For A+ BBB Texas Home Loan Modification Companies CLICK HERE
Harris County is the most highly populated county in Texas, and the third most populous county in the United States! Unfortunately, during these tough economic times, it is also being hit hard in the current housing crisis. In August alone, foreclosure filings in Harris County reached a little over 2,400. If you feel like your home might be at risk, call HomeStart. We have an experienced team of loan modification consultants who will help answer any questions you may have, and may be able to help you prevent foreclosure or lower monthly mortgage payments.
Fortunately, there are viable measures residents may take to avoid foreclosure, thanks in part to the federal Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan (HASP) implemented last spring by the Obama administration. With a $75 billion total budget, the plan aims to help a projected four million homeowners over the next three years by reducing monthly interest rates and encouraging borrowers to adopt a loan modification plan.
HomeStart's main purpose in assisting in your loan modification is to lower your monthly mortgage payment while providing you with accurate information regarding your specific situation and full service in setting up a home loan modification before foreclosure has the chance to set in. It is not too late to act!
Loan modification companies that provide A+ BBB rated services have established personal relationships with the largest mortgage lenders to expedite the loan modification process. Contact HomeStart at anytime to discuss your financial hardship, we will listen and maintain the highest level of confidentiality. We have an entire team of experienced loan modification consultants who will help answer any questions you may have, regardless if you pursue a loan modification through HomeStart. We are here to help; start new, not over.
Here is an example of a recent loan modification performed by HomeStart.
Property in San Diego, CA Total monthly savings of $1,132.38/month
* Primary Residence: Loan amount of $298,819 with an interest rate of 5.875% and monthly mortgage payments of$2,445.30. * Modified to: Interest Rate of 3.875% and new monthly mortgage payments of $1,312.92 fixed for 5 years; final interest rate of 5.375% and $1,481.94 monthly payments.
For more information please visit www.YourHomestart.com
วันพุธที่ 18 พฤศจิกายน พ.ศ. 2552
Don't Let Gloomy Weather Get You Down. Oregon and Washington are Ideal for Solar Power! by Mike Arnesen
Solar Power generated by photovoltaic solar arrays is a clean, renewable, and eco-conscious energy source that is rapidly growing in popularity. More and more homeowners across the United States are turning to solar to both reduce their home's carbon footprint and deal with rising energy costs. Even as increasing numbers are upgrading to solar power, some Washington and Oregon homeowners are left to wonder if solar power is even viable in the Pacific Northwest amidst the clouds and rain of winter months. Thankfully, the answer is a resounding yes. Currently, there are more than 17,000 Oregon households that are powered with renewable, solar energy and even selling excess energy back to power companies. As it turns out, a number of factors make the Northwest an ideal location for the use of solar power. To find out what makes the Northwest so great for solar, how Oregon homeowners can drastically offset the costs of upgrading, and how to get the most out of solar power I interviewed Certified Solar Integrator Dan Gillespie of Hometown Exterior Designs.
Dan Gillespie is one of a select group of contractors in the Northwest that have embraced solar power. After talking to Dan, it was clear that he has a deep knowledge of solar power and a real passion to spread the message of green, cost-efficient energy production to all homeowners. He explained that as part of a public education program, Hometown Exterior Designs, along with a few other solar contractors, will come out to interested homeowners, providing them with a free energy audit to assess their home's energy needs, estimate the costs of a solar project, and to predict their eligibility for tax credits and other savings.
In our interview, Dan proved to me that the Pacific Northwest is an ideal place for solar power. According to the US Department of Energy, the Pacific Northwest's largest solar facility receives as much sun as Houston, Texas. I was surprised to learn that the Pacific Northwest receives as much sun as the national average and, in Southern and Eastern Oregon and areas of Washington, up to 30 percent more. Furthermore, Oregon gets considerably more sun that Germany, which is currently considered the world leader in solar energy. Aside from getting more than enough sunshine to power homes and businesses, Mr. Gillespie explained that Oregon's cooler temperatures are in fact ideal for solar power systems; like the majority of electrical devices, photovoltaic solar arrays work more efficiently at cooler temperatures and generate significantly more power than in hotter climes. This is because the key component of solar energy production is UV light, not heat. Even though there can be reduced power output in cloudy weather, the photovoltaic solar panels will still generate ample power, as the UV rays that the panels convert into energy still penetrate the clouds.
Beyond saving you money every month through generating power, Dan showed me that upgrading your home to solar has an additional monetary incentive available in the State of Oregon. The excess energy that your home solar system generates can be fed back into the power grid and become a credit to your energy account. During the times when your home solar system isn't generating the required power to satisfy your demand (eg. When you are cooking dinner, doing the laundry, using televisions and computers simultaneously, etc.) you can use that credit to power your home. Your solar panels generate credit even while you're at work! Washington, hopefully will consider similar legislation in the future.
Because solar allows you to generate as much energy as you need and even store excess energy as a credit*, there is an amazing return on investment. That return improves even further with cash incentives from the Energy Trust of Oregon and energy tax credits from the State of Oregon. After Dan explained the specifics of the credits and incentives, I was amazed to learn that Oregon residents who take advantage of these opportunities can cover up to 85% of the cost! The Energy Trust of Oregon alone offers $1.50 to $1.75 per watt generated. Even local power companies offer incentives; Portland General Electric offers $1.75 per watt and Pacific Power pays $1.25 per watt. With the Oregon Residential Energy Tax Credit (RETC) you can earn a tax credit of $2 per watt up to $6,000 and claim $1,500 of that per year. Additionally, both Oregon and Washington homeowners can qualify for an Investment Tax Credit from the Federal government for up to 30 percent of the cost of your system after rebates. Companies like Hometown Exterior Designs can even help you get pre-approved for tax credits and incentives beforehand so you know that your costs are covered. Between generating your own power, accumulating credit with the power company, and cashing in on huge incentives and tax credits, you can recoup the initial cost of investment in a couple of years.
After my interview with Dan, I believe that even in today's economy upgrading to solar energy in the Pacific Northwest has never been more urgent as it is affordable and environmentally critical. It is the smart way to conserve both money and natural resources. From a financial standpoint, installing a photovoltaic solar energy system on your Pacific Northwest home today will significantly reduce your energy bills and, with the help of state and Federal tax credits and incentives, it will allow you to make a sizable investment in your home at a fraction of the cost. These incentives might expire in the future and a complete understanding of how to access them will ensure your optimum savings. Companies like Hometown Exterior Designs or resources like the Renewal Northwest Project can help you find your way through the state and Federal red tape.
A solar energy system also adds value to your home; Dan indicated that on average, the resale value of your home increases by as much as the full cost of your system. From an environmental standpoint, going solar allows you to reduce your home’s carbon footprint by eliminating dependence on fossil fuel burning power plants, a leading (if not THE leading) cause of global warming. For Oregon and Washington homeowners who are interested in making an investment with a high return and saving the planet for generations to come, going solar is the only choice.
I really appreciate Dan taking the time to sit down with us to explain why solar power is a viable, affordable, and smart option for Northwest homeowners. To find out more about solar power and how you can upgrade your home, you can visit Hometown Exterior Designs' Solar Page or visit the Energy Trust of Oregon to find a certified solar contractor in your area.
Dan Gillespie is one of a select group of contractors in the Northwest that have embraced solar power. After talking to Dan, it was clear that he has a deep knowledge of solar power and a real passion to spread the message of green, cost-efficient energy production to all homeowners. He explained that as part of a public education program, Hometown Exterior Designs, along with a few other solar contractors, will come out to interested homeowners, providing them with a free energy audit to assess their home's energy needs, estimate the costs of a solar project, and to predict their eligibility for tax credits and other savings.
In our interview, Dan proved to me that the Pacific Northwest is an ideal place for solar power. According to the US Department of Energy, the Pacific Northwest's largest solar facility receives as much sun as Houston, Texas. I was surprised to learn that the Pacific Northwest receives as much sun as the national average and, in Southern and Eastern Oregon and areas of Washington, up to 30 percent more. Furthermore, Oregon gets considerably more sun that Germany, which is currently considered the world leader in solar energy. Aside from getting more than enough sunshine to power homes and businesses, Mr. Gillespie explained that Oregon's cooler temperatures are in fact ideal for solar power systems; like the majority of electrical devices, photovoltaic solar arrays work more efficiently at cooler temperatures and generate significantly more power than in hotter climes. This is because the key component of solar energy production is UV light, not heat. Even though there can be reduced power output in cloudy weather, the photovoltaic solar panels will still generate ample power, as the UV rays that the panels convert into energy still penetrate the clouds.
Beyond saving you money every month through generating power, Dan showed me that upgrading your home to solar has an additional monetary incentive available in the State of Oregon. The excess energy that your home solar system generates can be fed back into the power grid and become a credit to your energy account. During the times when your home solar system isn't generating the required power to satisfy your demand (eg. When you are cooking dinner, doing the laundry, using televisions and computers simultaneously, etc.) you can use that credit to power your home. Your solar panels generate credit even while you're at work! Washington, hopefully will consider similar legislation in the future.
Because solar allows you to generate as much energy as you need and even store excess energy as a credit*, there is an amazing return on investment. That return improves even further with cash incentives from the Energy Trust of Oregon and energy tax credits from the State of Oregon. After Dan explained the specifics of the credits and incentives, I was amazed to learn that Oregon residents who take advantage of these opportunities can cover up to 85% of the cost! The Energy Trust of Oregon alone offers $1.50 to $1.75 per watt generated. Even local power companies offer incentives; Portland General Electric offers $1.75 per watt and Pacific Power pays $1.25 per watt. With the Oregon Residential Energy Tax Credit (RETC) you can earn a tax credit of $2 per watt up to $6,000 and claim $1,500 of that per year. Additionally, both Oregon and Washington homeowners can qualify for an Investment Tax Credit from the Federal government for up to 30 percent of the cost of your system after rebates. Companies like Hometown Exterior Designs can even help you get pre-approved for tax credits and incentives beforehand so you know that your costs are covered. Between generating your own power, accumulating credit with the power company, and cashing in on huge incentives and tax credits, you can recoup the initial cost of investment in a couple of years.
After my interview with Dan, I believe that even in today's economy upgrading to solar energy in the Pacific Northwest has never been more urgent as it is affordable and environmentally critical. It is the smart way to conserve both money and natural resources. From a financial standpoint, installing a photovoltaic solar energy system on your Pacific Northwest home today will significantly reduce your energy bills and, with the help of state and Federal tax credits and incentives, it will allow you to make a sizable investment in your home at a fraction of the cost. These incentives might expire in the future and a complete understanding of how to access them will ensure your optimum savings. Companies like Hometown Exterior Designs or resources like the Renewal Northwest Project can help you find your way through the state and Federal red tape.
A solar energy system also adds value to your home; Dan indicated that on average, the resale value of your home increases by as much as the full cost of your system. From an environmental standpoint, going solar allows you to reduce your home’s carbon footprint by eliminating dependence on fossil fuel burning power plants, a leading (if not THE leading) cause of global warming. For Oregon and Washington homeowners who are interested in making an investment with a high return and saving the planet for generations to come, going solar is the only choice.
I really appreciate Dan taking the time to sit down with us to explain why solar power is a viable, affordable, and smart option for Northwest homeowners. To find out more about solar power and how you can upgrade your home, you can visit Hometown Exterior Designs' Solar Page or visit the Energy Trust of Oregon to find a certified solar contractor in your area.
วันจันทร์ที่ 9 พฤศจิกายน พ.ศ. 2552
SUPREME COURT CHANGES CONFESSION LANDSCAPE Pt. 2 by Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
But in 1981 the court in Edwards v. Arizona decided to slow the judicial march against Miranda. 5/ In that case the defendant had been arrested and read his Miranda rights. He requested an attorney and the police stopped interrogating him. But a different set of detectives from the same police department returned the following day and started up a new interrogation. The defendant confessed to the crimes he was suspected of committing during this second interrogation. The state and lower federal courts upheld the confession. The Supreme Court disagreed, making three significant findings: 1) that after the defendant asserted his right to silence/counsel and the police returned to question him and secured a confession without providing him with counsel, the confession could not be used against him; 2) that the defendant did not waive his right to counsel because there was no finding that he understood the right sufficient enough to have knowingly relinquished it; and 3) that once defendant asserted his right to counsel there could be no further interrogations without the benefit of counsel, unless the defendant initiated additional communications with the police.
Four years after the Edwards decision, the Supreme Court in Jackson effectively imported the Miranda/Edwards Fifth Amendment right to silence into the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel by saying that a request for counsel at arraignment should be considered as an invocation of the right "at every critical stage of the prosecution." Moreover, Jackson created a highly-criticized presumption of an involuntary waiver of counsel "based on the supposition that suspects who assert their right to counsel are unlikely to waive that right voluntarily" in subsequent interactions with the police. 6/ Jackson effectively established a "bright-line" rule that once a criminal defendant is represented by counsel, the State cannot under any circumstances re-approach him/her requesting that he/she waive their right to counsel and consent to additional interrogation.
In 1990 the Supreme Court followed up the Edwards and Jackson decisions with Minnick v. Mississippi. 7/ In that case Robert Minnick and a fellow prisoner escaped from a county jail in Mississippi. They later broke into a mobile home and killed two of the residents in it. When arrested, Minnick requested and was allowed to speak with an attorney. Not satisfied, the FBI and state investigators pressured Minnick to waive his rights to silence/counsel. Minnick resisted the pressure but eventually submitted to the interrogations without an attorney and made incriminating statements. The Supreme Court held that Minnick's Fifth Amendment right to silence was not terminated simply because he had consulted with an attorney. The court said that once Minnick requested counsel, all interrogations had to cease and could not be reinstated outside the presence of counsel.
Both Edwards and Minnick were instrumental in the Supreme Court's decision to effectively overrule Jackson in Montejo. This was made clear by the court's language in Montejo:
"Which brings us to the strength of Jackson's reasoning. When this Court creates a prophylactic rule in order to protect a constitutional right, the relevant 'reasoning' is the weighing of the rule's benefits against its costs. 'The value of any prophylactic rule ... must be assessed not only on the basis of what is gained, but also on the basis of what is lost.' We think that the marginal benefits of Jackson (viz., the number of confessions obtained coercively that are suppressed by its bright-line rule and would otherwise have been admitted) are dwarfed by its substantial costs (viz., hindering 'society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law ...').
"What does Jackson actually achieve by way of preventing unconstitutional conduct? Recall that the purpose of the rule is to preclude the State from badgering defendants into waiving their previously asserted rights. The effect of this badgering might be to coerce a waiver, which would render the subsequent interrogation a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Even though involuntary waivers are invalid even apart from Jackson, mistakes are of course possible when courts conduct case-by-case voluntariness review. A bright-line rule like that adopted in Jackson ensures that no fruits of interrogation made possible by badgering-induced involuntary waivers are ever erroneously admitted at trial.
"But with Jackson, how many would be? The answer is few if any. The principal reason is that the Court has already taken substantial other, overlapping measures toward the same end. Under Miranda's prophylactic protection of the right against compelled self incrimination, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation has the right to have a lawyer present if he so requests, and to be advised of that right. Under Edwards' prophylactic protection of the Miranda right, once such a defendant 'has invoked the right to have counsel present,' interrogation must stop. And under Minnick's prophylactic protection of the Edwards right, no subsequent interrogation may take place until counsel is present, 'whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney.'
"The three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. Under the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick line of cases (which is not in doubt), a defendant who does not want to speak to the police without counsel present need only say as much when he is first approached and given the Miranda warnings. At that point, not only must the immediate contact end, but 'badgering' by later requests is prohibited. If that regime suffices to protect the integrity of 'a suspect's voluntary choice not to speak outside his lawyer's presence before his arraignment,' it is hard to see why it would not also suffice to protect that same choice after arraignment, when the Sixth Amendment rights have attached. And if so, then Jackson is simply superfluous." 8/
Lawyers for Montejo had argued in the state courts and before the Supreme Court that Jackson was designed to protect both the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights-silence and counsel-throughout the accusatory process while Edwards-Minnick apply only to custodial interrogations. The court dismissed this distinction by saying that a suspect not in custody is in complete control of his situation. He can get up and walk out of a police interview at any point. The court then pointed out that Jackson was "policy driven," and since the policy against coerced confessions could be adequately protected by the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick prophylactic rules, there was no constitutional need to maintain the Jackson protection. In fact, the court said Jackson's per se exclusionary rule of incriminating statements obtained absent the presence of counsel actually served to let guilty and dangerous criminals go free even though they had been adequately and properly Mirandized. The court said it had reached the point where it was no longer willing to accept the substantial costs that Jackson imposed on "the truth-seeking process and the criminal justice system" in order to prevent a handful of possibly coerced confessions. 9/
The court, however, did not completely slam the door on Montejo. It said he deserved an "opportunity" to show that the letter of apology he wrote to Patricia Lewis when he accompanied the police to the local lake after having been appointed counsel was inadmissible evidence under the Edwards rule, provided he could show that he made a "clear assertion of the right to counsel" when the police asked him to accompany them to the lake. The rest of his incriminating statements, however, were fair game for the jury.
Law enforcement officials and prosecutors embraced the Montejo decision. They have been dissatisfied with both Miranda and Jackson for some time. Montejo proved to be the right case to remove the Jackson prohibition preventing the police from trying to get a suspect to waive his right to counsel after counsel has been appointed. Montejo has been found guilty of a brutal murder. He is under a death sentence. A strict application of Jackson would have barred any references Montejo made about the murder weapon supposedly being thrown in the lake and his letter of apology to Patricia Lewis-both of which were critical to the prosecution to overcome the conflicting versions of the crime he had made in his previous seven statements. Absent the letter of apology and references to the murder weapon, a jury may not have returned a death penalty verdict.
While as the Supreme Court pointed out the overruling of Jackson will not have any significant impact on the experienced, sophisticated criminal defendant who understand the custodial interrogation process, it will strip away a significant constitutional safeguard for the inexperienced and mentally challenged suspects who actually make up most of those arrested for suspected criminal wrongdoing. We believe the loss of the Jackson bright-line protections will lead to an increased number of false confessions. Many criminal defendants will waive their right to counsel, agree to additional custodial interrogations and "tell them" what they want to hear in an effort to please prosecutors and law enforcements officials in hopes of minimizing their exposure to prosecution.
Tragically, Montejo put another nail in the coffin of the age-old axiom that it is better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. Montejo reversed the axiom: better one hundred innocent men be convicted than one guilty man go free.
SOURCES:
1/ 475 U.S. 625 (1986) 2/ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 3/ 417 U.S. 433 (1974) 4/ 487 U.S. 387 (1977) 5/ 454 U.S. 477 (1981) 6/ 475 U.S. at 633-35 7/ 498 U.S. 146 (1990) 8/ 173 L.Ed.2d 955, 968 (2009) 9/ 173 L.Ed.2d at 968
NOTE: The background facts of the Montejo crime gleaned from the Louisiana Supreme Court decision denying his direct appeal on January 16, 2008 in Case No. 86-KA-1887.
By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Four years after the Edwards decision, the Supreme Court in Jackson effectively imported the Miranda/Edwards Fifth Amendment right to silence into the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel by saying that a request for counsel at arraignment should be considered as an invocation of the right "at every critical stage of the prosecution." Moreover, Jackson created a highly-criticized presumption of an involuntary waiver of counsel "based on the supposition that suspects who assert their right to counsel are unlikely to waive that right voluntarily" in subsequent interactions with the police. 6/ Jackson effectively established a "bright-line" rule that once a criminal defendant is represented by counsel, the State cannot under any circumstances re-approach him/her requesting that he/she waive their right to counsel and consent to additional interrogation.
In 1990 the Supreme Court followed up the Edwards and Jackson decisions with Minnick v. Mississippi. 7/ In that case Robert Minnick and a fellow prisoner escaped from a county jail in Mississippi. They later broke into a mobile home and killed two of the residents in it. When arrested, Minnick requested and was allowed to speak with an attorney. Not satisfied, the FBI and state investigators pressured Minnick to waive his rights to silence/counsel. Minnick resisted the pressure but eventually submitted to the interrogations without an attorney and made incriminating statements. The Supreme Court held that Minnick's Fifth Amendment right to silence was not terminated simply because he had consulted with an attorney. The court said that once Minnick requested counsel, all interrogations had to cease and could not be reinstated outside the presence of counsel.
Both Edwards and Minnick were instrumental in the Supreme Court's decision to effectively overrule Jackson in Montejo. This was made clear by the court's language in Montejo:
"Which brings us to the strength of Jackson's reasoning. When this Court creates a prophylactic rule in order to protect a constitutional right, the relevant 'reasoning' is the weighing of the rule's benefits against its costs. 'The value of any prophylactic rule ... must be assessed not only on the basis of what is gained, but also on the basis of what is lost.' We think that the marginal benefits of Jackson (viz., the number of confessions obtained coercively that are suppressed by its bright-line rule and would otherwise have been admitted) are dwarfed by its substantial costs (viz., hindering 'society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law ...').
"What does Jackson actually achieve by way of preventing unconstitutional conduct? Recall that the purpose of the rule is to preclude the State from badgering defendants into waiving their previously asserted rights. The effect of this badgering might be to coerce a waiver, which would render the subsequent interrogation a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Even though involuntary waivers are invalid even apart from Jackson, mistakes are of course possible when courts conduct case-by-case voluntariness review. A bright-line rule like that adopted in Jackson ensures that no fruits of interrogation made possible by badgering-induced involuntary waivers are ever erroneously admitted at trial.
"But with Jackson, how many would be? The answer is few if any. The principal reason is that the Court has already taken substantial other, overlapping measures toward the same end. Under Miranda's prophylactic protection of the right against compelled self incrimination, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation has the right to have a lawyer present if he so requests, and to be advised of that right. Under Edwards' prophylactic protection of the Miranda right, once such a defendant 'has invoked the right to have counsel present,' interrogation must stop. And under Minnick's prophylactic protection of the Edwards right, no subsequent interrogation may take place until counsel is present, 'whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney.'
"The three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. Under the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick line of cases (which is not in doubt), a defendant who does not want to speak to the police without counsel present need only say as much when he is first approached and given the Miranda warnings. At that point, not only must the immediate contact end, but 'badgering' by later requests is prohibited. If that regime suffices to protect the integrity of 'a suspect's voluntary choice not to speak outside his lawyer's presence before his arraignment,' it is hard to see why it would not also suffice to protect that same choice after arraignment, when the Sixth Amendment rights have attached. And if so, then Jackson is simply superfluous." 8/
Lawyers for Montejo had argued in the state courts and before the Supreme Court that Jackson was designed to protect both the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights-silence and counsel-throughout the accusatory process while Edwards-Minnick apply only to custodial interrogations. The court dismissed this distinction by saying that a suspect not in custody is in complete control of his situation. He can get up and walk out of a police interview at any point. The court then pointed out that Jackson was "policy driven," and since the policy against coerced confessions could be adequately protected by the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick prophylactic rules, there was no constitutional need to maintain the Jackson protection. In fact, the court said Jackson's per se exclusionary rule of incriminating statements obtained absent the presence of counsel actually served to let guilty and dangerous criminals go free even though they had been adequately and properly Mirandized. The court said it had reached the point where it was no longer willing to accept the substantial costs that Jackson imposed on "the truth-seeking process and the criminal justice system" in order to prevent a handful of possibly coerced confessions. 9/
The court, however, did not completely slam the door on Montejo. It said he deserved an "opportunity" to show that the letter of apology he wrote to Patricia Lewis when he accompanied the police to the local lake after having been appointed counsel was inadmissible evidence under the Edwards rule, provided he could show that he made a "clear assertion of the right to counsel" when the police asked him to accompany them to the lake. The rest of his incriminating statements, however, were fair game for the jury.
Law enforcement officials and prosecutors embraced the Montejo decision. They have been dissatisfied with both Miranda and Jackson for some time. Montejo proved to be the right case to remove the Jackson prohibition preventing the police from trying to get a suspect to waive his right to counsel after counsel has been appointed. Montejo has been found guilty of a brutal murder. He is under a death sentence. A strict application of Jackson would have barred any references Montejo made about the murder weapon supposedly being thrown in the lake and his letter of apology to Patricia Lewis-both of which were critical to the prosecution to overcome the conflicting versions of the crime he had made in his previous seven statements. Absent the letter of apology and references to the murder weapon, a jury may not have returned a death penalty verdict.
While as the Supreme Court pointed out the overruling of Jackson will not have any significant impact on the experienced, sophisticated criminal defendant who understand the custodial interrogation process, it will strip away a significant constitutional safeguard for the inexperienced and mentally challenged suspects who actually make up most of those arrested for suspected criminal wrongdoing. We believe the loss of the Jackson bright-line protections will lead to an increased number of false confessions. Many criminal defendants will waive their right to counsel, agree to additional custodial interrogations and "tell them" what they want to hear in an effort to please prosecutors and law enforcements officials in hopes of minimizing their exposure to prosecution.
Tragically, Montejo put another nail in the coffin of the age-old axiom that it is better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. Montejo reversed the axiom: better one hundred innocent men be convicted than one guilty man go free.
SOURCES:
1/ 475 U.S. 625 (1986) 2/ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 3/ 417 U.S. 433 (1974) 4/ 487 U.S. 387 (1977) 5/ 454 U.S. 477 (1981) 6/ 475 U.S. at 633-35 7/ 498 U.S. 146 (1990) 8/ 173 L.Ed.2d 955, 968 (2009) 9/ 173 L.Ed.2d at 968
NOTE: The background facts of the Montejo crime gleaned from the Louisiana Supreme Court decision denying his direct appeal on January 16, 2008 in Case No. 86-KA-1887.
By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
How You Can Become More Confident Easily by Richard Samson
How I was able To Improve Myself at being More Confident
There are moments when all our insecureties, doubts and fears wrap ouselves up and we see friends and wish we had their life. More often than not we think that there are many people are much better off than us when really, most people are feeling the same way about us.
For example, if you notice a beatiful girl or guy sitting alone at a party, casually sipping their wine, you think to yourself "they look so confident, calm and in control". However, if you could actually look into their mind you would see the same amount of bunched up thoughts, some positive, many negative and would be surprised they are thinking "are people looking and talking about me while I sit here alone?...why won't anyone come and talk to me, do they all find me unattractive?" and all sorts of negative thoughts.
Another example is say we see a young business entrepreneur and say "wow, they have everything they want" And what the young man is really thinking is "why won't my friends talk to me, I hope my parents have made up"
This is of course speculation, but it won't be far from the truth. We look at other people and envy them for looking absolutely amazing and living a perfect life, wishing we could exchange places with them. Meanwhile they are thinking exactly the same thing. We are insecure of people who are also insecure. This is because we tend to suffer from lack of self confidence, low self esteem and lose hope in self improvement because we are enveloped in quiet desperation.
Sometimes, you notice that you have an irritating habit like biting off your finger nails, or playing with your hair, and you â€" of all people, is the last to know.
I have a friend who is always talking. Most of the time she is the only one who seems to be talking in these one way conversations and only seems interested in her own life. This leads to all our other friends trying to avoid her when she enters a room. Unfortunately she doesn't realize this is a very bad social handicap which is starting to effect the people in her environment.
One key to self improvement is to Talk and Listen to a friend. Find someone who you find it easy to opening up with even the most awkward topics you want to discuss. Ask questions like “do you think I am ill-mannered?â€, “Do I always sound so argumentative?â€, “Do I talk too loud?â€, “Does my breath smell?â€, “Do I ever bore you when were together?â€. If you are asking a close trusted friend they are more than likely to know that you are wanting to improve yourself. Once you have asked these sort of questions, let them delve into the answers and be open to their criticisms and comments without giving abrupt answers like "Well that's just the way I am!". Open your heart and mind and in return, you can get the best feedback that you can work on and help improve yourself. You can also give your friend similar feedback if they have similar worries.
There is a song called "Learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all" by Whitney Houston. This is quite true. In order to love others, you must love yourself too. Remember, you cannot give what you do not have.
Before telling other people some ways on how to improve themselves, let them see that you yourself is a representation and a product of self improvement. Self improvement makes us better people, we then inspire other people, and then the rest of the world will follow.
You have to stop thinking that you are a second rate citizen. Forget about the thought of "If only I was slimmer or had more money" Accept your true self. This is step one to self improvement. You need to stop comparing yourself to others because you will only find out that there will be 10 reasons to envy them.
Nobody is perfect and We all have our insecurities. We always wish we had better features, better lives, better body parts, etc. But life need not to be perfect for people to be happy about themselves.Self improvement and loving yourself is not a matter of shouting to the whole world that you are perfect and you are the best. It’s the virtue of contentment and acceptance. When we begin to improve ourselves, we then begin to feel happy and content.
There are moments when all our insecureties, doubts and fears wrap ouselves up and we see friends and wish we had their life. More often than not we think that there are many people are much better off than us when really, most people are feeling the same way about us.
For example, if you notice a beatiful girl or guy sitting alone at a party, casually sipping their wine, you think to yourself "they look so confident, calm and in control". However, if you could actually look into their mind you would see the same amount of bunched up thoughts, some positive, many negative and would be surprised they are thinking "are people looking and talking about me while I sit here alone?...why won't anyone come and talk to me, do they all find me unattractive?" and all sorts of negative thoughts.
Another example is say we see a young business entrepreneur and say "wow, they have everything they want" And what the young man is really thinking is "why won't my friends talk to me, I hope my parents have made up"
This is of course speculation, but it won't be far from the truth. We look at other people and envy them for looking absolutely amazing and living a perfect life, wishing we could exchange places with them. Meanwhile they are thinking exactly the same thing. We are insecure of people who are also insecure. This is because we tend to suffer from lack of self confidence, low self esteem and lose hope in self improvement because we are enveloped in quiet desperation.
Sometimes, you notice that you have an irritating habit like biting off your finger nails, or playing with your hair, and you â€" of all people, is the last to know.
I have a friend who is always talking. Most of the time she is the only one who seems to be talking in these one way conversations and only seems interested in her own life. This leads to all our other friends trying to avoid her when she enters a room. Unfortunately she doesn't realize this is a very bad social handicap which is starting to effect the people in her environment.
One key to self improvement is to Talk and Listen to a friend. Find someone who you find it easy to opening up with even the most awkward topics you want to discuss. Ask questions like “do you think I am ill-mannered?â€, “Do I always sound so argumentative?â€, “Do I talk too loud?â€, “Does my breath smell?â€, “Do I ever bore you when were together?â€. If you are asking a close trusted friend they are more than likely to know that you are wanting to improve yourself. Once you have asked these sort of questions, let them delve into the answers and be open to their criticisms and comments without giving abrupt answers like "Well that's just the way I am!". Open your heart and mind and in return, you can get the best feedback that you can work on and help improve yourself. You can also give your friend similar feedback if they have similar worries.
There is a song called "Learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all" by Whitney Houston. This is quite true. In order to love others, you must love yourself too. Remember, you cannot give what you do not have.
Before telling other people some ways on how to improve themselves, let them see that you yourself is a representation and a product of self improvement. Self improvement makes us better people, we then inspire other people, and then the rest of the world will follow.
You have to stop thinking that you are a second rate citizen. Forget about the thought of "If only I was slimmer or had more money" Accept your true self. This is step one to self improvement. You need to stop comparing yourself to others because you will only find out that there will be 10 reasons to envy them.
Nobody is perfect and We all have our insecurities. We always wish we had better features, better lives, better body parts, etc. But life need not to be perfect for people to be happy about themselves.Self improvement and loving yourself is not a matter of shouting to the whole world that you are perfect and you are the best. It’s the virtue of contentment and acceptance. When we begin to improve ourselves, we then begin to feel happy and content.
Rose Gold Ring - Precious Jewelry Collectibles by Sally H
Rose gold is created when a trace of copper is added to gold. One part copper and three parts gold gives the metal that coveted pink hue. Rose gold presents soft and romantic image. They become the choices for many couples searching for bridal jewelry.
Rose gold ring is one of the favorite collectibles for woman. The ring is constructed from rose gold. It carries different styles and designs. The ring is pairing up with many types of stones like diamonds and amethyst. It is the luxury gift for woman.
Rose gold ring is a stunning and attractive jewelry for woman. Woman who loves copper jewelry definitely will like rose gold ring. There are many types of rose gold ring collection developed by jewelry manufacturer every year. These rings are offered with different theme, designs and prices.
Rose gold ring is a precious collectibles for everyone. There are many types of rose gold rings for you to choose in the market. Each ring is claims to be better than another. Each ring presents its own style and charm.
14K Contemporary Rose Gold Ring
This rose gold ring comes with modern and contemporary design. The ring measures 4.0mm width. The total weight of this rose gold ring is 4.81 grams. The ring perfectly matches with all kind of stones. There are 18 princess cut diamonds carved at both side of the ring.
14K Blue Topaz Rose Gold Ring
This marvelous rose gold ring is constructed from 14K rose gold. The ring looks simple but elegance. It features one full cut 11mm luxury red topaz. Red topaz perfectly matches the color and the structure of the ring. The weight of topaz is 6.8 carat.
14K Yellow Tourmaline Rose Gold Ring
This is a 14K rose gold ring too. The ring attached with one round cut tourmaline in prong setting. The tourmaline stone is surrounded by 30 shining square cut diamonds. The weight of tourmaline stone is 1.22 carat. The weight of 30 square cut diamonds is 0.39 carat.
14K Rose Gold Amethyst And Hot Pink Sapphire Ring
This red amethyst rose gold ring is constructed from 14K rose gold too. The ring features one cushion cut 11mm red amethyst stone. The red amethyst stone makes the ring looks amazing and attractive. The amethyst stone is surrounded by 22 round cut pink diamonds.
Learn more about rose gold ring. Stop by Sally Houston's site where you can find out all about rose gold rings and what it can do for you.
Rose gold ring is one of the favorite collectibles for woman. The ring is constructed from rose gold. It carries different styles and designs. The ring is pairing up with many types of stones like diamonds and amethyst. It is the luxury gift for woman.
Rose gold ring is a stunning and attractive jewelry for woman. Woman who loves copper jewelry definitely will like rose gold ring. There are many types of rose gold ring collection developed by jewelry manufacturer every year. These rings are offered with different theme, designs and prices.
Rose gold ring is a precious collectibles for everyone. There are many types of rose gold rings for you to choose in the market. Each ring is claims to be better than another. Each ring presents its own style and charm.
14K Contemporary Rose Gold Ring
This rose gold ring comes with modern and contemporary design. The ring measures 4.0mm width. The total weight of this rose gold ring is 4.81 grams. The ring perfectly matches with all kind of stones. There are 18 princess cut diamonds carved at both side of the ring.
14K Blue Topaz Rose Gold Ring
This marvelous rose gold ring is constructed from 14K rose gold. The ring looks simple but elegance. It features one full cut 11mm luxury red topaz. Red topaz perfectly matches the color and the structure of the ring. The weight of topaz is 6.8 carat.
14K Yellow Tourmaline Rose Gold Ring
This is a 14K rose gold ring too. The ring attached with one round cut tourmaline in prong setting. The tourmaline stone is surrounded by 30 shining square cut diamonds. The weight of tourmaline stone is 1.22 carat. The weight of 30 square cut diamonds is 0.39 carat.
14K Rose Gold Amethyst And Hot Pink Sapphire Ring
This red amethyst rose gold ring is constructed from 14K rose gold too. The ring features one cushion cut 11mm red amethyst stone. The red amethyst stone makes the ring looks amazing and attractive. The amethyst stone is surrounded by 22 round cut pink diamonds.
Learn more about rose gold ring. Stop by Sally Houston's site where you can find out all about rose gold rings and what it can do for you.
วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 29 ตุลาคม พ.ศ. 2552
Our First Peak Oil Recession by Chris Nelder
Why Oil Prices May Never Rise Above $150
One of the most bedeviling problems for oil producers (and oil investors) is knowing when it's too cheap to keep producing, and when it's too expensive to sell.
Last year gave us new boundaries: $147 a barrel was too expensive, and $33 was too cheap. But those aren't terribly useful numbers in the real world.
We now know that $147 was extra-inflated by too much money sloshing into the sector, and $33 was extra-deflated by the fear and confusion that dominated all markets in December of last year. It's likely that tighter regulation of the oil futures market will tamp down the former, and the latter will not be seen again. . . so long as the world banking system continues to beg, borrow, and steal its way to stability and "full faith and credit."
If you're a Chevron trying to decide if you should plunk down another $5 billion for a big new deepwater platform, or a marginal producer of oil from unconventional sources where the production cost is high, you'll find it hard to commit to new projects with price volatility like that.
One way to get a handle on the question is to look at the supply side costs. As I wrote in March, the current cost of new production in the few places in the world where oil production can still be increased ranges from $60-$75 a barrel, and the average minimum is around $65. The more extreme and marginal projects we'll be eyeing in ten years' time will need closer to $100 a barrel to pay off.
But prices on the demand side of the equation are harder to gauge. Our First Peak Oil Recession
Several presenters at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference two weeks ago used measures of GDP to express the economy's tolerance limit for high oil prices.
Murphy changed the time scale from years to months at the end of the chart to demonstrate how the portion of GDP paying for oil last year spiked and crashed as much in 12 months as it did in 4-5 years during the most recent recessions.
Steven Kopits, Managing Director of Douglas-Westwood LLC, came to similar conclusions in his presentation. He noted how oil stopped responding to price signals in 2004, with production remaining basically flat even as prices tripled. The global oil supply only expanded by 2% while global GDP grew 17%, causing prices to increase by about 25% per year from 2003 on.
By 2008, when crude expenditures reached 4% of GDP, the U.S. fell into recession. In fact, said Kopits, oil over $80 would have been enough on its own to cause what he called "our first peak oil recession."
Former head of exploration and production for Saudi Aramco Sadad al-Husseini opined similarly in his interview with ASPO, saying that the spending ceiling is between 5% and 6% of global GPD. Accordingly, he thinks alternatives to petroleum like Arctic oil, coal- and gas-to-liquids, and so on may not be economical to develop because their costs are too high.
In essence, OECD countries are simply getting squeezed out of the market as the global drivers of demand shift to the developing world. When the cost of filling the tank on an SUV goes from $60 to $100, it really takes a bite out of consumption in America. But your average resident of, say, India or the Philippines can shrug off a 50-cent increase in the cost of filling the tank on his scooter, because he gets so much more economic value from the transportation.
Kopits believes that $70 oil is enough to effectively lock out the EU from the oil market, and $75 locks out the U.S. This begins to explain how, as independent oil producer Jeffrey Brown observed in his presentation, the U.S. was outbid by Kenya for oil last year.
On a related note, ASPO analyst Dave Cohen made a convincing argument that economic fundamentals will not support increased oil demand - even from China - for years to come, ensuring that global GDP growth remains weak.
In counterpoint, Matthew Simmons asserted that we don't yet know the economy's tolerance point, and thought it could be as high as $500-$700 a barrel.
This is where I must make my departure from Simmons' camp. The data presented on GDP and price at the conference have forced me to reconsider my longstanding belief that peak oil will bring much higher prices. Although prices 5 to 10 years from now, when we're well past the peak and into decline, remain an open question. . . I now doubt that we'll see oil over $150 anytime soon.
A Narrow Ledge
If these analyses are correct, then we are on what Kopits called "a narrow ledge": Houston needs $75 oil to keep drilling, but the economy goes into recession with oil at $80.
Two editors of "The Oil Drum" generally concurred. Nate Hagens put the boundaries a bit wider at $60 to keep drilling and $80-$100 as the economic pain tolerance point, and Gail Tverberg observed that oil at $75-$80 seems to kick off a recession.
If the stability of oil production relies on oil spending staying within roughly 4% and 5% of GDP, it's going to be dicey. But if the oil price ledge is only $5 wide, then it's not clear to me whether the global GDP can manage to stay on it.
In short, the world may not be able to continue executing the expensive oil projects of the future at all. The tension between the price of new production and the pain tolerance of the global economy may be resolved not by stable prices, but by a failure to bring new supply online.
This is indeed a crisis - but it's also a hint that it's time to focus on how we're going to replace oil.
Take it from Sadad al-Husseini: "The hidden opportunity may be efficiency and conservation."
The investment community has already heard that message. At the ASPO conference this year, I estimate that not one of the roughly 400 attendees represented development capital, while at a typical Cleantech Forum in San Francisco, at least half of the 1,500 or so attendees are with banks, VCs, and big hedge funds. Granted, the ASPO conferences are about information, not deal-making. . . Still, investors seem to prefer theses based on abundance to those based on scarcity.
It only makes sense. If you had a large chunk of capital to deploy in the energy space, would you rather try to balance on a narrow ledge, or jump into a sector that's growing at 30% per year - with no ceiling in sight - and the wind of oil depletion at its back?
Efficiency and conservation may not be as sexy as solar and wind, but for the next several decades they will be the only real way to survive a future of volatile oil and gas prices and declining supply. It takes a long time to rebuild an infrastructure. . . and in the meantime, we're going to have to make do with what we've got.
In the pursuit of investment capital, cleantech clearly has the edge over oil now.
Until next time,
Chris
P.S. Chris continues this article as Part 2 of a series of reports from the 2009 ASPO Peak Oil Conference. See also Part 1.
This article was originally found here: Our First Peak Oil Recession
One of the most bedeviling problems for oil producers (and oil investors) is knowing when it's too cheap to keep producing, and when it's too expensive to sell.
Last year gave us new boundaries: $147 a barrel was too expensive, and $33 was too cheap. But those aren't terribly useful numbers in the real world.
We now know that $147 was extra-inflated by too much money sloshing into the sector, and $33 was extra-deflated by the fear and confusion that dominated all markets in December of last year. It's likely that tighter regulation of the oil futures market will tamp down the former, and the latter will not be seen again. . . so long as the world banking system continues to beg, borrow, and steal its way to stability and "full faith and credit."
If you're a Chevron trying to decide if you should plunk down another $5 billion for a big new deepwater platform, or a marginal producer of oil from unconventional sources where the production cost is high, you'll find it hard to commit to new projects with price volatility like that.
One way to get a handle on the question is to look at the supply side costs. As I wrote in March, the current cost of new production in the few places in the world where oil production can still be increased ranges from $60-$75 a barrel, and the average minimum is around $65. The more extreme and marginal projects we'll be eyeing in ten years' time will need closer to $100 a barrel to pay off.
But prices on the demand side of the equation are harder to gauge. Our First Peak Oil Recession
Several presenters at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference two weeks ago used measures of GDP to express the economy's tolerance limit for high oil prices.
Murphy changed the time scale from years to months at the end of the chart to demonstrate how the portion of GDP paying for oil last year spiked and crashed as much in 12 months as it did in 4-5 years during the most recent recessions.
Steven Kopits, Managing Director of Douglas-Westwood LLC, came to similar conclusions in his presentation. He noted how oil stopped responding to price signals in 2004, with production remaining basically flat even as prices tripled. The global oil supply only expanded by 2% while global GDP grew 17%, causing prices to increase by about 25% per year from 2003 on.
By 2008, when crude expenditures reached 4% of GDP, the U.S. fell into recession. In fact, said Kopits, oil over $80 would have been enough on its own to cause what he called "our first peak oil recession."
Former head of exploration and production for Saudi Aramco Sadad al-Husseini opined similarly in his interview with ASPO, saying that the spending ceiling is between 5% and 6% of global GPD. Accordingly, he thinks alternatives to petroleum like Arctic oil, coal- and gas-to-liquids, and so on may not be economical to develop because their costs are too high.
In essence, OECD countries are simply getting squeezed out of the market as the global drivers of demand shift to the developing world. When the cost of filling the tank on an SUV goes from $60 to $100, it really takes a bite out of consumption in America. But your average resident of, say, India or the Philippines can shrug off a 50-cent increase in the cost of filling the tank on his scooter, because he gets so much more economic value from the transportation.
Kopits believes that $70 oil is enough to effectively lock out the EU from the oil market, and $75 locks out the U.S. This begins to explain how, as independent oil producer Jeffrey Brown observed in his presentation, the U.S. was outbid by Kenya for oil last year.
On a related note, ASPO analyst Dave Cohen made a convincing argument that economic fundamentals will not support increased oil demand - even from China - for years to come, ensuring that global GDP growth remains weak.
In counterpoint, Matthew Simmons asserted that we don't yet know the economy's tolerance point, and thought it could be as high as $500-$700 a barrel.
This is where I must make my departure from Simmons' camp. The data presented on GDP and price at the conference have forced me to reconsider my longstanding belief that peak oil will bring much higher prices. Although prices 5 to 10 years from now, when we're well past the peak and into decline, remain an open question. . . I now doubt that we'll see oil over $150 anytime soon.
A Narrow Ledge
If these analyses are correct, then we are on what Kopits called "a narrow ledge": Houston needs $75 oil to keep drilling, but the economy goes into recession with oil at $80.
Two editors of "The Oil Drum" generally concurred. Nate Hagens put the boundaries a bit wider at $60 to keep drilling and $80-$100 as the economic pain tolerance point, and Gail Tverberg observed that oil at $75-$80 seems to kick off a recession.
If the stability of oil production relies on oil spending staying within roughly 4% and 5% of GDP, it's going to be dicey. But if the oil price ledge is only $5 wide, then it's not clear to me whether the global GDP can manage to stay on it.
In short, the world may not be able to continue executing the expensive oil projects of the future at all. The tension between the price of new production and the pain tolerance of the global economy may be resolved not by stable prices, but by a failure to bring new supply online.
This is indeed a crisis - but it's also a hint that it's time to focus on how we're going to replace oil.
Take it from Sadad al-Husseini: "The hidden opportunity may be efficiency and conservation."
The investment community has already heard that message. At the ASPO conference this year, I estimate that not one of the roughly 400 attendees represented development capital, while at a typical Cleantech Forum in San Francisco, at least half of the 1,500 or so attendees are with banks, VCs, and big hedge funds. Granted, the ASPO conferences are about information, not deal-making. . . Still, investors seem to prefer theses based on abundance to those based on scarcity.
It only makes sense. If you had a large chunk of capital to deploy in the energy space, would you rather try to balance on a narrow ledge, or jump into a sector that's growing at 30% per year - with no ceiling in sight - and the wind of oil depletion at its back?
Efficiency and conservation may not be as sexy as solar and wind, but for the next several decades they will be the only real way to survive a future of volatile oil and gas prices and declining supply. It takes a long time to rebuild an infrastructure. . . and in the meantime, we're going to have to make do with what we've got.
In the pursuit of investment capital, cleantech clearly has the edge over oil now.
Until next time,
Chris
P.S. Chris continues this article as Part 2 of a series of reports from the 2009 ASPO Peak Oil Conference. See also Part 1.
This article was originally found here: Our First Peak Oil Recession
Houston Advertising Online by houstonopolis
Houstonopolis.Com is an online business directory that offers a wide spectrum of online marketing options for small to mid-sized businesses in the Houston area. Our comprehensive business listings create a web-presence for clients who do not already have one, and enhances it for those who do. We offer website design and hosting, SEO optimization, and print media design - including logos, business cards, and flyers. By combining our extensive knowledge of Internet marketing and website design, we are able to offer affordable advertising solutions, that lead to a noticeable increase in website traffic and revenue.
Advertising your business on our website is as easy as 1-2-3! We have several options to choose from including FREE listings for a year! We can also customize any part of our website to fit your needs. Please ask a consultant about our custom packages. 281-656-2700.
Houstonopolis.Com prides itself in perfection. We craft marketing solutions for our clients that are results-driven and only offer options we feel will help grow your business. We combine search-optimized web listing with other Internet and print options, that are cohesive and effective. Our marketing services include: Web-listings, Web-site Design & Hosting, Search Engine Optimization, Email Marketing, and Print Design. We hope to hear from you soon!
Advertising your business on our website is as easy as 1-2-3! We have several options to choose from including FREE listings for a year! We can also customize any part of our website to fit your needs. Please ask a consultant about our custom packages. 281-656-2700.
Houstonopolis.Com prides itself in perfection. We craft marketing solutions for our clients that are results-driven and only offer options we feel will help grow your business. We combine search-optimized web listing with other Internet and print options, that are cohesive and effective. Our marketing services include: Web-listings, Web-site Design & Hosting, Search Engine Optimization, Email Marketing, and Print Design. We hope to hear from you soon!
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)
