Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Understanding the Law: Music as a Business


Are you a musician or involved in the music industry? Do you want to turn it into a business? As much as you love music, it is still a business. Join us on September 4, 2014 at 10 am EST as we discuss Music as a Business.

Joining us will be Rob Malmburg and Mike Winston. Malmburg is the bass player for Code 22 and is highly experienced in planning shows of any size and promotions. Winston is the guitar player for metal band Center of Disease and has skillfully handled business transactions on behalf of his band.

Call in with your questions and comments about turning your passion for music into a business. Our call in number for Thursday, September 4, 2014 is 347-855-8831. We will be live from 10 am EST until 11 am EST. This special episode will be available as a free download!

To listen live, visit utlradio.com and click on the radio. You can subscribe or download to our free podcasts by visiting iTunes or following the instructions through utlradio.com.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Action Taken Against Lawyer Who Sent Email


Regardless of profession, it's important to always remain professional...even if you disagree with a court ruling, a law, or someone's lifestyle. Walter Kubitz, a senior attorney for Becker & Poliakoff was the recipient of "immediate and severe" action because of an email that he sent to firm employees. The email expressed his personal disagreement with same sex marriage.

The email stated that US District Judge Robert Hinkle's decision that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional. Kubitz stated that "there is not a shred of historical evidence that either of those clauses was ever intended to legitimize homosexuality." He also quoted Bible verses in his email.

It is important in any profession that we are careful to observe how we word our responses. In this particular instance, a simple response about how Kubitz believed that the federal court's decision violated state rights would have been sufficient to express his disagreement.

We must also be very careful in how we express our faith in the workplace. We are welcome to have our religious beliefs. However, unless a person is employed by a religious institution then they should probably leave religious overtones out of their emails.

Would you be upset to receive an email, even if it were unintentionally sent to you, if it were full of religious text and disagreed with something pertaining to your job? Let us know.

----------------------------------------------
If you would like more information about this topic or have general legal questions, please feel free to contact me at (973)949-3770 or via email at plamont@peterlamontesq.com We answer legal questions on a daily basis and would be happy to discuss any issues or questions that you have with you.  Offices in: New Jersey New York, Colorado & Puerto Rico.  Affiliated throughout the country.

Monday, August 25, 2014

Georgia Father Files Lawsuit


A father in Georgia filed an interesting lawsuit. Hugh Myers is suing Beulah Elementary School because he was told not to bring his gun with him when dropping off, picking up, or otherwise supervising school based activities that his daughter participates in. The principal allegedly threatened to have Myers arrested.

A law went into effect in Georgia in July allows guns in bars without restrictions, certain government buildings that do not have security or screen visitors, and religious centers with pastoral consent. School districts are able to allow certain employees to carry a firearm onto school grounds under specific conditions.

Myers' attorney, John Monroe, stated that his client is "anxious for it to get resolved so he can begin exercising his right." Myers wants to be allowed to carry a gun at his daughter's school in case there is a confrontation.

Should Hugh Myers be allowed to carry a gun onto school property since the law has changed to allow some school employees to carry? Should a public school be looked at under the new statute as a government building instead of only as a school?

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Man Discovers Roommates are Fugitives


How well do you think you really know your roommates? It's a legal story that will have people second guessing their choice in roommates. A man in South Carolina watched the evening news and discovered that his roommates were fugitives. After the news, he called the police and told them about his roommates.

The man's roommates, 21 year old Kyle Huthmaker and 20 year old Jennifer Jadick, were arrested last Thursday on a charge of larceny. Charleston police found $3,000 worth of stolen items in their home earlier in the month. The fugitives were in the apartment and sitting on the couch when police entered the apartment. The two were placed in custody without incident. The items were reportedly taken during a burglary. Among the stolen items were a 60" television,an X-Box, a surf board, a tablet, and a cell phone.

Huthmaker was charged with receiving stolen goods. Jadick was charged with property crime enhancement.  Whether or not Huthmaker's charge will be considered a felony will depend on how much the goods are deemed to be worth. Property crime enhancement can be as minor as throwing trash on the ground. Whether or not Jadick will face a felony charge will depend on if she has previously had this type of charge. A third charge of property crime enhancements can bring up to ten years in prison and is a felony in the state of South Carolina.

Friday, August 22, 2014

Facebook and Litigation


If you are involved in any form of litigation, Facebook can be your friend and your enemy. It can be used to find information on the other party. The bad news is that to the other person, you are the other party. Here are some Facebook tips for use during litigation.


  1. Do not add people that you do not know to Facebook. Facebook is great for meeting new people and reconnecting with old friends. Unfortunately, you need to realize that things on your Facebook page can be offered as potential evidence. It's important that you know exactly who is on your friends list. Remove people associated or possibly associated with the other party. 
  2. Realize that Facebook is a public forum. Facebook is a free and public forum. It's even considered public if you lock your account down. The Internet is a public forum and when we post things for people to see, we don't have as much privacy as we would like to think. Facebook's Terms of Service will tell you that. 
  3. Do not talk about your legal situation. Facebook should not be used to discuss your legal case. Again, it is a public forum. Do not discuss your legal strategies or what your attorney suggested as a course of action. Do not bad mouth the other party. Do not discuss things that experts have said regarding your case. Exercise your Fifth Amendment right to silence. 
  4. Do not correspond or try to send friend requests to others involved in the case. This can include other attorneys, witnesses, and the judge. If you are contacted by any of those individuals, then let your attorney know ASAP. 
  5. Do not disparage the other party or people involved. This ties directly in to number two and number three. It's a frustrating time, but Facebook should not be the place where you air your frustrations.
  6. Turn your settings to friends only. Go under your Facebook settings and turn off anything that can be seen by the public. This includes photos, statuses, wall postings, and your personal information. Do not make it easy for the other side to find out what is posted on your profile. You may consider disabling your profile until after the case.
  7. Turn on approved tagging. Go under settings and make use of the option of approving anything that you are tagged in or that is posted on your wall. Take down any photos of you that you would not want seen by a court. 
  8. Take down inflammatory photos. It doesn't matter if the photos relate directly to the case or not. Take down any photos that you are tagged in or that are on your account that include participating in anything illegal. Do not upload photos of that nature. Anything you put on the Internet will remain forever. Just Google your name and click images. You may be surprised at the things you see. 
----------------------------------------------
If you would like more information about this topic or have general legal questions, please feel free to contact me at (973)949-3770 or via email at plamont@peterlamontesq.com We answer legal questions on a daily basis and would be happy to discuss any issues or questions that you have with you.  Offices in: New Jersey New York, Colorado & Puerto Rico.  Affiliated throughout the country.



Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Videotaping the Police

In light of the recent and disheartening events of Ferguson, Missouri The Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont felt it was important to remind you of the following:

It is not illegal to videotape or take photos of the police. Here is an informative video uploaded to our YouTube channel regarding this very subject.


It is also important to reiterate that if you are involved in a protest or any sort of environment that may erupt in an altercation that you take appropriate measures to keep yourself safe and out of harm's way.

You have the right to ask if you are free to go or if you are being detained by law enforcement. Please remember that you do have rights. Please make sure that you know and understand your rights.

This post is not to be seen as an opinion on whether or not the actions taken in Ferguson were justified. It is simply an informative post about one's rights when dealing with law enforcement. If you have questions, please contact our office or the office of a trusted and licensed attorney in your area. Please take a moment and share this post through social media. You never know who you may help by doing so!

___________________________
If you would like more information about this topic or have general legal questions, please feel free to contact me at (973)949-3770 or via email at plamont@peterlamontesq.com We answer legal questions on a daily basis and would be happy to discuss any issues or questions that you have with you.  Offices in: New Jersey New York, Colorado & Puerto Rico.  Affiliated throughout the country.

© 2014, Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between the firm and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Miss Legal Week in Review?

Did you miss Legal Week in Review? If so, you missed finding out about the maternity suit filed against Beyonce and Jay-Z, a judgment against OJ Simpson that is for sale, and a beauty queen who cheated the worker's comp system. Intrigued? You can download yesterday's legal podcast by clicking here.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Judge: College Athletes Can Be Paid for Use of Their Image



The NCAA's ban on payments to college athletes for use of their names and images is deemed an antitrust violation by a federal judge. US District Judge Claudia Wilkin ruled that the NCAA can cap the payments at no less than $5,000.00 for each year the student is academically eligible to play. Colleges can pay less than the top amount or pay nothing, but they cannot conspire to setting amounts. They money can be placed in trust funds. The NCAA plans to appeal.

In a nutshell, antitrust laws are set at federal and state level. They strive to stop business practices that unreasonably deprive consumers of the benefits of competition. The less competition there is for a product, the more expensive that the particular product or service will be for consumers.

Should college athletes be paid for the use of their likeness? College is expensive. Do you think there should be a cap? Join in to our conversation!

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Judge Judy Settles Lawsuit


Judy Sheindlin recently settled what she called the first lawsuit she had ever filed in her 50 year career. Judge Judy, as she is better known, recently sued a Connecticut personal injury lawyer for using her image without her permission.

Hartford attorney John Haymond filed a counterclaim that Judge Judy had defamed him. We discussed defamation not long ago. Remember that to be successful with this claim, the person making it must be able to prove an actual monetary loss as a result. Do you think Haymond suffered losses or is even "bad publicity" good publicity in this instance?

Sheindlin released a statement that the two "reached an amicable resolution" to their mutual claims. The details of the settlement were not released. Many lawsuits never see the court room. Most are settled outside of court. Do you think that Judge Judy suffered a loss from the unauthorized use of her image?

___________________________
If you would like more information about this topic or have general legal questions, please feel free to contact me at (973)949-3770 or via email at plamont@peterlamontesq.com We answer legal questions on a daily basis and would be happy to discuss any issues or questions that you have with you.  Offices in: New Jersey New York, Colorado & Puerto Rico.  Affiliated throughout the country.

© 2014, Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between the firm and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

As Seen on TV: Coming Soon to a NJ Court Near You

It won't just be Wal-Mart and other retail outlets. You may soon find Fairfield, New Jersey based Telebrands in a court room near you. Telebrands is facing multiple violations of the NJ Consumer Fraud Act.

It is alleged that the company uses aggressive methods to push more expensive products, shipping, and bills for products that were not ordered. They also face the allegation of misleading advertising. Five counts were filed in the Superior Court of Essex County.

Since 2012, the Division of Consumer Affairs received more than 340 complaints about Telebrands and its business methods.

Attorney General John Hoffman stated, "As demonstrated by its alleged actions, Telebrands cannot be trusted to do right by its customers or to even honor its own 2001 pledge to follow our consumer protection laws. We are bringing this action to end the abusive business practices that Telebrands allegedly is inflicting upon consumers."

Violations of the NJ Consumer Fraud Act can cause treble damages. That means if someone has a monetary damage of $100.00, they will receive three times that amount. They can also receive attorney compensation as well.
-----

If you would like more information about this topic or have general legal questions, please feel free to contact me at (973)949-3770 or via email at plamont@peterlamontesq.com We answer legal questions on a daily basis and would be happy to discuss any issues or questions that you have with you.  Offices in: New Jersey New York, Colorado & Puerto Rico.  Affiliated throughout the country.

© 2014, Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between the firm and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...