Paying for Bankruptcy with your Tax Return

Debt seems like a treadmill sometimes. You get a little ahead, and it forces you right back.

USA Today is reporting that tax returns are being used to pay the filling fees for bankruptcy.

For many people it is the only thing that they can use to get caught up on their credit card bills, or help pay that missed mortgage payment. But the treadmill pulls them back eventually, and next year's tax return already seems spent.

More and more people are seeing past the stigma of bankruptcy. According to the USA Today report more than 200,000 thousand people will be using tax returns to declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy isn't a failure, it is a tool that helps you regain control over your debt. Declaring bankruptcy shows that you are committed to rebuilding your financial future and that you want a plan to help you get there. It also means that you do not want your next tax return to be used to catch up on your debt, you want it to be used to build a better future for your family.

If you are thinking of using this year's tax return to make debt payments, it is time to call us and get a free consultation. We can help you get a clear sense of your financial situation, and help you get a handle on your money. Please do not waste another tax return on debt payments, you owe it to yourself.

You can also call us at 1-815-397-2006 to talk about your issues.

Bankruptcies of the Rich and the Famous

Bankruptcy seems all the rage today.

Just look at the news coverage of NFL star Warren Sapp's bankruptcy filing. Bankruptcy seems to be everywhere in the news this week.

This week, we learned about Newt Gingrich's consulting firm is filing for bankruptcy, you can read about it in the bankrupt Chicago Tribune.

But few of these stories ever seem to capture the average American's struggle with debt. You never see a story about a Rockford factory worker who has been laid off for over a year, and is struggling to make his unemployment check cover his rent and utilities. Why don't we here about the Illinois teachers who were just laid off.  How  many of them will not be able to find work for months because of the "sluggish" recovery? What are they going to do when their debts keep piling up? 

It can be difficult when creditors are calling every single day, leaving harassing messages for you and your loved ones to hear. It may seem impossible, but there is help. If you or someone you care about is struggling with debt, we would like to help you. We can discuss your case for free, and you can get a real sense of how to get a handle on your debt. We are not concerned with the stories of big celebrities, or multi-billion dollar corporations. We want to hear your story. 

The Crosby Law Firm

Strip Searches for Minor Offenses? Supreme Court Says Yes!

Should people who are charged with minor offenses be strip searched? That was the question put before the Supreme Court this week. The Case, Florence v. County of Burlington (a.k.a. Florence v. Baord of Chosen Freeholders), involved the following facts:

 Albert W. Florence was driving in a BMW sport-utility vehicle in New Jersey with his wife and three children when he was pulled over for a traffic offense. The officer looked up Florence in the police computer database and discovered an outstanding warrant issued in Essex County. Florence had paid the fine, but the computer erroneously listed an outstanding warrant. Florence was placed under arrest in Burlington County and spent six days in jail before being transfered to Essex County's jail. At both jails, prison guards "conducted a visual inspection of his body, instructing him to open his mouth, lift his tongue, lift his arms, and then lift his genitals." Florence went before a judge and was quickly released from jail.

A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled that strip searches for an inmate admitted to any jail can be strip searched  even if they are charged with a minor offense. Strip searches may be used even if the accused has not appeared before a court. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that dangerous criminals such as Timothy McVeigh and some of the 9/11 hijackers were stopped for routine traffic offense around the time of their crimes. However, Justice Kennedy did not mention how strip searching would have aided law enforcement in these particular cases.

While both Justice Alito and Justice Roberts joined in the majority holding, they both wrote separate concurring opinions. Both of the Justices were worried about the breadth of the ruling. Justice Alito was specific to state that in this ruling "The Court does not address whether it is always reasonable...to strip search an arrestee before the arrestee’s detention has been reviewed by a judicial officer." Alito's concurring opinion seems to raise significant questions about how the ruling actually applies, as he seems to suggest that the ruling only applies to prisoners in the general population of a jail. He also states that most minor offenders are not held in the general population of a prison and should therefore not be subject to such a search.


The dissenting Justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) noted that strip searches are an extreme invasion of privacy that should not be used unless the minor offense involved violence or drugs, or in cases where prison officials have "reasonable suspicion"  that the suspect may have contraband.

The Full Supreme Court Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

Obamacare Goes to Court

There is no doubt what the biggest legal news is this week. Splashed across every news site on the internet is the headline, it is some variation of:

"Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Obamacare?"

In the past few weeks the coverage has centered around how the court would find the law constitutional. Some commentators have predicted an 8-1 vote in favor of the law, while others have predicted that the conservative Justice Scalia would be a swing vote in favor of upholding the law. Just last Thursday, Reuters singled out two of the conservative leaning justices who were likely to vote to uphold the law which would assure its constitutionality. It seemed that law and its supporters could sleep sound, assured that the Supreme Court wouldn't strike down the landmark law. 

However, the first day of oral arguments on the law seems to have shaken everyone's confidence that the law would be upheld. On the first day of arguments, many of the justices seemed to be hostile to the government's claim that the individual mandate to buy insurance was a "tax". This is important because one of the government's arguments is that the individual mandate is constitutional exercise of congress's authority because congress has very broad power to tax. The hostility of the court to the argument could be seen as a rejection of one of the government's strongest justifications for the mandate.

Day two of the arguments focused on the justification of the law under the commerce clause. The government argued that the nature of healthcare was unique and that congress could regulate insurance coverage under the interstate commerce clause. But many of the justices seemed uncomfortable with the idea that the government could force an individual to participate in an economic activity, with some justices questioning if there would be any limit on the government's power if the court were to uphold the individual mandate.

The court will hold one more day of arguments focusing on whether the individual mandate can be removed from the law along with some questions about the Medicaid expansion. The justices are expected to rule on the issue sometime in the summer.  

Transcript of Day 1 of Oral Arguments: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/27/us/27scotus-transcript.html?ref=policy

Transcript of Day 2: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html

Florida Killing Sparks New Debate About "Stand Your Ground" Law

On the night of February 26, Trayvon Martin died. George Zimmerman shot him.

That is almost everything that is known. Most of the facts surrounding the shooting are in dispute, and much of the rhetoric used to describe the incident is full of racial and political overtones. The incident may be in dispute for quite a while, but the controversy it raises may never be settled.

The local police in Sanford, Florida have refused to arrest Zimmerman because he claimed self-defense in the incident. Self defense laws vary by state but many states have a general requirement that a person must flee (called the "duty to retreat") from an assailant before they can use deadly force in self-defense. Some states have amended their self-defense laws to remove the duty to retreat when you are in your own home. Florida has a statute that goes even further. Sometimes called a "stand your ground" law, Florida's Statute 776.013 allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense in any place that they are lawfully allowed to be.

The Florida law was a large expansion on existing self-defense laws as it means that any person lawfully carrying a firearm could use deadly force. The law is controversial because many critics find that allowing deadly force to be used anywhere could lead to vigilantism. Supporters of the law argue that the law is needed to protect citizens who are attacked outside their home. Whatever side of the debate you agree with, the law has come into sharp focus with the death of Trayvon Martin. 

The Latest from Prisoner 40892-424 (Aka. Rod Blagojevich)

Rod Blagojevich's last free breath came Thursday as he entered federal prison after receiving a 14 year sentence last December. The disgraced former governor said that he was entering prison "with a heavy heart and a clear conscience." and that he was "proud" that "the things I did as governor and the things I did as congressman have actually helped real, ordinary people.”

It has been a long road for the man convicted of 1 count of Making false statements to the FBI, 11 counts of corruption, and 6 counts related to a pay-for-play deal with a Chicago hospital. Since his arrest back in 2008, Blagojevich has been impeached and removed from the governorship, appeared on two reality-TV shows, and written an autobiography. While his actions have only added to the public perception that he is unapologetic about his actions, they have also reinforced his most undeniable personality trait: he is incredibly charming.

So charming in fact that some jurors in his second corruption trial stated that they tried to avoid convicting him because he came across as "likable." This side of personality was on display at the press conference held Wednesday in which Rod highlighted his accomplishments as a U.S. Congressman and as governor of Illinois. Blagojevich also maintained his innocence saying that he "was on the right side of the law," even as he was boarding a plane to a Federal Correctional Facility in Colorado.

Given that federal guidelines mandate that a prisoner serve 85% of his time in prison, the former governor will spend at least 12 years behind bars before he becomes eligible for supervised release. If you need updates on the former governor before then, you can find them at the Bureau of Prisons website.

---------------------------------------------

While your case may not involve selling a Senate seat, it is still important to us. If you are a loved one have been charged with a crime The Crosby Law Firm can help. Call 815-397-2006 or click to arrangeyour free consultation today. We are located in Rockford, IL and are ready to help you with your case.

Illinois House Bill Aims to Ban Hand-Held Cellphones

This may actually surprise some people, but driving while talking on a cellphone in Illinois is not illegal...at least not yet. Sure talking on a cellphone without a "hands-free device" is illegal in all construction and school zones. But in general there is no state-wide ban on cell phone use while driving.

That may soon change if some lawmakers in Springfield get their way. After a recommendation last December from the National Transportation Safety Board that all states ban cell phone use in cars, some states have been taking a look at their driving laws. Illinois' response to the recommendation came earlier this month when Rep. John D'Amico introduced HB 3972. While the bill is still being amended, the proposed penalty would be considered a moving violation with $75 fine for the first offense.

While this seems like a huge sweeping law, the ban actually seems quite narrow when you consider how many exceptions it contain. Like the Chicago cell ban, the law creates an exception phones that are in a "hands free or voice operated mode" although unlike the Chicago ban, the law does not require the use of a headset. 

Other exceptions include:

1. Law enforcement officers in performance of their duties.
2. Drivers reporting emergency situations
3. Commercial driving equipment
4. Parked or stopped drivers
5. Drivers using mobile phones or other devices for things other than calling or sending text message (Radio, music player)

The exceptions are pretty broad. But such vast exceptions beg the questions, is this law really necessary? If people can still operate an amateur radio, truck equipment, GPS, or iPod while driving, then why should holding the phone to their ear be banned?  

This law also comes well after the introduction of technologies like Siri, the iPhone digital assistant. With Siri, drivers can operate their phone with their voice commands. Will technology eventually solve the problems that we associate with talking on a cell phone while driving? Doubtfully.

So, Rockford drivers, be careful. That call home, could soon cost you big.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you facing speeding tickets, moving violations, DUI/DWI, drivers’ licenses suspension, or a similar matter? The Crosby Law Firm offers flat fee pricing for most traffic matters. Click here or call 815-397-2006 to arrange for a free consultation today!