discounted bail fee? Most, if not all, of the unethical bail bonds companies offer different rates than what the regulated fee actually is. Every bail bonds agent and company is regulated by the California Department of Insurance. Every bail bonds company and agent is supposed to charge the regulated fee of 10% of the total bail. But again, the unethical bail bonds companies don’t really follow the rules and will advertise that they can get the bail for a lessor amount, i.e. 5%. If you see that in their advertising or hear it in their sales pitch on the phone, leave and find another company.

Reason: “Bait and switch”; these unethical companies will get you to sign the forms and do the bail for 5%, then when the defendant is out, they will require you to pay the rest of the fee. If you don’t comply, they’ll take the defendant back to jail. This is obviously illegal.

Did they call you or solicit you while you were at the jail? This is highly illegal and has not been policed at all. If any bail bonds company calls you to tell you that someone you know is in jail, be very wary. The defendant can sometimes call a bail bonds company from the jail and thus, the bail bonds company can then call the friend or family. But if this happens, the company usually does a three way call and everyone is still on the phone.

What the unethical companies do is scrape (run software that illegally reads a website for information) a certain website on the internet that provides information on individuals that have been arrested. They take that information and then use another data software application like Merlin. With this software they can find information like, SS#, next of kin, if they own a house and its address, and much more. They take this information and use it to fabricate a lie that the defendant in jail had contacted them. The agents will say that the defendant wanted them to contact you and bail him out.

Fake address: If you are searching on the internet and found a company by looking at the Google Maps section, beware. Ask the company if they have an actual office at the address listed in the Google Maps. The unethical companies are uploading to Google 100’s of fake addresses just to get a listing on Google Maps. If they don’t have an office at that address, most likely they’re scammers and shouldn’t be dealt with.

Final step: Call the company and ask them some questions. Ask them how the whole bail bonds process works. Why the defendant is in jail? What their charges are? When their court date is? How much the bail is? How much they charge for their fee? How long they’ve been in business?

If they are confusing with their answers, hang up and call someone else.
If they don’t really provide answers and just try to sell you on the bond, hang up.
If they seem too busy for you, hang up.
If they’re patient, knowledgeable about the industry, and are willing to work with you in any way, most likely you’ve found someone you can work with.

Finding a legitimate bail bonds company or agent can be simple and quick if one follows the guidelines in this short article. Hopefully one will never have to use a bail bonds company, but if you do, utilizing these guidelines will put you in the rights hands for the help needed.

Bail Bonds

daryl

National Park Week, April 21-29, Features Free Admission

George Thomas — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:38:55 +0000

The National Park Service and the National Park Foundation, the official charity of America’s national parks, invite people everywhere to enjoy, explore, learn, share, and give back to America’s nearly 400 national parks during National Park Week 2012. Celebrating the theme, “Picture Yourself in a National Park,” National Park Week will run from Saturday, April 21 through Sunday, April 29. Throughout the country, visitors can enjoy the beauty and wonder of 84 million acres of the world’s most spectacular scenery, historic places and cultural treasures for free! National parks will mark the annual celebration with special events and activities including Volunteer Day on April 21, Earth Day on April 22, and Junior Ranger Day on April 28.

From rangerled hikes and kayak trips to camping and exploring, park visitors can plan their National Park Week at www. nationalparkweek.org. Discover information about events, special activities for visitors of all ages, how to share your park adventure with other travelers, and how to support the parks. “America’s national parks have something for everyone,” said National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis. “Take a break and experience something new, enjoy some fresh air, get some exercise, and see where history happened. And, since admission is free to all 397 parks, all week long, National Park Week is a great time to get up, get out, and explore a park.” “This is our annual celebration of America’s best idea – our national parks,” said Neil Mulholland, President and CEO of the National Park Foundation. “We are proud to stand with our partners at the National Park Service and encourage people everywhere to enjoy, learn from and support our nation’s greatest treasures.”

George Thomas

Stop Selling Fur “Kardashians”

superadmin — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:06:08 +0000

To give animals a voice and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves! The Kardashians’ store “DASH” in Calabasas sells fur as well as their clothing line Kardashian Kollection. They

Kardashians Sell Fur

have been told time and time again about the torture and suffering the animals go through just for vanity and fashion and have done nothing about it except for Khloe and her PETA campaign. Videos that can be found on any number of animal advocacy websites exhibit the inhumane treatment that animals experience when their fur is removed. Often times, the animals have not completely died before the fur is torn from their bodies and the animals are forced to endure the excruciating pain.

The stark reality is that much of the fur currently purchased in the US is imported from China and Russia, where no regulations are placed on the fur trade. As a result of the lack of regulations on international fur trade, it is not uncommon for fur labeled as fox or mink, originating from Asia, to be actually that of cat or dog. Those who are in the spotlight must set a good example for the rest of the world and send the message that it is NOT ok to torture innocent creatures for fashion! It is time for the Kardashians to pave the way for the rest of the fashion and entertainment business and remove all fur from their stores and clothing line. Cruelty cannot be tolerated!