The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You

Here is one fresh of the press:

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 30, 2012 www.texasattorneygeneral.gov	CONTACT Press Office at (512) 463-2050
Houston-Based TaxMasters and Founder Patrick Cox Ordered to Pay Over $195 Million For Defrauding Customers in Texas and Nationwide
AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott released the following statement after a Travis County jury returned a $195 million verdict against Houston-based TaxMasters, Inc., its predecessor companies and its founder and chief executive officer, Patrick Cox, for violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act: “Today’s decision marks a significant victory for the Texans and TaxMasters customers nationwide who sought help from TaxMasters with their income tax debts and were taken advantage of in the midst of a national economic downturn. While the TaxMasters CEO made hollow promises about fighting for taxpayers and their pocketbooks in television ads, the evidence proved that the firm didn’t even bother to show up when it came time to fulfill those promises, but instead misled and defrauded their customers.” In an apparent effort to avoid the State’s enforcement action, TaxMasters filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection just one day before the jury trial was set to begin. Citing the firm’s bankruptcy petition, TaxMasters CEO Patrick Cox sought to delay the trial, but his request was denied and the trial proceeded as planned. After an eight-day trial, the jury found that TaxMasters, its predecessor companies and Patrick Cox committed over 110,000 violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and ordered the defendants to pay a total of over $195 million. Of that, over $113 million is restitution for fees TaxMasters’ customers paid to the firm, and $81 million was further awarded in civil penalties. Breakdown of the verdict • Consumer restitution: $113,099,820 • Civil penalties: $81,205,000 • Attorney fees: $1,045,998 • Number of Violations: 110,383 Facts of the case • The State’s enforcement action against TaxMasters, Inc. was filed in May 2010. • According to the State’s enforcement action, the so-called “tax resolution” firm misled Texans by aggressively advertising its services to federal taxpayers who have received notice from the IRS of an audit, garnishment, lien, levy or tax deficiency. • TaxMasters misled customers about their service contract terms, failed to disclose its no-refunds policy, and falsely claimed that the firm’s employees would immediately begin work on a case – despite the fact that TaxMasters did not actually start to work on a case until its customers paid in-full for services, even if that delayed response meant taxpayers missed significant IRS deadlines. • TaxMasters also failed to contact and consult with the IRS on the client’s behalf, appear on the client’s behalf at an IRS audit or hearing or postpone or stop a wage or bank account garnishment or stop a levy or lien against a client’s property. • From 2005 to 2012, the Texas Attorney General’s Office received 891 consumer complaints against TaxMasters. • The case was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Nanette DiNunzio, Bruce Griffiths and Jennifer Roscetti. The trial team also consisted of legal assistants Pam Yediares and Pauline Sisson. NOTE: The Texas Attorney General’s Office will actively participate in the bankruptcy case to seek to recover restitution for customers.

 

universal devide

If what the pundits are correct and it turns out to be a vote along party lines, then that, in my opinion, is a bad thing for the court itself.  The Chief Justice has tried to avoid these types of rulings because he knows it is a bad thing to openly clarify the ideological devide in the form of a 5/4 ruling along party lines.  Whichever way the ruling goes, it will be best for the the court and the county if it by more than the minimum majority either way.   I was surprised that the attorney arguing in favor of Obamacare didn't use the example of citizens being forced to buy automobile insurance.  Of course that is being done by the states but it still seems like an example that would be a better fit than the burial insurance, brocoli, or cell phone examples they discussed.  It is always a bad sign when judges try to oversimplify an issue into something that it isn't and I don't think the president's guy did such a good job in coming up with common sense answers and examples.  His biggest hurdle seems to come down to convincing the court that it is in fact constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to purchase insurance.

I also agree that the questions asked during the oral presentation are not a reliable indicator of how the court will rule.  When it comes down to it, just as Clarence Thomas has previously said, the court relies mostly on the written briefs.  The bottom line now is that we will find out in the summer when the ruling is issued.

Day 2

Here is the audio for today's oral arguments:

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149465820/transcript-supreme-court-the-health-care-law-and-the-individual-mandate

partisan evaluation

Here is a link to the top story from today's news:

The Supreme Court is deeply split on ideological and political grounds, with the five conservative Republican-appointed justices often in the majority: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.


Here is what Reuters News service says about the political leanings and predictablility of the individual Justices:


"...The Supreme Court is deeply split on ideological and political grounds, with the five conservative Republican-appointed justices often in the majority: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The four liberal Democratic appointees are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
A looming point of interest for the 400 spectators who will crowd into the courtroom on Tuesday is whether that 5-4 division becomes evident or appears to splinter.
All four liberals are likely, based on their past decisions and statements, to vote to uphold the law. If that occurs, they would need only one of the conservatives for a majority. An American Bar Association legal group survey of academics and lawyers found that 85 percent thought the law would be upheld.
Among the justices most likely to become swing votes in the dispute are Roberts, a 2005 appointee of President George W. Bush. Roberts has often deferred to Congress in rulings and has signaled an interest in avoiding a deeply divided ruling.
Another conservative justice who could defy political-based assumptions is Anthony Kennedy, a 1988 appointee of President Ronald Reagan. Kennedy has straddled the middle and has most often been the swing vote when the liberals prevailed.
Based on his opinions, Justice Clarence Thomas is most likely to vote to strike down the law. Scalia and Alito cannot be as easily predicted as Thomas..."

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States of America

Click here to hear audio of the proceedings from today:

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149401430/transcript-supreme-court-the-health-care-overhaul-law-and-the-anti-injunction-ac


Amazing stuff. 

The text is also there so you can either read it or listen to it. 

SCOTUS

The Supreme Court is in the news today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577305362846327828.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

They are going to hear arguments on "Obamacare" and rule on its constitutionality. I have mixed feelings on government healthcare. I do feel like that as a country that had the resources to invade & occupy Iraq & Afghanistan and to send out billions in foriegn aid, we should have a responsibility to provide basic needs for our own citizens. Our country was founded on based at least partly on Puritan principles and taking care of the poor is about as basic as it gets when it comes to the golden rule. However, I do not like the type of service I get when I go to the Post Office and I can only imagine what Governement Healthcare could evolve into.

There is no question that partisanship has take a front seat to patriotism here lately but I see more of that in the Executive and Legislative brances. According to the constitution Congress is in charge of spending money. The president cannot spend a dime (in theory) without Congressional authorization. When I hear members of Congress attacking the president about his budget, I always wonder why they are not attacking thier own branch of government since Congress actually has to sign the checks.

I know there is some ideological differences between the members of the court but I am comfortable with that and have generally felt good about how the Justices have been conducting thier business and have full confidence they will issue a decision that is based on the law. I am not convinced that it will be purely non-partisan but I have made a decision in advance to respect thier ruling, whichever way it goes.

effect & cause

Bobby D

Bonus video

But wait.  Order now and receive this bonus vidoe at absolutely no (current) charge.

sixteen saltines

Check the video of our favorite rock and roll hero.

There is no charge to view the video but please keep in mind that at some point in the future we might ask a favor from you.  Of course when the boss asks a favor, well you know.   Please enjoy the video.

Time Travel has not happened even in the future

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682


You can read the whole article by clicking the link above but here is the synopsis provided at the beginning of the story:

An experiment to repeat a test of the speed of subatomic particles known as neutrinos has found that they do not travel faster than light.


Here is a bit of background provided in the article itself:

...Results announced in September suggested that neutrinos can exceed light speed, but were met with scepticism as that would upend Einstein's theory of relativity.

A test run by a different group at the same laboratory has now clocked them travelling at precisely light speed...


Or you could read my posts here where I have already gone on record to make it official that we here at the one man web log never had any doubt whatsover.