Bankruptcy and Changing Bank Accounts – The Quick Two-Step

by David B. Ross (Ross & Ross, LLC)

Do I Change Bank Accounts before filing bankruptcy from the perspective of a Bankruptcy and Consumer Attorney

It is amazing the wealth of great questions people ask an attorney when they are considering filing bankruptcy. Here is one the comes up often: “Should I take my money out of the bank before filing bankruptcy.” When we hear this question, there are really two things that a consumer could be asking. The first is, “can I hide my assets by taking them out of the bank?” For the record, it is illegal to hide assets in bankruptcy and could subject you to severe consequences. The second question is a legitimate one – will the bank take or freeze my account if I leave the money in the bank.

The short answer is “maybe.” If you owe money to the bank and also have a savings account, checking account or other assets there, then it is advisable to close the account and put your money in another bank. Why? So the bank doesn’t try to satisfy the debt through your funds. If you move the funds, you can guarantee that you will retain control over them. On the other hand, if you do not owe then there is probably no reason to move the funds.

You can visit our web site and contact us for more information about dealing with creditors and debt relief. As always since federal law requires a disclosure from bankruptcy attorneys here it is “we are a debt relief agency that helps people get relief by filing for bankruptcy under the bankruptcy code.”

Garnishing Wages – Debt Collection in Pennsylvania

by David B. Ross (Ross & Ross, LLC)


Abusive Debt Collection from the perspective of a Bankruptcy and Consumer Attorney

Here’s the scenario. You finally get home after a long day at work. You’ve just sat down to eat a quick bite and the phone rings. Right in the middle of dinner. You answer because maybe it’s a friend who needs something or a family member you have been trying to reach. Instead it is an automated call that asks you to hold. So, you hold. You don’t know why you do, you just do.

After a few minutes, someone gets on the line and asks you to identify yourself. You do. You don’t know why you do, you just do. The voice then identifies himself as a debt collector. He starts out nice enough, asking when you are going to pay the debt and offering to help you take care of it right now. You can just give him your checking account number or send him some post-dated checks. He’ll even take a credit card. Eventually he becomes belligerent and threatening. He tells you he is going to garnish your wages. He is going to … well they usually make all kinds of threats.

Unfortunately, the above scenario is all too common, and it is illegal. In Pennsylvania you cannot garnish wages to collect a debt even after obtaining a judgment against you. The harassment and the false information violate the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. The Act actually provides that you can sue the collector for his illegal acts and recover up to $1,000.00 per violation plus attorney’s fees.

You can visit our web site and contact us for more information about dealing with creditors and debt relief. As always since federal law requires a disclosure from bankruptcy attorneys here it is “we are a debt relief agency that helps people get relief by filing for bankruptcy under the bankruptcy code.”

On Bankruptcy

It seems like these last few years have been really tough on a lot of good people. In my law practice have seen a lot of hardworking folks, friends and family who have been down on their luck. Now, bankruptcy gets a bad rap, but I want to tell you that it is precisely because so many good folks that I know were having trouble that I added bankruptcy to the services that we provide, and what a difference it has made for people.

While no one desires to file bankruptcy, bankruptcy is a good thing. The idea of bankruptcy has existed for thousands of years. In fact, as one historical reference you will find forgiveness of debts every seven years in the Bible. Over these thousands of years, we have tried other systems. Our English cousins established debtors' prisons. Fortunately, we have rejected this idea. It offered no relief to the debtor and did nothing for society. In modern times we have returned to the ancient idea of bankruptcy because it works. Debtors now have a way to discharge debts that that could otherwise never pay. They are given firm footing on life's path and a second chance. In the process, for those debtors who can actually repay some of their debt, they are given a plan under which they can do so. For those who cannot repay anything, the debt is forgiven.

How marvelous is it that good people are given a second chance ... that debt collection and constant oppression cease, and that families who would otherwise be forever relegated to a life of poverty can rise again, re-establish themselves, and succeed.

So to all those whose luck is down and who are fighting to survive, don't let your head hang down. Keep working hard. There is a way out that has served us well for thousands of years. And by the way, you are in good company; Henry Ford, Henry Heinz, Larry King, Johny Unitas and many others have had to file and came back from it to be incredibly successful.

Countrywide Employee Discloses Customer's Personal Information

In what we are calling the Countrywide Mortgage affair, a Countrywide employee stole the personal information of thousands of people and sold it to third parties. How did the thief defeat Countrywide's state of the art security measures? Easy - there weren't any. Countrywide did not bother to use even basic security protocols that would prevent theft of information. As a result, the employee was able to simply stick a thumb drive into the computer and steal thousands of names and information capable of being used for identity theft, and he as able to do so multiple times before being caught.

This event is frightening on many levels. Identity theft is real and it is increasing. if you have been the victim of identity theft, you know that it is nearly impossible to correct your credit history with the result that you cannot get credit or at least credit on favorable terms. Therefore, forget about opening up a line of credit or buying that new house despite all of your hard work. But more revolting is that Countrywide took no measures to protect its customers despite the predictable and disastrous results for thousands of people.

Countrywide is a lesson to all of us about the perils of the modern wold, and there is not much that you can do to protect yourself. Our firm has been investigating countrywide, and if you are a victim who lives in Georgia or Pennsylvania, we would love to hear from you. You can contact us at Davidbross@rocketmail.com

Right to a Speedy Trial

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Since the ratification of the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1791, an accused has enjoyed the right to a speedy trial. Over 150 years later, the United States Supreme Court laid out the factors that a court is to consider to determine if this right has been violated. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). These factors are: “[1] [l]ength of delay, [2] the reason for the delay, [3] the defendant’s assertion of his right, [4] and prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 531.

The Sixth Amendment protects accused individuals from oppressive incarceration for indeterminate lengths of time without their case coming to trial. It also prevents the government from waiting until evidence favorable to the accused is lost, disintegrates, or witnesses die or their memories fade.







Five to go to trial for drug arrest
Tue, Apr. 10, 2007

BY ALAN RIQUELMY
Staff Writer

HAMILTON -- The number of defendants expected to reach trial in a massive Harris County drug case - initially 11 people charged with trafficking in cocaine -- has dropped to five.
Two defendants -- Cortez Johnson, 29, and Tamika Hill, 30 -- have indicated they will plead guilty and testify for the state. Johnson could get 12-15 years in prison. Chief Assistant District Attorney Mark Post said he hadn't yet finalized a plea agreement for Hill.

Three others -- Keith M. Barber, 30, Latea Davis, 29, and Choici Lawrence, 29 -- filed a constitutional appeal at a lengthy motion hearing on Monday. Because of the nature of their appeals, they aren't expected to go to trial for months.
One other defendant -- Torrance Hill, 31 -- pleaded guilty in February in federal court to four drug distribution charges. He was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison.

Those who still remained to stand trial as of Monday were Santwan J. Holt, 29; Shawn M. Bunkley, 36; Edward Hill, 53; Vincent E. Johnson, 36; and Antonio P. Reese, 30.
The defendants are accused of possessing and intending to distribute some 400 grams of cocaine in 2005 and 2006. Cortez Johnson, who is pleading guilty, was arrested in February 2006 and allegedly found with 120 pounds of cocaine worth $5.5 million.
On Monday, defense attorneys had filed some 100 motions, which Harris County Superior Court Judge Bobby Peters listened to as one attorney after another stood and argued his or her case.

Defense attorney David Ross, who represents Barber, said the U.S. and Georgia constitutions guarantee the right to a speedy trial. His client has been incarcerated for 14 months, he pointed out. "In this case, the evidence showed someone who was ready to testify that the state's informant pointed at people who weren't in the conspiracy, so law enforcement wouldn't look at his family," Ross said at the Harris County Courthouse. "That witness is no longer available." Ross has appealed to a higher Court to protect his client's rights.

Other defense attorneys argued about recorded telephone conversations Post said he intends to submit as evidence. Attorney Mark Shelnutt, who represents Lawrence -- one of the defendants who appealed on Monday and will no longer go to trial in the near future -- said some 363 hours in conversations existed that he wanted to examine.

"They've waited too long, and we don't have enough time," Shelnutt said. "We had a right to a speedy trial, but we've been delayed. It's the state's fault we don't have this evidence." Shelnutt's assertion that Post told him only 20 hours of recorded conversations existed led the prosecutor to rise from his chair, claiming Shelnutt wasn't being truthful.

Post said he intends to use no more than 47 of the conversations, none of which exceeds 15 minutes. "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going to throw the cases out because you haven't had enough time to listen to the tapes," Peters said.
The judge will most likely hear the remainder of the defense attorneys' motions this morning before jury selection today. Opening statements are expected today or Wednesday.

Peanut Butter Blues - Food Contamination

Here is a portion of a recent interview with Channel 3 News:

Taking Action with Food Recalls
Susanna Avery | savery@wrbl.com
Reporter, News 3 On Your Side

March 21, 2007


Recently the FDA reported more peanut butter may be contaminated with salmonella than previously thought. Plus, hundreds of pet food products have also been recalled. News Three has received many calls from concerned viewers looking for advice.

Food recalls are on the rise. "Many people come to attorneys because they get the runaround," said Ross. He also says that often times, the consumer gets ignored when a massive food recall occurs.

Before you see an attorney, there are a few steps you must take on your own. "They need to report it to the business where it happened. They need to insist a written report is made," said Ross.

If you don't want to seek legal action, Ross says there are other options. "Contact the FDA to report the injury and see if they can get any action," he said.



WRBL, Media General

Fighting for Justice

Tue, Oct. 24, 2006

Woman files suit over hair loss

Seeks $12 million in damages from Procter & Gamble

BY ALAN RIQUELMY

Staff Writer

A Columbus woman filed a $12 million civil suit against Procter & Gamble on Monday alleging a hair dye made her permanently lose all her hair.

Attorney David Ross filed the suit on behalf of Mary Alice Mack, who applied a Clairol "Nice 'n Easy" natural black hair dye around Dec. 28. What followed, the suit claims, were chemical burns to Mack's scalp, her hair falling out in large clumps and hair loss that has continued after 10 months.

"People expect the products they buy to be safe, and they should be entitled to that assumption," said Ross, a Columbus attorney with Berry, Shelnutt, Day & Hoffman. A Procter & Gamble representative referred questions to another department, which couldn't be reached for comment Monday.

Mack is seeking $12 million in compensatory damages and an unspecified amount in punitive damages.

Civil Asset Forfeitures - A Draconian Measure

Following is an excerpt from an article I wrote on civil forfeitures. David Ross can be contacted for legal consultation at davidbross@rocketmail.com or through his website www.rossandrosslaw.com. (706) 324-4343

Civil Forfeiture:
A Fiction That Offends Due Process

“Our civil asset forfeiture laws, at their core, deny basic due process, and the American people have reason to be both offended and concerned by the abuse of individual rights which happens sometimes under these laws.”[1]

I. Introduction

It began as any other day for Billy Munnerlyn, successful operator of an air charter service located in Las Vegas, Nevada.[2] Albert Wright, a businessman, booked a flight to Ontario, California. When the airplane landed, DEA agents suddenly arrested Wright and Munnerlyn, seizing Wright’s luggage and the $2.7 million it contained.[3] The DEA also confiscated Munnerlyn’s plane, the $8,500 charter fee, and all of his business records.[4] Why? Unknown to Munnerlyn, Wright was a convicted cocaine dealer.[5] Although criminal charges were dropped against both parties, Munnerlyn spent $85,000 in legal fees to fight the government’s civil asset forfeiture action against his plane.[6] He raised the money by selling three other airplanes.[7] In the course of recovering the plane, Munnerlyn won a jury verdict in Los Angeles, only to have it reversed by a U.S. district judge.[8] Eventually, Munnerlyn was forced to settle with the government, “paying $7,000 for the return of his plane,” only to discover “that DEA agents had caused about $100,000 worth of damage to the aircraft.”[9] For Billy Munnerlyn, the American dream came crashing to a tragic end. “Unable to raise enough money to restart his air charter business, he had to declare personal bankruptcy. He is now driving a truck for a living.”[10]

II. The History Of Civil Forfeiture: An Inauspicious Beginning

The concept of forfeiture has ancient roots. Civil asset forfeiture is based upon the legal fiction of personified property.[12] Under this fiction, the property itself is viewed as guilty and subject to punishment.[13] The owner’s actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant.[14] Accordingly, cases proceed in rem against the property.[15] Several sources contributed to the development of this curious legal fiction: pre-Christian Greek and Roman law, biblical law, and early English law.[16] According to Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois, it was a routine practice in ancient Athens and the pre-Christian Roman Empire to seize the property of those opposed to the ruler.[17] Other pre-Judeo-Christian forfeiture practices flowed purely from the superstitious belief that religious expiation was required of instruments of death.[18] It follows that modern American forfeiture law precariously rests on the twin pillars of authoritarianism and animism,[19] an inauspicious beginning for a practice used today to deprive individuals of homes, businesses, cars, airplanes, and cash.

In Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.,[20] the Supreme Court located the origin of forfeiture in biblical practices: “[i]f an ox gore a man or a woman, and they die, he shall be stoned and his flesh shall not be eaten.”[21] This concept was broadened and changed in a unique way by early English law. Under the English medieval law of “deodand,” inanimate as well as animate objects were subjected to punishment.[22] Under deodand laws, any property causing the death of a person was subject to forfeiture.[23] While the object itself was not necessarily seized, its value was assessed and remitted to the king as a forfeiture.[24] Whereas biblical law prevented anyone from benefiting from the guilty property (“his flesh shall not be eaten”), under English law the property was forfeited to the crown.[25]

For a legal concept predicated upon religious superstition, deodand proved remarkably resilient. This practice was finally abolished in England in the mid-nineteenth century, and Lord Campbell declared that it was a “wonder that a law so extremely absurd and inconvenient should have remained in force [so long].”[26]

The deodand was never imported as a legal practice in the United States.[27] Nevertheless, the United States embraced the concept of forfeiture. “The earliest American cases justifying a civil forfeiture proceeding in rem involved actions for the forfeiture of ships . . . . The in rem posture of the admiralty forfeiture proceeding is another inheritance from English law.”[28] Under English law, owners of vessels were often located overseas and “thus not subject to the jurisdiction of English courts.”[29] Styling the action in rem enabled England to enforce its admiralty laws against the vessel.[30] Hyde states that English admiralty law is the “immediate wellspring of American civil asset forfeiture law and procedure” and notes that, like the deodand, it is “also firmly rooted in the English fiction that invests inanimate objects . . . with both life and personal responsibility.”[31] The use of civil forfeiture slowly expanded during the Civil War and the Prohibition Era.[32] Finally, the use of civil forfeiture exploded in the 1980s as civil forfeiture became a tool in the war on drugs.[33]

This brief survey of civil asset forfeiture’s history demonstrates two things. First, it explains the origins of our current legal practices. For example, the ancient philosophical view that property could be guilty and in need of expiation explains courts’ continued rejection of an owner’s innocence as a defense to forfeiture. Second, it illustrates that civil asset forfeiture, at least originally, relied heavily upon authoritarian practices and superstitious notions for its justification. This suggests that perhaps it is time to reexamine civil asset forfeiture in light of the constitutional ideals cherished by our society.

---

[1] 145 Cong. Rec. H4851-01, H4852 (daily ed. June 24, 1999) (statement of Rep. Pryce), available in 1999 WL 419754.

[2] See H.R. Rep. No. 106-192 (1999), available in 1999 WL 406892.

[3] See id.

[4] See id.

[5] See id.

[6] See id. Civil forfeitures proceed against the property itself and often without regard to the guilt or innocence of its owner. See Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Cato Institute, Statement Before the Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (July 21, 1999) (transcript available on Cato’s website at <http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp072199.html>).

[7] See H.R. Rep. No. 106-192.

[8] See id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] H.R. 1658, 106th Cong. (1999). See supra note 118 for an update on this Act.

[12] See Pilon, supra note 6.

[13] See id.

[14] See Melissa A. Rolland, Comment, Forfeiture Law, the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, and United States v. Bajakajian, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1371, 1372 (1999).

[15] See Pilon, supra note 6.

[16] See id.

[17] See Henry Hyde, Forfeiting Our Property Rights 17 (1995).

[18] See Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 681 n.17 (1974).

[19] See Pilon, supra note 6.

[20] 416 U.S. 663 (1974).

[21] Id. at 681 n.17 (quoting Exodus 21:28).

[22] See Hyde, supra note 17, at 18.

[23] See Rolland, supra note 14, at 1372.

[24] See Tamarar Piety, Comment, Scorched Earth: How the Expansion of Civil Forfeiture Doctrine Has Laid Waste to Due Process, 45 U. Miami L. Rev. 911, 928-29 (1991).

[25] See Hyde, supra note 17, at 18.

[26] Piety, supra note 24 at 931.

[27] See Scott A. Nelson, Comment, The Supreme Court Takes a Weapon from the Drug War Arsenal: New Defenses to Civil Drug Forfeiture, 26 St. Mary’s L.J. 157, 163 (1994).

[28] Piety, supra note 24, at 935.

[29] Rolland, supra note 14, at 1372-73.

[30] See id.

[31] Hyde, supra note 17, at 20.

[32] See Rolland, supra note 14, at 1373-74.

[33] See Joy Chatman, Note, Losing the Battle but Not the War: The Future Use of Civil Forfeiture by Law Enforcement Agencies After Austin v. United States, 38 St. Louis U. L.J. 739, 747 (1994).