The war between the medical community and the anti-vaxxers probably won’t abate anytime soon. Leading up to the 4 th of July weekend, when most Americans are traditionally preparing BBQs and fireworks, many Californians protested in cities across the state. That’s because on June 30 th , 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that effectively mandates vaccinations against diseases—including measles, mumps, and whopping cough—for all school-age children. This is in direct response to the low vaccination rates in many communities throughout California. Needless to say, this bill was one of the more high-profile measures the California legislature took up this year. Here are the basics. The law Pediatrician and state senator Richard Pan sponsored the bill that Gov. Brown signed into law. Before it was signed, parents could legally avoid vaccinating their children via “personal belief exemptions,” and indeed in 2014 some 13,000 of these exemptions were filed. This law does away with the exemptions, although children with confirmed allergies and other medical conditions are still exempt. Now, by law, those parents who refuse these mandatory vaccinations will be forced to remove their children from school, opting instead for home study or independent public learning programs. The causes The bill wasn’t written in a vacuum. California has recently been ground zero for some headline-grabbing measles scares, most notably the 2014 outbreak at Disneyland , which was attributed to unvaccinated children. Health experts are in agreement that this resurgence indicates a trend, one that can put unvaccinated children at risk. Take for example seven-year-old Rhett Krawitt, who became the literal poster boy for supporters of the mandatory vaccine law. A cancer sufferer who could not be vaccinated for health reasons, Rhett testified at a state senate hearing that “vaccines save lives.” The response Obviously, this is a sweeping victory for the pro-vaccination crowd. But if the protestors are any indication , opponents will not go quietly into that good night. For example, an organization called Voice for Choice has already raised $350,000 to fight the law. And those who are focused on repeal claim they have grounds because it violates their children’s right to a public education. So what do you think? Is this a battle between medical pragmatists and dangerously obstinate parents, or is this an issue of noble crusaders protesting overreach by a tyrannical state government?
Travel along California’s lengthy Highway 1, and you’ll be treated to some of the most stunning coastline in the country. Indeed, there are innumerable state beaches, from San Diego to Crescent City, where weary road trippers can abscond when the miles begin to take their toll. But try strolling down to those little stretches of sand fronting multi-million-dollar homes in Malibu and you’ll likely get run off like a two-bit horse thief. Case in point: entertainment mogul and longtime Malibu resident David Geffen has gotten pretty creative at preventing regular folks from enjoying the sand near his home. Yes, for years it has been a war between Malibu’s fabulously wealthy landowners and the sun-seeking hoi polloi. It was a battle between the California Costal Commission and property owners that seemed destined to rage forever—until a 2015 ruling opened up previously exclusive Carbon Beach to the masses. Here’s everything you need to know about how the former “Billionaires’ Beach” now has public access. The ground rules The Coastal Commission has firm rules in place regarding coastal access, and these are codified in California law. Basically, the public has a right to all beaches and trails leading to those beaches, so long as they don’t move above the high-tide line, which is regarded as the end of any beachfront property. Give and take The Coastal Commission doesn’t wield its power with an iron fist. In fact, the rule of thumb has always been negotiation over all else. Residents that want to add a pool or a tennis court to their existing property, for example, are often granted permits in exchange for allowing public access to the beach through their property. This was at the root of the Carbon Beach issue. The Ackerberg situation Lisette Ackerberg, a resident of Carbon Beach, was issued a development permit as far back as the 1980s, and only in 2015 did she uphold her end of the bargain and allow public coastal access through her property. And this is only after she was forced to do so by coastal regulators. From a legal standpoint, the trend favors public access to beaches. But Malibu residents have been pretty adept at circumventing legal decisions and preventing beach access for years and even decades. What do you think—is it okay that Californians have a fundamental right to enjoy all beaches, provided they don’t encroach on high-tide property lines? Or are the cranky homeowners in the right when they yell at the unwashed masses to “get off my lawn!”
July 8, 2015 After a decade of what appeared to be wedded bliss, movie stars Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner revealed plans to end their marriage . On June 30, 2015, the couple gave a joint statement regarding their hard decision, and emphasized that they plan to continue to co-parent their children, ages 3, 6 and 10. They asked for respect and privacy during this challenging time and stated they will maintain their friendship . Media reports were that the couple had been separated for a few months. Garner reportedly planned to pursue her acting career as a source confirmed that she had placed her acting on hold in order to focus on her family and her relationship with Affleck. Another source indicated that the couple had been struggling for some time. The announcement of their divorce just served to solidify the rumors. A third source agreed that the pair was breaking up and expressed their sadness at the end of the marriage, especially when considering their children. Further reports indicated that the couple plans to seek mediation to resolve pending matters in the relationship. Affleck had previously spoken of how Garner brought stability to him after he broke up with Jennifer Lopez in 2004. He admitted that she supported him as he moved forward in Hollywood with additional acting and directing projects. Garner was just as vocal in her appreciation of Affleck and what he brought to her life. The couple met while they worked together on the movie “Daredevil,” released in 2003. Paparazzi photographed them at a Los Angeles farmer’s market on June 14 with their children. Affleck posted on social media on June 27 while Garner was seen at a children’s hospital on June 26 as she prepared for an upcoming movie. Even if you do not have a high-profile marriage or numerous assets to split, you can benefit from the resources and the expertise of a divorce lawyer. A family attorney offers numerous services, including establishing parenting schedules and working out alimony payments. Contact us for assistance with your family law matter.
Learn the first steps in the divorce process with Larry Bellomo Attorney at Law in Mission Viejo, CA. Expert family law guidance—click to read our guide now.
January 28, 2018 According to an October 27, 2017, announcement, the Los Angeles jeans company, True Religion, exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy with about $357 million less debt, debt maturities extended, cash to implement a growth plan and a positive outlook for the future. The company emerges with a reduced retail footprint and an exit loan of $60 million from Citizens Bank, the same bank that provided the initial cash during the reorganization process. At the peak of the company, True Religion jeans were selling anywhere from $150 to $250 a pair at their nearly 140 stores and online. The brand also sold at upscale department stores, such as Bloomingdales, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom and at other locations in the U.S., Mexico and South America. Around 2013, True Religion, like many other apparel stores, struggled for success, watching sales decline as it competed with the internet, online shopping and competing discount retailers. The rapid growth in the trend of athletic wear for leisure caused the sales of blue jeans to quickly decline. Behind $192,000 on rent for its California office headquarters and drowning in major debts owed to creditors, manufacturers, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and malls around the country, True Religion filed for bankruptcy on July 5, 2017, in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. At the time of filing, the company had 128 stores in the United States and 11 stores outside the country. The company made some major changes, hiring John Ermatinger as CEO and president and bringing on a new chief marketing officer and a new vice president of sourcing. They also reduced costs, streamlined processes and closed unprofitable stores. John Ermatinger publicly thanked the company’s supporters — consumers, employees, vendors and suppliers — for their ongoing commitment and devotion to True Religion. He expressed his excitement regarding the future of the company, which includes implementing new growth strategies through innovative partnerships, expanding True Religion’s digital presence and refining its marketing operations. You do not have to be a major corporation to file bankruptcy , Like in the case of True Religion, bankruptcy allows individuals to emerge in a better financial position than before. Our legal team can help you navigate through these difficult times.
January 16, 2018 A Fresno State professor who intimidated a pro-life group was ordered to pay $17,000 and attend training on the First Amendment. He was recorded on video in an attempt to harass pro-life students who were drawing with chalk on the sidewalk. He also asked students from his public health class to assist him in his efforts. He claimed they were outside of the campus free speech area, but no such area has existed on campus since 2015. The sidewalk messages suggested pro-life options for students. The president of the club stated that the First Amendment gives students the right to speak on campus. She documented an incident between herself and the professor on video. He can be heard telling her that she is not in a free-speech area. However, she claimed that she had school permission to be there and to be speaking. The professor began erasing the sidewalk messages with his shoe. He told her that she did not understand the areas where free speech was permitted on campus. Alliance Defending Freedom acted as legal representation for the group, the Fresno State Students for Life. The professor must pay $1,000 to the president and $1,000 to another student as well as legal fees. However, he said that the money was paid by his insurance company, so he is not concerned about the legal fees. He does not admit to any wrong actions but is willing to attend the training so that he can learn the opinions and thoughts of others. The president expressed her relief that he will not be able to harass them again and explained that the case was not about winning money. She was extremely surprised at his actions, especially on a public campus. She further opined that professors should encourage and not prohibit free speech. Legal counsel for the pro-life group stated that the professor’s behavior flagrantly violated the First Amendment He added that school officials do not have the right to restrict freedom of speech on campus. The school did not comment about the case. If you believe that your First Amendment rights have been violated, you will need experienced legal representation to defend you. Contact us so that we can discuss your case.
January 5, 2018 The complexities of any divorce include dividing money, property and assets between both parties. While this might not be as complex for a millennial as it is for a couple who has spent their lifetime acquiring possessions, both types of divorce require finding a qualified family lawyer to deal with the personal issues. Legal experts report that stereotypes claim that other generations are more loyal than millennials who don’t really value traditions. She continues that even though they wait to marry, they still place a high priority on the institution. However, she added that they will not tough out a relationship the way their parents did. This by no means makes a divorce any easier for millennials. They feel just as hurt and disappointed as any others who divorce , but their outlook for the future tends to be more optimistic. Although marriage rates in the U.S. continue to decline, divorce rates are also dropping. Millennials delay marriage until later in life, placing an emphasis on education and careers before taking this significant life step. Millennials tend to be more open to diverse relationships, including living together. In the past, prenuptial agreements held a negative connotation as if one of the parties expected the marriage to end. The more-practical millennials, who prioritize acquiring and preserving wealth, see the prenup as a planning tool and communication map to manage financial expectations and interests. Creating a prenup with a lawyer realistically deals with the uncertainty of the future and helps a couple draft specific plans. Millennials choosing to live together instead of marrying can benefit from an attorney’s expertise when drawing up a cohabitation agreement, protecting both parties and their assets in case the relationship ends. When couples know the laws regarding cohabitation , marriage and divorce in their state, they tend to be ready for even unexpected contingencies. Whether a couple plans to cohabitate, marry or file for divorce, planning for a big relationship step helps the individuals prepare for the future, no matter what happens in the marriage. Consulting with a knowledgeable, experienced family lawyer sets up both parties for success.
December 23, 2017 The 32-year-old mother entered the high rise in downtown Memphis as a memory tugged at the far corners of her mind. Suddenly, it came to her. She had been in this very building with her own mother for the same purpose — to file bankruptcy . She anguished over the decision but a court order had recently enforced a judgement against her that allowed a company to seize a portion of her check. With her struggle to make ends meet, the judgment would put an unbearable strain on her already overburdened finances — the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Despite the stigma, she decided that bankruptcy would stop the vicious cycle of juggling bills each month so that she could now start fresh. She even dreamed of becoming a homeowner one day. While the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee in Memphis funnels millions of dollars to the court, the lawyers and the creditors, the debtors for whom the entire system exists don’t fare so well. The clients are stuck in a vicious cycle. Most people choose to file Chapter 7, which allows the person to start over from square one without seizing any debts. In contrast, Chapter 13 requires monthly payments while stopping car repossessions and home foreclosures. This method is most common in the South and was what this mother chose. She didn’t understand the difference between the two. However, filers who opt for Chapter 13 must continue making payments for five full years. Most cannot even last 12 months under the program. These individuals went through each and every step of the bankruptcy — paying filing and legal fees and dealing with a seven-year blemish on their credit record — but do not ultimately benefit from the program. Once they have defaulted, they revert back to all unpaid debts with interest rates higher than ever. When comparing Caucasian filings with African-American filings, the latter usually file under Chapter 13 but cannot complete the program. Some return for repeat filings, with a few filing Chapter 13 up to 20 times during their lifetimes. They view bankruptcy as a last resort. If you are considering bankruptcy, talk to our knowledge attorneys about which options — Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 — is best for you.
