Last updated over a decade ago, the guidelines steer judges in financial crime cases toward prison sentences that vary based on the dollar value of ill-gotten gains. Opinions on the revisions ran across the spectrum. On one end, the U.S. Justice Department objected to the revisions, appearing to base their judgment on public opinion. The Department said the move was contrary to “overwhelming societal consensus.”

On the other hand, many defense attorneys at the American Bar Association felt the proposals were too moderate. They have long advocated for softened guidelines and had pushed for broader revisions. Indeed, even some judges have said the recommended prison terms for financial offenders are too harsh.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in United States v. Booker, that all federal sentencing guidelines were advisory. Prior to the decision, they were mandatory — judges’ hands were tied, and the specific mitigating circumstances of each case had no bearing on the punishment imposed. Following Booker, judges would often hand down sentences in fraud cases that fell short of the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines. This illustrates that the recent revisions were probably overdue, especially considering the cumulative effects of inflation on the actual value of fraudulent gains.

Last updated over a decade ago, the guidelines steer judges in financial crime cases toward prison sentences that vary based on the dollar value of ill-gotten gains. Opinions on the revisions ran across the spectrum. On one end, the U.S. Justice Department objected to the revisions, appearing to base their judgment on public opinion. The Department said the move was contrary to “overwhelming societal consensus.”

On the other hand, many defense attorneys at the American Bar Association felt the proposals were too moderate. They have long advocated for softened guidelines and had pushed for broader revisions. Indeed, even some judges have said the recommended prison terms for financial offenders are too harsh.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in United States v. Booker, that all federal sentencing guidelines were advisory. Prior to the decision, they were mandatory — judges’ hands were tied, and the specific mitigating circumstances of each case had no bearing on the punishment imposed. Following Booker, judges would often hand down sentences in fraud cases that fell short of the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines. This illustrates that the recent revisions were probably overdue, especially considering the cumulative effects of inflation on the actual value of fraudulent gains.

Litigation Funding Corporation not only understands that finances tend to be strained after personal injury, but we also know it can take months, even years for you to receive a fair settlement from the at-fault party. We also understand the additional stress the holidays can bring at such a difficult time. Through a lawsuit cash advance, we provide money necessary to pay outstanding bills or to make the holidays a little brighter with a special dinner or gift for a loved one; there are no restrictions on how the money is used. We also make the application process as seamless as possible; applicants never have to worry about credit checks, meeting employment requirements, or making monthly payments. The only requirement for a funding is a valid lawsuit and attorney representation. Additionally, litigation funding is provided risk-free, meaning that plaintiffs only repay the advance if the case is successful.

If you are in a pending lawsuit and need a little extra cash in your pocket for holiday shopping, consider the legal funding services of Litigation Funding. A lawsuit cash advance can also be the solution necessary to level the playing field and give you “staying power” so that your attorney can achieve the highest recovery possible. Simply complete our online application or call our office toll-free at 1.866.LIT.FUND. We will work quickly to review your case and make a funding decision within 24 hours because helping you when you need it most is our top priority.

Litigation Funding Corporation is a leader in providing cash advance options for injury plaintiffs nationwide. The company is owned and operated by Mark Bello, a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Member of Public Justice and Public Citizen, Business Associate of the Florida, Mississippi, Connecticut, Texas, and Tennessee Associations for Justice, and Consumers Attorneys of California, member of the American Bar Association, and the State Bar of Michigan.

In response to this need, the American Bar Association’s Commission on Law and Aging has introduced an app that allows advance directives to be stored electronically. My Health Care Wishes is a convenient way for you or family members to present such documents to medical professionals via email or Bluetooth. Other information, including contacts and health information, can also be stored within the app. The electronic documents have the same legal authority as the paper originals. The app is available in a basic free version, and a $3.99 version offers additional features. Before launching, the Bar Association tested the app with health insurers and health care providers with solid results.

There are other options to store important documents in accessible electronic formats, including Dropbox and Docubank. Whichever method you use, make your documents available so that they can be useful when a problem appears.

The attorneys at Hook Law Center assist Virginia families with will preparation, trust & estate administration, guardianships and conservatorships, long-term care planning, special needs planning, veterans benefits, and more. To learn more, visit http://www.hooklawcenter.com/ or call 757-399-7506.

According to bill sponsor state Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, the law would have prevented Americans from having their rights violated by foreign law. Gov. Rick Scott released a statement in support of the bill, saying it would make it clear that citizens’ constitutional rights would be protected. However, opponents maintained that the bill was unnecessary because rights and protections are already directly guaranteed by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.

Opponents of the bill were also concerned that it would tarnish Florida’s reputation as a center for international dispute resolution and unnecessarily complicate Florida divorces for foreign couples residing in the state, for instance if the couple had an antenuptial agreement holding that foreign law would apply in the event of a divorce.

The bill was opposed by the American Bar Association, the International Law Section of the Florida Bar, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Civil Liberties Union, and several other civic, religious and professional organizations.

Contact a Jacksonville divorce lawyer with Richard D. Zasada, LLC or visit http://www.zasadalaw.com/

The post Proposed Family Law Legislation Fails to Move Forward in Florida Senate appeared first on Richard D. Zasada, LLC.