Lies the Media keeps repeating about Myles Garrett.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

The DNAwards.

The Do Nothing Awards, aka DNAwards.

Could this be a way to publicize when the Medical Industry does not police their own bad players?

Reinventing Parole as a way to reduce Homelessness.

A few years back California voters passed a ballot measure that released less violent offenders back into society earlier than their prison sentence dictated. While the obvious appears to have happened, higher homelessness in the Streets of Los Angeles, San Francisco and elsewhere in California, the why should be clearly explained.

Early release prisoners might actually prefer being free and homeless, rather than being locked up in a prison. The result is a new kind of homelessness. A tougher, more defiant homeless population capable of finding cash one way or another while steadfastly remaining on the streets.

Back in the late 80's and early 90's, the term Super Predator was meant to imply that one person of a certain age could reign over dozens of others in the same age range, the concern being the Super Predator could dominate and change the culture of many around them in lawlessness type of manner, especially in a school setting.

However, the term Super Predator was misappropriated and the claim was made that it was a racist term. It's ridiculous to imply that targeting one individual so that 3 dozen others of the same ethnicity can have a better chance of success as being racist, especially when the term applies to all races. 

Simple math tells us that if only 3% of any race is being labeled as a super predator, that is actually below the incarceration percentage of virtually any race, the bonus being it provides a better chance for the other 97% to get a quality education and school experience.

So it appears that in the past few years the emergence of Super Prisoner Homeless Predators, those who have been prematurely released back onto the streets with no real future other than to remain free and homeless while using their Prison gained experiences to possibly become a leader among homeless encampments, has become somewhat common.

Going forward, I would suggest that Parole be changed. Instead of a long sentence with the possibility of Parole for "good behavior", or premature release because of over crowding, Parole be based on each inmate searching for a job and a place to stay, while they are still in Prison.

If a Prisoner is facing a 6 year term, after one year so they establish themselves, allow them to start searching for a living and employment situation. If the process takes two more years, then the inmate is still out in 3 years instead of 6, and they have built up some type of relationship with the outside world that gives them a better chance to have more of a life than being homeless and defiant.

Even Illegal wiretaps or videos can become legal if it proves a Lie is being fabricated.

Kudos to the TV show "The Good Fight" for revealing that even an illegal video can become legal if it proves another person's claim about the same event was a lie.

Although a person has to be careful that any "illegal" video they record is not leaked or copied because if the video is released or leaked before a lie about the same situation has been officially recorded, then the person making the video could be legally liable.

How Lawyers have eroded Consumer Rights by creating the Ground Hog's Day Defense.

Although I am not a lawyer, I have interacted and our family has been impacted by questionable policies and reactions from the Emergency Response community and even social media sites. These policies have been most likely been created by legal counsel that has created the Ground Hog's Day Defense. 

When Emergency Responders or Social Media sites possibly behave in a Depraved manner or don't protect their own customers or patients from others, the Ground Hog's Day response of, "we will comply with any court order that is implemented" seems to be the new method our Legal Community has come up with to thwart any responsibility that both Emergency Responders and Social Media Sites would have.

Will we ever see a TV show that actually goes after all the bad guys who presently are being portrayed as the Good Guys?

We have met the enemy, and it is YOU, the people who used to help and protect the non elite of society from bullying and gaslighting tactics, now YOU are the Gaslighters.

What society needs are rich, without debt lawyers who want to fight the Emergency Responders and Social Media Site's Ground Hog's day style of debauched justification for unjustifiable actions, also known as gaslighting those they should be protecting.

When Mom takes a Break from her Walk with her Son so he can take a Picture of her. Happy Mother's Day to all Moms.

Happy Mother's Day to all Moms. This is my Mother, Fortunata Machi.

How State Governments have Taken Power away from their Citizens.

A Citizen's last resort when faced with a law breaking incident that harmed them, and that has not been enforced is to file a lawsuit. It was 2008 when our last economic crisis hit and many States solved their budget crisis by reducing the operating budget of their courts.

Suddenly a new normal was created that has greatly harmed the everyday citizen. By reducing the number of cases a court can hear on a daily basis, Law firms are reluctant to take on cases that have "marginal" monetary value simply because it could delay their other cases that have a higher monetary potential.

Think about that for a moment. A law firm may actually be contemplating the monetary value of taking a lower valued case  simply because it clogs up the court schedule, delaying the ability to get a verdict in a case with a higher "valuation". 

If a Law firm has a decent shot at winning a 20 million dollar verdict, why would they mess around with a measly 300,000 dollar verdict case if the lower amount case will inevitably take up the court's time and delay a verdict in the case with the potential 20 million dollar verdict?

Underfunding the courts is a permutation of justice for all by incentivizing law firms to reject worthy cases simply because it will delay the completion of their more profitable cases.

We keep fooling ourselves if we believe the present court system will ever start to work for the everyday person without dramatic changes occurring. Somehow, some way, lower valuation court cases have to be separated from higher verdict cases in such a way that a Law Firm does not see the two types of cases as in any way delaying the outcome for their higher valuation cases.

Yes, Courts ask what value a litigant places on a case when they file, but if I understand correctly, it is still the same court that is handling all the cases, except now there are less overall resources available to handle both types of cases.

The concept of a fully functioning Lo Bono division within an accomplished law firm may never happen now.  Lo Bono now also has to contend with the possibility of perhaps losing a case and then being forced to pay the defendant's expenses. It seems to me there should be a pre hearing in which a judge decides if a plaintiff will have to absorb the defendant's court costs if they lose the case.

Until these two issues of complete separation of lower valuation court cases from higher valuation court cases are resolved, and a Plaintiff knowing before the court case begins if they will be responsible for the Defendant's court costs if they lose their case, U.S. Citizens may continue to feel that Court Justice is truly only for the highest profit potential cases.

Free Legal Aid and Low Cost Legal Aid have gravitated towards domestic abuse, eviction situations, and  Immigration cases, including Undocumented. Immigration cases can be addicting, so can Undocumented cases. There are just so many Baby Boomers and Seniors who need help yet Free Legal Aid has been swallowed up by Immigration and Undocumented situations.

Unfortunately, in the process of trying to help the Undocumented, Senior Citizens and Baby Boomers have been thrown under the Bus, and if they complain, they are accused of being racist.

We presently have two political parties that are both intractable in their positions. The Democrat Position is Donald Trump is not their President, didn't win the 2016 Election because of the popular vote, and is Racist, and so is the Border Wall. We have Trump Supporters who probably know that Donald Trump is probably too much of a narcissist, but, they support the Border Wall and are disgusted that Democrats have refused to acknowledge they voted for a Border Wall and instead have chosen to call Border Wall Supporters Racist and refuse to give Trump credit for knowing what a lot of Americans want.

The biggest losers are the Baby Boomers and Seniors, who have been cast adrift by both Parties.

College Bribery Confirm's FBI and Federal Government Pitting Celebrities against all others.

According to News Reports, the FBI conducted a 10 year College Bribery Investigation. When it became painfully obvious early on to the FBI that the Very Rich were willing to pay to get their kids into certain prestigious Colleges, The FBI road the coat tails of a 10 year investigation rather than offer some type of guidance to colleges going forward.

Why wasn't the desire of Wealthy Parents trying to get their kids into a certain college fulfilled in the most common sense and easily legal method available, and a method that would have not run up a 10 year FBI tab at Taxpayer's expense?

The Media has created a "woe is me" meme among non celebrities while we all conveniently forget that each college already had wealthy benefactors whose donations make scholarships and other discounts available to those who cannot afford the full tuition price but may have good enough grades to be accepted.

Did anyone offer Lori Loughlin a "Pay to Play" opportunity in which she could pay 1/2 million dollars directly to USC so her daughter could also then attend while paying an additional full tuition price?

The real question that nobody seems willing to ponder, how many Students would a Wealthy person need to anonymously sponsor so their own Daughter or Son can be enrolled at the same College or University?

If Lori Loughlin had donated 500,000 or 1 million dollars to USC for the privilege of allowing her own daughter to get in at full tuition price, why not allow her that option? 

Perhaps the tables might be turned and we might have colleges purposely not accepting applicants from wealthy families in the hopes they pay to play? Now THAT would be a real scandal and the kind the FBI should be investigating.

What if a wealthy parent is willing to pay the tuition for a certain number of other kids just so their own kid can get into the same College or University?

Maybe USC could pay forward a wealthy donation and use, as an example, a Loughlin donation to help fund 20 students at a fine Midwestern school. Would that be so terrible?

It's ironic that we are creating a world where countries can trade their pollution credits, but we won't allow colleges to help each other out by allowing one student in if it means 10 or 20 others can get a scholarship.

There is a distinction with a differnt to the entire College Bribery Scandal that continues to go undetected. Let's separate the Parents who WANTED to "pay to play" with the College or University if it were allowed, from those who truly wanted to sneak a Daughter or Son in by any illegal means possible at below tuition price, since that causes donations made by College Benefactors to be used by the undeserving.

The distinction between the Wealthy Parent who wanted to pay to play, versus those who wanted to sneak their child in through bribery has not been the topic of discussion, and that is the real scandal.

Until Pay to Play, or Pay to Enroll becomes an option, we as a society are basically putting fuel on the 1.5 trillion dollar Student Debt Problem.

Calif. Medical Assn. President Shares Medical Horror Story. Incredibly, he Practices at the ER that Repeatedly Violated My Mother's EMTALA rights resulting in her Death. Wow.

Calif. Medical Assn. President Shares Medical Horror Story.

Facebook post describes poor emergency care he received.

Cheryl Clark,01.02.2019

This is a unauthorized lead in to the Article. This is my Mother in her ER Room and Bed, being repeatedly denied treatment for her sudden onset of Wheezing, which occurred while she was in the same ER that apparently the head of the California Medical Board Practices within. I was terrorized by an ER Nurse who absolutely refused over 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 pleadings of mine to just check my Mother's Chest Wheezing, which started while she was in her ER bed. Refusal after Refusal by the ER Nurse to simply recheck My Mother's Oxygen level and her blood pressure after the monitoring equipment started flashing red and sounding an alarm. The ER Nurse actualy disconnected the equipment and refused to remonitor my Mothers levels. The ER Nurse called a Code Gray on me because I documented the non treatment of My Mother with my Camera. Our room was flooded with ER Nurses and a Security Guard. My Camera was taken from me and the Video erased, and yet, through the entire gut wrenching experience, not one Nurse walked up to my Mother to check on her breathing. I was imprisoned in the ER room until my video was erased, and I was psychologically terrorized by 3 Nurses and the Security Guard who blamed me for being selfish because they could not get back to their own patients even though all I was asking for was a check of my Mother's Chest wheezing and her broken words when she spoke, something she never normally has. Mom died at home 2 and 1/2 days later. I could not get anyone to help me get her directly into another ER without waiting in the waiting room during last year's Flu epidemic. Does anyone see the irony of a the President of the California Medical Association calling out another ER for poor treatment when the ER he works in did equal or possibly worse due to the repetitive willingness to violate EMTALA at all costs.

Now read the article and how outraged the President of the California Medical Association was over the poor treatment he received in another ER, possibly from another State. Meanwhile the ER he WORKS in, played the role of grim reaper in the Death of my own Mother in March of 2018. Wow. Story begins below.

The new president of the California Medical Association was expecting to spend New Year's at a wedding in Las Vegas.

Instead, David Aizuss, MD, posted on Facebook about his "eye opening" first-hand view of "American medicine at its worst." (The post is visible only to his Facebook friends and he declined MedPage Today's request to elaborate, citing ongoing "medical issues.")

In his post, Aizuss said he was rushed by ambulance to a hospital Monday morning. "I spent hours in the emergency room where I received inadequate treatment of mind boggling pain, was never touched or examined by a physician, was mixed up with another patient and almost inadvertently transferred to another hospital, (and) was scheduled for emergency surgery based on a third patient's lab work that was confused with mine," he wrote.

He "finally signed out of the hospital against medical advice so I could obtain care from physicians that I know and trust." He did not name the hospital.

Aizuss, an ophthalmologist who practices in Calabasas, northwest of Los Angeles, posted his complaint New Year's Eve, apparently while at the LAX International airport in Los Angeles, where he said he was "just returning from Las Vegas where we were supposed to attend a wedding."

Dozens of Facebook friends, several apparently also physicians, expressed their shock that the CMA president could receive such poor emergency room response, and some said they were happy he was speaking out about poor quality of hospital care.

"If you get terrible care like this (at least you know the difference) think about the care that Joe Sixpack gets; he doesn't have the resources to get better care. This system is broken and we need to fix it," posted one.

Wrote another, "As president of the CMA, your voice can be loud! Don't be timid and do not be afraid of making enemies. Remember our patients know and respect us when we stand against poor medicine."

Aizuss ended the post by saying, "Truly an eye-opening experience for the President of the California Medical Association. Happy New Year to all!"

He began his one-year term as CMA president in mid-October, saying he wanted to focus on physician burnout, practice sustainability, and payment. He is also past chairman of the CMA Board of Trustees.

He is a medical staff member at Tarzana Hospital and West Hills Hospital, in Los Angeles County, and serves as an assistant clinical professor of ophthalmology at the UCLA Geffen School of Medicine.

The CMA represents about 43,000 physicians in the state and is the second largest organized medicine group of any state, next to the Texas Medical Association, which represents about 52,000 physicians.

Law Firms need to identify if they are P for Plaintiff, or D for Defendant on their online Websites.

Victims of Medical Injustices, such as Mistreatment of Patients that resulting from not listening to the Patient, or creating multiple, overlapping procedures for billing purposes, or simply ignoring a patients urgent need for assistance; should all be able to at the very least look up an Attorney online and ask for guidance.

The problem is the most visible attorneys are the ones who have Insurance companies for clients, and they don't necessarily identify themselves as being for the defendant. We will never know how many times a Medical Patient searching for a Plantiff Attorney mistakenly ended up contacting a Law Firm that actually works for the Medical Industry as a Defense Attorney.

Would it be such a terrible thing if ALL law firms identified themselves as either being P, a a Law Firm that represents Plaintiffs, or D, an Attorney that handles Defendants? If a law firm does both, then let them put both down and perhaps even reveal what percentage of the time they are a P, and what percentage of the time they are a D.

While we are at it, would it be so terrible if a Law Firm revealed if they work with Consumers, or with Businesses?

There might be some confusion, for instance, a Doctor who sues someone for slander might require that a law firm that normally does Defendant work now will be doing Plaintiff's work. But this is not a deal breaker either. The foundational values of a law firm are either Plantiff or Defendant, and either Big business or Consumer. Those values need to be CLEARLY outlined so the unsuspecting don't mistakenly get advice from the wolf in sheep's clothing.

A P, or D, label for ALL law firms is an idea that is so long overdue and I doubt anyone is advocating that such a simplistic idea be implemented. Just one more way our allegedly finest fool our populace.