Copyright 2006 Stellar Force

When you have an earth shaking idea, you want to protect it.  The reason, of course, is you want to reap the financial rewards from the idea that you came up with.

Money Barriers

There are 4 barriers that you must get through to get to the money on the other side:

1. Is your idea original with you?  Often, what you think is your original idea, was actually patented previously.  To answer this question, you need to perform a patent search. A good patent search will define what has been patented, that is related to your invention.  It can also help you decide how to position your patent between the patents already issued or pending in your subject area.

2. Can you afford the cost of a patent attorney to prepare the patent for you?  If you can't afford the $10,000-$20,000 that a patent attorney will charge to do the whole job, you can do much of the process yourself and save money.  However, there are parts of the patent that are essential for a patent attorney to perform.  The most important of these are the claims. If the claims are not correctly done, then the patent will likely not be defendable. Strong patents are worth much more money!

3. You must pay the patent office fees for you invention submission.  The government fees are something that you can't get around.  Now the waiting begins.  It may take up to 2 years before your patent is actually issued.  Part of the delay, may be requirements for adjustments to the filed patent by some whimsical patent agent.  You must be prepared to make the necessary adjustments that are requested by the patent office.  If you don't respond to their requests in a timely manner, your patent application will be considered abandoned.  At least you now have patent pending status.

4. Is your patent commercially feasible?  What if you have spent your money and your time to get a patent, and no one feels it is valuable?  A little market research before you begin the invention submission patent process is a very good idea.  A few questions that you might want to ask are: "What is the demand for your product?"  "Are the other products out there that can do the same thing?"  "Can it be sold for a price that will yield a satisfactory profit after costs?"

If you really have faith in your revolutionary idea, then it may be worth exploring whether it will be able to cross the above barriers.  The cost that you incur to overcome each of these barriers is your bet that your patent will be a financial success.  Your submission of your invention to the patent office may just be your ticket to financial security!

Job Employment Agencies


Environmental Protection And Conservation


Animal Shelters Finder, Grooming

A typical scenario: you're a litigator or trial attorney preparing a case and you have a number of witnesses to depose, so you pick up the phone to call your trusty court reporter to arrange the depositions … but have you considered the advantages of using a videographer at the same time?  There are many reasons to a video record a deposition:

1.  If a key witness cannot attend a trial, a videotaped deposition can often be the next best thing.  The judge and jury are not only able to listen to the witness (deponent), but also see the deponent at the same time.  They can pick up on nonverbal communication that would often be critical on the stand: body language, hesitancy, vocal inflections, demeanor, volume, etc.  None of these cues are available in a standard transcribed deposition. 

2.  Expert witnesses are often ideal candidates for video depositions.  Because they are used to acting as experts, they generally know the right things to say, project an air of intelligence, are usually predictable, and are excellent at following lines of questioning.  A good expert can convey an authority that surpasses the written transcript of a deposition. 

3.  Expert witnesses can be expensive to call to testify in person.  A video recorded deposition is often the best alternative.  It's cheaper, and the power of the witness is preserved because the demeanor and speech of the subject is on full display for the jury.
 
4.  Under the right circumstances, using a video deposition to present background and foundational testimony improves the flow of evidence, eliminates calling witnesses out of order, and improves clarity to the jury.

5.  Video depositions are more "interesting" to jury members.  Juries are used to watching TV (who isn't?), therefore they pay great attention to TV.  Oddly enough, sometimes seeing it "on TV" is more real than if the deponent were actually in the courtroom. 

6.  Video depositions can now be easily "synched" to CD or DVD and called up in the courtroom on the attorney's computer.  Because the testimony is digital, any moment of the deposition can be instantly accessed and projected in the courtroom, no need to fast-forward tediously through a VHS tape like in the old days.  And if the witness contradicts himself in court, the original deposition can be easily retrieved and used to discredit the new testimony. 

7.  Sometimes a particularly incriminating video deposition can precipitate a settlement.  If the witness is particularly hostile or rude or invokes Fifth Amendment rights over and over, the plaintiff's attorney can be in an overwhelming position of strength and can negotiate a settlement before trial. 
 
8.  Studies show that jury members retain information up to six times longer when seeing witnesses and hearing them speak, rather than merely hearing a transcript read in court. As the expression goes, "Seeing is believing."
 
9.  The opposing attorney may use video in court, causing you to appear "out of date" and out of touch with current technology.  To be competitive, you need to use an arsenal of modern weapons in the courtroom.  With today's technology, a video deposition is merely one of these advanced video weapons.

As you can see, a video deposition can be a powerful tool in the courtroom and offers many advantages to transcribed depositions.  Consider booking a videographer at the same time you schedule your deposition.  You just may be glad you did.

Sterling Heights Michigan


McAllen Texas Yellow Pages


Coral Springs Florida Business Directory

Although consular officers cannot serve as attorneys or give legal advice, they can provide a list of local attorneys and help you find legal representation. However, neither the Department of State nor the U.S. Consulate can assume any responsibility for the caliber, competence, or professional integrity of these attorneys.

A consular officer will do whatever he/she can to protect your legitimate interests and ensure that you are not discriminated against under local law. A consular officer cannot release prisoners, provide guarantees of their comportment, or provide funds for bail. If you are arrested, immediately ask that a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy be notified. If you are turned down, keep asking--politely, but persistently. If unsuccessful, try to have someone get in touch with us on your behalf.

Upon learning of your arrest, a U.S. Consular Officer will visit you, provide a list of local attorneys, inform the Department of State of your arrest and, if requested, contact family or friends in the U.S. or elsewhere. Consuls can help you transfer money, food, and clothing from your family and friends. They will also try to get relief if you are held under inhumane or unhealthful conditions or are treated less equitably than others in the same situation.

Online Driving School


Title Company Escrow


Discount Pharmacies

Most of us take summonses for jury duty seriously, but enough people skip out on their civic duty that a new ominous scam has surfaced in the last several years.  This new “jury duty” scam is the latest in a series of identity theft “phishing schemes”.  Fall for it, and whammo, your identity has been stolen.

The first jury duty scam was reported in upper New York State in 2001.  Since then it’s been reported in at least 13 additional states, including Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, California, Maryland, Illinois, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington State.

This ‘jury duty’ scheme might best be categorized as a “social engineering” scam and works something like this:

Con artists contact people by phone to assert that those they’ve targeted have evaded jury duty and warrants are being issued for their arrest.  When the victims rightly protest that they’ve never received such jury duty notification, the scammer goes after what he really wants, (for verification purposes only, of course) which is his pigeons’ personal and financial information.  Under threat of being hauled off to jail unless they succeed in straightening out this terrible mess, many people, (who would otherwise be more wary about what they reveal of their personal data), will find themselves reeling off their birth dates, social security and credit card numbers in an effort to convince their callers that the notification had never arrived, or were never meant for them in the first place.  

It’s easy to see how this might work.  The victims are clearly caught off guard, and are understandably upset at the prospect of an arrest warrant being issued.  It preys upon people’s general unquestioning acceptance of authority and willingness to cooperate in order to extract from them sensitive information.

How to Avoid Falling Victim to ‘Jury Duty’ Scams:
Be assured that court workers will very rarely, if ever, telephone to say you’ve missed jury duty, or that they are assembling juries and need to pre-screen those who might be selected to serve on them. So dismiss as fraudulent any phone calls of this nature.  Keep in mind that about the only time you would ever hear, by telephone (rather than by mail), anything having to do with jury service, would be after you’ve mailed back your completed questionnaire, and even then only rarely.

This latest scam reinforces, once again, that you should never give out bank account, social security, or credit card numbers over the phone if you didn’t initiate the call ~ whether it be to someone trying to sell you something or to someone who claims to be from a bank or government department.  If such callers insist upon “verifying” such information with you, have them read the data to you from their notes, with you verifying it, rather than the other way around.

And a word to the wise ~ Carefully examine your credit card and bank account statements every month, keeping an eye peeled for unauthorized charges.  If you notice anything you didn’t approve, challenge it immediately!

DL Consultants, LLC
http://www.VigilanceandSecurity.com

Elk Grove California


Sunnyvale California Yellow Pages


Savannah Georgia Business Directory

I. Practical Considerations

The problem of the "ticking bomb" - rediscovered after September 11 by Alan Dershowitz, a renowned criminal defense lawyer in the United States - is old hat. Should physical torture be applied - where psychological strain has failed - in order to discover the whereabouts of a ticking bomb and thus prevent a mass slaughter of the innocent? This apparent ethical dilemma has been confronted by ethicists and jurists from Great Britain to Israel.

Nor is Dershowitz's proposal to have the courts issue "torture warrants" (Los Angeles Times, November 8, 2001) unprecedented. In a controversial decision in 1996, the Supreme Court of Israel permitted its internal security forces to apply "moderate physical pressure" during the interrogation of suspects.

It has thus fully embraced the recommendation of the 1987 Landau Commission, presided over by a former Supreme Court judge. This blanket absolution was repealed in 1999 when widespread abuses against Palestinian detainees were unearthed by human rights organizations.

Indeed, this juridical reversal - in the face of growing suicidal terrorism - demonstrates how slippery the ethical slope can be. What started off as permission to apply mild torture in extreme cases avalanched into an all-pervasive and pernicious practice. This lesson - that torture is habit-forming and metastasizes incontrollably throughout the system - is the most powerful - perhaps the only - argument against it.

As Harvey Silverglate argued in his rebuttal of Dershowitz's aforementioned op-ed piece:

"Institutionalizing torture will give it society’s imprimatur, lending it a degree of respectability. It will then be virtually impossible to curb not only the increasing frequency with which warrants will be sought - and granted - but also the inevitable rise in unauthorized use of torture. Unauthorized torture will increase not only to extract life-saving information, but also to obtain confessions (many of which will then prove false). It will also be used to punish real or imagined infractions, or for no reason other than human sadism. This is a genie we should not let out of the bottle."

Alas, these are weak contentions.

That something has the potential to be widely abused - and has been and is being widely misused - should not inevitably lead to its utter, universal, and unconditional proscription. Guns, cars, knives, and books have always been put to vile ends. Nowhere did this lead to their complete interdiction.

Moreover, torture is erroneously perceived by liberals as a kind of punishment. Suspects - innocent until proven guilty - indeed should not be subject to penalty. But torture is merely an interrogation technique. Ethically, it is no different to any other pre-trial process: shackling, detention, questioning, or bad press. Inevitably, the very act of suspecting someone is traumatic and bound to inflict pain and suffering - psychological, pecuniary, and physical - on the suspect.

True, torture is bound to yield false confessions and wrong information, Seneca claimed that it "forces even the innocent to lie". St. Augustine expounded on the moral deplorability of torture thus: “If the accused be innocent, he will undergo for an uncertain crime a certain punishment, and that not for having committed a crime, but because it is unknown whether he committed it."

But the same can be said about other, less corporeal, methods of interrogation. Moreover, the flip side of ill-gotten admissions is specious denials of guilt. Criminals regularly disown their misdeeds and thus evade their penal consequences. The very threat of torture is bound to limit this miscarriage of justice. Judges and juries can always decide what confessions are involuntary and were extracted under duress.

Thus, if there was a way to ensure that non-lethal torture is narrowly defined, applied solely to extract time-critical information in accordance with a strict set of rules and specifications, determined openly and revised frequently by an accountable public body; that abusers are severely punished and instantly removed; that the tortured have recourse to the judicial system and to medical attention at any time - then the procedure would have been ethically justified in rare cases if carried out by the authorities.

In Israel, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the state to apply 'moderate physical pressure' to suspects in ticking bomb cases. It retained the right of appeal and review. A public committee established guidelines for state-sanctioned torture and, as a result, the incidence of rabid and rampant mistreatment has declined. Still, Israel's legal apparatus is flimsy, biased and inadequate. It should be augmented with a public - even international - review board and a rigorous appeal procedure.

This proviso - "if carried out by the authorities" - is crucial.

The sovereign has rights denied the individual, or any subset of society. It can judicially kill with impunity. Its organs - the police, the military - can exercise violence. It is allowed to conceal information, possess illicit or dangerous substances, deploy arms, invade one's bodily integrity, or confiscate property. To permit the sovereign to torture while forbidding individuals, or organizations from doing so would, therefore, not be without precedent, or inconsistent.

Alan Dershowitz expounds:

"(In the United States) any interrogation technique, including the use of truth serum or even torture, is not prohibited. All that is prohibited is the introduction into evidence of the fruits of such techniques in a criminal trial against the person on whom the techniques were used. But the evidence could be used against that suspect in a non-criminal case - such as a deportation hearing - or against someone else."

When the unspeakable horrors of the Nazi concentration camps were revealed, C.S. Lewis wrote, in quite desperation:

"What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had no notion of what we mean by Right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, paperback edition, 1952).

But legal torture should never be directed at innocent civilians based on arbitrary criteria such as their race or religion. If this principle is observed, torture would not reflect on the moral standing of the state. Identical acts are considered morally sound when carried out by the realm - and condemnable when discharged by individuals. Consider the denial of freedom. It is lawful incarceration at the hands of the republic - but kidnapping if effected by terrorists.

Nor is torture, as "The Economist" misguidedly claims, a taboo.

According to the 2002 edition of the "Encyclopedia Britannica", taboos are "the prohibition of an action or the use of an object based on ritualistic distinctions of them either as being sacred and consecrated or as being dangerous, unclean, and accursed." Evidently, none of this applies to torture. On the contrary, torture - as opposed, for instance, to incest - is a universal, state-sanctioned behavior.

Amnesty International - who should know better - professed to have been shocked by the results of their own surveys:

"In preparing for its third international campaign to stop torture, Amnesty International conducted a survey of its research files on 195 countries and territories. The survey covered the period from the beginning of 1997 to mid-2000. Information on torture is usually concealed, and reports of torture are often hard to document, so the figures almost certainly underestimate its extent. The statistics are shocking. There were reports of torture or ill-treatment by state officials in more than 150 countries. In more than 70, they were widespread or persistent. In more than 80 countries, people reportedly died as a result."

Countries and regimes abstain from torture - or, more often, claim to do so - because such overt abstention is expedient. It is a form of global political correctness, a policy choice intended to demonstrate common values and to extract concessions or benefits from others. Giving up this efficient weapon in the law enforcement arsenal even in Damoclean circumstances is often rewarded with foreign direct investment, military aid, and other forms of support.

But such ethical magnanimity is a luxury in times of war, or when faced with a threat to innocent life. Even the courts of the most liberal societies sanctioned atrocities in extraordinary circumstances. Here the law conforms both with common sense and with formal, utilitarian, ethics.

II. Ethical Considerations

Rights - whether moral or legal - impose obligations or duties on third parties towards the right-holder. One has a right AGAINST other people and thus can prescribe to them certain obligatory behaviors and proscribe certain acts or omissions. Rights and duties are two sides of the same Janus-like ethical coin.

This duality confuses people. They often erroneously identify rights with their attendant duties or obligations, with the morally decent, or even with the morally permissible. One's rights inform other people how they MUST behave towards one - not how they SHOULD, or OUGHT to act morally. Moral behavior is not dependent on the existence of a right. Obligations are.

To complicate matters further, many apparently simple and straightforward rights are amalgams of more basic moral or legal principles. To treat such rights as unities is to mistreat them.

Take the right not to be tortured. It is a compendium of many distinct rights, among them: the right to bodily and mental integrity, the right to avoid self-incrimination, the right not to be pained, or killed, the right to save one's life (wrongly reduced merely to the right to self-defense), the right to prolong one's life (e.g., by receiving medical attention), and the right not to be forced to lie under duress.

None of these rights is self-evident, or unambiguous, or universal, or immutable, or automatically applicable. It is safe to say, therefore, that these rights are not primary - but derivative, nonessential, or mere "wants".

Moreover, the fact that the torturer also has rights whose violation may justify torture is often overlooked.

Consider these two, for instance:

The Rights of Third Parties against the Tortured

What is just and what is unjust is determined by an ethical calculus, or a social contract - both in constant flux. Still, it is commonly agreed that every person has the right not to be tortured, or killed unjustly.

Yet, even if we find an Archimedean immutable point of moral reference - does A's right not to be tortured, let alone killed, mean that third parties are to refrain from enforcing the rights of other people against A?

What if the only way to right wrongs committed, or about to be committed by A against others - was to torture, or kill A? There is a moral obligation to right wrongs by restoring, or safeguarding the rights of those wronged, or about to be wronged by A.

If the defiant silence - or even the mere existence - of A are predicated on the repeated and continuous violation of the rights of others (especially their right to live), and if these people object to such violation - then A must be tortured, or killed if that is the only way to right the wrong and re-assert the rights of A's victims.

This, ironically, is the argument used by liberals to justify abortion when the fetus (in the role of A) threatens his mother's rights to health and life.

The Right to Save One's Own Life

One has a right to save one's life by exercising self-defense or otherwise, by taking certain actions, or by avoiding them. Judaism - as well as other religious, moral, and legal systems - accepts that one has the right to kill a pursuer who knowingly and intentionally is bent on taking one's life. Hunting down Osama bin-Laden in the wilds of Afghanistan is, therefore, morally acceptable (though not morally mandatory). So is torturing his minions.

When there is a clash between equally potent rights - for instance, the conflicting rights to life of two people - we can decide among them randomly (by flipping a coin, or casting dice). Alternatively, we can add and subtract rights in a somewhat macabre arithmetic. The right to life definitely prevails over the right to comfort, bodily integrity, absence of pain and so on. Where life is at stake, non-lethal torture is justified by any ethical calculus.

Utilitarianism - a form of crass moral calculus - calls for the maximization of utility (life, happiness, pleasure). The lives, happiness, or pleasure of the many outweigh the life, happiness, or pleasure of the few. If by killing or torturing the few we (a) save the lives of the many (b) the combined life expectancy of the many is longer than the combined life expectancy of the few and (c) there is no other way to save the lives of the many - it is morally permissible to kill, or torture the few.

III. The Social Treaty

There is no way to enforce certain rights without infringing on others. The calculus of ethics relies on implicit and explicit quantitative and qualitative hierarchies. The rights of the many outweigh certain rights of the few. Higher-level rights - such as the right to life - override rights of a lower order.

The rights of individuals are not absolute but "prima facie". They are restricted both by the rights of others and by the common interest. They are inextricably connected to duties towards other individuals in particular and the community in general. In other words, though not dependent on idiosyncratic cultural and social contexts, they are an integral part of a social covenant.

It can be argued that a suspect has excluded himself from the social treaty by refusing to uphold the rights of others - for instance, by declining to collaborate with law enforcement agencies in forestalling an imminent disaster. Such inaction amounts to the abrogation of many of one's rights (for instance, the right to be free). Why not apply this abrogation to his or her right not to be tortured?

Home Renovation Construction


Dermatology Md


National Pawn Brokers

Before you can make a decision as to whether or not you should hire a personal injury attorney / lawyer, you first have to know what a personal injury case is.

Most people think that a personal injury claim is a car or motor vehicle accident claim. While an injury sustained in an automobile accident where another was at fault would be a personal injury claim, there are many other matters that also fall under that heading.

A personal injury attorney / lawyer handles matters where there has been a personal injury, either physical or emotional, which was caused by the negligence of another. If there was no negligence then there is no case. There must be negligence, whether intentional or unintentional, on the part of another, for a claim to be valid. In other words, you would have trouble making a case against your landlord, where you spilled water on your kitchen floor and then slipped and fell because of the water. However, if the landlord had failed to fix the plumbing under your sink and the water was on the floor because of leaky plumbing then you may, I say may, have a case. There are other variables that could come into play and you would need to seek the advice of a good personal injury attorney, in order to determin your rights.

There are many matters other than car accident matters that can many times be included under personal injury, IE: slips and falls, workplace accidents (after a workplace accident you may be covered under workers compensation or disability but you may also have a personal injury claim), injuries caused during a storm or power outage, airplane, bus and train crashes, construction accidents, fires, food poisoning, drug or vitamin overdoses, animal bites, getting beat up, robbed or otherwise injured inside or outside of a business, medical malpractice and even malpractice by an attorney.

There are many variables that can come into play in determining negligence and many times you may think that there was no negligence on the part of anyone when there actually was. I myself, know of a case where a party was struck by a car while riding a motorcycle and injured severely. He settled with the driver and the driver's insurance company for the $100,000.00 maximum of the driver's insurance policy. This settlement did not even begin to cover his medical bills. Some time later, a personal injury attorney, while speaking with a member of the injured party's family, found about the case and was asked to look into it for the family. The injured party was broke and paralyzed. The attorney did some checking and then agreed that, even though the man had accepted the settlement, there might still be a case. He then hired my detective agency and another to do further research. Finally, he filed a law suit against the car driver, the drivers insurance company, the motorcycle manufacturer and others. I won't go into the whole case, but suffice it to say that he went to trial and ended up obtaining a verdict against several of the parties, including the drivers insurance company and the motorcycle manufacturer, for several million dollars and the injured party is no longer broke. I might add that the attorney took the case on contingency and advanced, out of his own pocket, all of the expenses including court costs and investigation fees.

The point of the foregoing is that if you have been injured, you should seek the advice of a competent personal injury attorney even if you don't think that there is anyone at fault. Only a good experienced personal injury attorney can attempt to make that determination.

Fort Collins Colorado


Fullerton California Yellow Pages


Mesquite Texas Business Directory

If ever you find yourself in a situation where a law officer takes you into custody then you must realize that you have been arrested.  It is important for every citizen to know what it means to be arrested and what their rights are.

If you are arrested, the officer concerned will take you to a police station, jail, or any other detention facility. Then you will be permitted to contact your attorney. They will in accordance with the law be obliged to tell you why you have been arrested.

Always ensure that your attorney is present when they photograph, you or take fingerprints of you, and if you are going to be produced before a magistrate for the official filing of charges. Be aware that you may be asked to participate in a line up, asked to give a sample of your handwriting, or provide samples of hair, blood, or urine.

If questioned you have a legal right to remain silent as anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. It is important for you to consult with your attorney before answering any questions and if you cannot afford an attorney the court will provide you with one.

When you are taken into custody the police will take your money and possessions like a watch, bracelet, or chain from you for safekeeping. You will receive a copy of the inventory and all things will be returned on your release.

Depending on the reason for arrest you may or may not be released on bail. Release on bail means your depositing cash or bail bond in court as a security against your release along with an assurance that you will appear in court when summoned. If you have a good standing in the community then the magistrate may reduce the bail or even waive it.

The thing to do is to stay clam, do not panic, and be polite and respectful towards the police officers and magistrates. Answer questions to the point. Try and remember what the arresting officers looked like, their badge numbers, license plate details and so on. Write things down as soon as you get a moment. You will benefit if there are bystanders watching. So encourage people to be present. Never act defiant or threaten about filing complaints.

Never issue statements in the belief that if you cooperate they will let you go. Always ensure that you think before you speak and that too in the presence of your attorney. In case you are arrested in a foreign country ask to contact your consulate or embassy immediately. Never sign any forms or documents until they are vetted by a competent attorney.   

Never resist arrest even if you are innocent. Immediately provide your name, address, telephone number, immediate family contact details and the name of your employer. These will be essential to get bail. 

Keep your wits about you and things will go well.

Leasing A Car


Condo Apartment For Rent


Mens Clothing Stores

A. Living Trusts

As you know, a living trust is a legal arrangement where a person, called the "grantor," places his assets into a trust during his lifetime. The trust is administered by a "trustee" for the benefit of the trust's beneficiaries. The grantor may be a trustee and a beneficiary of the trust. Living trusts are a widely recognized and legitimate estate planning device. Because assets transferred to the trust are no longer owned by the grantor, at the grantor's death, the assets are not part of the grantor's estate and do not have to be probated. Accordingly, a living trust can avoid what could be a costly, lengthy process. Whether or not this is a major advantage varies by the size of the estate and by state and locality; for small estates, many states have an informal probate process that minimizes cost and delay. Whether a living trust is an appropriate estate planning tool depends upon an individual's circumstances and goals, and state laws.

B. Scams Involving Living Trusts

Misinformation and misunderstanding about probate and estate taxes provide a ripe environment for scam artists to prey on older consumers' fears that their estates will be eaten up by costs, and that distribution of their assets to loved ones will be long delayed. Some unscrupulous businesses advertise seminars on living trusts or send postcards inviting consumers to call for in-home appointments, ostensibly to learn whether a living trust is right for them. A common practice is to greatly exaggerate the benefits of living trusts and falsely claim that locally-licensed attorneys will prepare the documents. In some instances, consumers send money for living trust kits but receive nothing. In others, the offer of estate planning services is merely a ruse to gain access to consumers' financial information and to sell them other financial products, such as insurance annuities. These practices may violate federal securities laws, as well as other laws.

Many state Attorneys General and other authorities, such as disciplinary or grievance committees of state or city bar associations, have taken enforcement actions against living trust scam artists. Some cases have been brought under state Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices laws. Others have been prosecuted as the unauthorized practice of law because the salespeople were not lawyers. Even in instances where there may be some attorney review, it may be insufficient to render the activity legal. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also has prosecuted companies purporting to offer estate planning services, such as living trusts, for violating the securities laws through fraudulent investment schemes targeting senior citizens.

Escondido California


Orange California Yellow Pages


Warren Michigan Business Directory

I. The Insanity Defense

"It is an ill thing to knock against a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. He that wounds them is culpable, but if they wound him they are not culpable." (Mishna, Babylonian Talmud)

If mental illness is culture-dependent and mostly serves as an organizing social principle - what should we make of the insanity defense (NGRI- Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity)?

A person is held not responsible for his criminal actions if s/he cannot tell right from wrong ("lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct" - diminished capacity), did not intend to act the way he did (absent "mens rea") and/or could not control his behavior ("irresistible impulse"). These handicaps are often associated with "mental disease or defect" or "mental retardation".

Mental health professionals prefer to talk about an impairment of a "person's perception or understanding of reality". They hold a "guilty but mentally ill" verdict to be contradiction in terms. All "mentally-ill" people operate within a (usually coherent) worldview, with consistent internal logic, and rules of right and wrong (ethics). Yet, these rarely conform to the way most people perceive the world. The mentally-ill, therefore, cannot be guilty because s/he has a tenuous grasp on reality.

Yet, experience teaches us that a criminal maybe mentally ill even as s/he maintains a perfect reality test and thus is held criminally responsible (Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind). The "perception and understanding of reality", in other words, can and does co-exist even with the severest forms of mental illness.

This makes it even more difficult to comprehend what is meant by "mental disease". If some mentally ill maintain a grasp on reality, know right from wrong, can anticipate the outcomes of their actions, are not subject to irresistible impulses (the official position of the American Psychiatric Association) - in what way do they differ from us, "normal" folks?

This is why the insanity defense often sits ill with mental health pathologies deemed socially "acceptable" and "normal"  - such as religion or love.

Consider the following case:

A mother bashes the skulls of her three sons. Two of them die. She claims to have acted on instructions she had received from God. She is found not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury determined that she "did not know right from wrong during the killings."

But why exactly was she judged insane?

Her belief in the existence of God - a being with inordinate and inhuman attributes - may be irrational.

But it does not constitute insanity in the strictest sense because it conforms to social and cultural creeds and codes of conduct in her milieu. Billions of people faithfully subscribe to the same ideas, adhere to the same transcendental rules, observe the same mystical rituals, and claim to go through the same experiences. This shared psychosis is so widespread that it can no longer be deemed pathological, statistically speaking.

She claimed that God has spoken to her.

As do numerous other people. Behavior that is considered psychotic (paranoid-schizophrenic) in other contexts is lauded and admired in religious circles. Hearing voices and seeing visions - auditory and visual delusions - are considered rank manifestations of righteousness and sanctity.

Perhaps it was the content of her hallucinations that proved her insane?

She claimed that God had instructed her to kill her boys. Surely, God would not ordain such evil?

Alas, the Old and New Testaments both contain examples of God's appetite for human sacrifice. Abraham was ordered by God to sacrifice Isaac, his beloved son (though this savage command was rescinded at the last moment). Jesus, the son of God himself, was crucified to atone for the sins of humanity.

A divine injunction to slay one's offspring would sit well with the Holy Scriptures and the Apocrypha as well as with millennia-old Judeo-Christian traditions of martyrdom and sacrifice.

Her actions were wrong and incommensurate with both human and divine (or natural) laws.

Yes, but they were perfectly in accord with a literal interpretation of certain divinely-inspired texts, millennial scriptures, apocalyptic thought systems, and fundamentalist religious ideologies (such as the ones espousing the imminence of "rapture"). Unless one declares these doctrines and writings insane, her actions are not.

we are forced to the conclusion that the murderous mother is perfectly sane. Her frame of reference is different to ours. Hence, her definitions of right and wrong are idiosyncratic. To her, killing her babies was the right thing to do and in conformity with valued teachings and her own epiphany. Her grasp of reality - the immediate and later consequences of her actions - was never impaired.

It would seem that sanity and insanity are relative terms, dependent on frames of cultural and social reference, and statistically defined. There isn't - and, in principle, can never emerge - an "objective", medical, scientific test to determine mental health or disease unequivocally.

II. The Concept of Mental Disease - An Overview

Someone is considered mentally "ill" if:

His conduct rigidly and consistently deviates from the typical, average behaviour of all other people in his culture and society that fit his profile (whether this conventional behaviour is moral or rational is immaterial), or

His judgment and grasp of objective, physical reality is impaired, and

His conduct is not a matter of choice but is innate and irresistible, and

His behavior causes him or others discomfort, and is

Dysfunctional, self-defeating, and self-destructive even by his own yardsticks.

Descriptive criteria aside, what is the essence of mental disorders? Are they merely physiological disorders of the brain, or, more precisely of its chemistry? If so, can they be cured by restoring the balance of substances and secretions in that mysterious organ? And, once equilibrium is reinstated – is the illness "gone" or is it still lurking there, "under wraps", waiting to erupt? Are psychiatric problems inherited, rooted in faulty genes (though amplified by environmental factors) – or brought on by abusive or wrong nurturance?

These questions are the domain of the "medical" school of mental health.

Others cling to the spiritual view of the human psyche. They believe that mental ailments amount to the metaphysical discomposure of an unknown medium – the soul. Theirs is a holistic approach, taking in the patient in his or her entirety, as well as his milieu.

The members of the functional school regard mental health disorders as perturbations in the proper, statistically "normal", behaviours and manifestations of "healthy" individuals, or as dysfunctions. The "sick" individual – ill at ease with himself (ego-dystonic) or making others unhappy (deviant) – is "mended" when rendered functional again by the prevailing standards of his social and cultural frame of reference.

In a way, the three schools are akin to the trio of blind men who render disparate descriptions of the very same elephant. Still, they share not only their subject matter – but, to a counter intuitively large degree, a faulty methodology.

As the renowned anti-psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz, of the State University of New York, notes in his article "The Lying Truths of Psychiatry", mental health scholars, regardless of academic predilection, infer the etiology of mental disorders from the success or failure of treatment modalities.

This form of "reverse engineering" of scientific models is not unknown in other fields of science, nor is it unacceptable if the experiments meet the criteria of the scientific method. The theory must be all-inclusive (anamnetic), consistent, falsifiable, logically compatible, monovalent, and parsimonious. Psychological "theories" – even the "medical" ones (the role of serotonin and dopamine in mood disorders, for instance) – are usually none of these things.

The outcome is a bewildering array of ever-shifting mental health "diagnoses" expressly centred around Western civilisation and its standards (example: the ethical objection to suicide). Neurosis, a historically fundamental "condition" vanished after 1980. Homosexuality, according to the American Psychiatric Association, was a pathology prior to 1973. Seven years later, narcissism was declared a "personality disorder", almost seven decades after it was first described by Freud.

III. Personality Disorders

Indeed, personality disorders are an excellent example of the kaleidoscopic landscape of "objective" psychiatry.

The classification of Axis II personality disorders – deeply ingrained, maladaptive, lifelong behavior patterns – in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition, text revision [American Psychiatric Association. DSM-IV-TR, Washington, 2000] – or the DSM-IV-TR for short – has come under sustained and serious criticism from its inception in 1952, in the first edition of the DSM.
 
The DSM IV-TR adopts a categorical approach, postulating that personality disorders are "qualitatively distinct clinical syndromes" (p. 689). This is widely doubted. Even the distinction made between "normal" and "disordered" personalities is increasingly being rejected. The "diagnostic thresholds" between normal and abnormal are either absent or weakly supported.
 
The polythetic form of the DSM's Diagnostic Criteria – only a subset of the criteria is adequate grounds for a diagnosis – generates unacceptable diagnostic heterogeneity. In other words, people diagnosed with the same personality disorder may share only one criterion or none.
The DSM fails to clarify the exact relationship between Axis II and Axis I disorders and the way chronic childhood and developmental problems interact with personality disorders.

The differential diagnoses are vague and the personality disorders are insufficiently demarcated. The result is excessive co-morbidity (multiple Axis II diagnoses).
The DSM contains little discussion of what distinguishes normal character (personality), personality traits, or personality style (Millon) – from personality disorders.

A dearth of documented clinical experience regarding both the disorders themselves and the utility of various treatment modalities.
Numerous personality disorders are "not otherwise specified" – a catchall, basket "category".

Cultural bias is evident in certain disorders (such as the Antisocial and the Schizotypal).
The emergence of dimensional alternatives to the categorical approach is acknowledged in the DSM-IV-TR itself:

“An alternative to the categorical approach is the dimensional perspective that Personality Disorders represent maladaptive variants of personality traits that merge imperceptibly into normality and into one another” (p.689)

The following issues – long neglected in the DSM – are likely to be tackled in future editions as well as in current research. But their omission from official discourse hitherto is both startling and telling:

The longitudinal course of the disorder(s) and their temporal stability from early childhood onwards;

The genetic and biological underpinnings of personality disorder(s);

The development of personality psychopathology during childhood and its emergence in adolescence;

The interactions between physical health and disease and personality disorders;

The effectiveness of various treatments – talk therapies as well as psychopharmacology.

IV. The Biochemistry and Genetics of Mental Health

Certain mental health afflictions are either correlated with a statistically abnormal biochemical activity in the brain – or are ameliorated with medication. Yet the two facts are not ineludibly facets of the same underlying phenomenon. In other words, that a given medicine reduces or abolishes certain symptoms does not necessarily mean they were caused by the processes or substances affected by the drug administered. Causation is only one of many possible connections and chains of events.

To designate a pattern of behaviour as a mental health disorder is a value judgment, or at best a statistical observation. Such designation is effected regardless of the facts of brain science. Moreover, correlation is not causation. Deviant brain or body biochemistry (once called "polluted animal spirits") do exist – but are they truly the roots of mental perversion? Nor is it clear which triggers what: do the aberrant neurochemistry or biochemistry cause mental illness – or the other way around?

That psychoactive medication alters behaviour and mood is indisputable. So do illicit and legal drugs, certain foods, and all interpersonal interactions. That the changes brought about by prescription are desirable – is debatable and involves tautological thinking. If a certain pattern of behaviour is described as (socially) "dysfunctional" or (psychologically) "sick" – clearly, every change would be welcomed as "healing" and every agent of transformation would be called a "cure".

The same applies to the alleged heredity of mental illness. Single genes or gene complexes are frequently "associated" with mental health diagnoses, personality traits, or behaviour patterns. But too little is known to establish irrefutable sequences of causes-and-effects. Even less is proven about the interaction of nature and nurture, genotype and phenotype, the plasticity of the brain and the psychological impact of trauma, abuse, upbringing, role models, peers, and other environmental elements.

Nor is the distinction between psychotropic substances and talk therapy that clear-cut. Words and the interaction with the therapist also affect the brain, its processes and chemistry - albeit more slowly and, perhaps, more profoundly and irreversibly. Medicines – as David Kaiser reminds us in "Against Biologic Psychiatry" (Psychiatric Times, Volume XIII, Issue 12, December 1996) – treat symptoms, not the underlying processes that yield them.

V. The Variance of Mental Disease

If mental illnesses are bodily and empirical, they should be invariant both temporally and spatially, across cultures and societies. This, to some degree, is, indeed, the case. Psychological diseases are not context dependent – but the pathologizing of certain behaviours is. Suicide, substance abuse, narcissism, eating disorders, antisocial ways, schizotypal symptoms, depression, even psychosis are considered sick by some cultures – and utterly normative or advantageous in others.

This was to be expected. The human mind and its dysfunctions are alike around the world. But values differ from time to time and from one place to another. Hence, disagreements about the propriety and desirability of human actions and inaction are bound to arise in a symptom-based diagnostic system.

As long as the pseudo-medical definitions of mental health disorders continue to rely exclusively on signs and symptoms – i.e., mostly on observed or reported behaviours – they remain vulnerable to such discord and devoid of much-sought universality and rigor.

VI. Mental Disorders and the Social Order

The mentally sick receive the same treatment as carriers of AIDS or SARS or the Ebola virus or smallpox. They are sometimes quarantined against their will and coerced into involuntary treatment by medication, psychosurgery, or electroconvulsive therapy. This is done in the name of the greater good, largely as a preventive policy.

Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, it is impossible to ignore the enormous interests vested in psychiatry and psychopharmacology. The multibillion dollar industries involving drug companies, hospitals, managed healthcare, private clinics, academic departments, and law enforcement agencies rely, for their continued and exponential growth, on the propagation of the concept of "mental illness" and its corollaries: treatment and research.

VII. Mental Ailment as a Useful Metaphor

Abstract concepts form the core of all branches of human knowledge. No one has ever seen a quark, or untangled a chemical bond, or surfed an electromagnetic wave, or visited the unconscious. These are useful metaphors, theoretical entities with explanatory or descriptive power.

"Mental health disorders" are no different. They are shorthand for capturing the unsettling quiddity of "the Other". Useful as taxonomies, they are also tools of social coercion and conformity, as Michel Foucault and Louis Althusser observed. Relegating both the dangerous and the idiosyncratic to the collective fringes is a vital technique of social engineering.

The aim is progress through social cohesion and the regulation of innovation and creative destruction. Psychiatry, therefore, is reifies society's preference of evolution to revolution, or, worse still, to mayhem. As is often the case with human endeavor, it is a noble cause, unscrupulously and dogmatically pursued.

Bulk Wholesale





New Car Dealers

Is the standard lie detector test (also known as the polygraph) reliable? Should you be concerned about taking a polygraph test? Let's start with a true story.

The FBI gives agent applicants a lie detector test before hiring them. After 9/11, their polygraph failure rate went to 50%. Did liars suddenly start applying for jobs? No, but the testers were instructed to read the tests differently, even though this meant throwing out some honest people with the few dishonest ones. Imagine what this would do to your future. For all of their lives these mostly innocent people will have a record of a failed FBI polygraph following them.

Most scientists now agree that polygraph "testing" is junk science. In fact, John Larson, one of the pioneers of polygraphic lie detection, says "I'm sorry I ever had any part in it's development." The test is valued by governments and others because it is useful for getting damaging admissions from people, especially those who don't know that the test is a sham.

Unfortunately, the lie detector test is actually biased against the truthful. This is because the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, the more likely one is to fail. Meanwhile, hardened criminals have proven again and again that they can lie throughout the test without detection.

How Lie Detector Tests Work (Or Don't)

The basic idea is this: The polygrapher asks "control" questions in order to get your "baseline responses." These are questions to which the operator knows or assumes the truthful answer. The device measures blood pressure, heart, breathing and perspiration rates. Then, when you are asked other questions (Are you involved in espionage? Did you take Johns watch?) your responses are compared to your baseline responses, to determine if your answer is honest or a lie.

An operator will tell you that you should answer all questions honestly, but they don't actually want this to happen. In fact, they will often ask control questions that they assume you will answer with a lie. This could be something like "Have you ever lied when in trouble?" They may mention that someone who would do such a thing is not a good person, thus encouraging you to lie, so they can see your response.

Operators use this kind of trickery as a standard part of the testing procedure. They also have to use their own judgment. If they think you are dishonest, they may interpret the results differently. Even if they don't do this, they may push harder to find questions that give the result they want. Whether this is conscious or not, it shows how unscientific the whole procedure can be.

Should you take the test? Consider what former CIA Director John M. Deutch had to say about it: "[The CIA's] reliance on the polygraph is truly insane." How about former CIA Director R. James Woolsey: "...the use of this highly flawed instrument should be radically curtailed." You may want to reconsider any plans to take that lie detector test.

Alexandria Virginia


Syracuse New York Yellow Pages


Bridgeport Connecticut Business Directory