NASHVILLE — Some of the debtors sitting forlornly in this city’s old stone bankruptcy court have lost a job or gotten divorced. Others have been summoned to face their creditors because they spent mindlessly beyond their means. But all too often these days, they are there merely because they, or their children, got sick.
Wes and Katie Covington, from Smyrna, Tenn., were already in debt from a round of fertility treatments when complications with her pregnancy and surgery on his knee left them with unmanageable bills. For Christine L. Phillips of Nashville, it was a $10,000 trip to the emergency room after a car wreck, on the heels of costly operations to remove a cyst
Jodie and Charlie Mullins of Dickson, Tenn., were making ends meet on his patrolman’s salary until she developed debilitating back pain that required spinal surgery and forced her to quit nursing school. As with many medical bankruptcies, they had health insurance and repair a damaged nerve. but their policy had a $3,000 deductible and, to their surprise, covered only 80 percent of their costs.
“I always promised myself that if I ever got in trouble, I’d work two jobs to get out of it,” said Mr. Mullins, a 16-year veteran of the Dickson police force. “But it gets to the point..
With the growing unrest around New York City regarding Muslims - the 9/11 trial taking place here, Fort Hood, the article by an NYU professor - it is imperative for individuals to understand their rights under the law.
The Sardar Law Firm has developed a simple "Know Your Rights" checklist to help communities understand their rights. Please note this is not legal advice and you should consult an attorney if you are in any such situation.
Do I have to talk to law enforcement? No. If law enforcement officers approach you, the only thing you must tell them is your name and provide them an ID if asked. Under no circumstances do you have to answer ANY questions.
So what do I do if I am approached? Ask the officer if you are under arrest. If you are not under arrest politely wk away. DO Not Antagonize the officer. Be polite. If the officer places you under arrest, request an attorney right away. Do not answer any questions unless your defense attorney is there with you.
What does "waive your rights" mean? When an officer asks you whether you want to waive your rights he is asking you to give up your rights under the Constitution. You should not sign any waiver or verbally waive your rights until you consult your defense attorney.
Is the prosecutor my attorney? No. The US attorney, district attorney, or the prosecutor - that is NOT your attorney. They are not there in your best interest because they do not defend you. The are representing the government. Only your defense attorney will have your best interests in mind.
The best take away from this is: you have rights and you should not sign them away. Always ask for an attorney and do not talk to law enforcement without having your defense attorney present.
For more information please feel free to email Benish Shah at bshah@sardarlawfirm.com.
Before Dodd... Before Madoff: In the past, the “broker-dealer exemption” in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 exempted financial advisers if their advice to clients was “solely incidental” to selling products. Dodd's proposed legislation would remove this exemption, leaving these financial advisers open to liability as a fiduciary.
What Does This Mean for Financial Advisers: The proposed legislation gives the SEC the authority to allow brokers who provide advice to conduct principal trades that are otherwise restricted under the Investment Advisers Act. To protect investors from conflicts of interest the SEC would have to determine allowing brokers to conduct such “prohibited transactions” is in the public interest. With the elimination of the broker-dealer exemption, the SEC could increase scrutiny of firms that would otherwise escape adviser registration. The bill would PROTECT investors, but would create higher risk for the financial services industry
Reacting Businesses: The financial services industry has already started pushing back. According to Edward Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, the bill would produce conflicts among regulators and undermine the state-chartered banking system, while imposing "extensive new regulatory burdens on those banks that had nothing to do with creating the financial crisis." All in all, not favored by the industry it is affecting.
Follow Sardar Law Firm on Twitter: http://twitter.com/sardarlawfirm
In February 2008, New Zealand welcomed the decision by the United States to enter into trade talks.[2]Specifically, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said that the U.S. intends to negotiate with New Zealand, Singapore, Chile and Brunei, collectively known as the P4 Group of Countries or the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, on a joint financial services and investment agreement.[3]Strategically, the U.S. seeks to expand its position in international trade in the Pacific Rim, a region where powerful nations such as China and India have established trade relationships.[4]While the U.S. has free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, the U.S. aims to establish a more integrative economic policy towards the region.[5]The U.S. is New Zealand’s second largest export market.[6]Under New Zealand’s perspective, an investment agreement may lead to a more comprehensive free trade agreement with the U.S., which would allow greater market access and high revenue returns for New Zealand.[7]While not expressly articulated, the U.S. seeks to solidify its trade advantage similar to its position under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).[8]
Several issues arise within the U.S-New Zealand trade framework which requires deeper analysis: (1) the underlying economic objectives of the United States to enter into the Pacific Rim and its benefits; 2) specific legal issues arising out of the proposed trade partnership; and (3) prospects of materialization under an Obama Administration.As discussed more fully below, this article seeks to assess and analyze a promising trade region, one however, complicated by regional political interests and eclipsed by more immediate domestic problems in the United States.
U.S. Objectives in the Pacific Rim: Economics and Trade
Trade agreements are considered facilitators for commercial, legal and political access.With trade agreements, partner nations often interact on a variety of levels.Government representatives, transactional lawyers, legislators and politicians all play critical roles in developing the groundwork for trade.Further, political goodwill must be built, often through social and cultural interaction.The United States’ objectives in the Pacific Rim would incorporate such factors.Economic advantages include enabling more goods and services to reach American consumers at lower prices.[9]Further, free trade provides for long-term job creation and product innovation and competitiveness, as evidenced by the growth of the U.S. economy after the establishment of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO).[10]For example, total U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico has risen more than 86 percent since the implementation of NAFTA.[11]Trade increased from $299 billion in 1993 to more than $550 billion in 1999.[12] Overall, U.S. exports surpassed $2.350 billion in 1999, making up more than 25 percent of overall GDP and more than 15 percent of global trade.[13]Such statistics can readily foreshadow the benefits of a proposed economic agreement in the Pacific Rim for the United States.
However, tariffs and other barriers such as industry-specific subsidies continue to hinder growth.While the U.S. imposed a relatively low tariff at 2 percent, it does not apply it uniformly on all products entering its borders.[14]Agricultural products, textiles and apparel are taxed at a higher rate.[15]New Zealand’s heavy dependence on free trade is based primarily on agricultural products. Agricultural exports alone totaled $13 billion in 2004, making New Zealand vulnerable to fluctuations in international commodity prices and tariff differentials.[16]How the U.S-New Zealand trade relationship will manage tariffs remains to be seen.
Moreover, the U.S. is likely seeking to exert greater regional commercial and political influence by engaging in commercial activity in the Pacific Rim.For example, China recently signed a comprehensive free trade agreement with New Zealand, which is currently worth $6.1 billion.[17] The agreement also covers the services sector, including insurance, banking, education and labor.[18]It further aims to eliminate tariffs completely.[19]For the U.S. to remain economically competitive in a global marketplace with strong commercial players such as China, it will need to strategically develop its trade agreement with the G4 on terms more favorable to sellers and buyers.
The Marketplace of Laws: Legal Issues Arising in International Trade
Legal access under free trade mechanisms relate to the development of new bilateral laws which facilitate the free flow of commerce between partner nations.Under the proposed U.S-New Zealand partnership, legal development would occur in two phases: (1) a specific U.S-G4 financial services and investment agreement; and (2) a permanent U.S.-G4 free trade agreement, which would likely incorporate existing trade agreements with Chile and Singapore.
In order to materialize the U.S-G4 financial services and investment agreement, several sector-specific legal issues must be considered.First, domestic laws that discriminate on the other party nation’s goods and services must be evaluated.[20]Both party nations would need to study unfavorable terms aimed toward a set of producers and recommend viable courses of action in dealing with them.[21]Second, laws aimed toward regulating services, if the sector is included in any U.S-New Zealand partnership, would need to be reassessed.Such laws usually protect industries, ensure quality or further a domestic public policy goal, but in an international trade partnership, they could easily hinder substantive trade.Third, investment regulations will likely differ between the U.S. and New Zealand, resulting in a conflict of laws and potential bureaucratic obstruction of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).The U.S. will likely seek the removal of investment screening for its investors, and national treatment and comparable rights for U.S. investors in New Zealand.[22]Fourth, any trade agreement will need to incorporate a dispute resolution process.For example, in 2004, the U.S. requested the inclusion of an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process in its free trade agreement with Australia.[23]Under this process, any private investor may apply for arbitrators for compensation from either government if investment provisions within an agreement are breached.[24]
There are numerous other legal issues that arise during the course of international trade negotiations.Environmental safeguards, labor and wages protection, trademark and copyright protections, and cultural preservation are all areas any legal agreement would incorporate.[25]Under the U.S.-G4 proposal, dividing the trade process by first negotiating a financial and investment services agreement and then evaluating the prospects of a more comprehensive trade agreement makes economical and legal sense.The ultimate objective is to provide an effective foundation for efficient trade.This can only be achieved if the U.S. proceeds constructively and methodologically during the course of trade negotiations with New Zealand and the G4.
Prospects of Materialization: The Role of the Obama Administration
Any trade agreement, even one limited to financial services and investment, will need bipartisan support from Congress.Such a development would likely occur under the Obama Administration.However, it is more likely that the Obama Administration will designate any U.S-New Zealand trade agreement as low priority.The U.S. is currently in a financial and economic downturn not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s and the upheaval of the early 1980s.With a domestic economy in peril, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a decrepit health care system, the Obama Administration will likely see any trans-regional trade agreements as less urgent.Furthermore, trade negotiations often last for years, built around a variety of contentious economic, legal, political, and cultural issues.Under the purview of international trade, the Obama Administration will first likely aim for a more productive working relationship with the European Union and specific trade concessions arising out of its precarious relationships with Russia and North Korea.[26]However, it would be in the best commercial and political interests of the United States to further strengthen itself in the Pacific Rim.Entering into the G4 negotiations is one such avenue.
[1] Written by Sheheryar T. Sardar, currently residing in New York City. J.D., Emory University School of Law.
[2]NZ welcomes US entering P4 trade talks, NZPA, Feb. 5, 2008, at http://www.stuff.co.nz/4388367a13.html.
[4] For example, China’s “open-door policy” to trade in the Pacific Rim has consolidated its export power.Between 1970 and 1987 alone, China’s exports to the region increased twenty-fold and imports fifty-fold.One reason for such growth was the 1979 Law of the People's Republic of China on Joint Ventures Using Chinese and Foreign Investment.The Chinese government enacted it to “encourage foreign investment and technology transfers and to establish [special economic zones] with a variety of incentives for business firms to locate there and produce for export.”Jong H. Park, Impact of China’s open-door policy on Pacific Rim trade and investment- International Perspective, BUSINESS ECONOMICS, Oct. 1993, available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_n4_v28/ai_14604469/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1.
[8] For example, under NAFTA, the U.S. agricultural industry has grown exponentially, increasing its exports to Mexico, despite a “decrease in world and aggregate United States exports.” NAFTA and its Impact on the United States, Mar. 10 2004, 4, at http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ496/lence/spring2004/NAFTA.pdf.
[9]Denise H. Froning, The Benefits of Free Trade: A Guide For Policymakers, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Aug. 25 2000, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1391.cfm.
[16]New Zealand Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture in Brief, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, June 2005, at http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/agriculture-forestry-horticulture-in-brief/2005/agriculture-03.htm.New Zealand’s agricultural sector has also benefited from the Uruguay Round.See generally Ministry of Agriculture, An Assessment of the Gains to New Zealand from the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations, at http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/publications/wto-uruguay-round/uruguay-round-trade-negotiations.pdf.
[17]China, New Zealand sign new trade deal, CHINADAILY, April 7 2008, at http://www.chinadaily.net/china/2008-04/07/content_6596491.htm.
[26]See generally Helene Cooper, U.S. may signal incentives for N. Korea to talk, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, Nov. 19 2006, at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/19/news/summit.php (discussing trade incentives as mechanisms for North Korea to cease its nuclear proliferation program and for Russia to join the WTO for U.S-Russian economic benefits.)
Business/corporate, criminal, employment, Islamic finance, wills, entertainment law and real estate law - it all falls under the legal sphere. Providing access to legal advice, that's the job of the Sardar Law Firm. Low cost, high value. Personal understanding.
Sheheryar T. Sardar ofthe Sardar Law Firm has a wide variety of experience in the fields of commercial litigation, corporate and intellectual property law, and lobbying. He externed with Senior Counsel at The Coca-Cola Company in its Marketing Division, analyzing complex vendor licensing agreements and Fortune 500 corporate partnership contracts. Prior to Coca-Cola, he worked in-house at Scientific Atlanta – A Cisco Company, where he analyzed telecommunication technology licensing contracts and the expansion of broadband technology. Sheheryar also worked as at the Prague-based law firm Kriz & Belina, where he drafted a technology licensing joint venture agreement between a Czech entity and a South African company and analyzed various European bilateral investment treatises pertaining to government takings of private entities. At the U.S. Department of Labor, Sheheryar assisted in all aspects of litigation arising under federal statutory law. Additionally, Sheheryar was a Judicial Intern for the Hon. Anthony J. Parrillo of the New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division.
Prior to law school Sheheryar worked as a Legislative Assistant at the Georgia State Capitol – Secretary of the Senate’s Office, where he developed his acumen for lobbying. During law school he applied those skills for the benefit of child welfare reform during the 2007 Georgia legislative session.
This website contains Attorney Advertising.
Disclaimer: Items on this website are not to be considered legal advice or to create any lawyer-client relationship. Articles may include some obsolete information. In addition, taking any legal information out of context, i.e., using it in a different court or a subtly different kind of case, or without the training to understand all of what it means or doing research to verify it, usually has disastrous consequences.
Posts
