US Law Archives - Page 53 of 71

New Federal Regulation to Put Small Fishermen Out of Business

The Cape Codder: “Changes due next year will put the squeeze on smaller fishermen as Federal Amendment 16 takes effect May 1. According to Dr. David Pierce, deputy director of the Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries, the system is shifting away from a days-at-sea approach toward individual and group catch limits for multi-species groundfish.”

“The big question is who will be left standing?” Pierce told an audience at the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies last Thursday night [Oct. 1] as part of their monthly lecture series. “Far less active fishermen than those standing and teetering now. And those left standing will likely be far better off than they are now. Many fishermen are to be sacrificed. For the greater good, that is the question.”

Criminalizing Everyone: The Orchid Police

Washington Times: “‘You don’t need to know. You can’t know.’ That’s what Kathy Norris, a 60-year-old grandmother of eight, was told when she tried to ask court officials why, the day before, federal agents had subjected her home to a furious search. The agents who spent half a day ransacking Mrs. Norris’ longtime home in Spring, Texas, answered no questions while they emptied file cabinets, pulled books off shelves, rifled through drawers and closets, and threw the contents on the floor. The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with – get this- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

The heavily armed federal agents were searching for Orchids!

See also “Liberty and Hyperbole: Is Orchid Importer George Noris a Good Example of Rampant Criminalization of Innocent Conduct?”

Law Firm’s Debt Collection Review Violated Federal Act

New York Law Journal: “A law firm that mass-produced collection letters and litigation documents violated the federal debt collection act in a matter it filed a decade ago, a federal judge has ruled. In August 2000, [the law firm] sued Arthur Miller, after he failed to respond to a letter . . . [that] gave Miller 30 days to contest a $1,678 balance he owed . . . . In finding the firm liable for violations of §1692(e) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, [the judge said] that the ‘attorney review practices prior to both the issuance of the debt-collection letter . . . and the commencement of legal action were inadequate for [FDCPA] purposes, thus rendering misleading these communications with Miller.’ The decision ‘digs a grave for attorneys’ who send letters and then file suit on behalf of debt buyers with ‘no information, no documents, and no meaningful attorney review,’ said Brian L. Bromberg of the Bromberg Law Office, who has represented Miller for the past eight years.”

Dr. Charged with Medicare Fraud for Overcharging by $22

Yakima Herald-Republic: In 2006 federal prosecutors charged Dr. Rosa Martinez with multiple felonies for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid and improperly prescribing controlled narcotics. She was convicted of eight felony counts, but the judge threw out all of the convictions and ordered a new trial. Because the doctor had run out of money, she was forced to plead guilty to three misdemeanors involving overcharging by $22. She was fined $25 for each of the three misdemeanors. The judge said to the doctor in court:

It’s clear to me you are the type of person who believes the medical practice demands spending time with patients. You seek to provide the best medical treatment for them.

Recently Senator Tom Coburn, one of two physicians in the U.S. Senate, cited studies suggesting that Medicare and Medicaid fraud will cost the government about $100 billion in 2009. Don’t y0u feel better knowing that Uncle Sam is allocating its scarce resources to prosecute diligently the fraudulent doers?

Do the FTC’s New Endorsement/Testimonial Rules Violate 47 USC 230?

Eric Goldman’s article starts, “In reading the FTC’s new rules on endorsements and testimonials in advertisements, I was struck by the FTC’s expansive vision of advertiser liability for third party-caused violations. In particular, the FTC apparently has made the same analytical error that the SEC recently made in the SEC’s proposal to hold securities issuers liable for third party content they link to. In my comments to the SEC, I explained that trying to hold a linker liable for content at the terminus of a link violates 47 USC 230.