Don’t think Flint, Michigan is the only city with a water crisis. Louisiana residents in the small town of St. Joseph have a similar issue.
The residents are petitioning the government for cleaner water. Residents report the water there has been yellow or murky brown for over 10 years.
That’s 10 years too long. Sadly, there are also 400 more water systems within small towns in the state facing similar issues. Aging water systems with rusted pipes.
The mayor of St. Joseph, Edward Brown, is under fire for accusations of mismanaging and misappropriating funds, according to a new investigative audit. A state auditor reported several instances of spending that “may have violated state laws” in an 83-page report.
Among the allegations: Brown received $19,491.00 in monies he shouldn’t have received, including overpayments, double payments and payments for personal travel or travel he did not go on.
St. Joseph is located in Tenses Parish in northeastern Louisiana, near the Mississippi border. The town is 133 miles north of Baton Rouge. According to the 2010 U.S. census data, the population is 1,176 people. The racial makeup of the town is 68 percent African American and 30 percent White with one-third of the town living below the poverty line.
Don’t let the government or anyone else deceive you into thinking the water is safe.
You don’t have to be a victim of high iron levels, manganese, or lead poisoning. Take control. If you or someone you know needs help regarding a water crisis, get GOINS LAW on your side.
Call GOINS LAW at (318) 787-5607 or (713) 759-9266.
Available in Louisiana and Texas
The recent death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has sparked a huge legal battle in the country right now.
With his passing, a lot of Senate Republicans are saying they would like to wait until a new President is elected to decide the new justice. Senate Republicans have once again made it their priority to usurp the authority of the President once more.
It’s disrespectful to the seat of the President of the United States. Their main excuse to try to block President Obama from filling Scalia’s seat is because he’s about to be out of office within the next few months.
President Obama still has eleven months in office, from now through January 20, 2017. That’s a lot of time left in his term. Other Presidents have appointed Justices with less time left in office.
As the sitting U.S. President, President Obama has the constitutional right to make a recommendation to Congress.
The POTUS has had the responsibility to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court every time — and any time — there is a vacancy on the bench. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution — known as the Appointments Clause — is unambiguous about these roles and responsibilities:
President Obama shouldn’t have to leave the decision to the next administration. The opposition is just another stall tactic Congress is using. They’ve been doing this throughout the President’s term.
They did the same thing when he nominated Loretta Lynch as the U.S. Attorney General. Congress held her nomination the longest ever in the history of nominations. It took five months for Lynch to be named Attorney General.
It further shows the contempt and disdain they have for President Obama. A replacement needs to be named quickly. There are too many important cases with very critical issues left on the table: abortion, affirmative action, the livelihood of public sector unions and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
There are highly qualified potential nominees:
D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan
U.S. Circuit Judge Paul J. Watford
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Ann Millett
U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch
Scalia died February 13, in his sleep. At 79-years-old, he served almost 30 years on the Court. He spent most of his time fighting against affirmative action.
Out of eight members of the Supreme Court, it’s a 4-4 split between conservatives and liberals. President Obama’s decision would make the Supreme Court a liberal court. Currently, in the case of a tie, we won’t have a ruling.
These decisions will shape America for years to come. It’s important Senate Republicans to put their ulterior motives aside and let the President nominate a new Supreme Court justice. It’s important that after 30 years we need to see change. Or Americans will suffer.Read More
Mom and Dad, if your child has a Build-A-Bear Starbrights Dragon, take it away from them right now. And while it’ll probably break their tiny hearts, they will thank you for it when they’re older.
The folks at Build-A-Bear Workshop issued a recall Thursday for the dragon, one of its most beloved, one-of-a-kind plushables. It seems what may be your child’s favorite toy is also a safety risk because a defect causes the satin seam to open. This poses a hazard for young children who may choke on the stuffing. Build-A-Bear sold almost 35,000 dragons in the United States and Canada between April and August of last year, alone.
In case you haven’t heard of Build-A-Bear, it’s a plush toy manufacturer based in Overland, Kansas which provides a highly interactive assembly process for the consumer (the kids). There are more than 400 “workshops” worldwide operating in 19 countries. Noted for craftsmanship, Build-A-Bear posted a total revenue of $379 million in FY 2013.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission wants adults to immediately take the dragon and return it to the nearest Build-A-Bear store, where they will receive a voucher for any stuffed animal. Thankfully, no adverse incidents were reported as of yet, but you can’t be too careful when it comes to your kids or their toys.
The holidays are fast approaching and its news like this you can use to make sound decisions. Goins Law is here not only to present a problem, but provide solutions. If you or someone you know needs information or guidance regarding a product recall, GET GOINS. Remember, GOINS GOT YOU.Read More
The NFL and its players have always been inundated with legal issues since its inception. From copyright to morality clauses, the legal issues of the league are almost as prevalent as the athletics. On another note, it’s funny how the laws of our judicial system has to sometimes rely on the laws of nature. For instance, look at this “Deflategate” issue.
If you’re a fan of the New England Patriots, surely you’d like the rest of the world – especially National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell – to put Deflategate behind and move on to possibly another championship. But football fans should be able to relate to and learn from the legalities of this case. Ponder on these for a minute:
1. QUARTERBACK SNEAK – Tom Brady is famous for his four Super Bowl wins, three Super Bowl MVP awards and marriage to his Brazilian supermodel wife Gisele Bündchen. But he will go down in history for his “quarterback sneak” and yardage gained, if you will, against Goodell. You see, Goodell suspended Brady for four games for his alleged role in the scandal. Brady fought back like Doug Flutie did in 1984 with that last-second Hail Mary against the University of Miami. Brady used the Scales of Justice to get the ruling overturned and the rest, as they say, is history.
2. UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS – Now there’s the possible question as to whether Goodell unfairly punished Brady. This could call for further legal ramifications; so much so, the commissioner is considering leaving the crime and punishment department to a separate counsel. And then, there may be another investigation into Spygate, the Patriots alleged spying of teams. What gives Goodell so much insight and leeway to lay the legal smackdown, you ask? Well, none, except the fact he’s commissioner. By the way, his background is economics.
3. PASS INTERFERENCE – Finally, whatever Goodell thought he had for Brady, it was broken up by Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court – Southern District. Berman didn’t rule on whether Brady had a role in Deflategate. He ruled on the NFL’s authority to suspend Brady, based on the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the National Football League Players Association. So technically, unless you’re a Patriots fan or Brady loyalist, the jury is still out on whether the quarterback knew the footballs had a change in pressure.[/column]Read More
For some of us, a great tuna salad sandwich makes for a perfect snack, lunch or even dinner (if you’re up for that sort of thing). But if you’ve been paying attention to the news, the tuna industry has been taking all sorts of hits. And now with underfilled cans, old Charlie Tuna has been getting canned by consumers.
But alas, there’s hope. If you are a tuna lover, you can either get cash or cans. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, if you’ve purchased one of more cans of StarKist tuna between Feb. 19, 2009 and Oct. 31, 2014, you are entitled to either $25 cash or $50 in cold, hard tuna.
You see, California resident Patrick Hendricks took Charlie Tuna to court in a class action lawsuit when he sensed something fishy with their shortage of tuna in 5-ounce cans. StarKist agreed to the settlement “to stay focused on our core mission of providing healthy and delicious seafood to our consumers,” a company spokeswoman said when the settlement was announced in May. He alleged in the Northern District of California suit that testing showed cans were underfilled.
And you know they admitted no wrongdoing (despite Hendrick’s claim that testing showed underfilled cans), but a $12 million settlement fund was set up to include $8 million earmarked for cash payments and $4 million for tuna, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported at that time.
Of course, you may not have your receipt. Your claim may still be honored. But don’t lie to kick it. That would be perjury. And though this blog entry is about class action lawsuits (which Goins Law does), we’d hate to get that call to represent you as a defendant. So just go and check out the settlement website about claiming a refund.
I feel this case represents how the “little man” took on a big industry and came out the big fish. Many of you may have had that proverbial can of tuna and just thought you were getting played or never considered the weight. But Patrick Hendricks thought outside the box and got the law on his side. If you feel you are being played by any company, big or small, Goins Law has the expertise to look out for you. Whether it’s tuna or sharks, we got you.Read More
The Supreme Court of the United States garnered so much attention regarding the American Care Act, same-sex marriages and housing discrimination. And while these decisions affect us all, let’s not forget the one that affects Texas specifically. SCOTUS ruled in June Texas did not violate the First Amendment when it rejected a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate battle flag. Texas offers automobile owners a choice between general-issue and specialty license plates. Those who want a particular specialty plate can propose a specific design. It’s up to the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles to approve the design and make it available for Texans.
The “stars and bars” is at the forefront of recent controversy resulting from the deaths of nine people in a Charleston, S.C. church. Well, to be honest, it’s always been a controversial topic and the 5-4 decision by SCOTUS was no different. Many in support of the SCOTUS decision may feel the Confederate flag doesn’t represent the United States of America. After all, it was formed after the Confederacy seceded from the Union and had its own president, Jefferson Davis. On the other hand, there are some who feel they just don’t want folks to forget from whence they came.
That’s no problem, except there are those who use the flag as a symbol of hate or disdain for other races. In a South Carolina shooting that resulted in the deaths of nine church members, the alleged shooter was seen in photos donning the Confederate flag and supporting apartheid. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens from overzealous proponents of hate.
I commend SCOTUS on its decision and the State of Texas in the decisions to reject a specialty flag featuring the stars and bars. Dialogs about race, hate and civil rights start with decisions such as these.Read More