PJRLAW: Things that come in threes...

PJRLAW: Things that come in threes...: "With the death of Amy Winehouse people are again talking Celebrity Death Pools and Things That Happen In Threes. So here are some things t..."

Things that come in threes...

With the death of Amy Winehouse people are again talking Celebrity Death Pools and Things That Happen In Threes.  So here are some things that I think will happen in threes…

A.   Professional Lockouts:

1.       Fact - The NFL – Thank got its over because I am ready for some football but my Denver Broncos may not be ready for a couple more years!

2.       Fact - The NBA – their collective-bargaining agreement expired June 30^th

3.       Prediction - The NHL is next…

B.   Defendants Getting Off High Profile Criminal Cases:

1.       Fact - Casey Anthony – No one is sure what happened there except… throw enough at the wall and something is bound to stick!

2.       Prediction - Dr. Conrad Murray – Michael Jackson’s  personal physician now claims that the pop star ingested the fatal dose of propofol himself.  This “unique” defense was such a surprise to LA County prosecutors that they needed to delay the trial in order to prepare their case in light of this defense.  Is OJ Simpson a consultant for Dr. Murray???  Another miscarriage of justice in LA!

3.       Prediction - Former International Monetary Fund Chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahn – Nafissatou Diallo claimed to be attacked by Strauss-Kahn at the Sofitel Hotel but now prosecutors are waffling in light of concerns about Diallo's credibility ala Kobe Bryant; Ben Roethlisberger; the ENTIRE Duke Lacrosse Team. 

C.   Guys That Will Never Get Into Baseball’s Hall of Fame:

1.       Fact - Pete Rose – While hold 17 Major League records, Rose’s voluntarily agreed to be placed on a permanent  Hall of Fame ineligibility list.  No one is sure what happened there except… throw enough at the wall and something is bound to stick!

2.       Prediction - Mark McGuire.  Notwithstanding his impressive numbers, with only 19.8% of the vote last year, voters are sending a strong message to those players who have been connected to the performance enhancing drug controversy in baseball.

3.       Prediction - Roger Clemens.  Possibly, by statistics, the best pitcher who ever lived - 354 wins;.658 winning percentage; struck out nearly 4,700; 7 time Cy Young winner  who is called a multiple affair, drug user by an ESPN personality may have a real hard time getting enough votes for the Hall of Fame.

D.   “Celebrity” Layouts in Girlie Magazines:

1.       Prediction - Casey Anthony.  She will become a publicity hound and she’ll want to “flaunt” herself which may move he up on the “Celebrity” Death Pool!

2.       Prediction - Danielle Staub – The Ex-New Jersey Housewife should really think twice about that and I am sure her children are soooo proud that momma sold her sex tape to Hustler.  Ugh and ill all in the same breath.

3.       Prediction - Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi – In the same category as Danielle Staub , the Jersey Shore member has watched her “rising star” falls booking appearances at wing joints and bars.  Maybe that would be the jolt her “career” needs.  Say it with me… ugh and ill!!!

E.   Celebrity Death Pool:

1.       Fact - Amy Winehouse

2.       Prediction - Zsa Zsa Gabor – A Celebrity Death Pool Favorite

3.       My Wild Card Prediction - Lindsay Lohan – Hopefully I’m wrong and she has stepped off the path to self-destruction. 

PJRLAW: Things You Should Not Ask During A Job Interview

PJRLAW: Things You Should Not Ask During A Job Interview: "1. Are you married? - If you are looking for a date, try one of the online dating services, it will be cheaper in the en..."

Things You Should Not Ask During A Job Interview

1.         Are you married?

-           If you are looking for a date, try one of the online dating services, it will be cheaper in the end.

For you clever ones… What is your maiden name?  - Also inappropriate

2.         How old are you?

-           Hoping this one doesn’t need too much explanation.

Again, for the clever ones…  Did we graduate together in 1990? – Not so clever!

3.         Do you plan on getting pregnant?

-           If you ask this one, be sure to call us next.

4.         What religion do you practice?

-           Hopefully obvious…

5.         So what is your nationality?

-           However you can ask if the interviewee if they are legally permitted to work in the country.

6.         Do you have any disabilities?

-           From an ADAAA, the less you know here the better.

7.         Ever been arrested?

-           Philly has specifically outlawed this on the first interview.

8.         Are you in the National Guard?

-           You should be ashamed of yourself if you ask this.

9.         Have you ever filed a Workers Compensation claim?

-           Again, from an ADAAA the less you know the better for you.

10.       What kind of organizations do you belong to?

-           The National Labor Relations Board could have fun with you

             here.

Good luck!!!

www.pjrlaw.info

www.pjrlaw.com

www.lawofficesofpeterjrusso.com

PJRLAW: Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine

PJRLAW: Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine: "The Castle Law Doctrine a common law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person's castle. The Pennsylvania Legislatu..."

Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine

The Castle Law Doctrine a common law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person's castle.

The Pennsylvania Legislature suggested we modify the exists laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania based on the following concepts:

1)             a home is a person's castle

2)             Pennsylvania guarantees that the "right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

3)             people have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles.

4)             no person should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal

5)             no person should be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack outside the person's home or vehicle.

As a result the following modifications to Title 18 were enacted to, in essence, provides that a person no longer needs to retreat if the that person is not engaged in a criminal activity; not in possession of an illegal weapon; the person acting has a right to be in the place where he was attacked; the person acting believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses a firearm (or replica of a firearm) or any other weapon capable of lethal force.

The law now has a presumption that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if the person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; has unlawfully and forcefully entered a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle and the person acting knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.

As legislatures tend to do, there are exceptions to the presumption.  The presumption does not apply if the person against whom the force is used has the right to be in the dwelling, residence or vehicle; is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence or vehicle; is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person; if both parties are engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity.  Of course, you cannot use this presumption against a peace officer acting in the performance of his official duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer.

A nice addition to the law provides if the person using force satisfies the requirements of the law regarding force and prevails in a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor, the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor. Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation for loss of income.

PJRLAW: Tort Reform?

PJRLAW: Tort Reform?: " Section 7102 of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes was amended recently to modify the application of a legal concept kn..."

Tort Reform?

     Section 7102 of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes was amended recently to modify the application of a legal concept known as joint and several liability.  In essence the theory of joint and several liability provides if multiple defendants are named in a lawsuit and the plaintiff is awarded damages, the plaintiff can go to any one of the defendants and collect the judgment.  The defendant who pays the judgment has the right to pursue the other defendants for their “share.” 

     The new “Tort Reform” called “The Fair Share Act” provides that except in certain circumstances, each defendant shall be liable for only that proportion of the total dollar amount awarded as damages in the ratio of the amount of that defendant's liability.   So in essence, each defendant only pays their fair share.  

     Joint and several judgments will continue to be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against a defendant in cases of

(i)      Intentional misrepresentation case.

(ii)     An intentional tort case.

(iii)    Where the defendant has been held liable for not less than 60% of the total liability apportioned to all parties.

(iv)    A release or threatened release of a hazardous substance under section 702 of the act of October 18, 1988 (P.L.756, No.108), known as the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act.

(v)     A civil action in which a defendant has violated section 497 of the act of

April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the Liquor Code.

     If a joint and several judgment is entered against a defendant that defendant pays more than their pro rata share of the judgment, they may still pursue the other defendants for contribution.