Last December I real-
ized that as 27 Deltas
(Paralegals), we are now
eligible to serve in certain
MOS-Immaterial Sergeants
Major positions; this is
great news for Paralegal
NCOs.
Along with that, there are
several changes in the hori-
zon from the National
Guard Bureau, with regards
to the distribution of assign-
ments and the possible
increase of positions in the
JAG Section. It is with this
reality in mind that parale-
gals, legal NCOs and Judge
Advocates must prepare
adequately, by attending
the necessary schools and
conferences required by
the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral’s Corps.
To accomplish this we
will need the support of
our National Guard to pro-
vide the resources to send
these soldiers in order to
be at the same level as
others in the United
States.
The foreseen changes
respond to the increment
and diversity of legal ser-
vices being provided by
the JAG at every level of its
operations.
This in conjunction with
our Adjutant General’s
vision for the Puerto Rico
National Guard and his
thoughts on the impor-
tance of military schools,
as the best tool to make
that vision a reality, is
something in which we
cannot skimp, with those
soldiers that have demon-
strated a true interest in
their career progression
above all. Let us welcome
these changes by setting
the example.
Volume II, Issue 1
Inside this issue:
Legal Resources, Know
Your Rights:
The Puerto Rico
“Shared Custody” Law
2
Ethics Matters:
Political Activities
3
Talking About…
The National Defense
Authorization Act
for 2012
4
Link it Up! 7
At the Movies:
Erin Brockovich
8
From the JAG Bookshelf:
The War on Terror and
the Laws of War
8
What’s New on Our
Facebook Page.
8
“To accomplish
this we will need
the support of our
National Guard to
provide the
resources to send
these soldiers in
order to be at the
same level as
others in the
United States.”
activities during this elec-
tion year. It is a matter of
great importance which
we will discuss in our Eth-
ics Matters section along
with practical examples of
what to do and not do as
members of the Armed
Forces.
This issue also contains
the highly anticipated and
much valued movie re-
view by our very own SGT
Javier Fontanez. This
month he reviews and
discusses Erin Brock-
ovich. We hope you enjoy
this latest installment of
The Advocate.
ments.
In this issue we will con-
tinue our analysis of the
NDAA and why is it so im-
portant to us. We will also
the review newly approved
state Shared Custody law
and the impact it has in
our soldiers and how it can
affect our readiness for
deployment, especially
with the preparation of
family care plans.
Just a couple of days
ago, on 23 January 2012,
the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau promul-
gated a memorandum to
all National Guard mem-
ber concerning political
Welcome to the first
2012 issue of the Advo-
cate. This promises to be a
very big year for us in the
National Guard.
December 2011 saw the
passage of the National
Defense Authorization Act
of 2012 which included the
National Guard Empower-
ment act. In a nutshell, the
Chief of the National Guard
Bureau is now a full mem-
ber of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. We sure can expect
a new and higher exposure
of the Guard’s capabilities
and what we can bring to
the table both to the Fed-
eral and State Govern-
FROM THE CHIEF LEGAL NCO’S DESK - SFC Frank Chiroque
“We sure can
expect a new and
higher exposure of
the Guard’s
capabilities and
what we can bring
to the table both to
the Federal and
State
Governments.”
January 2012 FROM THE FULLTIME JAG’S DESK - MAJ William E. O’Connor
Your Rights Under the Puerto Rico “Shared Custody Law”
A few months ago a new Law
was enacted by the Government
of Puerto Rico to change parent-
child relations, Law Number 223
of 2011, better known as the
“Shared Custody Law”. Basically,
before this law was passed if you
had children and separated from
your spouse or partner, the courts
would choose only one of two
alternatives: You were either the
custodial parent or the non-
custodial parent. With the ap-
proval of this new law a third op-
tion is available for the courts:
shared custody.
The new law states that shared
custody will be the primary option
the courts will have to consider in
custody cases. If for some reason,
after the court’s evaluation of the
situation and the child’s best in-
terest, shared custody isn't the
best option for the minor. The
courts will establish the more con-
ventional way of parent-child rela-
tionships that entails one custo-
dial parent (usually the mother)
and a non-custodial parent
(usually the father) who would
have visitation rights on alternate
weekends.
The main goal of this law is for
children to be raised by both par-
ents even if they don't share a
common home. In this way the
law will try to help children to be
influenced and develop stronger
bonds with both parents and their
families.
The practical application of this
law will of course depend on the
specific situation of every family.
Both parents would need to con-
tinue to live relativity close to
each other, since it will require
continuous contact between both
parents and the minors; and will
basically require that the child
stays (sleeps) on alternate days
and/or weeks in each of the par-
ent’s home; or that the child
will continue to stay (sleep)
in one of his parent’s home
but the other will be actively
present in their life, be it
because he relates every
day or mostly every day with
them. This law primarily
looks out for the child’s best
interest and time and time
again the courts have ex-
pressed that it is in the
child’s best interest to re-
late with both parents
equally.
The biggest concern to
date with this law is the
impact it will have regarding
child support and the proce-
dures in place. As it stands
child support is usually paid
by the non-custodial parent
to the child, via the custo-
dial parent. With the option
of shared custody it stands to
logic that any child support or-
dered by the court could be con-
siderably less or eliminated, de-
pending on the amount of shared
time with each parent.
In my opinion child support will
be eliminated or at least drasti-
cally decreased, leaving only
those major expenses, such as
schooling, extracurricular activi-
ties and medical coverage, to be
determined by the court. In other
words both parents will share the
burden of their children’s ex-
penses equally, but there won't be
child support established under
the ASUME (Puerto Rico Child
Support Enforcement Agency)
rules and guidelines. I also believe
that the particular impact this law
will have on current ASUME child
support rules and guidelines won't
propitiate that most parents vol-
untarily accept shared custody
because of the elements that are
mostly present in almost all child
support cases.
Some of these elements in-
clude:
The reason for divorce (domestic
violence, infidelity, etc.) Usually
the reason for the divorce and/or
separation will continue to
“haunt” the parents.
One or both of the parents enter
into a new relationship. This can
affect because the ex-couple will
be still seeing each other in a
daily bases and sharing their lives
around the minor with their new
partners that of course may not
support this relationship.
The virtually additional income
that the custodial parent will have
in the current child support sys-
tem. That’s because under Puerto
Rico law a non-custodial parent
can be ordered to pay almost the
total of his/her income in child
support – you read right – with
the exception of $515.00 of
monthly reserve. For example if
your income is $3000.00 a
month, you can be ordered by the
court, to pay up to $2485 in child
support.
The distance that one parent
lives from another (For example
one lives and work in San Juan
while the other lives and work in
Ponce) This can affect the child’s
daily routine of school and other
such activities like sports.
This law is a great option for
parents, and some already have
had this kind of relationship with
their children before this law was
even thought of. It’s rare but it
does happen in a few cases and
mostly because the parents have
excellent communication and a
mature relationship where the
non-custodial parent is always
present both physically and finan-
cially.
As always every situation is
different and if you think that you
can benefit from this new law you
should seek legal counsel from a
licensed attorney who can advise
you in your particular case.
BACKGROUND
In the United States, Joint
custody is generally a court
order whereby custody of a
child is awarded to both
parties.
In joint custody both par-
ents are custodial parents
and neither parent is a non-
custodial parent, or, in other
words, the child has two
custodial parents.
In the United States,
many states recognize two
forms of joint custody,
which include joint physical
custody and joint legal cus-
tody. In joint physical cus-
tody, the actual lodging and
care of the child is shared
according to a court-
ordered custody schedule.
In joint legal custody, both
parents share the ability to
have access to their chil-
dren's records, such as
educational records, health
records, and other records.
By: 1LT Walter Rodriguez-Fernandez
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
Puerto Rico Army National Guard
Read the complete
text of the new Puerto
Rico Shared Custody
law by following the
link.
Political Activities By: MAJ William E. O’Connor
Recently, the Chief of the Na-
tional Guard Bureau issued a
Memorandum for Members of
the National Guard regarding
their rights to participate in the
American political process. Fed-
eral law, imposes certain limita-
tions in the participation of ser-
vice members in political activi-
ties.
The Chief’s Memorandum
highlights some of the most im-
portant rules pertaining this kind
of activities:
Members of the National
Guard, while serving on Title
10 or Title 32 in a full time
capacity must conform their
conduct to the provisions of
DoDD 1344. 10. This ap-
plies to mobilized Guard
members, members serving
in the NGB, or those per-
forming Title 10 ADOS-AC or
ADOS-RC. It also applies, but
is limited to, those Guard
members serving AGR or
FTNGD in a Title 32 status.
Title 5 civilian employees
and military technicians
must conform their conduct
to the provisions of the
Hatch Act. Employees must
be aware of whether they
are “less restricted” or
“further restricted” employ-
ees under the Hatch Act
because of differing restric-
tions; most Title 5 employ-
ees and military technicians
are “less restricted” employ-
ees.
Traditional or “M-Day”, Na-
tional Guard members who
are not military technicians
are not restricted by these
authorities unless ordered
to full time military duty.
All National Guard mem-
bers, whether or not on full
time military duty, and all
military technicians, must
adhere to prohibition wear
of the military uniform while
engaged in political activi-
ties.
From the Reading above you
may ask what is the Hatch Act?
The Hatch Act, enacted in
1939, is the law that restricts
the partisan political activity of
civilian executive branch employ-
ees of the Federal Government,
District of Columbia Government,
and some state and local em-
ployees who work in connection
with federally funded programs.
This law was substantially
amended on 1993, in order to
allow most Federal employees to
engage in certain types of politi-
cal activities while in their per-
sonal capacities.
The Armed Forces are not cov-
ered by the Act. However, politi-
cal activities of the members of
the Armed Forces are governed
by Department of Defense (DOD)
Directive 1344.10. This regula-
tion lists a series of prohibitions
such as participation in partisan
political fundraising activities
(except as permitted), rallies,
conventions (including making
speeches in the course of
thereof), management of cam-
paigns, or debates, either on
one’s behalf or no that of an-
other, without respect to uniform
or inference or appearance of
official sponsorship, approval, or
endorsement. Participation in-
cludes more than a mere atten-
dance as an spectator.
In the upcoming issues we will
discuss this subject at length.
Guidelines laid out in the federal Hatch Act specifically prohibit uni-
formed members of the military from making political speeches or taking
official roles on political campaigns. Members of the military are permit-
ted to attend political rallies, but must not be wearing their uniform while
in attendance. On stage with Ron Paul, CPL Jesse Thorsen was wearing
green Army fatigues, in a clear example of what NOT to do.
The National Defense Au-
thorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 is comprehensive
legislation which authorizes
the budget authority of the
Department of Defense and
the national security pro-
grams of the Department of
Energy. Click on the Book to
read the full text of the Law.
The National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year 2012 was
signed into United States
law on December 31,
2011 by President Barack
Obama.
The Act authorizes $662
billion in funding, among
other things "for the de-
fense of the United States and its
interests abroad." In a signing
statement, President Obama de-
scribed the Act as addressing
national security programs, De-
partment of Defense health care
costs, counter-terrorism within the
U.S. and abroad and military mod-
ernization. The Act also imposes
new economic sanctions against
Iran (section 1045), commissions
reviews of the military capabilities
of countries such as Iran, China,
and Russia, and refocuses the
strategic goals of NATO towards
energy security. The Congres-
sional Research Service provides
a summary of the many provi-
sions of the Act, available on the
web.
The most controversial provi-
sions to receive wide attention
are contained in Title X, Subtitle
D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In
particular, sub-sections 1021 and
1022, which deal with detention
of persons the government sus-
pects of involvement in terrorism,
have generated controversy as to
their legal meaning and their po-
tential implications for abuse of
Presidential authority. Although
the White House and Senate
sponsors maintain that the Au-
thorization for Use of Military
Force (AUMF) already grants
presidential authority for indefi-
nite detention, the Act states that
Congress "affirms" this authority
and makes specific provisions as
to the exercise of that authority.
The detention provisions of the
Act have received critical atten-
tion by, among others, the Ameri-
can Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
and some media sources which
are concerned about the scope of
the President's authority, includ-
ing contentions that those whom
they claim may be held indefi-
nitely could include U.S. citizens
arrested on American soil, includ-
ing arrests by members of the
Armed Forces.
INDEFINITE DETENTION
WITHOUT TRIAL: SECTION 1021
Pursuant to the AUMF passed in
the immediate aftermath of the
September 11, 2001 attacks, the
NDAA text affirms the President's
authority to detain, via the Armed
Forces, any person "who was part
of or substantially supported al-
Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated
forces that are engaged in hostili-
ties against the United States or its
coalition partners," and anyone
who commits a "belligerent act"
against the U.S. or its coalition
allies, under the law of war,
"without trial, until the end of the
hostilities authorized by the
[AUMF]." The text also authorizes
trial by military tribunal, or
"transfer to the custody or control
of the person's country of origin,"
or transfer to "any other foreign
country, or any other foreign en-
tity." An amendment to the Act
that would have explicitly forbid-
den the indefinite detention with-
out trial of American citizens was
rejected by the Senate.
Addressing previous conflict with
the Obama Administration regard-
ing the wording of the Senate text,
the Senate-House compromise
text, in sub-section 1021(d), also
affirms that nothing in the Act "is
intended to limit or expand the
authority of the President or the
scope of the Authorization for Use
of Military Force." The final version
of the bill also provides, in sub-
section(e), that "Nothing in this
section shall be construed to af-
fect existing law or authorities
relating to the detention of United
States citizens, lawful resident
aliens of the United States, or any
other persons who are captured or
arrested in the United States." As
reflected in Senate debate over
the bill, there is a great deal of
controversy over the status
of existing law.
Interesting Changes From
Previous NDAAs
Rules for Rendering Hand
Salute of U.S. Flag
Law Now Allows Retirees
and Vets to Salute Flag
Traditionally, members of
the nation's veteran’s ser-
vice organizations have
rendered the hand-salute
during the national anthem
and at events involving the
national flag only while
wearing their organization’s
official head-gear.
The National Defense Au-
thorization Act of 2008
contained an amendment to
allow un-uniformed service
members, military retirees,
and veterans to render a
hand salute during the
hoisting, lowering, or pass-
ing of the U.S. flag.
A later amendment further
authorized hand-salutes
during the national anthem
by veterans and out-of-
uniform military personnel.
REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY
CUSTODY: SECTION 1022
All persons arrested and de-
tained according to the provi-
sions of section 1021, including
those detained on U.S. soil,
whether detained indefinitely or
not, are required to be held by
the United States Armed Forces.
The law affords the option to
have U.S. citizens detained by
the armed forces but this re-
quirement does not extend to
them, as with foreign persons.
Lawful resident aliens may or
may not be required to be de-
tained by the Armed Forces, "on
the basis of conduct taking place
within the United States."
REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY
CUSTODY: SECTION 1022
All persons arrested and de-
tained according to the provi-
sions of section 1021, including
those detained on U.S. soil,
whether detained indefinitely or
not, are required to be held by
the United States Armed Forces.
The law affords the option to
have U.S. citizens detained by
the armed forces but this re-
quirement does not extend to
them, as with foreign persons.
Lawful resident aliens may or
may not be required to be de-
tained by the Armed Forces, "on
the basis of conduct taking place
within the United States."
ACTIONS FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE AND SENATE LEADING TO
THE VOTE
The White House had previ-
ously threatened to veto the Sen-
ate version of the Act, arguing
that "the authorities granted by
the Authorization for Use of Mili-
tary Force Against Terrorists,
including the detention author-
ity... are essential to our ability to
protect the American people...
Because the authorities codified
in this section already exist, the
Administration does not believe
codification is necessary and
poses some risk." The White
House also argued that provi-
sions requiring military detention
of terrorism suspects on Ameri-
can soil were “inconsistent with
the fundamental American princi-
ple that our military does not
patrol our streets.” After a
Senate-House compromise
text explicitly ruled out any
limitation of the President's
authorities, and removed the
requirement of military de-
tention for terrorism sus-
pects arrested in the United
States, the White House
issued a statement saying
that it would not veto the bill.
During debate within the
Senate and before the Act's
passage, an amendment
intended to forbid the indefi-
nite detention of U.S. citi-
zens was introduced; the amend-
ment was rejected by a vote of
37–61. Udall subsequently voted
for the Act in the joint session of
congress that passed it, and
though he remained "extremely
troubled" by the detainee provi-
sions, he promised to "push Con-
gress to conduct the maximum
amount of oversight possible."
The Senate later adopted by a
98 to 1 vote a compromise
amendment, which preserves
current law concerning U.S. citi-
zens and lawful resident aliens
detained within the United
States. It has been argued that
current law does not allow the
indefinite detention of American
citizens, while the Obama Ad-
ministration and other Senators
have argued that it does.
CONTROVERSY OVER
INDEFINITE DETENTION
Sections 1021 and 1022 have
been called a violation of consti-
tutional principles and of the Bill
of Rights. Internationally, the UK-
based newspaper The Guardian
has described the legislation as
allowing indefinite detention
"without trial [of] American terror-
ism suspects arrested on US soil
who could then be shipped to
Guantánamo Bay;" Al Jazeera
has written that the Act "gives
the US military the option to de-
tain US citizens suspected of
participating or aiding in terrorist
activities without a trial, indefi-
nitely." The official Russian inter-
national radio broadcasting ser-
vice Voice of Russia has com-
pared the Act to legislation
passed by the Third Reich; the
Act has been opposed by the
ACLU and Human Rights Watch,
and received criticism from The
New York Times and other news
organizations.
On December 31 and after
signing the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 into law, President Obama
issued a statement on it that
addressed "certain provisions
that regulate the detention, inter-
rogation, and prosecution of ter-
rorism suspects." In the state-
ment Obama maintains that "the
legislation does nothing more
than confirm authorities that the
Federal courts have recognized
as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.
I want to clarify that my Ad-
ministration will not authorize the
indefinite military detention with-
out trial of American citizens. [...]
My Administration will interpret
section 1021 in a manner that
ensures that any detention it
authorizes complies with the
Constitution, the laws of war, and
all other applicable law. [...] As
my Administration has made
clear, the only responsible way to
combat the threat al-Qa'ida
poses is to remain relentlessly
practical, guided by the factual
and legal complexities of each
case and the relative strengths
and weaknesses of each system.
Otherwise, investigations could
be compromised, our authorities
to hold dangerous individuals
could be jeopardized, and intelli-
gence could be lost. I will not
tolerate that result, and under no
circumstances will my Admini-
stration accept or adhere to a
rigid across-the-board require-
ment for military detention."
The Joint Chiefs of Staff
(JCS) consist of the Chair-
man, the Vice Chairman, the
Chief of Staff of the Army, the
Chief of Naval Operations, the
Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, the Commandant of
the Marine Corps and the
Chief of the National Guard
Bureau. The collective body
of the JCS is headed by the
Chairman, who sets the
agenda and presides over JCS
meetings.
Responsibilities as mem-
bers of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff take precedence over
duties as the Chiefs of Mili-
tary Services. The Chairman
of the JCS is the principal
military adviser to the Presi-
dent, Secretary of Defense
(SoD), and the National Secu-
rity Council (NSC), however,
all JCS members are by law
military advisers, and they
may respond to a request or
voluntarily submit, through
the Chairman, advice or opin-
ions to the President, the
SoD, or NSC.
BACKGROUND
Gen Craig R. McKinley
is Chief, NGB, a joint activity
of the DoD. As Chief, he’s the
senior uniformed NG officer
responsible for formulating,
developing and coordinating
all policies, programs and
plans affecting more than
half a million Army and Air
NG personnel.
Appointed by the Presi-
dent, he served as principal
adviser to the Secretary of
Defense through the Chair-
man of the JCS on NG mat-
ters, a function he will now
carry out without intermedi-
aries as a member of the
Joint Chiefs. He is also the
principal adviser to the Sec-
retary and Chief of Staff of
the Army, and the Secretary
and Chief of Staff of the Air
Force on all NG issues. As
NGB Chief, he serves as the
department's official channel
of communication with the
Governors and Adjutants
General.
I want to clarify that my Admini-
stration will not authorize the
indefinite military detention with-
out trial of American citizens. [...]
My Administration will interpret
section 1021 in a manner that
ensures that any detention it
authorizes complies with the
Constitution, the laws of war,
and all other applicable law. [...]
As my Administration has made
clear, the only responsible way to
combat the threat al-Qa'ida
poses is to remain relentlessly
practical, guided by the factual
and legal complexities of each
case and the relative strengths
and weaknesses of each system.
Otherwise, investigations could
be compromised, our authorities
to hold dangerous individuals
could be jeopardized, and intelli-
gence could be lost. I will not
tolerate that result, and under no
circumstances will my Admini-
stration accept or adhere to a
rigid across-the-board require-
ment for military detention."
The American Civil Liber-
ties Union has responded
that despite claims by the
Obama Administration to the
contrary, "The statute con-
tains a sweeping worldwide
indefinite detention provi-
sion... [without] temporal or
geographic limitations, and
can be used by this and
future presidents to militarily
detain people captured far
from any battlefield." The
ACLU furthermore com-
mented that "While Presi-
dent Obama issued a sign-
ing statement saying he had
'serious reservations' about
the provisions, the state-
ment only applies to how his
administration would use the
authorities granted by the
NDAA," and maintains that "the
breadth of the NDAA’s detention
authority violates international
law because it is not limited to
people captured in the context of
an actual armed conflict as re-
quired by the laws of war."
SANCTIONS TARGETING THE
IRANIAN CENTRAL BANK
As part of the ongoing dispute
over Iranian uranium enrich-
ment, section 1245 of the NDAA
imposes unilateral sanctions
against the Central Bank of Iran,
effectively blocking Iranian oil
exports to countries which do
business with the United States.
The new sanctions impose pen-
alties against entities -- including
corporations and foreign central
banks -- which engage in trans-
actions with the Iranian central
bank. Sanctions on transactions
unrelated to petroleum take ef-
fect 60 days after the bill is
signed into law, while sanctions
on transactions related to petro-
leum take effect a minimum of
six months after the bill's sign-
ing. The bill grants the U.S. Presi-
dent authority to grant waivers in
cases in which petroleum pur-
chasers are unable, due to sup-
ply or cost, to significantly reduce
their purchases of Iranian oil, or
in which American national secu-
rity is threatened by implementa-
tion of the sanctions.
CHAIRMAN OF GUARD
BUREAU JOINS JOINT CHIEFS
The Joint Chiefs of Staff has
grown by one, with existing mem-
bers, however reluctantly, wel-
coming the chairman of the Na-
tional Guard Bureau as a full
member.
Air Force Gen. Craig McKinley
took his place among the presi-
dent’s top military advisers on
Saturday when President Barack
Obama signed the 2012 Na-
tional Defense Authorization Act.
McKinley joins the chairman
and vice chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, as well as the chiefs of
staff from the Army, Navy, Air
Force and Marines. His presence
is controversial, drawing signifi-
cant support from Congress but
unanimous opposition from
within the Joint Chiefs. Each
member expressed that opposi-
tion during a hearing on Capitol
Hill in November, arguing that
the chiefs of staff for the Army
and Air Force represent the full
spectrum of their services, in-
cluding National Guard ele-
ments.
“There is no compelling mili-
tary need to support this historic
change,” Joint Chiefs chairman
Gen. Martin Dempsey said at the
hearing.
But those backing the change
point to the increased responsi-
bilities given to National Guards-
men during the last decade, one
that saw Guard troops de-
ploy often to Iraq and Af-
ghanistan as well as tend to
various disasters in the
United States.
“We are grateful for the
efforts the executive and
legislative bodies have gone
to in placing the chief of the
National Guard Bureau on
the Joint Chiefs of Staff,”
McKinley said in a state-
ment. “We look forward to
working alongside the other
Joint Chiefs to provide our
nation’s senior leaders with
a fuller picture of the non-
federalized National Guard
as it serves in support of
homeland defense and civil
support missions.”
Other provisions that affect the
National Guard include re-
establishing the position of vice
chief of the National Guard Bu-
reau at the three-star level while
rescinding the two-star position
of director of the bureau’s joint
staff. The new law also requires
that National Guard general offi-
cers be considered for command
of U.S. Army North and U.S. Air
Force North, and it authorizes
funding for the National Guard’s
State Partnership Program.
DEBT COLLECTION If you are behind in paying your bills, you can expect to hear from a debt collector. A debt collector is someone, other than the creditor, who regularly collects debts owed to someone else. Lawyers who collect debts on a regular basis are considered debt collectors, too.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW You have rights: Federal law requires that debt collectors treat you fairly. In short, that means:
A debt collector may contact you in person, by mail, telephone, telegram, or fax, but may not contact you at inconvenient times or places – for example, before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m – unless you agree. A debt collector may not contact you at work if the collector is aware that your employer prohibits it.
If an attorney is representing you about the debt, the debt collector must contact the attorney, rather than you. If you don’t have an attorney, a collector may contact other people only to find out your address, your phone number, and where you work.
A debt collector may not harass, oppress, or abuse you or any third parties they con-tact about you.
A debt collector may not lie or mislead anyone when collecting a debt.
http://
www.facebook.com
/PRNG.OSJA
100 General Esteves Street
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901-1401
Phone: 289-1400 Ext. 1030
Fax: 787-289-1431
E-Mail: [email protected]
PUERTO RICO NATIONAL GUARD
OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE
***The materials and information on this newsletter are made available by the PRNG OSJA for informa-
tional and entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. This newsletter is not intended
as advertising and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Persons reading the information on this
newsletter should not act upon the information provided without seeking professional legal counsel.***
Looking to Earn Extra In-
come? Rule Helps You Avoid
Bogus Business Opportunity
Offers | BCP Business
Work-at-Home Schemes
(SCAMS)
Reforma LEG 2011 « Oficina
de Ética Gubernamental de
Puerto Rico
Facebook Settles FTC
Charges That It Deceived
Consumers By Failing To
Keep Privacy Promises
New Puerto Rico “Safe
Home” Law
Mortgage Assistance Relief
Scams: Another Potential
Stress for Homeowners in
Distress
What's Behind Ads for a New
Credit Identity? It Could Be
ID Theft Involving Children's
Social Security Numbers
Credit Card Interest Rate
Reduction Scams
Settling Your Credit Card
Debts
Dealing with Debt Collection
- Money Matters from the
Federal Trade Commission
When a soldier in the
field of battle is under
attack in a small village
and comes upon a
villager who could be a
combatant or a civilian,
what rules govern how
that soldier should
act?
This is one of the
questions that the au-
thors analyze and an-
swer from a military
perspective. In his
introduction, Major
General Dunlap de-
scribes this work in the
following manner: “the
volume that you are
holding aims to bring
to the discussion the
perspective of lawyers
who have served in
what the Supreme
Court in Parker v. Levy
calls the specialized society
separate from civilian soci-
ety which is the armed
forces”.
This book is an essential
read to those engaged in
the profession of arms and
lawyers alike. This volume
was written by six scholars,
most of them former Judge
Advocates with practical
experience on this subject.
They discuss issues such as
targeting, detention
and prosecution.
From this study,
you’ll receive not only
the legal doctrine but
practical examples
derived from the com-
bined experiences of
the authors. It is a
must read book for all
of those engaged in
practice of Interna-
tional Law and for
those enthusiasts on
the subject who are
not in the military.
This book takes a
look to the practical
application of the law
of war through the
eyes of the military
professional, from
soldier in the ground
conducting patrol to
the deployed JAG pro-
viding support to combat
operations.
In 1993, Erin Brockovich
(Julia Roberts) is an unem-
ployed single mother of
three children who, after
sponsible for the extensive
illnesses that the residents
of Hinkley have been diag-
nosed with and fights to
bring the company to jus-
tice.
Erin meets a mysterious
man in a bar who claims
that he was tasked with
destroying documents at
PG&E, but declined to do so
after noticing the medical
conditions plaguing the
workers who worked in the
unlined ponds. Erin discov-
ers a 1966 document that
ties a conversation of a cor-
porate executive in the San
Francisco PG&E headquar-
ters to the Hinkley station
that proved the corporate
headquarters knew the wa-
ter was contaminated and
did not do anything about it
and advised the Hinkley
station to keep it a secret
from the neighborhood.
losing a personal injury law-
suit against a doctor in a car
accident she was in, asks
her lawyer, if he can find her
a job in compensation for
the loss. He gives her work
as a file clerk in his office,
and she runs across some
files on a pro bono case
involving medical records in
real-estate files and PG&E
offering to purchase the
home of Hinkley, California,
resident Donna Jensen.
Erin begins digging into the
particulars of the case, con-
vinced that the facts simply
do not add up, and per-
suades Ed to allow her fur-
ther research. After investi-
gation, she discovers a sys-
tematic cover-up of the in-
dustrial poisoning of the
town of Hinkley's water sup-
ply that threatens the health
of the entire community.
She finds that PG&E is re-
Top Related