REPOST: A Law That Keeps Gun Makers Smiling

This New York Times article reports the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - a law that grants a special shield around the gun manufacturers.


A line of tobacco executives stood in Congress one day in 1994 with their right hands raised, just before they swore, one by one, that they did not believe nicotine was addictive.

They looked miserable: within a few years, their companies would be paying out hundreds of billions in damages for the illnesses caused by smoking.

For happier faces, you could look at a picture taken in the Oval Office when President George W. Bush signed a bill in 2005. Surrounded by beaming gun manufacturers, Mr. Bush put the final touch — his signature — on a piece of legislation that would make it very difficult for anyone hurt by gun violence to sue the makers for injuries.

And why wouldn’t they be smiling?

The law signed that day, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, has smothered lawsuits by cities around the country, including by New York, that sought to force manufacturers to be more careful in how they sold and distributed guns.

Under President Obama, the Justice Department has continued to line up with gun manufacturers to defend the constitutionality of the law.

Last year, a state court threw out a lawsuit by Daniel Williams, of Buffalo, who, as a high school junior, was mistaken for a gang member and shot by a Saturday-night special — a Hi-Point 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol, manufactured by the thousands by Beemiller Inc. of Ohio.

The sole distributor of the Hi-Point, a man named Charles Brown of MKS Supply, “has sold at least 630 handguns traced to crime in the State of New York,” according to the lawsuit.

Like many others in the manufacture and distribution of guns, Mr. Brown has shown little curiosity about how the weapons were used. An article in The New York Times on Tuesday reported that numerous gun executives stated during sworn depositions that it was not important for them to keep track of how often their guns were used in crimes.

For instance, Mr. Brown said that he never examined the “trace” requests that came from law enforcement to see which of the companies that he supplied were, in turn, selling guns that ended up being used in crimes.

Time after time, the executives said they were not concerned with finding out what happened to the guns.

All these statements were made in lawsuits brought before the 2005 law put up a special shield around the gun manufacturers. The law grants an exception for manufacturers or distributors who are accused of having knowingly violated state or federal laws. Because of that exception, a state appellate court in October restored the suit brought by Mr. Williams against Hi-Point, Beemiller, MKS Supply and others. (The owner of Beemiller, Tom Deeb, has said that law enforcement authorities have recognized him for the special help he has given in investigations.)

The Williams lawsuit is one of very few cases not eliminated by the law.

Before the law’s passage, a federal judge in Brooklyn hearing a case brought by the N.A.A.C.P. found that gun manufacturers and distributors were not doing simple things that would reduce the number of weapons available to criminals. As examples of what could be done, wrote the judge, Jack B. Weinstein, manufacturers could only allow their products to be distributed to retailers who had actual storefronts, carried insurance, keep a minimum inventory, and allow the manufacturers to review their books.

Such measures would not restrict any Second Amendment rights, the judge ruled, and the evidence showed that “more prudent and easily available merchandising practices on the part of the defendants would have saved many lives in the past — and would save many in the future.”

Why weren’t these steps being taken?

“Some members of the industry believe that unified, well-organized voluntary attempt to limit diversion of guns to criminals would be the equivalent of a public recognition of failures to take such steps in the past,” Judge Weinstein wrote, “with an implied responsibility for thousands of avoidable deaths.”

What to make of the Department of Justice under President Obama? “We hope they will change their view on the constitutionality of a federal law that effectively rewrites state’s civil justice laws to protect one industry,” said Jonathan Lowy, a lawyer with the Brady Center who has brought many cases against gun manufacturers.

Allison Price, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said: “We continue to defend the constitutionality of this law. While the Newtown tragedy does not alter the department’s view regarding the constitutionality of the statute, it does underscore the need for new gun legislation, as the president and attorney general have said.”

The gun makers can still smile about the 2005 law.

Depending on how you handle conflicts, resolving them can either be easy or complicated. See this Evan Granowitz Facebook page to help you deal with your legal conflicts. 

REPOST: Estate plan funding for spouses

This Forbes article examines estate plan funding issues for spouses.  Read on ...

This is the third post in a three-part series on estate planning for a married couple. The first post concerned ethical issues in estate planning for a married couple. The second post addressed making maximum use of each spouse’s unified credit, to pass as much property as possible to the next generation free of estate tax. This post examines estate plan funding issues for the spouses.

Earlier in my career, I saw estate plans consisting of a set of documents drawn and signed, and that was it. There was no attention at all to dealing with the clients’ assets. The clients’ assets remained titled in the spouses’ names. Upon the death of the first spouse to die, generally the surviving spouse succeeded to outright ownership of the marital property via tenancy by the entirety. If the deceased spouse owned property in his or her own name, his or her will bequeathed it to his or her trust, but such post-death funding of a trust requires a probate proceeding.

To avoid probate, the spouses should establish revocable trusts and transfer their property to the trusts during their lifetime. As noted in the first post in this series, marital property should be divided equally between the spouses’ revocable trusts. Both spouses should sign each of the documents transferring property to their revocable trusts, to avoid potential challenges to the transfers on grounds such as—
That the transfers were in derogation of the non-signing spouse’s dower rights.
That the non-signing spouse owns the property transferred to trust, or an interest therein.
In a community property state, that the non-signing spouse has a community property interest in the property transferred to trust.

Bank accounts, mutual fund accounts, and brokerage accounts should be retitled in the name of the spouses’ revocable trusts.

Certificated stocks or bonds should be transferred to the spouses’ revocable trusts. If a brokerage firm is not available to assist in the transfer, the issuing company’s treasury or stock transfer agent will have to be contacted.

Closely-held business interests should be transferred to the spouses’ revocable trusts. This requires the assistance of counsel.

Dividing a closely-held business interest between the spouses’ revocable trusts can also save significant estate tax. If neither spouse’s revocable trust holds a controlling interest (more than 50 percent) in the closely-held business, valuation of the closely-held business interest in each spouse’s revocable trust should qualify for valuation discount. Valuation discounts for minority interest or lack of marketability commonly reduce the estate tax valuation of a closely-held business interest by 25 percent or more.

For example, assume that Closely Held Business, LLC, founded and exclusively owned and operated by Husband, has an appraised value of $8,000,000. By transferring a 50 percent ownership in Closely Held Business, LLC to each of Husband’ s revocable trust and Wife’s revocable trust, neither spouse’s revocable trust would hold a controlling interest in Closely Held Business, LLC, and each spouse’s estate could credibly assert a valuation discount for its interest in Closely Held Business, LLC. Assuming a valuation discount of 25 percent, the valuation of the 50 percent interest in Closely Held Business, LLC in each spouse’s gross estate is $3,000,000. Dividing the ownership interest in Closely Held Business, LLC between the spouses’ revocable trusts thus reduced their combined gross estate by $2,000,000.

Real property. Real property, including the couple’s residence and their vacation home, if they own one, should be transferred to their revocable trusts. I generally accomplish this with quit claim deeds. The deeds should be executed and recorded; nothing is worse than unrecorded deeds floating around clouding the title to real property.

Rental, commercial, or investment properties should not be conveyed directly into the couple’s revocable trusts. Rather, to protect the spouses and the rest of their property from liability claims arising out of these properties, the properties should be first conveyed into a limited liability company or a corporation, and the interest in the LLC or corporation then transferred to the couple’s revocable trusts.

Life insurance policies need not be transferred to revocable trusts, as their proceeds pass outside of probate. But it is important to update beneficiary designations to make sure that they reflect the spouses’ intentions. Most life insurance policies designate the policy holder’s spouse as primary beneficiary and children as contingent beneficiaries.

Retirement plan accounts should not be transferred to trusts, as transferring such an account to trust would constitute a taxable distribution from the account. Moreover, such accounts pass outside of probate.

Beneficiary designations on retirement plan accounts should be updated to make sure that they reflect the account owner’s intentions. A qualified retirement account, including an account in a defined benefit pension plan or a defined contribution retirement plan, an individual retirement account (“IRA”), or an annuity, should designate individuals as primary and contingent beneficiaries. If such a qualified retirement account designates a trust as beneficiary, and the account owner dies before distributions begin, then the account must be fully distributed within five years after the account owner’s death. But if the designated beneficiary is an individual, and distributions begin within a year after the account owner’s death, then distributions, and the deferral of income tax on them, may continue over the account owner’s life expectancy. If the designated beneficiary is the account owner’s surviving spouse, then distributions need not commence until the year in which the account owner would have attained age 70-½.

Retirement plan accounts are income in respect of a decedent, meaning that distributions from them are taxable income to the distributee, the obvious exception being a Roth IRA. For this reason, it makes sense to designate a tax exempt charitable, scientific, or educational entity as beneficiary of retirement plan accounts.

Vehicles. In some states, after a vehicle owner’s death the owner’s next of kin may have the vehicle retitled in their name by filing a document with the secretary of state. In any case, valuable vehicles and boats should be titled in the owner’s revocable trust during his or her lifetime. Aircraft, due to the potential of claims arising out of their use, should be titled in a corporation or limited liability company, the ownership interest in which should be held in a revocable trust.

I have practiced criminal and civil tax litigation, asset forfeiture litigation, and estate planning since 1985. I write about issues arising in my practice. You can reach by telephone at (248) 643-8130 or by email atsjd@dunncounsel.com.  

Atty. Evan Granowitz practices several areas of the law, including estate planning.  Visit this Facebook page for more information.

REPOST: North Carolina May Ban Tesla Sales To Prevent “Unfair Competition”

This article from Slate.com reports on a bill that would prevent automakers from selling their cars unless it is done through third-party dealerships.  The reason behind this bill is the prevention of unfair competition, but it is unclear what exactly makes selling cars directly to consumers unfair. Read more about it below:

Image source: slate.com

From the state that brought you the nation’s first ban on climate science comes another legislative gem: a bill that would prohibit automakers from selling their cars in the state.

The proposal, which the Raleigh News & Observer reports was unanimously approved by the state’s Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, would apply to all car manufacturers, but the intended target is clear. It’s aimed at Tesla, the only U.S. automaker whose business model relies on selling cars directly to consumers, rather than through a network of third-party dealerships.

The bill is being pushed by the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association, a trade group representing the state’s franchised dealerships. Its sponsor is state Sen. Tom Apodaca, a Republican from Henderson, who has said the goal is to prevent unfair competition between manufacturers and dealers. What makes it “unfair competition” as opposed to plain-old “competition”—something Republicans are typically inclined to favor—is not entirely clear. After all, North Carolina doesn’t seem to have a problem with Apple selling its computers online or via its own Apple Stores.

Still, it’s easy to understand why some car dealers might feel a little threatened: Tesla’s Model S outsold the Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7 Series, and Audi A8 last quarter without any help from them. If its business model were to catch on, consumers might find that they don’t need the middle-men as much as they thought.

Incidentally—not that he would be in any way swayed by this—I couldn’t help but notice that Apodaca received $8,000 in campaign contributions from the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association last year, the maximum amount allowed by state law. I’ve reached out to the senator for further comment and will update this post if he replies.

Tesla’s vice president of corporate and business development, Diarmuid O'Connell, told me he’s hopeful that the state legislature will amend the bill so that it doesn’t prohibit Tesla from doing business there. He said the company has already sold 80 cars in North Carolina, mostly through the Web, and has about 60 more orders in the works. It also has plans to build its first showroom in the state next year. The Raleigh-Durham Research Triangle in particular appears to be a hotbed of Tesla interest, O'Connell said, which makes sense given its similarities to Silicon Valley.

In its current form, North Carolina’s bill would be the harshest of a handful of anti-Tesla regulations around the country. In Texas, the company is fighting a law under which the employees of its “showroom” in Austin are not allowed to sell any vehicles, offer test drives, or even tell customers how much the car costs. But at least Texas still lets people buy the car online, which North Carolina’s law would prohibit.

Tesla’s O’Connell rejects the idea that laws prohibiting automakers from selling their cars are designed to protect consumers, as trade groups like the North Carolina dealers’ association claim. He says the franchise-dealer model might work fine for giant automakers, but not for a startup like Tesla—especially since Tesla’s products represent a challenge to the traditional auto industry on which dealerships rely. “How do you sell the future if your business depends on the present?” he asked.

Robert Glaser, president of the dealers association, told the News & Observer that the law prohibiting Tesla sales isn’t just about his industry’s self-interest. Pointing to the Tesla representatives at a recent hearing, he said, “You tell me they’re gonna support the little leagues and the YMCA?”

If that’s the real issue, then I may have some good news for all concerned: I asked O’Connell, and he assured me Tesla would be happy to support the little leagues and the YMCA if that’s what North Carolina requires in order to do business there. Problem solved! Right, Mr. Glaser?



Evan Granowitz is an attorney who currently does his practice in Wolf Group L.A. His practice is focused on civil litigation matters, including breach of contract disputes, unfair competition, and business torts among others. Find more links to interesting cases through this Twitter page.

REPOST: A Judicial Solution To Non-Practicing Patent Holders' Suits Vs. End Users?

This article from Forbes.com shares details about lawsuit claims by patent-assertion entities versus end users, and what recent cases could mean for technology end users:


Litigation by “patent-assertion entities” (PAE) was back in the news again last weekwith a jury decision from the Eastern District of Texas. The jury found that patents held by Alexsam Inc. which purportedly cover a system for processing pre-paid electronic gift cards were valid, allowing Alexsam’s infringement claims against Best Buy BBY -0.33%, Barnes & Noble NE +3.94%, Gap GPS +0.24%, Home Depot HD -0.13%, McDonald's MCD 0%, JC Penny, and other retailers to advance. Whether the actions will proceed or the retailers decide to cut their losses and settle is unclear.

Claims by patent-assertion entities rarely get to the stage at which the gift card litigation currently stands. This is especially true when patent holders target purchasers and users of technology which allegedly infringe on their rights, rather than (or in addition to) the technology’s producers. When posed with the choice of investing six-figures defending a product you didn’t even create, or paying the PAE a four- or five-figure licensing fee, most small businesses will choose the latter, no matter how weak the legal claims may be.

Online technology journal Ars Technica has shined a spotlight on some of these PAE litigation threat campaigns. Several stories (here and here) document one anonymous patent holder’s systematic targeting of small businesses and even some individuals who use scanners that can send the scanned files via e-mail. The “scanner-trolling scheme,” as Ars calls it, divides up the U.S. into six areas, and in each area, a separate shell company demands $800-$1,200 licensing fees per employee to avoid a lawsuit. Another story focuses on how a Luxembourg-based PAE is suing cash-strapped public transit systems over their use of vehicle-tracking systems. The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently stepped in to request a reexamination of this PAE’s patent. Other stories have documented the litigation crusade of Innovatio, which has sued businesses offering Wi-Fi service on their premises. One law firm even has an entire section of its website devoted to the suits.

Such targeting of end users has led to calls from leaders in business and Congress to immunize such companies and individuals from patent lawsuits. While that may sound promising to under-assault small businesses, their next thought will likely be, “how many years did it take to pass the America Invents Act?”


In the meantime, technology end users should consider the academic advice recently offered by a Santa Clara University Law School professor and a law firm partner in a forthcoming Boston University Law Review article, “Expanding Patent Law’s Customer Suit Exception.” Authors Brian Love and James Yoon encourage the federal courts to revive and modernize a doctrine “ lurking in the forgotten recesses of patent caselaw” which allows for the stay of patent suits against customers if the seller/manufacturer files a declaratory judgment action against the same patent plaintiff.

As Love and Yoon explain, the courts (primarily the Federal Circuit) have imposed severely limiting conditions on the customer suit exception, including that the customer defendants are “mere resellers” and that the manufacturer is the sole source of the infringing product. Judges also frame their analysis around the interest of judicial economy, and don’t consider the broader policy benefits of deterring future litigation and empowering the entity best positioned to question infringement: the manufacturer.

These limits undermine the doctrine’s effectiveness in this new era of patent litigation, where products are “overwhelmingly constructed (at least in part) using discrete components sourced from multiple manufacturers.” Love and Yoon recommend changes to the customer suit exception that reflect this new reality, such as expanding it beyond the context of customers as resellers. They also urge that when judges evaluate the interests of judicial economy, they “consider more than just the short-term consequences.”

Such common law doctrine evolution doesn’t happen quickly, and it won’t happen at all unless targets of PAE litigation — manufacturers and end users alike — give the courts a reason and an opportunity to act. But thanks to this first-of-its-kind scholarly article, at least there is a road map of sorts for opening a new front in the fight for reform.



Atty. Evan Granowitz is one of Wolf Group LA's finest litigators. Find more links to articles on interesting cases through this Twitter page.

REPOST: Never let a good 'scandal' go to waste, as conservatives push their agenda

“What I said was never let a good crisis go to waste when it’s an opportunity to do things you had never considered or you didn’t think were possible,” says Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. 

This Forbes article discusses how scandals in the Obama administration can become opportunities to do things right. 

Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously, or infamously, said at a 2008 Wall Street Journal Forum, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” In 2011 he helpfully explained toFox News, “First of all, what I said was never let a good crisis go to waste when it’s an opportunity to do things you had never considered or you didn’t think were possible.”

With at least three Obama administration scandals swirling inWashington, and perhaps more on the way, a number of opportunities “to do the things … you didn’t think were possible” have emerged—like moving a conservative agenda.


President Barack Obama’s agenda for the immediate future, and probably for the next three years, is dead. D-E-A-D. One reason he has survived this long is that the media have been so supportive—one might say “coddling.” No surprise, since major news executives have siblings working for the White House.

But that’s changing, probably because the media think they’ve been lied to, repeatedly. Plus now they know the Justice Department was scrutinizing the AP’s phone records.

Politico’s Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen just published a piece entitled “D.C. Turns on Obama.” That apparently includes the authors. They write, “Obama’s aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats.” And in the next paragraph they say, “This White House’s instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness have all worked to isolate Obama at a time when he most needs a support system.”

Ouch! That’s not House Speaker John Boehner talking; that’s from journalists. “D.C. Turns” indeed.

That turning will suck almost all of the air out Washington for proceeding with Obama’s agenda—though in fairness, a number of pundits have emerged recently wondering if he even has a second term agenda.

And people who would normally back the president could begin looking for ways to oppose him. Even ethics-challenged Rep. Charlie Rangel is stepping it back.

All that scrum likely means a country without any policy direction, as the administration shifts to permanent damage control, which means conservatives have a chance to fill the policy agenda void. Here are some suggestions.

ObamaCare Repeal — The House is set to vote on repealing ObamaCare again. But this time, repeal proponents should stress that a vote for ObamaCare is a vote for the IRS tracking your health care. The IRS wants funding for nearly 2,000 full-time employees to ensure Americans are obeying ObamaCare. Just how extensive the agency’s new power and controlwill be was intentionally left vague in the legislation. (Update: Now we learnthat the IRS person in charge of ObamaCare is the one who ran the office targeting conservative nonprofits.)

Very few politicians are going to want to expand the IRS’s size and power in the midst of news headlines about the agency’s abuse of power, which is exactly what ObamaCare does. This scandal creates an opportunity for some Democrats to agree that we need to end, or at the very least postpone, the legislation until Congress gets a handle on the scope of the IRS’s crimes and does something about it.

Tax Reform — There is bipartisan support for fundamental tax reform, and now is the perfect time to simplify the tax code by lowering rates and limiting tax breaks. A less-complicated tax system means fewer opportunities for tax agents to harass Americans.

And again, reformers need to stress that a vote for the status quo tax system is a vote of confidence in the IRS agents and management who perpetrated the unethical and possibly illegal targeting.

Entitlement Reform — There is some bipartisan support for entitlement reform, but it has been mostly nipping at the edges. Conservatives need to push forward with Rep. Paul Ryan’s bipartisan Medicare reform plan that expands on the current Medicare Advantage program already popular with more than a quarter of seniors.

And conservatives need to return to their roots on Social Security reform, by implementing a system of personal retirement accounts. Accounts could be small to begin with, perhaps allowing workers to set aside that 2 percentage points that were part of the “payroll tax holiday” in 2011 and 2012, but is now going to Social Security again.

The stock market is roaring and yet millions of Americans are excluded from the climb because they don’t have enough income left over to significantly fund a personal IRA. Personal retirement accounts have long been a key component of Republican entitlement reform. There’s no better time to reenergize that effort than when the market is up and Obama is down.

While Obama officials devote all of their time and effort trying to rescue their now-demolished promise that big government can be efficient, fair and truthful, conservatives should fill the policy void with proposals that will shrink the government and grow the economy. If successful, it could turn out that the worst thing for the Obama presidency is the best thing for the country.

 Evan Granowitz is a practicing lawyer with several areas of expertise. Visit this Facebook page for more information.

Private health insurance coverage: Avoiding traps

Image Source: bestinsuranceoffers.blogspot.com

A waste of money – that’s how people feel toward private health insurance. While this may not be totally true, one thing is certain when purchasing health insurance – people always have doubts about buying it. To make sure that insurance buyers buy the real thing, they have to understand what the insurance plan can do for them, and how some insurers trick their clients into buying unnecessary plans.

In reality, many insurance buyers are suckered into spending money on insurance policies they’re better off without. Among the strategies some insurance sellers employ are:

• Attracting people into buying certain categories of care that aren't covered by a given plan. These categories include cosmetic surgery, dental and eye exams, and weight-loss treatments.

• Charging insurance purchasers more than the stated premium. Although plans may approve policyholders, they still charge them more due to medical history and other reasons.

Image Source: completewellbeing.com

• Not clearly defining the scope of benefits. Some plans have strict limitations that may leave policyholders at risk of more costs from catastrophe or ailments. Some don't even include the doctors and hospitals where policyholders get care.

Moral lesson: when choosing a private insurance plan, it doesn’t hurt to read the details in the contract. Some contracts contain unfavorable conditions that signers tend to overlook. Like the old adage says, it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Image Source: medicalnewstoday.com

Atty. Evan Granowitz is one of the lawyers at Wolf Group LA who specializes in insurance coverage disputes, among others. Follow this Twitter page for more updates on the legal arena.

REPOST: “Colorado Lawmakers Approve Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Immigrants”

Bolstered by the unprecedented influx of young Latino lawmakers, Colorado has finally passed a bill which allows illegal immigrants to obtain a driver’s license. Read more in this New York Times article.

Image credit: New York Times

DENVER — In one of their final acts before wrapping up the Colorado legislative session on Wednesday, lawmakers approved a bill allowing immigrants who are in the country illegally to obtain driver’s licenses, making the state one of only a handful to have passed such a measure.

The legislation, which received final approval on Tuesday, allows immigrants to get special licenses if they can prove they pay taxes and meet several other requirements.

For immigrant-rights advocates and their Democratic allies in the Statehouse here, the bill’s passage was the latest in a string of hard-won victories involving proposals that once seemed more symbolic than practical.

Emboldened this year by a majority in both legislative chambers, and buoyed by an influx of young Latino lawmakers, Democrats pushed legislation granting in-state tuition rates to students who are in the country illegally. And they overturned a 2006 law requiring the police to notify federal authorities of people suspected of being in the United States illegally.

 For years, immigrant-rights advocates had viewed Colorado as a place with especially tough, intractable immigration laws. But the passage of the three measures, during a legislative session dominated by issues like guns and marijuana, marked distinct shifts in opinion in a swing state where Latinos are increasingly powerful.

“We’ve really seen the political landscape change here,” said State Senator Jessie Ulibarri, a freshman lawmaker from Commerce City and sponsor of the driver’s license legislation. “On issues like driver’s licenses, we now have a record number of Latinos and Latinas in the state legislature who are able to talk about the public safety benefits and long-term benefits for Colorado.”

Beyond the increase in Latino legislators — there are now 12 — political experts said the shift showed some other factors at work.

“In some ways, it has been the perfect storm,” said Robert Preuhs, an assistant professor of political science at Metropolitan State University of Denver, who also is a consultant for a Latino polling firm. “What we’re looking at here is a heightened Democratic responsiveness to Latinos in Colorado, to whom they really owe their majority in both chambers.”

“There are also now Republicans from close districts, in unsafe seats, who are responding to Latino pressure,” he said.

A telling example of the changing tenor was the passage of the in-state tuition bill, whose consistent defeat over the last decade had become emblematic of the frustration felt by Colorado immigrant-rights groups.

The legislation passed this year with full support from Democrats, who had not always been unified. And it also received some Republican backing, most notably from State Senator Greg Brophy, an outspoken conservative from rural Wray and a longtime opponent.

In a lengthy posting on his Facebook page, Mr. Brophy explained his change of heart, saying that children who are not here legally still had the right to an education.

“They can’t go home,” he wrote. “They are home. Looking at the kids in any classroom in Eastern Colorado, you can’t tell who is an American and who is an illegal alien. They all look the same; they are the same.”

Support from Colorado’s police chiefs and sheriffs was instrumental in overturning the 2006 law requiring local law enforcement officials to inform federal authorities of immigrants suspected of being here illegally. That bill was passed under a Democratic-controlled legislature and was seen by opponents as having laid the groundwork for immigration measures in Arizona and Alabama.

Law enforcement groups also publicly backed the driver’s license bill, though the legislation did not garner any support from Republicans. Under the bill, the licenses will be marked to prevent them from being used for federal identification or to vote.

Currently, New Mexico, Illinois and Washington allow immigrants in the country illegally to apply for licenses, while Utah issues a special driving card. Oregon and Maryland recently passed driver’s license measures, and several other states are weighing the matter.

A spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said the governor would review the bill’s language. Supporters remained optimistic that he would sign it.

Lisa Duran, executive director of the immigrant advocacy group Rights For All People, and a board member of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, recalled first trying to pass a driver’s license bill in Colorado shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, and being met with bitter opposition.

Years of grass-roots organizing and forging alliances with an array of groups, she said, helped soften that resistance.

“We’ve been looking at each other and saying, ‘We’re not in Kansas anymore,’ ” Ms. Duran said. “We were very hopeful. But I’ve been on the losing end so many times here. We have had to work, and not just hope.”

More updates related to the legal industry may be found at this Evan Granowitz Facebook page.

Five ways to negotiate a non-compete contract

Image Source: fslawfirm.com

Nowadays, many employees who resign from a company are asked to sign a non-compete contract which prevents them from working for competitors or from starting businesses that would compete against their previous company.

It is near impossible for an aspiring employee not to sign such a contract, as it might reduce his chances of landing a job at a competing firm. However, negotiation is still possible, and Forbes.com lists five ways that one can use to do just that:

• Consulting an attorney. This can be a very good idea, as lawyers who are well-versed in these matters can negotiate certain terms that may be beneficial for the applicant.

• Limiting the geography. Since a broad scope of the non-compete contract with respect to geography and time is beneficial only to the employer, there should be certain limits to this. Restricting a secretary from working in the same industry on another state may not be legally plausible, but restricting a computer game programmer might, as the Internet is global in scale.

Image Source: ike-n-dee-world.com

• Limiting the time span. Applicants should also limit the time before they will be allowed to work at a competing company. Anything more than two years will not be favored in court.

• Exploring other restrictions. Instead of a non-compete contract, applicants can also ask their employers for a non-disclosure or a non-solicitation contract instead. Both of these protect the valuable resources of the company while allowing the employee to work in competing companies immediately after resignation.

• Requesting to get paid. As the employee will be unable to work in his or her respective specialties during the time specified in the non-compete contract, he or she could try to negotiate a certain amount of money to serve as recompense.

Image Source: inc.com

Even though most companies do not give enough leeway for a non-compete contract negotiation, an aspiring employee should make every effort to negotiate such matter.

One practice area that Atty. Evan Granowitz specializes in is breach of contract disputes. Visit this Twitter page for more information on related topics.