The Court Of Public Opinion

Conclusive research has shown that wet (uncured) marijuana is not psychoactive. Before drying, decarboxylation of inactive THCA acid into delta9 THC has not yet occurred. During the curing (drying) process, the COOH bonded to the THCA is released. The result is marijuana?s psychoactive compound delta9 THC. The State of North Carolina?s laws do not distinguish between the uncured weight of marijuana from the cured (dry) weight, necessary for marijuana to be consumed or sold. No one purchases wet marijuana at a price comparable to suggested market value because approximately 80% of this weight consists of water, both in the plant tissue and chemically bonded by carbon to the THC molecule. No one smokes fresh, wet, uncured marijuana because it cannot produce a euphoric effect. Decarboxylation must occur by drying prior to it?s combustion that occurs with smoking (this does not occur when attempting to smoke uncured marijuana), drying must also occur before eating marijuana, if it is to produce a euphoric effect.

North Carolina?s G.S. 15A-903(a)(1) allows the State to retain only a small random sample of marijuana to be made available to prosecutors and notably the defendants for the discovery rights. This deprives the defense of having all the evidence available to them. The actual weight of marijuana is an essential element of the criminal statute. The marijuana?s weight is the primary factor in determining the NC unauthorized substance tax assessment.

?Mature stalks? are found on all mature marijuana plants. The percentage by weight of marijuana?s ?mature stalks? can vary widely by different cultivation methods and by genetic variation. NC G.S. 90-87(16) clearly exempts ?mature stalks? from being considered toward the weight of ?marijuana? for criminal sentencing purposes. ?Mature stalks? are exempt because the State has recognized that they have neither intrinsic value as an intoxicant, nor any noteworthy market value. Marijuana?s ?shade leaves? are a waste product for marijuana farmers. These leaves are not smoked, and are not psychoactive. Likewise, male marijuana plants do not produce smokeable buds nor THC (the psychoactive ingredient of ?marijuana?). Marijuana?s initial wet, uncured weight can be over 500% of the final, dried, consumable and marketable weight. Uncured marijuana cannot be bagged or jarred because without curing because it would mold, rot, and become valueless. The State?s weighing of water content in uncured marijuana has resulted in many citizens receiving far harsher imprisonment, taxes and fines. Marijuana trafficking in North Carolina carries a mandatory minimum 2-year sentence for anyone possessing 10 lbs. or more. One pound of marijuana may weigh 6lbs before it dries and is useable. Many small farmers end up with trafficking charges because of this discrepancy. I do not believe this was legislature?s intent, nor is it just. The marijuana trafficking statutes, ? 90-95 (h) (1) section (a through d) , are all unreasonably harsh by commanding lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences. At the very least, the weight of marijuana required to warrant adding a trafficking charge should be restored to its initial threshold of 50lbs, and should be dried, and shade leaves, stems and all stalks removed before weighing. Because of recent scientific proof showing marijuana?s usefulness, and its benign non-toxic effects along with current attitudes toward marijuana, trafficking in marijuana should be removed from our current laws. Currently some citizens are being charged twice for the same 10 lbs., one trafficking count for cultivation and another for possession, and this is in addition to manufacturing and possession charges.

North Carolina?s Unauthorized Substance Tax Act, Article 2D ? 105-113.106 (6) has a different definition of what constitutes ?marijuana?, divergent from North Carolina?s Controlled Substance Act?s definition found in ? 90-87(16). These statutes also differ in their definitions of exemptions of parts of the plant not to be considered as ?marijuana?, respectively 105-113.107A – Exemptions and ? 90-87(16). N.C.?s drug tax law ? 105.113.107(a)(1) commands for a tax of 40 ? per gram for stems and stalks that have been separated from and not mixed with any other parts of the marijuana plant. Yet the next paragraph, ? 105.113.107(a)(1a), commands for a tax of $3.50 a gram, or fraction thereof, of marijuana, other than separated stems and stalks taxed under subdivision (1) of this section. In ? 105-113.107A (b) (1), it states, the tax levied in this article does not apply to the following marijuana: (1) Harvested mature marijuana stalks when separated from and not mix with any other parts of the marijuana plant.

Any knowledgeable and reasonable person would assume that all stalks and large stems would eventually be separated from the rest of the marijuana plant. It is impossible separate the stalks prior to harvest, yet a reasonable person would assume that separation would eventually occur. Therefore, requiring mature stalks to be separated from and not mixed with other parts of the plant to qualify under NC ? 105-113.107A(b)(1)?s exemptions seems far from reasonable or just. For example, the roots of the marijuana plant are exempt from tax liability under ? 105-113.107A(b)(4), whether separated or not. As mentioned, N.C. G.S. 90-87(16) clearly exempts ?mature stalks? (separated or not), which is not considered ?marijuana? by it’s definition.

Article 2D ? 105-113.106(6) ?s provisions pertaining to ?growing marijuana? are impossible to comply with, and should be considered unconstitutional. ? 105-113.106(6) defines marijuana as ?all parts of the genus Cannabis, whether growing or not? and as stated before, ? 105-113.107(a) (1a) calls for an excise tax of $3.50 per gram of ?marijuana?. N.C.

Article 2D ? 105-113.109 (requiring payment during actual or constructive possession) is impossible to comply with concerning growing plants. Being a growing plant, its weight is changing continuously and therefore is unable to be determined accurately. Taking into consideration that a growing plant is attached to exempt growing roots, determination of the taxable part?s weight is impossible to accurately assess. ? 105-113.109 also demands the drug tax stamps shall be permanently affixed to the unauthorized substance. Growing plants, especially outdoors, do not have a place to attach stamps where the plant will not outgrow and cause detachment.

The excessive mandatory minimum prison sentences for marijuana infractions under the N.C. G.S. ? 90-95 (h) (1) section (a through d) are all based on the weight of the marijuana. Therefore, by not determining the cured weight without ?mature stalks? of ?marijuana? prior to destruction and independent inspection and concurred confirmation by defendants; defendants? right to examine and test plants under G.S.15A-903(a)(1) and defendants? State and Federal Constitutional rights to due process are denied by removing the chance of a fair and reasonable opportunity to investigate, prepare and present their defense. Destruction by the State of marijuana held as evidence, before an agreed weight between the State and defendants, also violates defendants’ right of confrontation under Article 1, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina. Mandatory minimums sentences should not be allowed for marijuana related offences.

Past cases concerning the destruction of marijuana prior to independent determination of its weight have been ruled in favor of the State. In light of recent research and these new arguments, premature destruction of marijuana evidence by the State should not be considered actions taken in ?good faith?, and considered violations of defendants? rights previously mentioned. N.C. G.S. 90-87(16) needs to be amended to include plant moisture in the list of exempt parts of marijuana; this would more fairly apply the law by preventing unfair sentencing and fines. All stalks (mature or not), shade leaves, and male plants should be added to G.S. 90-87(16)?s exemption list also. Article 2D ? 105-113.106(6) needs to reflect G.S. 90-87(16) by exempting all stalks (hemp fiber) separated or not, from tax liability. The valueless waste product, ?shade leaves?, should not be taxed at $3.50 a gram and should be added along with male plants and most importantly the ?moisture of wet or non-dried? marijuana to ? 105-113.107A and NC GS ? 90-87(16)?s list of exemptions.

Legalization through regulation and a tax makes much more sense than waging war against the citizens of our State. Marijuana does not hurt society, while marijuana laws are destructive to society by creating criminals out of otherwise hard working, tax paying, good people. Alcohol and tobacco abuse causes many health and social problems, while marijuana’s effects are relatively benign to individuals and society. Until the criminal aspect is removed from marijuana, reason and justice, are replaced by oppression and hypocrisy. Please make your voice heard.

Insanity in the courts: in this drug tax case, Docket No 2002-683 (NC) (in PDF format) The State charged a citizen $39,654.72 for 1.9 pounds of marijuana by considering its initial wet weight (with some root balls) of 17.75 pounds. This demonstrates why are laws are unfair, harsh, and need to be revised. This tax case, NC Docket No 2003-269 May 19,2003 is an example of the State weighting dilute mixtures (in this case 20 pounds 9120 grams of homemade chocolate fudge), resulting in a $44,847.60 assessment when including penalties and interest with no mention of the additional criminal charges.

In the infamous case, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRIAN FRANK GONZALES NC NO. COA03-606 – June 1, 2004 the State appealed the dismissal of trafficking charges that were rationalized in trial court by charging him with the fresh wet weight of 25.5 pounds even though the SBI certified the marijuana’s weight at 6.9 pounds 1 month later. The State won this case in appellate court. It is now the duty of citizens of North Carolina to inform your State Representatives and schedule appointments with them, or at least call to tell them how you feel and encourage them to support changing the laws the way they are currently worded.
See my proposed statute revisions, and a proposed Medical Marijuna Act of North Carolina -adapted from MPP’s model legislation ? Click Here

David Oppenheimer – Performance Impressions ? my company’s website, Online Steinel Products Outlet with Heat Guns, Motion Activated Lighting ? Ultimate Vaporizer Kits (1/2 price of Volcano with bettter temp. control and flavor) and More visit our Free Online Concert Photo Galleries (Jam Bands, Bonnaroo and Tour)This page is online at: http://www.performanceimpressions.com/nclaw.html

Given the monstrous size and profitability of drug companies, some plaintiff lawyers are considering focusing more of their practice on drug litigation. In fact, shortly after Merck’s announcement of the Vioxx recall, some large plaintiff firms started aggressive media campaigns aimed at bringing in prescription drug injury victims. The media blitz has been non stop. Billboards, TV, web marketing, radio, and direct mail are just some of the marketing vehicles that attorneys have used to try and find new cases for them to work on. Many plaintiff law firms are no longer focusing on chasing run of the mill car accidents. Some of them have gone so far as to reposition themselves as ?drug recall lawyers,? seeing that the future of their practice may be shaped by the initial outcome of these new pharmaceutical cases.

When Merck chose to withdraw Vioxx, the CEO stated that a voluntary recall was the responsible course of action. Prior to pulling Vioxx from the market, Merck was spending $500 Million per year on advertising Vioxx. Vioxx is classified as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, or NSAID. However, Vioxx belongs to a new family of NSAIDs called ?COX-2 inhibitors.? There are not many COX-2 inhibitors on the market in the US: Bextra and Celebrex may be the only other two.

Both the number of potential Vioxx plaintiffs and award amounts of the lawsuits are projected to be extremely large. The investment bank S.G. Cowan recently estimated that eventually more than 600,000 plaintiffs could file suit in the Vioxx case. Furthermore, some investment banks think that plaintiffs may file for more than $10Billion in damages in years to come. Even the national TV networks have covered the Vioxx withdrawal. A November 2004 story on the Vioxx withdrawal appeared on CBS News’ 60 Minutes. The CBS story implied that the US Justice Department is conducting an investigation and the Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into Merck’s conduct. Given the media coverage of the Vioxx withdrawal and the number of people who were prescribed Vioxx, there may be many new ?Drug Recall Firms? founded in years to come.

You may reproduce this article on your website. We would appreciate a link back to our site Legal Articles from you. This article may not be altered and links should be kept live. Thanks.

Richard Martin is a contributing writer at http://www.legalclips.com. LegalClips.com is a collection of lawyer articles and other resources.

Conclusive research has shown that wet (uncured) marijuana is not psychoactive. Before drying, decarboxylation of inactive THCA acid into delta9 THC has not yet occurred. During the curing (drying) process, the COOH bonded to the THCA is released. The result is marijuanas psychoactive compound delta9 THC. The State of North Carolinas laws do not distinguish between the uncured weight of marijuana from the cured (dry) weight, necessary for marijuana to be consumed or sold. No one purchases wet marijuana at a price comparable to suggested market value because approximately 80% of this weight consists of water, both in the plant tissue and chemically bonded by carbon to the THC molecule. No one smokes fresh, wet, uncured marijuana because it cannot produce a euphoric effect. Decarboxylation must occur by drying prior to its combustion that occurs with smoking (this does not occur when attempting to smoke uncured marijuana), drying must also occur before eating marijuana, if it is to produce a euphoric effect.

North Carolinas G.S. 15A-903(a)(1) allows the State to retain only a small random sample of marijuana to be made available to prosecutors and notably the defendants for the discovery rights. This deprives the defense of having all the evidence available to them. The actual weight of marijuana is an essential element of the criminal statute. The marijuanas weight is the primary factor in determining the NC unauthorized substance tax assessment.

Mature stalks are found on all mature marijuana plants. The percentage by weight of marijuanas mature stalks can vary widely by different cultivation methods and by genetic variation. NC G.S. 90-87(16) clearly exempts mature stalks from being considered toward the weight of marijuana for criminal sentencing purposes. Mature stalks are exempt because the State has recognized that they have neither intrinsic value as an intoxicant, nor any noteworthy market value. Marijuanas shade leaves are a waste product for marijuana farmers. These leaves are not smoked, and are not psychoactive. Likewise, male marijuana plants do not produce smokeable buds nor THC (the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana). Marijuanas initial wet, uncured weight can be over 500% of the final, dried, consumable and marketable weight. Uncured marijuana cannot be bagged or jarred because without curing because it would mold, rot, and become valueless. The States weighing of water content in uncured marijuana has resulted in many citizens receiving far harsher imprisonment, taxes and fines. Marijuana trafficking in North Carolina carries a mandatory minimum 2-year sentence for anyone possessing 10 lbs. or more. One pound of marijuana may weigh 6lbs before it dries and is useable. Many small farmers end up with trafficking charges because of this discrepancy. I do not believe this was legislatures intent, nor is it just. The marijuana trafficking statutes, 90-95 (h) (1) section (a through d) , are all unreasonably harsh by commanding lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences. At the very least, the weight of marijuana required to warrant adding a trafficking charge should be restored to its initial threshold of 50lbs, and should be dried, and shade leaves, stems and all stalks removed before weighing. Because of recent scientific proof showing marijuanas usefulness, and its benign non-toxic effects along with current attitudes toward marijuana, trafficking in marijuana should be removed from our current laws. Currently some citizens are being charged twice for the same 10 lbs., one trafficking count for cultivation and another for possession, and this is in addition to manufacturing and possession charges.

North Carolinas Unauthorized Substance Tax Act, Article 2D 105-113.106 (6) has a different definition of what constitutes marijuana, divergent from North Carolinas Controlled Substance Acts definition found in 90-87(16). These statutes also differ in their definitions of exemptions of parts of the plant not to be considered as marijuana, respectively 105-113.107A – Exemptions and 90-87(16). N.C.s drug tax law 105.113.107(a)(1) commands for a tax of 40 per gram for stems and stalks that have been separated from and not mixed with any other parts of the marijuana plant. Yet the next paragraph, 105.113.107(a)(1a), commands for a tax of $3.50 a gram, or fraction thereof, of marijuana, other than separated stems and stalks taxed under subdivision (1) of this section. In 105-113.107A (b) (1), it states, the tax levied in this article does not apply to the following marijuana: (1) Harvested mature marijuana stalks when separated from and not mix with any other parts of the marijuana plant.

Any knowledgeable and reasonable person would assume that all stalks and large stems would eventually be separated from the rest of the marijuana plant. It is impossible separate the stalks prior to harvest, yet a reasonable person would assume that separation would eventually occur. Therefore, requiring mature stalks to be separated from and not mixed with other parts of the plant to qualify under NC 105-113.107A(b)(1)s exemptions seems far from reasonable or just. For example, the roots of the marijuana plant are exempt from tax liability under 105-113.107A(b)(4), whether separated or not. As mentioned, N.C. G.S. 90-87(16) clearly exempts mature stalks (separated or not), which is not considered marijuana by it’s definition.

Article 2D 105-113.106(6) s provisions pertaining to growing marijuana are impossible to comply with, and should be considered unconstitutional. 105-113.106(6) defines marijuana as all parts of the genus Cannabis, whether growing or not and as stated before, 105-113.107(a) (1a) calls for an excise tax of $3.50 per gram of marijuana. N.C.

Article 2D 105-113.109 (requiring payment during actual or constructive possession) is impossible to comply with concerning growing plants. Being a growing plant, its weight is changing continuously and therefore is unable to be determined accurately. Taking into consideration that a growing plant is attached to exempt growing roots, determination of the taxable parts weight is impossible to accurately assess. 105-113.109 also demands the drug tax stamps shall be permanently affixed to the unauthorized substance. Growing plants, especially outdoors, do not have a place to attach stamps where the plant will not outgrow and cause detachment.

The excessive mandatory minimum prison sentences for marijuana infractions under the N.C. G.S. 90-95 (h) (1) section (a through d) are all based on the weight of the marijuana. Therefore, by not determining the cured weight without mature stalks of marijuana prior to destruction and independent inspection and concurred confirmation by defendants; defendants right to examine and test plants under G.S.15A-903(a)(1) and defendants State and Federal Constitutional rights to due process are denied by removing the chance of a fair and reasonable opportunity to investigate, prepare and present their defense. Destruction by the State of marijuana held as evidence, before an agreed weight between the State and defendants, also violates defendants’ right of confrontation under Article 1, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina. Mandatory minimums sentences should not be allowed for marijuana related offences.

Past cases concerning the destruction of marijuana prior to independent determination of its weight have been ruled in favor of the State. In light of recent research and these new arguments, premature destruction of marijuana evidence by the State should not be considered actions taken in good faith, and considered violations of defendants rights previously mentioned. N.C. G.S. 90-87(16) needs to be amended to include plant moisture in the list of exempt parts of marijuana; this would more fairly apply the law by preventing unfair sentencing and fines. All stalks (mature or not), shade leaves, and male plants should be added to G.S. 90-87(16)s exemption list also. Article 2D 105-113.106(6) needs to reflect G.S. 90-87(16) by exempting all stalks (hemp fiber) separated or not, from tax liability. The valueless waste product, shade leaves, should not be taxed at $3.50 a gram and should be added along with male plants and most importantly the moisture of wet or non-dried marijuana to 105-113.107A and NC GS 90-87(16)s list of exemptions.

Legalization through regulation and a tax makes much more sense than waging war against the citizens of our State. Marijuana does not hurt society, while marijuana laws are destructive to society by creating criminals out of otherwise hard working, tax paying, good people. Alcohol and tobacco abuse causes many health and social problems, while marijuana’s effects are relatively benign to individuals and society. Until the criminal aspect is removed from marijuana, reason and justice, are replaced by oppression and hypocrisy. Please make your voice heard.

Insanity in the courts: in this drug tax case, Docket No 2002-683 (NC) (in PDF format) The State charged a citizen $39,654.72 for 1.9 pounds of marijuana by considering its initial wet weight (with some root balls) of 17.75 pounds. This demonstrates why are laws are unfair, harsh, and need to be revised. This tax case, NC Docket No 2003-269 May 19,2003 is an example of the State weighting dilute mixtures (in this case 20 pounds 9120 grams of homemade chocolate fudge), resulting in a $44,847.60 assessment when including penalties and interest with no mention of the additional criminal charges.

In the infamous case, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRIAN FRANK GONZALES NC NO. COA03-606 – June 1, 2004 the State appealed the dismissal of trafficking charges that were rationalized in trial court by charging him with the fresh wet weight of 25.5 pounds even though the SBI certified the marijuana’s weight at 6.9 pounds 1 month later. The State won this case in appellate court. It is now the duty of citizens of North Carolina to inform your State Representatives and schedule appointments with them, or at least call to tell them how you feel and encourage them to support changing the laws the way they are currently worded.
See my proposed statute revisions, and a proposed Medical Marijuna Act of North Carolina -adapted from MPP’s model legislation Click Here

More articles at article database

Given the monstrous size and profitability of drug companies, some plaintiff lawyers are considering focusing more of their practice on drug litigation. In fact, shortly after Merck’s announcement of the Vioxx recall, some large plaintiff firms started aggressive media campaigns aimed at bringing in prescription drug injury victims. The media blitz has been non stop. Billboards, TV, web marketing, radio, and direct mail are just some of the marketing vehicles that attorneys have used to try and find new cases for them to work on. Many plaintiff law firms are no longer focusing on chasing run of the mill car accidents. Some of them have gone so far as to reposition themselves as drug recall lawyers, seeing that the future of their practice may be shaped by the initial outcome of these new pharmaceutical cases.

When Merck chose to withdraw Vioxx, the CEO stated that a voluntary recall was the responsible course of action. Prior to pulling Vioxx from the market, Merck was spending $500 Million per year on advertising Vioxx. Vioxx is classified as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, or NSAID. However, Vioxx belongs to a new family of NSAIDs called COX-2 inhibitors. There are not many COX-2 inhibitors on the market in the US: Bextra and Celebrex may be the only other two.

Both the number of potential Vioxx plaintiffs and award amounts of the lawsuits are projected to be extremely large. The investment bank S.G. Cowan recently estimated that eventually more than 600,000 plaintiffs could file suit in the Vioxx case. Furthermore, some investment banks think that plaintiffs may file for more than $10Billion in damages in years to come. Even the national TV networks have covered the Vioxx withdrawal. A November 2004 story on the Vioxx withdrawal appeared on CBS News’ 60 Minutes. The CBS story implied that the US Justice Department is conducting an investigation and the Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into Merck’s conduct. Given the media coverage of the Vioxx withdrawal and the number of people who were prescribed Vioxx, there may be many new Drug Recall Firms founded in years to come.

More articles at articles database

The recent headlines about Merck’s Vioxx withdrawal and the FDA’s move to ban ephedra have brought a lot of media attention to the growing area of drug litigation.

On April 12, 2004 the FDA published a rule banning health supplements that contain ephedra alkaloids. The FDA concluded that the limited short term weight loss effects were outweighed by possible heart problems and stroke risks. The market gap caused by the banning of ephedra has been filled by many new companies that are marketing products similar to ephedra. However, these ephedra alternatives may not be any safer than the banned ephedra that they replace.

The FDA’s ephedra ban, and Merck’s Vioxx withdrawal have been hot news topics. These drug recalls and ephedra banning have brought lawsuits from many different angles. Obviously, some people think that some of the lawsuits will be frivolous. In fact, there has been a lot of news during the last decade about frivolous lawsuits brought by injured consumers against large companies for defective products. However, according to one report from Public Citizen (http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=12369 ), businesses file many more times the amount of lawsuits than consumers do and are more likely to be sanctioned by a court for bringing a frivolous claim.

State governments have enacted tort reform which has capped potential damages for certain types of claims in some states. George W. Bush’s state of Texas implemented tort reform in 2003 to cap medical malpractice liability. George W. Bush has continued to push for tort reform nationwide since he took office.

The real question is, if businesses are the ones who are generally taking too much of our courts’ time- why has there been such a push for individual tort reform? Is it possible that injured individuals are not a group of organized people with continuous business interests that actively lobby for tort reform? While frivolous lawsuits are a concern for everyone, shouldn’t tort reform really focus on the parties who are bringing most of them?

You may reproduce this article on your website. We would appreciate a link back to our site Legal Articles from you. This article may not be altered and links should be kept live. Thanks.

More articles at article database

On Sept. 30, 2004 Merck announced a worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx (rofecoxib). Vioxx had previously been prescribed in the treatment of arthritis and pain. Worldwide sales of Vioxx in 2003 were an estimated $2.5Billion and the drug was marketed in more than 80 countries around the world. This is one of several recent pharmaceutical products to have been put in the spotlight by both the national media and plaintiff lawyers.

Since sometime in the mid to late 90s a substantial number of pharmaceutical medications and medical devices have been removed from the market due to possible adverse health implications. The FDA acts as a regulatory body in approving health related products before they are marketed to consumers. The FDA moved to ban Ephedra in the US in 2004. However, the recent headlines about voluntary drug withdrawals have produced questions as to the FDA’s recent performance.

Many people believe that the FDA did not test the drugs rigorously enough to determine all the possible health problems that they might cause. People believe that the rise in litigation over these medications was due to the fact that the FDA now allows pharmaceutical companies to fast track their products and get them through the process in a year. In fact, Vioxx was only released in 1999.

Some of the latest drugs where concerns have also arose are Bextra, Celebrex and Zyprexa. Litigation over these drugs may commence in the near future. US plaintiff lawyers have begun to put some serious time and research into possible claims that may arise from pharmaceutical drugs. Plaintiff lawyers also handle Mesothelioma, Car Accident, and a wide variety of different personal injury cases.

If you think that you may have been injured by one of these drugs that have recently made headlines, you may consider consulting with a lawyer. Many plaintiff attorneys handle cases on a contingency basis.

You may republish this article on your own site. A link to Law Articles from your site would be most appreciated. Please do not alter the article. Thanks.

More articles at article database