Category Archives: Law

Auto Loans and Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

Auto Loans after Bankruptcy

Auto Loans and Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

By Attorney Ginger Kelly

Going through a bankruptcy can be a stressful experience. And it can get even more stressful if you suddenly need to finance a car.

Clients often ask, “If I file for a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, can I get a car loan?”

My response is this:  “Well yes, and no.”  Then, I typically say, “Let me explain; yes, you can typically get a car loan after your debts have been discharged under a Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy, but your chances of getting a car loan approved is far less before you receive the final discharge disposition.

More about this…

Auto Loans and Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Filing and Discharge

The first thing to know is that a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Filing is the first thing filed at the beginning of a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.  The Discharge is the final disposition of the bankruptcy judge.  In other words, the Discharge is typically the last thing.

If you need a car loan, it’s better to wait until your Chapter 7 bankruptcy has been discharged before you apply.  Don’t apply for a loan after a Chapter 7 has been filed.  Wait.  A Chapter 7 bankruptcy is typically discharged around 60 to 75 days after the meeting of the creditors, also known as the 341 meeting. The meeting of the creditors typically happens 30 days after your bankruptcy petition is filed. A good bankruptcy attorney will explain this before you decide to file.  Find out more about whether or not bankruptcy may be right for you by reading, “Bankruptcy, the Easy Way Out. Really?”

Technically, you can apply for a car loan after the meeting of the creditors, but it’s very difficult to get this type of loan before the final discharge.  Almost no lenders and very few subprime lenders loan money to anyone in the midst of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Lenders do not want to give loans to people with open Chapter 7 bankruptcies because of the risk factor involved.  If a new debt was discharged, in the Chapter 7 liquidation process, the lender would lose out big time. Therefore, rather than placing themselves at such great risk, most lenders simply choose not to lend money for any reason, if you’ve filed but not received a final discharge.

Because lenders, including most subprime lenders, will not loan money without a final bankruptcy discharge, it’s best to wait until after the discharge to apply for an auto loan.

Car Loan Approval Post Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Discharge

While credit scores take a big hit after a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge, the discharge still offers the best option for a fresh start and a brand new financial beginning.  Most people in financial trouble are unable to rebuild their credit without filing for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and typically take longer than the 10 years to rebuild.  After 10 years a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is removed from a credit report. This is why most chances are better for getting approved for a car loan after filing any Chapter 7 and receiving a discharge, rather than not filing for bankruptcy at all.

The essential step for getting credit, post-discharge or after the Chapter 7 bankruptcy final disposition, is working with a trustworthy car dealership who knows your situation and a variety of subprime lenders.  Only a few car dealers work with subprime lenders, others do not.  When dealers work only with traditional banks, most people with a Chapter 7 discharge will not get a car loan approved. When the dealer works with a variety of subprime lenders, chances for loan approval are greater. It’s really that simple.

This is why knowing your dealer is important as well as being careful not to get that hard inquiry on your credit report until you are relatively sure you will be approved. Having a hard inquiry “hit” on your credit report only complicates things. You can read more about this in my article, When Balance Transfers Make Good Sense. Unless there is a good chance you will be approved and you are willing to accept the terms of the loan, don’t bother applying for that car loan.  If all the cards are in line and you’ve received your discharge, go for it. Chances are better you will get approved.

August 14, 2017

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Law Office of Ginger B. Kelly is now accepting new clients.  Call and schedule your first appointment.  We are a small law office offering your first confidential consultation, absolutely free of charge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.

To find out more, visit, www.attorneykelly.com, visit us at Ginger B. Kelly on Facebook or feel free to call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We cannot stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2017, by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Auto Loans, Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Debt, Financial, Financial Planning, Law, Legal, Massachusetts, Massachusetts law, practical stuff, Uncategorized

Should I choose Massachusetts or Federal Bankruptcy Exemptions?

choice

Should I choose Massachusetts or Federal Bankruptcy Exemptions?

By Attorney Ginger B. Kelly, April 1, 2017

Good news for Massachusetts residents. You have a choice weather or to protect your property using Massachusetts or Federal exemptions.

In many ways, Massachusetts is a great state to live in. Here, Bankruptcy filers have a choice whether to protect or to “exempt” property using Massachusetts bankruptcy exemptions or the federal bankruptcy exemptions.

In a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, any property not exempted can be sold by the bankruptcy trustee and the proceeds used to pay creditors.  Nonexempted property can be kept, in a Chapter 13 case, but payment must be made for the value of that property, under the terms of a three or five-year payment plan.

For Massachusetts filers who have significant equity in their homes, the Massachusetts exemptions are substantial.  Federal law offers a larger wildcard exemption.  Since it is difficult to examine which exemptions work best, it’s very important to look at each exemption closely.

Mixing Massachusetts Exemptions with Federal Exemptions is not permissible.

In Massachusetts, a filer must choose one set of exemptions only.  When figuring out which set of exemption laws is best for your circumstances, mixing and matching is not allowed.

Doubling Exemptions for Married Couples.

For married couples filing, you can double the exemptions, apart from the homestead exemption for under the Massachusetts and federal exemption rules. In Massachusetts, the rule is typically called Exemption Doubling.

Which to choose, Massachusetts or Federal Exemptions?

The answer to this question depends quite heavily on your specific situation and set of circumstances.  For some filers, more property will be kept using the Massachusetts exemptions. For example, Massachusetts has more favorable exemptions for your house, your car, your clothing, other household items (like appliances and furniture), and tools of the trade. *

How do I keep from losing my home?

For Massachusetts bankruptcy filers, Massachusetts exemptions are excellent for homeowners.  Homeowners who have filed and recorded with the registry of deeds, a properly executed homestead declaration are entitled to receive a $500,000 exemption. If no homestead declaration is recorded, the automatic exemption is still a hefty $125,000.

As mentioned before, just like the federal law exemption, the homestead exemption cannot be doubled for married couples filing jointly.

In the alternative, the federal law exemption for a home is only $23,675 and $47,350 for married couples filing jointly.

So, the key to keeping your home in Massachusetts is, if there is more than $23,675 worth of equity in your home, and you want to keep it, the Massachusetts exemptions are the best choice.

 How do I keep from losing my car?

Under the federal exemptions, $3,775.00 is allowed for automobile exemptions.  This means, that if the Kelly Blue book value of your car exceeds #3,775.00, you may want to choose the Massachusetts exemptions.  Under the Massachusetts bankruptcy exemption law, $7,500.00 is allowed for the motor vehicle exemption. If a filer is over 60 years old or disabled, the Massachusetts exemption allows a $15,000.00 motor vehicle exemption.

If a filer’s car is worth more than $3775.00, or there is more than $3,775.00 worth of equity in that car, and they want to keep it, a filer would be better off using the Massachusetts exemptions.

How do I keep all my clothing?

Under the Federal exemptions, a filer can keep $12,625.00 in personal property, which includes clothing.  But the maximum value for any one piece would be only $600.00.  In Massachusetts, a filer can keep all of their necessary clothing in bankruptcy. So, under the Massachusetts exemption rules, a filer will likely keep more because the $12,625 federal exemption includes all other personal property as well, like furniture, appliances, housewares and other consumer goods.

How do I keep my appliances and furniture?

As mentioned above, the Federal exemption rules allow for only $12,625.00 in personal property. If a filer uses the Massachusetts bankruptcy exemptions, they will be allowed to keep any necessary beds and bedding, one heating unit, one stove and one refrigerator and one hot water heater. An additional $15,000.00 in home furnishings can be exempted, if they are necessary for the filer and the filer’s family.

Using the more plentiful Massachusetts exemption makes sense for most filers.  However, if a filer has an extra refrigerator in their garage, it is unlikely the second refrigerator would be considered a necessity. If the second refrigerator is really that important, the federal exemptions may be a better choice, as long the value is that second refrigerator is less than $600.

How do I keep the tools I use for my job?

Filers in Massachusetts are in good shape when they have tools of the trade or tools used while doing business. The Massachusetts exemptions allow a $5,000 exemption for tools of the trade and an additional $5,000 for any materials used in their business. Federal law allows only a $2,375.00 exemption for tools of the trade. So, if a filer has more than $2,375 of tools and materials, used for their trade or business, then the Massachusetts exemptions would be the better choice.

Are Federal Exemptions Ever Better Than Massachusetts Exemptions?

In their entirety, the federal exemptions are less generous than many Massachusetts exemptions.  However, there are a few exceptions. One exception is that the federal exemption law will protect slightly more jewelry and a larger wildcard exemption.  This may benefit many filers, depending on their situation and what they want to keep.

How do I keep my valuable jewelry?

Since Massachusetts law offers only a $1,225.00 exemption and federal law a $1,600.00, a filer may choose Massachusetts exemptions over federal. $Granted, 375.00 worth of equity in jewelry isn’t a huge savings, but if it is important to the filer that certain jewelry is retained, the federal exemptions may be a better choice.

Which Wildcard Exemption do I chose?

Wildcard exemptions are used to protect assets not listed as exempt. In other words, a wildcard can be used to exempt nonexempt assets.

Per federal exemption rules, the federal wildcard exemption is currently valued at $1,250.00 plus any unused portion of the federal homestead exemption up to $11,850.00. * If a filer doesn’t need to claim their full homestead exemptions, they will be able to use up to $13,100.00 total.  If the filer has no homestead exemption, only $1,250.00 can be used to exempt nonexempt assets.

In Massachusetts, the wildcard exemption is different. Per the Massachusetts exemption rules, the wildcard exemption is $1,000.00, plus up to $5,000.00 of any unused portion of the total exemptions provided under the $15,000 household furniture exemption, the $5,000 tools of the trade exemption and the $7,500 motor vehicle exemption. This is good news for certain Massachusetts filers. Under the Massachusetts exemption rules, filers can keep up to $6,000 in nonexempt assets.

Now that I know more about the exemption rules, why do I need a Bankruptcy Attorney?

In Massachusetts, there is no one-size-fits all bankruptcy.  Even though Massachusetts law offers a more generous exemption package, federal law may be best for different filers for so many reasons. Thorough research of both sets of exemptions and all assets are critical, before making decisions. Attorneys can remove uncertainty, confusion and doubt and help you determine the best way to protect your home, your car and your personal property.

Hiring a competent, experienced bankruptcy lawyer to handle your case will save not only you a headache, but it may also end up saving you money. When everything is completed properly the first time, bankruptcy attorneys save you money. Mistakes are costly. Mistakes not only affect your time, but your finances and may end up costing your case.

Speak to an attorney who offers a free first consultation. Earlier I wrote about, “how to find an experienced and vetted attorney, FREE!”  This offers good advice on how to find an attorney on a budget or pro-bono (which means free).  Best of luck to you.

*NOTE: All the bankruptcy exemptions mentioned, above, may differ and are subject to change on or before April 2019.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Law Office of Ginger B. Kelly is now accepting new clients.  Call and schedule your first appointment.  We are a small law office offering your first confidential consultation, absolutely free of charge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.

To find out more, visit, www.attorneykelly.com, visit us at Ginger B. Kelly on Facebook or feel free to call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  All electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We cannot stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2017, by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

2 Comments

Filed under Bankruptcy, Debt, Federal Law, Filing, Financial, Law, Legal, Massachusetts, Massachusetts law, Uncategorized

Handle Student Loan Debt like a Boss

Gan Golan

“You snooze, you lose applies in every aspect of eliminating student loan debt.” ~Attorney Kelly

by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq.   Posted: March 9, 2017

We’ve all heard about, read about, or experienced it, crushing student debt.  Student loan debt can be quite paralyzing, overwhelming and downright horrifying.

That’s the bad news. The good news is, with good budgeting and planning, this beast like most others can be tamed. Dealing proactively with student loan debt is a far better plan than dealing with the nasty consequences of doing nothing and facing wage garnishment.  Wage garnishments are not pretty, believe me.

These are absolutely some of the best tips out there if you want to handle your student loan debt like a boss. Follow these, like a road map and find the light at the end of the dark student debt tunnel.

Get Over It, Get Your Paperwork Together and Pick Up the Phone 

The experts say, there is a time to cry, a time to grieve, and then there is a time to pull yourself up by the boot strings and get over it.  Getting over what grieves or worries you involves action. Ignoring this worrisome ‘ginormous’ problem won’t make it go away. Being proactive is what you do. It’s simple. Start by having your last tax return or your last W-2 ready, in hand, just in case. Then, call your student loan service provider or creditor.  Find out your best options. Write them down. If you need time to make a decision, take the time to think things through.   

Be upfront and honest. Transparency is the best policy. Tell your loan servicer or creditor your situation. This will help them explain to you, better, your different options for repayment. There are a lot of legit options to look into, like forbearance, deferment, and, in some special situations, even debt forgiveness.

Not asking about these things means living in fear. Fear, in this context, brings nothing but trouble. It’s easy to ask about the interest, the length of time to repay and things that may impact your budget. Oh yes – always draft a simple updated budget, an easy to create, yet amazing empowerment tool. This will help with your discussions, ideas and planning.

For most folks facing serious trouble, like unemployment, underemployment, long or short term disability, the best piece of advice I can offer is to look into an Income Based Repayment Plan (IBR). Oftentimes, an IBR results in a zero dollar or very small bottom line payment. An IBR is based on your current income and family size. Check this out. Save the deferments and forbearance plans, for real issues like an injury, death or serious problems. Use the IBR when you are facing underemployment or unemployment issues, long term.

Discovering Repayment Options Online is “easy-peasy”

With the number of tools out there to use, there is no better time than now to find out what your repayment amount will be. One helpful online tool that comes to mind is the Department of Education Federal Student Loan Repayment Plan Estimator.  Use it.

Calculate different repayment plans.  Find out what plans include debt forgiveness if you still owe a balance after paying on your loan for 10 to 25 years. It’s easy-peasy and actually, many of my clients, family and friends use this tool.  It’s amazing. You can do this.

Frugal is the New ‘Thing’ 

OK, hundreds of thousands of people understand, the job market is tough.  This is a fact.  Moving right along, there are work-a-rounds to get through this. Try a legit side hustle, part-time gig or freelance work, like Uber, Summer Pizza Delivery, Coaching, Home Sitting, Garden Center or Nursery work. Try selling extra stuff, collectibles or homemade things on eBay, Etsy or at a flea market. Then, (this is the best part) you can usually save money, even big bucks, by decreasing spending.

Decreasing spending gets easier and easier the more you try it and the more you know.  Create, rather than consume. Save, rather than spend. It’s fun and it’s better for our family, environment and our communities. Websites like the Frugal Girl or Minimalist Mom are good tools to help along the way.

My friend Andy Prescot writes a great blog called, The Art of Being Cheap.  We learned how to reduce our mobile phone bill over $100 per month.  We have saved well over $3600 the past three years, based on Andy’s good tips regarding an inexpensive, but excellent, mobile phone service plan and provider.  Andy also has more good tips on fugal things like how buy a refrigerator, start an Uber business part-time or whether or not to take a 401(k) loan.

Many of these websites are excellent. The top 25 frugal bloggers for 2016 can be found, here.

Challenge yourself to do at least 3 new things this month to save money.  My three favorites are find new mobile phone provider and plan, make home-made pizza (rather than go out to eat) and how to service and repair my car.  It’s absolutely a blast and empowering.  However, I’m warning you now, frugal is contagious. You’ll get hooked. Your friends will get hooked. Seriously, frugal is a thing.

Ask your Boss, Like a Boss

A growing trend in the last few years has been for employers to offer student loan repayment assistance to employees as a benefit. Unlike tuition reimbursement (which has been around for years), student loan repayment assistance is a relatively new idea, a concept that’s gaining a lot of traction these days.

Last year alone, according to a recent study, 3% of companies offered some type of assistance program to help employees pay down their student debt and one thing’s for sure, this number is growing and growing strong.

If you are looking for a new job or are a new hire, negotiate. Most workers don’t negotiate, yet employers report that they are willing to pay more. Use this to your advantage. Some employers are now offering student loan repayment as a benefit.

There are tons of articles designed to help with this. Daily Worth, US News and Thrive powered by ADP are all helpful websites. Find out what you need to know about this new perk.  Work it to your advantage.

If a raise or bonus is in your future, ask your current employer or HR department about ways they can help you reduce your current student loan debt. Perhaps they can apply a new raise or bonus to your existing debt repayment plan.     

Find Experienced Help or Seek a Vetted Lawyer, FREE!

There are a few different professionals can help. Financial advisers are available if they are certified and affiliated with a reputable bank.  Oftentimes a certified public accountant (CPA) is full of free and helpful information.  Towns and cities quite often offer free credit and financial counseling services.  Check with your local library.  Go online.  Look into your local town or government website.

The Charlton Town Website, is here. On the clubs and organization page is a list of places you can go to get help. Quite often, places like the Lions Club, Food Banks, Veteran’s groups and Business Associations are networks of helping hands, ready to offer assistance if you ask.

Librarians are a treasure. The Charlton Public Library link is here.  Ask your local librarian when or where there is a class on debt, financial management or student loan debt assistance. If they don’t know, they will find out for you. Quite often sofa.org has classes held at local libraries. Ask your librarian about this. Be persistent.

If your situation involves a little bit more than, “I hate my loan servicer and don’t know what to do about it,” an experienced student loan lawyer or debtor defense lawyer is probably your best bet. Here’s how…

  1. Lawyers can give you guidance regarding your legal rights and options.
  2. Lawyers can represent you in negotiating with your student loan creditor, services or debt collection agency.
  3. They can help you figure out the best way to work out delinquencies and defaults, or to apply for a discharge.
  4. They protect you from unfair debt collection practices or debt collector abuse.
  5. Lawyers manage credit disputes.
  6. Lawyers advocate and go to court for you, managing legal matters like student loan-related issues, collections lawsuits or cases involving schools or agencies for legal violations and causing harm.
  7. In Massachusetts, an experienced Massachusetts lawyer can sometimes get you money awards for violations of things like the FDCPA and Massachusetts law.

If you’re dealing with delinquency or default, considering filing for bankruptcy or applying for a disability discharge, a debtor defense/bankruptcy/student loan lawyer is the best way to fly.

 Why a Lawyer, Why Not DIY?

Since every person is different, and every situation is different, whether or not you should contact a student loan lawyer really depends on your specific circumstances.  In reality, you may or may not need a student loan lawyer.

There are really very few things that inherently require you to hire a lawyer.  Even filing for bankruptcy or defending against a collections lawsuit can be done ‘pro se,’ (pronounced, “pro-say”) meaning without legal representation or Do It Yourself (DIY).

While hiring a student loan or bankruptcy lawyer may not be required, a lawyer may be incredibly useful, especially if you’re feeling overwhelmed, you’re not sure of your legal options, you’ve been sued, or you’re dealing with a complex legal issue.

In other words, debtor defense and student loan lawyers can take a difficult, seemingly hopeless or complex situation and make it easy for you by offering steps and solutions to give you back your life and your ability to move forward.

Some lawyers, like myself, are successful at getting clients extra cha-ching, based on the mistakes and bad behavior of some debt collectors and creditors.

The Final Word

Before hiring a lawyer, talk to your student loan creditor or servicer and exhaust your options.  After using up all your options, get help immediately.  Like I said earlier, yes there is a ray of hope.  You can do this.  Check out lawyer websites in your area.  Pick up the phone.  Call a lawyer. I suggest that you find at least three local lawyers and comparison shop.  Ask each one of them if they offer a free consultation.  Then, schedule appointments on your own time.

For the unemployed or underemployed, quite often legal aid lawyers in your local area offer free or reduced fee services. In Worcester County the legal aid website is called Community Legal Aid.  Free is good. Free is frugal. Frugal is a new thing, remember?

Think of these tips as being your job.  It’s your job to save money and work toward the positive things in life.  In a sense, saving money and working toward the positive is powerful and self-soothing.  Do this. Do it now. Regain control of your new life. Feel liberated and pleased with your own good efforts. Empowerment feels good.  Empower yourself like a boss.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Law Office of Ginger B. Kelly is now accepting new clients.  Call and schedule your first appointment.  We are a small law office offering your first confidential consultation, absolutely free of charge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.

To find out more, visit, www.attorneykelly.com, visit us at Ginger B. Kelly on Facebook or feel free to call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We cannot stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2015, 2016, 2017, by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

1 Comment

Filed under Bankruptcy, business law, Civil, civil law, Debt, Debt Collection, Financial, Hiring Counsel, Law, Legal, Massachusetts, News, practical stuff, Retirement Savings, Rhode Island, Student Loan Debt, Uncategorized

Documents Needed Prior to the 341 Trustee Meeting (aka Meeting of the Creditors)

documents-required

Just the other day I was driving to my own client’s 341 Trustee meeting in Worcester, Massachusetts and I thought, most people have no clue what documents are needed prior to most trustee meetings.  So, here is the short list.

The documents you will need are generally the same whether you are filing a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  However, specific documentation requirements are something different in most every local jurisdiction.  Be sure to check your local rules or contact your attorney in your specific situation.  Your attorney can notify the trustee and find out what is needed.

Tax Returns

Minimally, and most importantly, your last year’s tax return is required to be delivered to the trustee minimally seven days prior to your 341 meeting.  Local rules and trustees vary on what is required prior to the meeting.  If you do not provide this to the trustee, prior to your meeting, your case could be dismissed.

Other than this, you will typically need to provide copies of your tax returns or tax transcripts for the last two years during your meeting.  I have found, over the years, that it is best if you sign your returns.  If you have tax returns that haven’t been filed, you will need to explain why you were not required to file.  If you did not have a valid reason for not filing, most trustees, especially in Chapter 13 cases, will require you to file your taxes and provide copies before concluding or approving your case.  Again, some trustees may require more tax returns while others may ask only for your most recent one.

Income

If you are an employee, you will need copies of pay stubs (also known as payment advances) for the six-month period prior to the bankruptcy.  You will also need your past two years W-2 forms.  If you collect Social Security or Social Security Disability Income, you will need your award letter.  If you are self-employed, you will probably need to provide a profit and loss statement for the same six-month period as well as business bank statements to verify the amounts on the statement. If you have income from other sources such as rental properties or unemployment, proof of this income is also required.

Real Estate

If you own real estate, a valuation of the property is required.  Generally, I recommend my client’s get a broker’s price opinion, or a full appraisal, but this depends upon the situation.  In some cases, this is not needed.  Mortgage statements showing current loan balances, deeds of trust, and proof of home insurance may also be required.

Vehicles

If you have titled vehicles, such as an automobile, you will be required to provide a recent copy of your vehicle registration.  I also recommend you have proof of insurance, and valuation information, such as a KBB (Kelly Blue Book) valuation (you can get this online). If you have a car loan, a recent loan statement showing how much you owe and what your monthly payment is, will be important.  For other titled property, such as boats or trucks, recent valuation may also be required.

Retirement Accounts and Other Bank Accounts

Recent bank account statements (checking and savings) and retirement account statements are usually very important to provide to the trustee.  Your attorney should have these.

Miscellaneous

If you have any other special circumstances, like child support or alimony, you will need to provide proof of these expenses.  Typically a copy of the judgment, order or agreement will be sufficient

Proof of Identification and Social Security Number   

This is very important.  When you go to your hearing with the trustee, you will be asked to show proof of identification.  So you must have these two things ready for the trustee at the beginning of your meeting.  Identification must be valid and include a recent photo.  Examples are a current state-issued ID card, a current driver’s license or valid passport.  You will also need to show proof of your social security number.  These documents are typically your state-issued social security card or employee-issued W-2 form.

That’s it. Now you are ready for your Meeting with the Trustee. If you have any questions or need any help, please give me a call. My direct line is 508-784-1014 (yes, this is the number that goes directly to me, personally).  I’ll be happy to set up your first free consultation, absolutely free.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Law Office of Ginger B. Kelly is now accepting new clients.  Call and schedule your first appointment.  We are a small law office offering your first confidential consultation, absolutely free of charge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.

To find out more, visit, www.attorneykelly.com, visit us at Ginger B. Kelly on Facebook or feel free to call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We cannot stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2015, 2016, 2017, by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

1 Comment

Filed under Bankruptcy, Debt, Debt Collection, Filing, Financial, Law, Legal, Massachusetts, Massachusetts law, Uncategorized

When will the Massachusetts Ballot Questions become law?

ballot-questions

Now we know the election results in Massachusetts.  We had a few ballot questions, four to be exact.  Ballot questions are not laws that deal with taxes, but they are real issues that deal with policy. Ballot questions are policy issues that affect the quality of life in Massachusetts.

To understand a bit about ballot question law in Massachusetts, and when these questions may or may not become law, it is important to understand a little about the ballot question drafting process.

Each ballot question, also called an “indirect initiated state statute question“, is essentially a proposal regarding some sort of Massachusetts policy, made by concerned citizens.  Law-makers of either the Senate or the House of Representatives or both do not draft these types of laws.  Concerned citizens draft the proposed laws.

Concerned citizens take information on the topics that are important to them and draft proposals on the law.  The drafts may be redrafted a few times until the final draft comes out in the form of a ballot question.  The ballot question proposals must have petition signatures.  Then, the Massachusetts state legislatures, the Massachusetts State Attorney General and the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) all play a roll in the approval process.  In the final step, the ballot question proposals or petitions finally become approved as Massachusetts state ballot questions.  If approved, the Massachusetts ballot question will become law.  Learn more about this process, here.

If approved, the dates the laws will take effect are drafted into the law itself.  The way the law was written or drafted, is the way the law will be interpreted.  The dates these laws will take effect or become actual enforceable state law, are included in the draft petitions.  In other words, effective dated are always drafted or written directly into the petitions that become final ballot questions.

Below, is the list of Ballot questions Massachusetts citizens voted on November 8th, 2016 and when they will become law.

Question 1 · Allows the state gaming commission to issue an additional slot parlor license.  Massachusetts voted No, by 61%

Since a “No” vote will leave the law as-is, there is no question as to when this law will be enacted.

Question 2 · Allows the Board of Education to approve up to 12 new charter schools or enrollment expansions in current charter schools each year.  Massachusetts voted No, by 62%.

Since a “No” vote will leave the charter school cap as it stands, there is no question as to when this law will be enacted.  There are no changes to the law.

Question 3 · Prohibits selling farm products from animals not raised in spaces that meet a minimum size requirement.  Massachusetts voted Yes, by 78%

Because this law was approved, this law will go into effect on January 1, 2022.

Question 4 · Allows the possession, use, distribution, and cultivation of limited amounts of marijuana by persons age 21 and older.  Massachusetts voted Yes, by 54%.

Because this law has passed, this law will take effect December 15, 2016 and stores could open by early 2018.

~~~~~~~~~~

 

The Law Office of Ginger B. Kelly is now accepting new clients.  Call and schedule your first appointment.  We are a small law office offering your first confidential consultation, absolutely free of charge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.

To find out more, visit, www.attorneykelly.wordpress.com, or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We can not stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2015, 2016 by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Legal, Massachusetts, Massachusetts law, New Law, News, Trending

Debt Collection and 7 Deadly Sins

seven-deadly-sins by Drew Fairweather

Every year thousands of consumers get sued by debt collectors.  Beating a debt collection lawsuit is easier than most people realize.  Most of the time, the biggest issues people face are their own shortcomings.  Legal strategies are great, but they serve no good when people are paralyzed by fear, anger, sloth, envy or a number of deadly sins regarding dealing with debt collectors.

 1. Sloth    

The number one mistake defendants make when they are sued for a debt is giving up.  Doing nothing is a form of sloth.

Failing to respond to a summons and complaint, is most certainly the number one reason why most people lose and have default legal Judgments entered against them.  On the other hand, responding to a lawsuit opens the door to many promising things, like stopping collections, wage garnishments or a levy (taking money from your bank account).

Even if you owe the collector money, a two-sentence response simply denying liability to the lawsuit filed in court will tilt the scales in your favor.  Always do your best to consult a lawyer, first.  Even so, filing a response to the lawsuit is called an “Answer,” with the Clerk of Court, is generally the easiest first step to take.   Check your timelines on this.  Some jurisdictions only allow 10 to 20 days to respond after service of process, which also means after the defendant receives a notice and summons.  Keep an Answer simple and to the point.  Never ever make an admission.

Ask your Clerk of Court questions about the forms used to file an Answer or how to file an Answer.   Typically, Clerks are super helpful but keep in mind that they are never allowed to give legal advice.

Give up sloth.  Put one foot in front of the other, seek legal help and file an Answer with the Court and your chances of winning increase exponentially!

2. Pride

Debtors who give up on Collections lawsuits almost always have regrets.   Life after answering the notice and complaint involves a little bit more than simply showing up.  But it’s not that difficult.  One of the things that must be done is to challenge the collector’s ability to sue.  However, a defendant can never challenge anything effectively when pride gets in the way.

Pride steps in and wreaks havoc with our positive energy.  Pride opens door to excuses as to why we can’t or don’t want to move forward.  Pride paves the way for doing nothing.

The term, “Standing” means the legal right to sue.  Some collectors, also known as debt buyers, or junk debt buyers, often buy debt for pennies on the dollar.  They try to file lawsuits (or sue) against debtors to collect money on the debt that they buy.  When asked, collectors must prove that they have the legal right to collect.  Without the legal right to sue, debt collectors lack standing.  Standing is typically shown by a transfer or assignment of the original, signed credit card agreement from the initial creditor to the debt collector or debt buyer.  Many don’t have a signed transfer agreement.  Many don’t have a signed, initial credit card agreement.  When when the collector doesn’t produce a proper assignment or agreement, or the document they produce is inaccurate or not an original, a defendant can ask for the case to be dismissed, because of “lack of standing.”

Asking the Court (Judge or Magistrate) to dismiss a case, based on lack of standing or lack of chain of custody of paperwork is usually pretty straightforward.  Your lawyer will help you.  Chain of custody means that the collector must prove that they are, in fact, the ones who were transferred the initial signed agreement.

On a few occasions, I’ve noticed judges look at the paperwork collectors provide and comment, “you must be joking.”  On the other hand, some judges look at the paperwork and think, “It’s all good.”  It’s not always easy to tell the results, at least in Massachusetts.  Every jurisdiction is a little different.  If challenges aren’t raised, like a challenge to standing, the lawsuit is lost, plain and simple.

In essence, even when the effort is made to attend a debt collection lawsuit, pride can strangle all positive energy and be a reason for making excuses for not demanding the debt collector show you why they have any legal authority to ask you to pay them money.

3. Greed.

I’ll never understand why defendants never challenge the amount owed on a debt. Seriously, greed is more common than most people realize.  Often human beings become so greedy with time and energy, they can’t even ask simple questions.  Challenge the accuracy of the calculations on the debt and combat being paralyzed by greed.

When your lawyer, or you, choose to challenge the accuracy of the debt, the Judge or Magistrate will require the debt collector to show the original signed documents and all the paperwork. This means that the paperwork must prove the balance of the debt, from the first day to the present.  Every defendant has a right to know how an amount allegedly owed is calculated and why.  Be vigilant and ask for accurate figures on the debt.

More often than not, debt collectors miss documents or miscalculate and are not accurate.  Because debts typically change hands multiple times, it is very likely there will be some errors in the figures and documents.  If there are errors in the case, a defendant may ask for the case to be dismissed.

In a 2015 news article, a former employee of a major creditor mentioned that as many as a quarter of the files showed incorrect amounts owed.  If the credit card issuers can’t provide accurate documentation, there’s an excellent chance you will win.

4. Wrath.

 Yes, debt collectors make us mad.  However, many people get so angry that they do nothing.  Anger (like most negative emotions) paralyzes us from doing the right thing.  It’s easy to change this negative emotion by talking to your lawyer and by making solid plans to challenge the lawsuit against you in a timely manner.  Don’t let wrath, or any other negative emotions kill positive energy.

In Massachusetts, in most cases with a few exceptions, creditors have a maximum of six years to collect on most credit card (revolving) debt.  Other states and jurisdictions are different.  Ask your lawyer about the Statute of Limitations in your jurisdiction.

The Statute of Limitations is an awesome defense to have in your legal defense tool box, so to speak.  Sometimes, collectors don’t stop collecting and taking people to court, even after the Statute of Limitations has run out.  The reason is because debt collectors are hoping and assuming people don’t want to be bothered and they won’t show up in Court.  This is true.  But defendants who raise the Statute of Limitations defense will typically win.  With a solid Statute of Limitations defense, the Court will recognize that the debt can no longer be collected upon and, like magic, a Court will dismiss a collections lawsuit.

It is important to know how to legally apply this handy dandy tool.  Also, paying or agreeing to pay on an old debt may start the Statute of Limitations clock ticking all over again.  Never pay on an old debt without first consulting a good lawyer.  If the Statute of Limitations has expired, and it is used properly and timely as a viable defense, a collector stands a good chance of losing.

Tame the wrath by fighting fairly and civilly.  Wrath turned around and channeled into controlled, positive, motivated beneficial action is a very good thing, indeed.

5. Gluttony.

 Plain and simple, most everyone has the right to take action against collectors, but they don’t.  This could simply be a matter of gluttony?  Perhaps.  Retaining paralyzing feelings of grief, powerlessness, becoming overly indulgent in thoughts that are self-critical, are negative negative feelings.  Self indulgence is a form of gluttony.  Gluttony is crippling. The negative energy of gluttony gets in the way of taking positive action.

There are rules and laws, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) that may turn the tide in your favor and help you to turn gluttony into positive energy.  If you have consulted a good lawyer, chances are that you may be able to discuss the odds of getting a good money award from a debt collector if they violated any part of the FDCPA.  People who successfully sue for violations of the FDCPA may be entitled to receive from the collector, statutory damages of $1000, plus punitive and economic damages, and even attorney’s fees and costs.  Extra money is always a welcome bonus!  This is also a good reason to hire a good consumer defense and bankruptcy attorney who can help.

Pity and self-gluttony have no place if you want to win a lawsuit.  Snooze and you lose. This is the very thing debt collectors are counting on.

6. Lust.

Lust is a big one.  Have you ever been around someone who loves themselves so much, they think they can do things all by themselves, when they really need help?  It is very important to become a smart consumer and know when to find help.  Smart people tend to kick lust to the curb.  Call a professional to get the best results possible.  In other words, bring out the big guns.

Once a collector is notified that you are represented by an attorney, it’s usually all over.  Most collectors are more than anxious to settle a debt, out of court, rather than fight over it with a lawyer.  Hesitating hiring a lawyer will only serve to reduce your chances of winning, significantly.

Attorneys who regularly take these types of cases will typically offer a free consultation.  On some occasions, they may represent you for free if they think the collector has broken the law.  This is because the attorney will expect to collect their fees from the collector.  Most people don’t know this.

Lust has no place for winners.  Fighting a legal battle with expert help makes sense.

7. Envy  

Most people think Bankruptcy is for “those” people.  If you really believe that Bankruptcy is for those pitiful people who have no common sense or self control, or for people who want to take advantage of the system, guess again.  Bankruptcy laws are designed so that fraudulent claims are virtually non-existent.  Furthermore, some of the most successful people in our country legitimately and legally have filed successful Bankruptcy Petitions, for very good reasons.

Everyone makes mistakes and goes through struggles in life.  How people overcome and manage those struggles makes all the difference.  In the US today, we are lucky enough to have Bankruptcy law.  Think of Bankruptcy as a beneficial tool, a way to move forward, unlike envy that will hold most of us back.

Bankruptcy often is the best solution because it will not only give a person a fresh start, Bankruptcy will also stop all collections.  The day a Bankruptcy Petition is filed with the Court, a person will be protected from all collection efforts by something called an “automatic stay.”

See if Bankruptcy is an option suitable for you.  A good lawyer will be happy to guide you to make the very best decisions for you.

Tip:  Monitor your credit scores and credit reports from time to time to see where you stand.  You are entitled to one free annual credit report from all three major credit reporting agencies, each year.  Search on the Internet or ask your lawyer or certified public accountant (CPA) how to obtain a free credit report and do this, annually.

Being paralyzed by any of these deadly sins happens to the best of us.   Indulging in any one of these things will greatly reduce the odds in your favor.  Vigilance, by taking action now, is your best path to success.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.

To find out more, visit, www.attorneykelly.squarespace.com or www.attorneykelly.wordpress.com, or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  This is an Advertisement.  This post is not legal advice.  Consult your attorney.  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We can not stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2016 by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

4 Comments

Filed under Bankruptcy, Civil, civil law, Debt, Debt Collection, Law, Lawsuits, Legal, Massachusetts, practical stuff, Trial

Facebook Posts can Land You in Jail

One does not simply post on Facebook

Posting whatever you want on Facebook might not be a good idea, as in the case of Ebony Dickens of East Point Georgia.

Based on an April 30, 2015 report on CNN, Ebony Dickens, of East Point, Georgia, posted threats to the police under the name, Tiffany Milan, on social media.  According to CNN, she posted this on Facebook, “I thought about shooting every white cop I see in the head until I’m either caught by the police or killed by them. Ha!!!! I think I can pull it off. Might kill at least 15 tomorrow, I’m plotting now.”

Soon after Ms. Dickens posted the threats, she deleted her Tiffany Milan Facebook account.  She erased all her threatening posts.  But that didn’t matter.  Erasing the threats didn’t help.  She already published them to others.  By virtue of her Facebook posts, Ms. Dickens got arrested.  She was arrested not only by the local authorities, but by homeland security.  Apparently, Ms. Dickens “allegedly” violated local law, but State and Federal law.  I say, “allegedly” because Ms. Dickens case is still pending.  Even so, it’s important to look at US free speech law and why, oftentimes, comments made on Facebook aren’t protected speech.

Based on this story, making Facebook posts about shooting the cops using a fake name may not be a good idea. Protected and lawful speech, of any kind, does not involve making true threats, using fighting words to incite violence and cyber-bullying.  Ranting on Facebook, or anywhere, may not always be a good idea, no matter appealing it may seem to be for some.  First Amendment Freedom of Speech law is a not a get-out-of-jail free card for offenses like these.  Freedom of Speech rights do not make one immune from arrest and jail. People can also file civil suits against others for making certain kinds of speech.

Under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, people can get arrested for speech involving obscenity, child pornography, misleading commercial speech, fighting words, cyber bullying and true threats. For example, free speech does not include (for no good reason) yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.  This is a classic example.  People get arrested and end up in jail for telling others, “I’m going to kill you.” Also, making up stories about others is not always harmless. For example, telling someone your friend has “Ebola,” or somethings similar, when in fact they do not, can get a person in a lot of legal trouble.

In the business world, free speech does not include making unsupported claims.  When a commercial producer claims their product “builds strong bodies 12 ways,” or wants to show that their product is healthy, the producer and all the stakeholders better support this sort of claim with strong evidence.  Commercial claims may be unprotected speech, provided there is no proof behind such claims.

Cartoons and political satire, like the Charlie Hebdo cartoon depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed, is an example of a form of US free speech. Under US law, cartoonists and artists may publish political cartoons and politically charged satire.  This is considered protected free speech. Under the laws of other countries, such cartoonist speech is not always protected. Whether or not political cartoons are always wise or prudent to publish remains controversial. Even so, there is no complete list of US constitutional freedom of speech examples that explain what does or does not constitute freedom of speech.

Concerning freedom of speech and the laws of free speech, each situation and every fact pattern is not the same.  Each person and each legal case is different.  This is why a professional legal analysis of every situation is important. This type of case-by-case basis legal examination is what legal professionals call, “fact-intensive” legal analysis.  Fact intensive legal analysis is what lawyers and judges are trained to do.  This is why it’s always important to consult your lawyer and be sure to ask them any legal questions regarding freedom of speech guarantees, the US Constitution or any law, before you act or draw conclusions about legal matters.

Under First Amendment free speech, free speech does not include true threats.  However, treats made in humor or funny stories, like exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally, tends to be protected speech in certain circumstances.  For example, Saturday Night Live, (“SNL”), a comedy show shown on TV on Saturday night, has made sketches mocking the blind and making racist jokes about people who go to Starbucks, (things like this).  SNL made a fake video defaming Thailand. These were shocking and offensive to a lot of folks. SNL poked fun at real people. Comedians verbalized threats and violence.

Humor performed by professional comedians or published by professional cartoonists is considered protected speech. Jokes, cartoons, sketches and speech, shared by professional comedians and artists is part of what they do for good reasons. Professional comedians, cartoonists, artists and the like, create artistic and scientific works that benefit the public.  Often, artistic work involves sarcastic comedy, political satire, parody and shocking artistic work that may involve certain forms of pornography. Legality of the free speech and the intent of that speech (which is one of many legal elements that must be shown) is quite often determined by the virtue of one’s profession.

The intent of an artist, by virtue of the artistic profession, is to add artistic value to most people and the general public, whether or not this is shocking to a few individuals.  The intent of a comedian, by virtue of the comedic profession, is to entertain and invoke thought, discussion and to inject humor or satire into a skit or cartoon, not to cause specific harm to others.  Many times, these forms of free speech are political in nature.  Political figures and political issues are permissible targets of free speech.  Not everyone or everything fits into this category. Every case is different.

Even on occasion, even comedians and artists get into legal trouble.  For example, if an artist took an artistic work too far and people filed legal cases against them, this is perfectly legal if the claim is not frivolous.  The Court will determine a frivolous case and have it dismissed, when necessary.  Every case must be examined by the facts and the nature of the speech published, be it in writing, on any form of medium or orally (by word of mouth).  Every case must look at the platform of delivery, the person publishing the speech and, in some cases, who the speech was intended for or the intended message and audience.

As you may have guessed, there is a lot look at when it comes to Free Speech rights and Constitutional laws regarding freedom of speech.  Examples are only a snapshot.  I can only give you a general snapshot of this topic.  But remember, US First Amendment free speech is never a get-out-of-jail-free ticket that gives a person unconditional immunity from arrest, jail or a civil lawsuit.  The story of Ebony Dickens is a perfect example.  Posting threats to the cops on Facebook or anywhere, is one reason why quite often posting things on Facebook can land a person in court or worse, jail.

by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., May 19, 2015

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  Her law practice is focused on consumer finance and bankruptcy.  However, Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work.  On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.  To find out more visit, www.attorneykelly.squarespace.com or http://www.attorneykelly.wordpress.com, or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We can not stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2015 by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under Arrest, Civil, Criminal, First Amendment, Free Speech, Law, Legal, Police, Trending

Hidden Truth, Legal Rights for Chimps

Photo Credit: Reuters

Photo Credit: Reuters

The hidden truth about legal rights for Hercules and Leo, the NY Chimpanzees making history 

There is great speculation that two Chimpanzees from Long Island NY have been given special human legal rights by a Supreme Court Justice.  The Court issued a Habeas Corpus.  Does this now mean that the chimps are legal persons?  Are the chimps legally obligated to comply with the court order?  There’s a hidden secret, a secret truth, which will tell us the answer about how human legal rights can work for chimpanzees, under the law. The secret is hidden in the law of the Habeas and by the nature of how the Court works.

This case involves an animal rights type of legal action involving the question of protection for two chimpanzees, Hercules and Leo.  Animal rights activists, the Nonhuman Rights Project, are the plaintiffs.  Stony Brook University, Long Island NY and the president of Stony Brook University, Samuel M. Stanley Jr., MD, are the named defendants.  The defendants are the legal owners of the chimps and are holding them in captivity, the crux of the legal issue for the animal rights activist plaintiffs.

On April 20, 2015, a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas”) was issued by the Supreme Court Justice in this case, Barbara Jaffee.  The legal question involves why the University should be legally permitted to hold in captivity, the chimpanzees Hercules and Leo.  The Habeas was intended to serve justice in this matter.

A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a court order, mandating or commanding that the custodian of a prisoner (person/human) must release the prisoner and bring them up into court and show cause why the prisoner should remain in lawful imprisonment. In Blacks Law Dictionary and other Law Dictionaries, Habeas Corpus is a Latin legal term of art meaning, “bring up the body.”

In the case of Hercules and Leo, the Habeas compels their captor, Stony Brook University, not the chimps, to release the chimps from captivity.  It allegedly hails the chimps, the “alleged” prisoners to bring them into Court (as a practical matter, they are to be released from “bondage”, or captivity).   The Habeas also compels the defendants to show cause (give a good reason) why they should continue to hold Leo and Hercules in captivity.  This is what the Habeas means, in the context of this trial.

The Habeas gives the defendants a choice.  Bring up the prisoners, by releasing them from bondage, or show the court why the chimps should continue to be legally held. This is what must be done.  The Habeas is a tool, typically used in criminal trials when prisoners need to be hailed into court for things like arraignment, suppression hearings and other hearings and at trial.

In order to understand whether or not the Habeas imparts some special human right upon chimps, we must examine the intent of Justice Jaffee, the nature of the Habeas and a few other things, discussed by the following three points.

Point #1:  If animals were given human legal rights, consider the practical and legal impact upon the US court system.

If one small human right was given to any animal, like a train with many cars, others will follow.  Giving animals a Habaes is one thing, but giving them legal rights to be treated like prisoners doesn’t mean giving them the right to vote the right to a fair trial or other things reserved for humans.  There’s the legal right to a jury of one’s peers to face your accusor, and on and on and on.  These issues are not likely a Pandora’s box of legal and practice problems Justice Jaffee intended to open.

It’s a dangerous slippery slope.  Would a jury box full of chimpanzees be something Justice Jaffee had in mind? What would be the cost?  Are we to re-invent the ballot box, making it suitable for chimpanzee fingers and toes? How would a fish take the witness stand?  Then there is the matter of a fair and impartial court interpreter. Imagine, a chimpanzee court interpreter, wearing pants – not so easy to unthink.

Indulge your imagination.  Should dolphins be given the right to a fair trial, simply because they are intelligent and highly social creatures?  Where would an Elephant sit in the jury box?  You got it.  An elephant would sit anywhere he wants!  All kidding aside, if animals were given legal rights, our court system and legal system would be a mess.  Government would become chaotic and obsolete. Furthermore, giving animals human legal rights is nothing short of tyranny for animals.

Point #2:  If animals were given human legal rights, the intent of lawmakers would be abolished.  

Human rights, basic and essential legal rights, are provided for humans by humans.  The courts were made by humans for humans. Animals did not create our legal system.  The legislative intent of our court systems, our law, is to keep order and maintain justice for humans, not animals.  Our legal system was made to provide justice, not chaos.  Chaos is quite the opposite of justice.

The human interpretation and concept of courtroom is important. Chimpanzees and other animals stand a good chance of not behaving like humans in court.  Chimps, like most animals, tend to have great difficulty controlling their urges and behavior.  Seldom do animals conduct themselves like humans. Seldom do animals behave like humans would expect or require, in a courtroom situation, to maintain order.  Animals are unpredictable, to varying degrees.  Lack or order is chaotic.  Humans need courtroom decorum and order, to perfect justice. Animals, maybe not so much.

Chimpanzees, if they were forced to comply with our court system, could not do so without severe and potentially bazaar legal outcomes. For example, in the matter of Travis the Chimp from Connecticut, a 200 lb. Chimpanzee decided to brutally rip the face and hands off of Charla Nash, his owner’s friend. If Travis the Chimp were still alive, should Travis have been given a jury of his peers? Would justice be served if  Travis was sentenced to death or life in prison? Would Travis be eligible for parole or appeal after appeal? Bringing chimps to court is not likely beneficial nor the intent of our legislatures. Giving chimps legal rights was not the likely intent of Justice Jaffee.

Furthermore, animals do not need humans. Animals govern themselves, however cruel we may think nature can be. Animals have basic ways of establishing their own social order. In the context science, animal social order is amazing. Groups of primates great each other in a certain way to invoke peace. Dolphins swim together in schools to catch fish. Gorillas groom each other to stay healthy and show acceptance.

Intelligent creatures like dolphins, primates and gorillas do quite well, without human intervention. This is essentially why Justice Jaffee probably does not intend to interfere with the social order of primates. In essence, justice is served best by allowing creatures to just be themselves.  Humans have done enough damage to animals.  As a matter of justice, humans have no business giving human legal rights to chimps.  Human intervention is one reason why it is said that Travis the Chimp did what he did and a big reason why why the law suit regarding Leo and Hercules is underway.

Furthermore, history has shown that it’s not always a good idea to tamper with the social order of other societies, unlike ours. This holds true for people as well as animals. Animals do a good job of establishing their own social order.

In the context of our human government, humans are expected to care for animals, that’s pretty much it. Humans have no obligation to create social conditions where animals are expected to conform to human behaviors, duties and expectations. Placing animals outside of their own animal-based social order places animals at risk. When humans take chimps outside of their own social order, law suits ensue, and animal rights activists get involved. Animal rights activists contend that humans have destroyed the chimps Hercules and Leo and they deserve a better life, outside of confinement.

But in the context of human government, laws were not intended to place animals on the same legal playing ground as humans.  This is not humane or sound.  Cruelty toward animals not only involves captivity but capacity.  Animals, like children, for varying reasons lack legal capacity.  Indeed, maintaining the intent of the law, designed by humans for humans, is inline with the intent of Justice Jaffee.

Point #3:  If animals were given human legal rights, the NY Habeas would not serve justice or invoke a correct result.  

The essential “secret” why Justice Jaffee ordered the Habeas for Hercules and Leo is in the way she used the Habeas.  She used the Habeas like a tool, a legal instrument.  This tool, if you will, insures that justice will be served.  Justice Jaffee used the Habeas to command the release of the chimps, probably into an animal sanctuary.  Because of the Habeas, unless the Defendants prove there is any legal and permissible exception to the release, Leo and Hercules will remain free in a safe place. The Chimps will remain precisely where Justice Jaffee believes they should be, for now.  She used the Habeas as a tool to invoke justice and compel a correct result.  The Habeas is a very powerful legal instrument, indeed.

Even so, granting the Habeas seems a little unorthodox, especially in a matter involving chimpanzees.  Justice Jaffee is quite clever.  If her intent was to use the Habeas to give the chimps some special human legal right.  If she did, the result would be unjust. On the contrary, Justice Jaffee used a legal tool within her power to compel the defendants do the right thing. Justice Jaffee used the Habeas as a tool to insure that justice is served.  In this way, the Habeas was used like an instrument, a tool to ferret out truth and compel legal order.

It’s reasonable to assume that Hercules and Leo will be in a better place, like an animal sanctuary.  The Chimps probably will not be hailed into court. They won’t be asked to testify. Justice is served by the Habeas, nothing more.  If the Chimps are not released, the defendants go directly to jail, do-not-pass-Go, end of story.

This is the other reason why Justice Jaffee used the Habeas.  The Habeas switched the burden of proof off the plaintiff’s shoulders and onto the defendants.  Now, the defendants must now show the court why it is legal for Leo and Hercules to be held in captivity by the University.  If Justice Jaffee didn’t use the Habeas, the plaintiffs bear this burden.  Legal tools, like a Habeas, are used all the time to create an environment to do what must be done.

Obviously, Justice Jaffee wanted to hear Stony Brook’s side of the story first and have the chimps released, for a time. The real issue is not whether Hercules and Leo have been given a legal right, just like humans.  Animal rights laws protect animals from cruel treatment by humans. This is how it is.  This is how the law works. The real issue has to do with the truth and the spin some would place on this subject.

The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) and Science Magazine and others want people to think chimpanzees have been given legal rights reserved for humans.  For readers, this sort of story is delightfully strange.  It is an unusual and newsworthy story about animals.  Unfortunately, it’s not about the truth. Statements like, for the “first time in world history,” a judge has recognized two chimpanzees being used for research purposes as “legal persons” and granted them a Writ of Habeas Corpus, are simply untrue. Statements like these put a spin on court case news. It’s a matter of news hype. News hype is intended to draw attention and stir our emotions.  News hype also invokes discussions and raises eyebrows. Discussions are not all that bad.  In fact, news is good.

So now you know the big secret. The truth is out.  It’s not about Chimps being given human legal rights. We aren’t reinventing our entire legal system. It’s not all that sensational. The secret is about the truth and how a New York Supreme Court Judge chose to use a legal instrument, the Habeas. The truth is found by the nature of the Habeas.  The truth lies in how the Habeas was used. The Habeas hopefully, will produce a fair and just result for everyone. This is truth.

Truth is good.  Rooting out the truth is what courts are all about.  Law is about truth. Law is what I do. Visit the about page of my website to find out more, www.attorneykelly.squarespace.com/about/ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  Her law practice is focused on consumer finance and bankruptcy.  However, Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work.  On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.  To find out more visit, www.attorneykelly.squarespace.com or http://www.attorneykelly.wordpress.com, or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We can not stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2015 by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Legal, Legal Rights, Trending

To be or not to be? The death penalty question.

To be or not to be? The death penalty question..

Comments Off on To be or not to be? The death penalty question.

Filed under Death Penalty, Law, Legal, Lethal Injection, Massachusetts, Trending, Trial

To be or not to be? The death penalty question.

death-penalty1

Photo credit to Stephenhicks.org

In wake of the Dzhokihar Tsarnaev jury verdict, the trend around social media is whether or not the death penalty should be abolished in the United States. No one is immune from the stories, the questions, the buzz, especially in Massachusetts.

Is the death penalty constitutional?  Does the death penalty deter crime?  Is the death penalty fair and just?  Is the use of the death penalty for sentencing, in all or some circumstances, considered cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Laws of the States?  What about people with mental incapacitates and serious IQ issues?  Should they die too?  Does race or economic status play a role? What about botched lethal injections and firing squad issues?  Then there’s the trendy “did you knows.”

Did you know that thirty two (32) US states plus the Military and the Federal government still have the death penalty?  Did you know that in 2013, the average murder rate of death penalty states was 4.4, while the average murder rate for states without the death penalty was only 3.4?  Did you know that since 1973, over 140 people on death row in the US have been found innocent and exonerated from their crimes?  It’s a lot to think about.

Because it is a lot to read, a lot to think about and Massachusetts inquiring minds can’t wait to know, below is a relatively brief state-by-state compilation (the low-down) of a few interesting facts on death penalty, lethal injections and so on.  Most of the information gathered is strictly online news and op-ed articles, so don’t rely upon it for anything substantial like a doctoral dissertation or expert opinion. The Death Penalty Information Center is a very good resourse for most Death Penalty facts.  Please keep in mind, this information has not been verified or fact-checked or cite-checked (see disclaimer, below).

The best way to absorb all this information is to look at it from top to bottom.  Just skim, don’t read it all.  You can then go back to look at the facts for the state or topic you like.  If you like, check out a trend that’s interesting and and compare, like murder rate.  If you want to learn more, come back.  Read an article or two later.  It’s a lot to absorb in one fell swoop.

“To be or not to be” is the real death penalty question.  Decide for yourself and take away a few cocktail party or BBQ cook-out talking points.

Please feel free to comment or question.  There is so much to talk about.

*Note: The Murder rates, below, are per 10,000 people in 2013.

Alaska – Murder rate* – 4.6; [No Death Penalty; Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Alabama – Murder rate* – 7.2; Current death row population: 198 (5 are women); Method: Choice of injection or electrocution; Death Penalty Crimes: Intentional murder with 18 aggravating factors (Ala. Stat. Ann. 13A-5-40(a)(1)-(18))

Arkansas – Murder rate* – 5.4; Death row population: 34 (0 are women); Method: Injection or choice of Injection or electrocution for crimes after 1983; Death Penalty Crimes: Capital murder (Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-101) with a finding of at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances; treason.

Arizona – Murder rate* – 5.4; Death row population: 124 (3 are women); Method: Injection / Choice of Gas Chamber if sentenced before 11/92; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder, including premeditated murder and felony murder, accompanied by at least 1 of 14 aggravating factors (A.R.S. § 13-703(F)).

California – Murder rate* – 5.4; Death row population: 743 (19 are women); Method: Injection / Choice of Gas Chamber; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder with special circumstances; sabotage; train wrecking causing death; treason; perjury causing execution of an innocent person; fatal assault by a prisoner serving a life sentence. Trending: California’s stay of executions requiring lethal injections resulting in overcapacity of death row prison, according to a March 30, 2015 LA Times news article.  

Colorado – Murder rate* – 3.4; Death row population: 3 (0 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes:First-degree murder with at least 1 of 17 aggravating factors; first-degree kidnapping resulting in death; treason.  Trending: CBS News: Colorado has no moratorium on the death penalty as the jury deliberates on the verdict of Colorado movie theater shooter, James Holmes.   In an April 17, 2015 poll by WBUR, the death penalty is becoming increasingly unpopular.

Connecticut – Murder rate* – 2.4; [Abolished the death penalty in 2012]

District of Columbia – Murder rate* – 15.9; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Delaware – Murder rate* – 4.2; Death row population: 17 (0 are women); Method: Injection or choice of injection of hanging for offenses prior to 6/13/86; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder (11 Del. C. § 636) with at least 1 statutory aggravating circumstance (11 Del. C. § 4209). Trending: April 1, 2015, Delaware Online states, the Delaware ex-prison warden says the Delaware death penalty creates an immeasurable burden on the prison system and doesn’t make the guards any safer.

Florida – Murder rate* – 5; Death row population: 403 (4 are women); Method: Choice of Injection or Gas Chamber; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery. Trending: The US Supreme Court has granted cert to consider the constitutionality of Florida’s sentencing scheme for capital cases and the use of the death penalty for mentally disabled criminals. Unlike Ohio and Oklahoma, no stay of executions has been granted in Florida as of March 9, 2015, according to a US News March 9, 2015 article.

Georgia – Murder rate* – 5.6; Death row population: 87 (1 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: Murder with aggravating circumstances; kidnapping with bodily injury or ransom when the victim dies; aircraft hijacking; treason. As of March, 2015, the Georgia Department of Corrections announced a moratorium on executions due to the difficulty in acquiring lethal injection drugs.

Hawaii – Murder rate* – 1.5; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Idaho – Murder rate* – 1.7; Death row population: 11 (1 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder with aggravating factors; first-degree kidnapping; perjury resulting in the execution of an innocent person.

Illinois – Murder rate* – 5.5; [Abolished the death penalty in 2011]

Iowa – Murder rate* – 1.4; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Indiana – Murder rate* – 5.4; Death row population: 14 (1 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: Murder with 16 aggravating circumstances (IC 35-50-2-9).

Kansas – Murder rate* – 3.9; Death row population: 10 (0 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: Capital murder with 8 aggravating circumstances (KSA 21-3439, KSA 21-4625, KSA 21-4636). Trending: According to ScotUS, a stay of current executions in Kansas due to the Monday, March 30, 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision to grant review of three Kansas death penalty cases based on the constitutionality of the death penalty imposed for the mentally disabled.

Kentucky – Murder rate* – 3.8; Death row population: 35 (1 are women); Method: Injection for those sentenced on or after 3/31/98, Injection or Electrocution for those sentenced prior; Death Penalty Crimes: Capital murder with the presence of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance; capital kidnapping (KRS 532.025).

Louisiana – Murder rate* – 10.8; Death row population: 85 (2 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder; treason (La. R.S. 14:30 and 14:113). Trending: March 30, 2015 NYT article reported, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in a Louisiana case that presented questions on the role of the federal courts in determining whether a state prisoner who faces the death penalty has intellectual disability. In March, 2015, three Prosecutors in Louisiana, responsible for 75% of Louisiana’s death sentences, facing prosecutorial misconduct charges, according to the New Orleans Advocate.

Maryland – Murder rate* – 6.4; [Abolished the death penalty in 2013]

Massachusetts – Murder rate* – 2; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Maine – Murder rate – 1.8*; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Michigan – Murder rate – 6.4*; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Minnesota – Murder rate – 2.1*; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Mississippi – Murder rate – 6.5*; Death row population: 48 (2 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: Capital murder (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)); aircraft piracy (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-25-55(1)).

Missouri – Murder rate – 6.1*; Death row population: 35 (0 are women); Method: Choice of Injection or Gas; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder (565.020 RSMO 2000).

Montana – Murder rate – 2.2*; Death row population: 2 (0 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes:Capital murder with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-303); aggravated kidnapping; felony murder; aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-503).

Nebraska – Murder rate – 3.1*; Death row population: 11 (0 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder with a finding of at least 1 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstance.

Nevada – Murder rate – 5.8*; Death row population: 77 (0 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder with at least 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (NRS 200.030, 200.033, 200.035).

New Hampshire – Murder rate – 1.7*; Death row population: 1 (0 are women); Method: Injection or hanging if injection is not possible; Death Penalty Crimes: Murder committed in the course of rape, kidnapping, drug crimes, or burglary; killing of a police officer, judge or prosecutor; murder for hire; murder by an inmate while serving a sentence of life without parole (RSA 630:1, RSA 630:5).

New Jersey – Murder rate – 4.5*; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Nevada – Murder rate – 5.8*; Death row population: 77 (0 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: More research is required.

New Mexico – Murder rate – 6*; [abolished the death penalty in 2009]

New York* – Murder rate – 3.3*; [New York abolished the death penalty in 2007]

North Carolina – Murder rate – 4.8*; Death row population: 158 (4 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder (NCGS §14-17) with the finding of at least 1 of 11 statutory aggravating circumstances (NCGS §15A-2000).

North Dakota – Murder rate – 2.2*; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Ohio – Murder rate – 3.9*; Death row population: 145 (1 are women); Method: Injection, 1-drug protocol; Death Penalty Crimes: Aggravated murder with at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances (O.R.C. secs. 2903.01, 2929.02, and 2929.04). Trending: April 8, 2015, Cleveland.com mentioned changes to Ohio’s lethal injection protocol are being considered in the wake of the botched execution of Dennis McGuire which resulted in the postponement (stay) of all executions in Ohio until 2016.

Oklahoma – Murder rate – 5.1*; Death row population: 49 (1 are women); Method: Injection or electrocution/firing squad of injection is unconstitutional; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder in conjunction with a finding of at least 1 of 8 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances.  Trending:  According to a Fredericksburg.com editorial article, As of March, 2015, a moratorium on executions in Oklahoma still exists in wake of the US Supreme Court deliberations on whether or a failed Oklahoma execution was constitutional based on cruel and unusual punishment.

Oregon – Murder rate – 2*; Death row population: 36 (1 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: Aggravated murder (ORS 163.095).

Pennsylvania – Murder rate – 4.7*; Death row population: 188 (4 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder with 18 aggravating circumstances. Trending: Recent poll by York College of Pennsylvania shows 54% not in favor of death penalty.  Death Penalty Moratorium in place by executive order in February, 2015.

Rhode Island – Murder rate – 2.9*; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

South Carolina – Murder rate – 6.2*; Death row population: 45 (0 are women); Method: Choice of injection or electrocution; Death Penalty Crimes: Murder with 1 of 12 aggravating circumstances (§ 16-3-20(C)(a)) Trending:  According to a recent Post and Courier news articleSouth Carolina faces a moratorium on executions due to the difficulty obtaining lethal injection drugs.

South Dakota – Murder rate – 2.4*; Death row population: 3 (0 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances. Trending: In a February, 2015 Argus Leader news-article, South Dakota state senator discusses sponsoring a Bill to abolish the death penalty.

Tennessee – Murder rate – 5*; Death row population: 73 (1 are women); Method: Injection for crimes after December 31, 1998, electrocution may be selected for crimes prior; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202) with 1 of 16 aggravating circumstances (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204).  Trending: April 10, 2015, the Tennessean reported that the Tennessee Supreme Court stayed all executions to review challenges to the constitutionality of the 1-drug injection protocol.

Texas – Murder rate – 4.3*; Death row population: 276 (10 are women); Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: Criminal homicide with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (Tex. Penal Code § 19.03). Trending: According to the Texas TribuneExecutions in Texas jeopardized if disclosure of lethal injection drug suppliers is to be required, according to the Texas Tribune, April 15, 2015. Also, according to an April 2015 USA Today article a Texas lawyer, Maurie Levin, states  “Even though Texas has managed to continue to carry out executions, it’s a mistake to think it’s business as usual.”

Utah – Murder rate – 1.7*; Death row population: 9 (0 are women); Method: Injection or firing squad if injection is unconstitutional and for inmates who chose firing squad prior to 5/3/2004; Death Penalty Crimes: Aggravated murder (76-5-202, Utah Code Annotated).

Vermont – Murder rate – 1.6*; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Virginia – Murder rate – 3.8*; Death row population: 8 (0 are women); Method: Choice of injection or electrocution; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (VA Code § 18.2-31). Trending: April 8, 2015, in a Roanoke News article, after the exoneration of Earl Washington, Mark Early, former Virginia attorney general stated, “I no longer have such faith in the government and, therefore, cannot and do not support the death penalty.” No executions are currently scheduled in Virginia as of March, 2015. according to Fredericksburg.com OpEd.

Washington – Murder rate – 2.3*; Death row population: 9 (0 are women); Method: Choice of injection or hanging; Death Penalty Crimes: Aggravated first-degree murder.

Wisconsin – Murder rate – 2.8*; [Number of Executions Since 1976 – 0]

Wyoming – Murder rate – 2.9*; Death row population: 1 (0 are women); Method: Injection  or gas if injection is found unconstitutional; Death Penalty Crimes: First-degree murder; murder during the commission of sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, arson, robbery, burglary, escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping, or abuse of a minor under 16. (W.S.A. § 6-2-101(a))

US Military – Murder rate – 4.4*; Death row population: 62 (2 are women); Method: method of state where sentence imposed; Death Penalty Crimes: The U.S. military has its own laws and court system separate from those of the states and the federal government. Trending: According to a June 18, 2012 New Tribune news article, Capital punishment for military crimes is rare, the last military execution took place in 1961 (which gives rise to the question as to the legality and logic of retaining 62 prisoners on death row if there have been no executions in over 50 years).

US Federal Govt. – Murder rate – 0*; Death row population: 6 (0 are women) [Update: As of May 15, 2015, due to the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentencing determination, the death row population is now 7] ; Method: Injection; Death Penalty Crimes: Further research required. Trending: Attorney General Eric Holder is seeking the death penalty in the matter of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,  “Boston Marathon bomber” which may be applied to 17 of 30 counts with which Tsarnaev was found guilty on April 8, 2015, according to a recent Time article published April 25, 2015 and Issues have been raised as to the effect of jury decision and impartiality in the Tsarnaev trial, according a recent New Yorker article.

Below, are a few more interesting articles regarding the death penalty and the Tsarnaev trial…

See, Vanity Fair March 2015 news article discussion regarding the lawyer defending Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Judy Clarke, cruel and unusual punishment and the death penalty in this Federal trial.

See, January 7, 2014 Boston Bar Biz News article regarding the Boston Bar Association’s stand against the death penalty.

See, The Pew Research Center, regarding a wealth of valuable information regarding the death penalty.

**Important Update:  May 15, 2015, as reported in the New York Times, Dzhokar Tsarnaev was given the Death Penalty sentence in the Boston Marathon Bombing Trial.

Enjoy!

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  Her law practice is focused on consumer finance and bankruptcy.  However, Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work.  On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.  To find out more visit,www.attorneykelly.squarespace.comhttp://www.attorneykelly.wordpress.com, or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We can not stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2015 by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

1 Comment

Filed under Constitution, Death Penalty, Law, Legal, Lethal Injection, Trending, Trial